I made a general statement that may not apply in every case. I still think it is fair to believe that modern readers give the Gospels (and the biblical canon in general) greater scrutiny because of the miracles.
Many of the apparent contradictions can be reconciled when people do not shoehorn the narrative styles of antiquity into modern formats. For example, the Gospel accounts do not necessarily record events successively on a strict timeline. Events omitted in one account but included in others can sometimes be attributed to the differences in the intended audience. Jesus probably repeated sermons and parables so minor differences in similar quotes could have come from speeches made at different times and places. There are some problem texts, like the death of Judas. Even this could plausibly be explained by the writers (Mathew and Luke) focusing on different aspects of the same event.
Do we? You seem to be suggesting that modern humans are somehow wiser that our ancestors. If God did enter human history as recorded in the Gospels, then it is reasonable to expect that the people at that time and place would have been exposed to unprecedented and historically unique events. Modern incredulity may reflect our lack of experience, not being smarter.
All the Prophets lamented the tendency of God’s people to fall into idolatry. So are modern people, like Scientology. That is nothing new. The so-called Gnostics were highly creative and self-admitted myth makers in a Hellenistic narrative style. The Gospels are entirely different in what they profess to be.
That is true even today. Evaluating the veracity of documents from antiquity requires discernment just like we must use to evaluate what modern texts and speeches. Just because some other people make stuff up doesn’t mean that a particular person is not to be believed. Each writer must be considered individually.
(May 24, 2016 at 3:23 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: We have the internal evidence from the inconsistency and such of the gospels.
Many of the apparent contradictions can be reconciled when people do not shoehorn the narrative styles of antiquity into modern formats. For example, the Gospel accounts do not necessarily record events successively on a strict timeline. Events omitted in one account but included in others can sometimes be attributed to the differences in the intended audience. Jesus probably repeated sermons and parables so minor differences in similar quotes could have come from speeches made at different times and places. There are some problem texts, like the death of Judas. Even this could plausibly be explained by the writers (Mathew and Luke) focusing on different aspects of the same event.
(May 24, 2016 at 3:23 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: We also have knowledge of the culture and standards of credulity of the time.
Do we? You seem to be suggesting that modern humans are somehow wiser that our ancestors. If God did enter human history as recorded in the Gospels, then it is reasonable to expect that the people at that time and place would have been exposed to unprecedented and historically unique events. Modern incredulity may reflect our lack of experience, not being smarter.
(May 24, 2016 at 3:23 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: We have the history of the period as shown in secular sources.Secular sources generally confirm the Gospel accounts.
(May 24, 2016 at 3:23 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: We have the testimony of archaeology which demonstrates that the Jews were all too ready to endorse mythical accounts.
All the Prophets lamented the tendency of God’s people to fall into idolatry. So are modern people, like Scientology. That is nothing new. The so-called Gnostics were highly creative and self-admitted myth makers in a Hellenistic narrative style. The Gospels are entirely different in what they profess to be.
(May 24, 2016 at 3:23 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: And we have the eternal verities of human nature which shows that people err, they lie, they confabulate, and they concoct legends.
That is true even today. Evaluating the veracity of documents from antiquity requires discernment just like we must use to evaluate what modern texts and speeches. Just because some other people make stuff up doesn’t mean that a particular person is not to be believed. Each writer must be considered individually.