Why do some assume that the gospel authors knew Jesus ?

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
If anything, that confirms that he did his research and didn't just make it up. Luke is a secondary source, not a primary source, at least in part, but to those who wish to believe, he's still a source. Most people get their "history" from secondary sources rather than primary sources. Why should Christians have a different relationship with the Bible? If I may paraphrase the OP, 'Why do some Christians believe the gospels are primary sources?' Most people don't think much about the difference between primary and secondary sources. The difference only matters to serious scholars which most people are not.

IMO all christian texts are primary sources. But sources of what? Of their ways of thinking? Yes. Of their beliefs? Yes. Historical events? No.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,084
If anything, that confirms that he did his research and didn't just make it up. Luke is a secondary source, not a primary source, at least in part, but to those who wish to believe, he's still a source. Most people get their "history" from secondary sources rather than primary sources. Why should Christians have a different relationship with the Bible? If I may paraphrase the OP, 'Why do some Christians believe the gospels are primary sources?' Most people don't think much about the difference between primary and secondary sources. The difference only matters to serious scholars which most people are not.
I don't agree it;s like your saying thr truth does not matter. A lot of history of secondary sources is based on primay sources and you know there are references ad footnotes. Often these are produced by Historians trying to get to the truth or understanding of what happened.

The Bible is an unsupported secondary sources, yeah maybe they had some stuff maybe they did not. It;s also fundamentally a political/religious work rather than a history. It has a message, values which are those of the writers which they are ascribing to historical figure that none of them knew directly (most likely)

Not all seconadry sources are equal. They must be judged on what they are based on. And the Bible is pretty much unknown, there;s some textual analysis and stuff but it's pretty sketchy.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,372
which will generally go on to video showing him saying these things. Journalists who were at the press conference ARE primary sources.

hmmm... I would disagree with that, since many of them have a tendency to twist what has been said (or omit some parts, or embellish others etc...) according to their personal world view and/or their media's line

Its the old joke:

"If the president would walk across the Potomac river, the media would report "president can't swim" "
 

Isoroku295

Ad Honorem
Jan 2009
8,487
In the Past
Why do we assume Plato knew Socrates? Sometimes, the fact that no one at the time called them on their nonsense establishes it as a status quo opinion, for which the other side as BoP to disprove. Perhaps they didn't know Jesus, but as that would require greater assumption at present, it's apart of the fog in history.

Mind you, there were many writers, and so it's a different matter for each.
 

Isoroku295

Ad Honorem
Jan 2009
8,487
In the Past
which will generally go on to video showing him saying these things. Journalists who were at the press conference ARE primary sources.
The video perhaps. But everything after is essentially an opinion piece about the details. They are still secondary because they didn't give the speech. Every detail they write is them offering their take and connotation to it.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,084
Why do we assume Plato knew Socrates? Sometimes, the fact that no one at the time called them on their nonsense establishes it as a status quo opinion, for which the other side as BoP to disprove. Perhaps they didn't know Jesus, but as that would require greater assumption at present, it's apart of the fog in history.

Mind you, there were many writers, and so it's a different matter for each.
i think there are multiple different sources saying Plato was Socrates pupil. There is pretty concrete evidence they were contemporaries.

the bible is known to be written quite some time later making first hand knowledge improbable.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,084

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,868
Republika Srpska
Can you provide the relevant quote please
Luke 1.1. Because many tried to tell us about the events that happened among us,
1.2. As told to us by those that were from the beginning the witnesses and the servants of the Word
1.3. I decided, after meticulously researching everything from the beginning, to write it down point by point to you, noble Theophilos.


NOTE: The translation is mine.