William, it is very simple. If every Gospel said exactly the same thing about every incident that happened with Jesus ,it would raise questions about the authors coordinating to make sure the stories are congruent. “…if the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses” (“the Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel, pg 45). Amanda, what is the link to your blog? I am interested in reading more from your experience.
also. maybe there are such extraordinary things recorded in the bible because they are exceptions.
Not everyone, among the many people living at biblical times, witnessed or were involved in these signs and miracles God expressed.
Maybe thats why they are included in the bible, because they are rare, and as being rare they we’re recorded as testaments, although possible misquotes in some translations, but still the testimonies are all there as a reference.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I personally would find it so much easier to read your posts if you broke them up into bite size pieces, and included paragraphs.
say if the accounts in the Bible were all exactly the same, do you think people would still find reason to not believe in the books accuracy, or would this resolve many questions?
Good question, Ryan (portal001). If all 4 were virtually identical, then yes, I could see where that would raise heavy speculation that they were copies.
However, I don’t think the only possibilities are identical or conflicting. If you watch a news story covered on different networks, they’re going to use different words, possibly tell the events in a different order, and have different footage to show. They may even have different “experts” on to discuss the issue. Yet despite all those differences, the different networks rarely contradict one another.
The Gospel of John, for instance, tells many details about the events surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection that you won’t find in the synoptic gospels. That’s really not a problem — he may have just been focusing on some different details. However, when he gets into what day and time Jesus was crucified, he directly contradicts the day and time the synoptics reported. They can’t both be true, at least not in a literal sense; whereas, the other details that John lists may have just been omitted by the other gospels. In those instances, though they relate different events, there’s no contradiction.
So I definitely think there’s a middle ground that would have limited the criticisms one could bring about the Bible, but that’s not the situation we find ourselves in.
Noel, what nate said. In this instance, being exactly the same would have at least eliminated contradictions. But yes, every little detail being just the same sounds like collusion, while blatant contradictions, such as we have in the gospels, look contradictory.
And yet, most of the news is fictional as well, if you consider that it is painted from the newscaster’s (or network’s) point of view. Fox verses CNN, for example. I believe the Bible WAY before I believe one single shred of what I hear on today’s news channels! 🙂
since we know (from the news) that no one actually reports facts
I think that’s an overstatement. Granted, Fox News is ridiculously slanted to the right, and MSNBC is ridiculously slanted to the left, but that’s mostly their commentary shows. When they show actual news, it’s relatively straightforward. And we still have CNN, PBS, NBC, CBS, etc that have some straight news programs that are usually reliable.
I think transmitting fact is not that difficult, most of the time. For instance, when we have a Presidential inauguration, different networks are not going to report that it took place on different days, or had different participants, or that they said different things, etc. They each may highlight different aspects of the event, but they’re not going to get the basic facts wrong.
That said, I do think the gospels reflect what each writer thought happened during Jesus’ life. I think they reflect different traditions that each incorporate some factual things as well as inaccurate things. I have no problem with them as a loose history — I just can’t bring myself to view them as anything with a basis in the divine. But again, that’s my conclusion on it; others certainly disagree.
“For instance, when we have a Presidential inauguration, different networks are not going to report that it took place on different days, or had different participants, or that they said different things, etc. They each may highlight different aspects of the event, but they’re not going to get the basic facts wrong.”
Nate-
This is really a question as I do not know the answer to this. Do we find, in other ancient writings similar to the NT, precise concern with timing, audience, grouping of what was said at what particular place and time? I’m just wondering how it compares, as the reading I’ve done suggests these were not particularly the concern of ancient writers – it was more important to get the message across. For example, your blog, and other sources, points out difficulties in harmonizing the timing of Jesus’ trial before Pilate and his crucifixion. However, there doesn’t seem to be any reputable skepticism that these two events did actually happen. Does it matter that we don’t know exactly what time or what chronology if we can reliably conclude the event is historical?
