Academic Fail

[festive1]

My friend, you do not need to be a historian to state that the Gospels lack such reliability. The moslem religion claims that the Gospels have been changed, or written by the church founders, and are false. It all comes down to your faith. I don't know what kind of "historical problems" there are with the four Gospels, as there are historical problems with the Torah, but I'm not certain what really it is that you're looking for. Is it historical accuracy regarding the contents, or just knowledge about whether they were written by the people that they say that wrote it, or by someone else?
Which?

Agreed you don't have to be a historian to poke holes in any historical sources. One doesn't have to be an expert in any subject but can still criticize it. But if one has expertise in said subject, their voice carries more weight. I can criticize the theory of relativity, but I'll just make an ass out of myself, but I could still do it.
There are lots of problems with the Gospels. Everything from who actually wrote them, when they were written, where they were written (makes a big difference when you consider the historical context of the 1st century, Roman Empire), translations, edits, etc. This is not my area of expertise, but the Gospels were written significantly after the death of Christ, if they were written by those who didn't have first hand encounters with Christ then one gets into all the problems regarding oral history, which are many. The best primary source would be a writing from Christ himself (which doesn't exist as far as we know), next best would be from one of his disciples or someone who actually heard Christ speak (extra points if it's backed up by an independent source that this person was there, but I don't believe there are any independent of the bible sources that even support Christ as having been a real person), from there it's just degrees of truth, not the whole truth as it has passed through many different people's filters and interpretations. History is messy, very, very messy, and the farther back you go, the messier it gets.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Gospels were written significantly after the death of Christ

Depends on what you consider to be a significant time. Ten years? Twenty? How many?
And while we're there, we can discuss the authenticity of Pauline epistles, and the book of revelation.
It doesn't really end anywhere.

if they were written by those who didn't have first hand encounters with Christ then one gets into all the problems regarding oral history, which are many.

Well, one doesn't need to be a professor to figure this out.
There always is a certain doubt in everything, when speaking of religion in general. If this did not exist, there would be no thing called "faith" anyways.

[festive1]

Well, one doesn't need to be a professor to figure this out.
There always is a certain doubt in everything, when speaking of religion in general. If this did not exist, there would be no thing called "faith" anyways.

Ah, but we really aren't discussing personal faith, rather the historical facts of the Gospels.

[Polaris]

Yes you can be an honest historian while being a Christian. You do so by not accepting as academic fact anything not corroborated by the archaeological record or contemporary records.

You may believe in something that does meet that criteria, but those beliefs do not factor into your research until you find the proof. If you believe that the Israelite Exodus was in 1450 BCE (I used to believe this years ago), but the earliest record of the people in Canaan is two centuries later, then you go with that....

[Minimalist]

I have no doubt though that the author shook hands with Jesus at some stage"

So, your prof is a fucking idiot.

Why not ask how come the author never mentioned that? Was he ashamed of shaking hands with jesus?

[FallentoReason]

Yes you can be an honest historian while being a Christian. You do so by not accepting as academic fact anything not corroborated by the archaeological record or contemporary records.

You may believe in something that does meet that criteria, but those beliefs do not factor into your research until you find the proof. If you believe that the Israelite Exodus was in 1450 BCE (I used to believe this years ago), but the earliest record of the people in Canaan is two centuries later, then you go with that....

Right. So why do you still believe the Gospel of Matthew is the account of a witness, whether he wrote it or someone else did for him?

[Polaris]

Yes you can be an honest historian while being a Christian. You do so by not accepting as academic fact anything not corroborated by the archaeological record or contemporary records.

You may believe in something that does meet that criteria, but those beliefs do not factor into your research until you find the proof. If you believe that the Israelite Exodus was in 1450 BCE (I used to believe this years ago), but the earliest record of the people in Canaan is two centuries later, then you go with that....

Right. So why do you still believe the Gospel of Matthew is the account of a witness, whether he wrote it or someone else did for him?

I'm sorry, but I was not made aware I am your professor.

[FallentoReason]

Right. So why do you still believe the Gospel of Matthew is the account of a witness, whether he wrote it or someone else did for him?

I'm sorry, but I was not made aware I am your professor.

???

No, you are a Christian who, I'm assuming, has his reasons for believing. In a different thread I stated the case that all theists are in fact evidentialists. You don't have pure faith but rather think you have solid reasoning for thinking Jesus is the answer.

With all of this in mind, I'm assuming that a big chuck of your credible evidence is the assertion that e.g. Matthew was written by a witness. Why would you think that?

[Polaris]

I'm sorry, but I was not made aware I am your professor.

???

No, you are a Christian who, I'm assuming, has his reasons for believing. In a different thread I stated the case that all theists are in fact evidentialists. You don't have pure faith but rather think you have solid reasoning for thinking Jesus is the answer.

With all of this in mind, I'm assuming that a big chuck of your credible evidence is the assertion that e.g. Matthew was written by a witness. Why would you think that?

A big chunk comes from Paul.

[FallentoReason]

Who never met Jesus but simply saw a spiritual being. That's the belief of every mystery cult of the time--saviour gods that lived in the heavenly realms who performed actions to redeem mankind.