Why do some assume that the gospel authors knew Jesus ?

Mar 2019
1,807
Kansas
which will generally go on to video showing him saying these things. Journalists who were at the press conference ARE primary sources.
That's how you test the veracity of the reporting

Reputable news services will as you say cut to footage or speak to someone at the particular event, which as you suggest by context is a primary source.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,810
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.
Thanks
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,495
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" "
Primacy sources are not necessarily accurate ones. People have their motivations and biases, and sometime outright distortions. the study of history involves evaluating sources why are these perople writing.
Politicans also often claim to misquotingor out of context when they are not. They also have their agenda.

The writers of the Bible were not writing history. They had a agenda. They knowledge of events is pretty uncertain. As an historical document of events of Jesus life. it;s pretty questionable,.
 
Mar 2019
1,807
Kansas
Its the old joke:

"If the president would walk across the Potomac river, the media would report "president can't swim" "
My favorite one is - President cures cancer, would be reported as "President ruins medical industry"
 

Isoroku295

Ad Honorem
Jan 2009
8,488
In the Past
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.
Not so far ahead that it doesn't pass a basic "can someone call bs" test. The gospels were all written within range that there would have been people around who would be able to call bs. The furthest ahead is John, where the highest date given if 90-110. That would have been about 60-80 years ahead. While it is unlikely that there would have been many who can say "I was there", there would have been people who would be able to say the story is different from what they were told by those who did see it. While they didn't have modern information storage, they weren't so incompetent that they wouldn't have noticed the stories magically changing so soon after the event. Especially if it were a major event (as presented in the Gospels).

The fact that the Gospels were not immediately shot down (bear in mind that followers would be literally religious in their devotion to the original stories) suggests that their presenting of events weren't so different from the original telling that it drew attention.

Given as it's likely the texts were based off other older, more direct texts, it would have most certainly had a paper trail. If anything were changed, it would have been provable in the age, and the religious communities/opponents would have been quick to point it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swamp Booger

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,495
Not so far ahead that it doesn't pass a basic "can someone call bs" test. The gospels were all written within range that there would have been people around who would be able to call bs. The furthest ahead is John, where the highest date given if 90-110. That would have been about 60-80 years ahead. While it is unlikely that there would have been many who can say "I was there", there would have been people who would be able to say the story is different from what they were told by those who did see it. While they didn't have modern information storage, they weren't so incompetent that they wouldn't have noticed the stories magically changing so soon after the event. Especially if it were a major event (as presented in the Gospels).

The fact that the Gospels were not immediately shot down (bear in mind that followers would be literally religious in their devotion to the original stories) suggests that their presenting of events weren't so different from the original telling that it drew attention.

Given as it's likely the texts were based off other older, more direct texts, it would have most certainly had a paper trail. If anything were changed, it would have been provable in the age, and the religious communities/opponents would have been quick to point it out.
A bunch of unfounded assumptions. You don;t know what the oral history was. You donl't know the context. it's extending credit to the bible we do not to other sources.

They are the special writings of a cult. Not a questioning environment.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,810
Primacy sources are not necessarily accurate ones. People have their motivations and biases, and sometime outright distortions. the study of history involves evaluating sources why are these perople writing.
Politicans also often claim to misquotingor out of context when they are not. They also have their agenda.
.
Perhaps I am more demanding, but taking your example, in my view:

The guy delivering the speech is the primary source (or more accurately the speech text he wrote or otherwise recorded)
Anyone reporting the speech -whether present or not at the actual speech- is a secondary source (or more accurately the text they wrote after the speech)... For in their writing the original text or intent may have already been significantly altered

Perhaps this terminology is not clear enough and needs more accuracy.... there is obviously a hierarchy of accuracy (e.g. someone present at the event normally should be more accurate than someone who was not present but nearby , and that person would be more accurate than someone who was not present and far away etc...)
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,495
Perhaps I am more demanding, but taking your example, in my view:

The guy delivering the speech is the primary source (or more accurately the speech text he wrote or otherwise recorded)
Anyone reporting the speech -whether present or not at the actual speech- is a secondary source (or more accurately the text they wrote after the speech)... For in their writing the original text or intent may have already been significantly altered

Perhaps this terminology is not clear enough and needs more accuracy.... there is obviously a hierarchy of accuracy (e.g. someone present at the event normally should be more accurate than someone who was not present but nearby , and that person would be more accurate than someone who was not present and far away etc...)
primay and secondary sources have extremely widely accepted meanings. refining common terms two mean something other that almost the rest of the world is a way to increase mis understanding.