Humorous clarification: I wasn’t implying Jesus’ crucifixion took place before his trial in the last sentence of that previous comment. That statement was meant to be more generally referring to any recorded event. 🙂
I’m not an expert on ancient historical texts, but from what little I’ve read about it, I agree that most writings from the time period fall short of our modern standards of accuracy — especially about details like dates and times.
However, I think it’s important to make a clarification here. If you’re saying that the New Testament fits in with these other ancient writings, I would agree. That’s actually the point that many of us are making when we bring these things up. The NT is not unique in its construction or degree of accuracy when compared to other ancient writings. This is why some of us feel that the Bible is not actually inspired by God.
However, there doesn’t seem to be any reputable skepticism that these two events did actually happen
I don’t know that that’s accurate. We don’t have much reference to Christ from the time period that he actually lived. Aside from the writings in the NT, there’s very little reference to Jesus until long after his death. This is why there’s still some serious speculation as to whether or not he was even a real person. I also think it’s important to remember that many non-Christians of that time probably wouldn’t have cared a whole lot about what Jesus disciples said or believed. There are people today who maintain that Elvis Presley is still alive, but no one goes out of their way to prove them wrong or debate them. We usually just roll our eyes, smile, and ignore them. So I don’t know that we should expect a whole lot of commentary from people of Jesus’ time arguing against the disciples — they likely didn’t care or were unaware.
Thanks, Nate. I wasn’t aware there was considerable doubt about whether Jesus actually existed. My reading suggests that was pretty much accepted as good history, as well as his trial and crucifixion.
Just an afterthought – based on your last paragraph I’m unconvinced by that reasoning behind the skepticism. Again, this is where you and I differ about what would be expected – I wouldn’t expect that someone who wasn’t aware of, or didn’t care about, Jesus to write about him. God’s revelation of himself throughout scripture shows us that he meets humans where they are at in their understanding. This is consistent with how the NT is recorded. I wouldn’t expect 2013 standards. And, even if we had them, what would people in 4013 think of those standards?
I tend to believe Jesus existed, but I definitely do not see him as the New Testament portrays him.
Even so, to me, the real question is — why is there so little information about him outside the bible if he truly did die and return to life? Surely such an event would have been “something for the history books,” as they say. Yet, from what I’ve read, of the few writers who include any mention at all of Jesus, only one (Celsus) mentions the resurrection — and that was pretty much in derision.
“why is there so little information about him outside the bible if he truly did die and return to life?”
One thing to consider, which others have written about, is the ratio of people that were capable of writing such documentation at the time. It seems, from what I’ve read, that it was a small number of people. So, given the size of the area from which the writers come, it’s actually a fair number of NT authors we do have. And, given the rate at which it seems the documents were distributed throughout the region, it’s unlikely that many other people who believed the message would consider it necessary to write it down again.
Another thing to remember is that when the NT authors were writing, they weren’t writing “The Bible”. They were regular people documenting events they were convinced had happened. I find it very unlikely that anyone who didn’t believe that Jesus “truly did die and return to life” would write about it as if it happened. I think it’s kinda silly to suggest that, honestly. Thus, it’s unlikely that anything “outside of the Bible” would confirm Jesus’ resurrection. More than likely, most, if not all, of the authors who believed what happened to Jesus and reported it were included in what would later be known as “The Bible”.
Josh, I really really don’t mean to be rude, but from my perspective you are providing a “convenient answer.” I understand much of what you’re saying (about those not writing it down again if they believed it, limited number of people capable of writing, regular people documenting an event), but I still have a difficult time accepting that no one else would write about a man dying and returning to life. Even if they didn’t believe it, it seems some type of record would have been made. Surely the gospel writers were not the only people who could write.
Further, while virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most agree he died via crucifixion, not many attest to the validity of the resurrection.
Hey Nan-
You may feel I’m providing a convenient answer. I don’t see it that way at all. I think it’s a reasonable answer. Maybe I’ll become “more reasonable” some day 🙂
“not many attest to the validity of the resurrection.”
