'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels'
Peter Kirby kirby@earthlink.net
Sun, 26 Oct 1997 18:08:04 -0800 (00877939684, 199710270228.SAA00500@norway.it.earthlink.net)
----------
> From: Steve Carson-Rowland <kirra@powerup.com.au>
> To: Errancy <errancy@infidels.org>
> Subject: Re: 'The Historical Reliability of the Gospels'
> Date: Sunday, October 26, 1997 1:22 PM
>
> STEVE CR
> [Blomberg defends "the historical reliability of the Gospels"]
> [snip]
>
> JIM KIRBY aka Peter #16
> I would appreciate clarification of what exactly constitutes "historical
> reliability" of the Gospels. I suppose I can be a test case. A few of
my
> beliefs: Theism is irrational, supernatural miracles are absurd, Mary
> wasn't a virgin, Jesus didn't walk on water, there was no three hour
> eclipse at crucifixion, there was no empty tomb. Some more beliefs (that
> might be belief in the "historical reliability" of the Gospels): We can
> know some stuff (with varying degrees of probability) about the
historical
> Jesus by applying criteria to the Five Gospel narratives; this includes
> that there was a Galilean Jewish preacher named Yeshua c. A.D. 30, that
he
> was baptized by John, that he was crucified by Pilate, that he performed
> acts deemed miracles by his contemporaries, that he spoke some form of
the
> Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer, etc. From what you've read of me, do I
> sound like I believe in "the historical reliability of the Gospels"?
>
> STEVE CR
> Blomberg doesn't define historical reliability, but from what he writes
it
> means, did the gospels record what actually happened? That's what I take
> him to mean anyhow. If by definition you exclude the possibilities of
these
> kind of events happening then obviously the gospels are not historically
> reliable and you've spared yourself the trouble of further investigation.
PETER KIRBY
The question is, though, how much of the Gospels can be false without
rendering them "unreliable" (a word, BTW, that I tend to shy away from)?
If Judas really lived to a ripe old age, are the Gospels then unreliable?
Or if Jesus died on the cross singing "always look on the bright side of
life"? Or what if Joseph was Jesus' biological father? Or what if there
was no empty tomb? Or what if there was no trial? Or what if there was no
crucifixion? You've already stated that "reliability" does not imply
inerrancy, but how much veracity does it imply? Also, is the question of
whether anything can be *known* from the Gospels matter to "reliability"
(i.e., if they can be "relied" upon in some cases)?
Cheers,
Peter #16