And in your example how is the original text verified? People can deviate form the prepared speech. And be motivated to produce an altered version later.. There is no guranetee that the person giving the speech is reporting accuracy over an someone listening to it. people giving speech often have a very strong interest in how it is reported. It's like anything in history sources have to evaluated and weighed.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,810
Not so far ahead that it doesn't pass a basic "can someone call bs" test. The gospels were all written within range that there would have been people around who would be able to call bs. The furthest ahead is John, where the highest date given if 90-110. That would have been about 60-80 years ahead. While it is unlikely that there would have been many who can say "I was there", there would have been people who would be able to say the story is different from what they were told by those who did see it. While they didn't have modern information storage, they weren't so incompetent that they wouldn't have noticed the stories magically changing so soon after the event. Especially if it were a major event (as presented in the Gospels).

The fact that the Gospels were not immediately shot down (bear in mind that followers would be literally religious in their devotion to the original stories) suggests that their presenting of events weren't so different from the original telling that it drew attention.

Given as it's likely the texts were based off other older, more direct texts, it would have most certainly had a paper trail. If anything were changed, it would have been provable in the age, and the religious communities/opponents would have been quick to point it out.
Even 60 years is huge..... Who remembers 60 year old details ? even today in the information age , within days of something happening you see huge distortion.... Can you imagine what the distortion must have been like when there were no information databases and the period of time since the event was dozen of years....
Plus to have a good remembrance of events some 60 years back, the person would have needed to be at least 15 at the time of the alleged events... So they would be 75 by the time the text was circulated.... Given the life expectancy at the time that would be just a handful of people...... And this handful would have needed to actually be there at the time of the events and remember them... The odds are not very good.... And even if some 80 year old came forth and said "hey guys this did not happen", it would be put down to his old age..."he forgot", "he is sick", "he is crazy", "dont listen to the old man" etc...

And how could someone say "I was there" after 60 years, when dates are not clearly referenced and there is no clear understanding of who the Jesus character was... I dont even thing people tracked time that accurately
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,048
Not so far ahead that it doesn't pass a basic "can someone call bs" test. The gospels were all written within range that there would have been people around who would be able to call bs. The furthest ahead is John, where the highest date given if 90-110. That would have been about 60-80 years ahead. While it is unlikely that there would have been many who can say "I was there", there would have been people who would be able to say the story is different from what they were told by those who did see it. While they didn't have modern information storage, they weren't so incompetent that they wouldn't have noticed the stories magically changing so soon after the event. Especially if it were a major event (as presented in the Gospels).

The fact that the Gospels were not immediately shot down (bear in mind that followers would be literally religious in their devotion to the original stories) suggests that their presenting of events weren't so different from the original telling that it drew attention.

Given as it's likely the texts were based off other older, more direct texts, it would have most certainly had a paper trail. If anything were changed, it would have been provable in the age, and the religious communities/opponents would have been quick to point it out.

Your picture of the "Christian" populace of the first century is quite erroneous. The one that you paint is full of people who were witnesses of the known events and could call bs the written texts if they differed from the events they knew. So the writers had to write the truth. The real picture was quite different It was full of different "Christian" trends. There were the ones who thought as the Christians on the nowadays do but there were the ones who thought Jesus was just a man, there were the ones who thought he was just a spirit. The gamut of opinion was great. So I doubt there could be critical people wishing to call smth bs and whose opinion was of much esteem among gospel writers.