It doesn’t really mean much to me that they don’t. I think it is a reasonable conclusion based on what we do know. The Jewish Leaders and the Romans knew about the claims made regarding the resurrection. These were two of the most powerful, influential groups of the time and place. Neither one of them would want this story getting out and gaining support. There is no record of any attempt to provide contemporary evidence to discount the resurrection. I find it highly questionable that a group of uprising “nodoby’s” could squelch an attempt made by either of these groups to provide evidence disprove their claims. Thus, I find it reasonable that no significant attempt to do so was even made.
On second reading, I didn’t really come to a conclusion on that last comment. The last sentence “Thus, I find it reasonable that no significant attempt to do so was even made.” is meant to provide some “extraordinary evidence” to the mystery surrounding the resurrection. If it didn’t happen, why was there not even any real attempt made at disproving it. The Jews didn’t want Jesus perceived as Messiah. The Romans didn’t want Jesus perceived as Lord over Caesar. Isn’t it strange neither was able to squash it?
It doesn’t really mean much to me that they don’t. I think it is a reasonable conclusion based on what we do know. The Jewish Leaders and the Romans knew about the claims made regarding the resurrection. These were two of the most powerful, influential groups of the time and place. Neither one of them would want this story getting out and gaining support. There is no record of any attempt to provide contemporary evidence to discount the resurrection. I find it highly questionable that a group of uprising “nodoby’s” could squelch an attempt made by either of these groups to provide evidence disprove their claims. Thus, I find it reasonable that no significant attempt to do so was even made.
This is a big assumption. I know it gets bandied about a lot by apologists, but I think it asserts way too much. While just reading the NT can make one think that Christianity was a big movement that attracted a lot of heat, external sources seem to indicate that it was actually quite small initially. I just don’t think the Roman authorities cared about it a whole lot, so why waste resources discounting something that most people don’t even give a second’s thought to?
Nate-
I don’t see how that’s an assumption. Paul’s ministry alone spread from Jerusalem to Rome within a relatively short time. I was under the impression that we were in general agreement that the NT functions as decent history of the time apart from much of the more fantastic claims. In this case, we would agree on the spread of the church, and also that Paul was jailed on various occasions for his message – the latter indicating that it was not going unnoticed. Alternatively, if we’re not in agreement that the NT functions even as basic history of the time, then we probably are left with nowhere to go.
Sorry, Nate. Let the end of that comment get away from me. I actually am trying to have a conversation, and am interested in what your perspective is and learning things I haven’t thought of or just plain don’t know. I conveyed the opposite there, and didn’t intend to 🙂
Basic history, yes. I do think Paul went on his missionary journeys. I’m a little more skeptical of the claims like in Acts 2 where 3000 people are converted in one sermon. From the reading I’ve done, Christianity was a fairly small movement initially. It would have been in the second century at least before things really began to gain momentum. By that time, how would anyone have been able to prove anything about whether or not Jesus really rose from the dead, etc?
It’s also been pretty well established that the stories of rampant persecution are much later exaggerations, not built on much evidence. So the idea that Rome was on a mission to disprove the resurrection, etc, especially immediately following Jesus’ death, just doesn’t seem to be borne out by the evidence. At least not from the sources I’ve seen.
Yeah – the 3000 people thing is one of the more fantastic claims, and I wouldn’t expect that to be a focal point in the discussion. I do think the breadth of Paul’s ministry in the Mediterranean area, as well as the fact that he was jailed for preaching his message, both by Jews and Romans, makes a fair case for the fact that it was getting noticed.
@Josh.
LOL…Saul of Tarsus….what a plonker. Another great narrative construct brought to you by our wonderful ( we don’t tell lies…Honest!) christian friends.
Oh…but wait a moment…there is loads of contemporary evidence for him too, right?
Pffft…’Bout time all you believers really took a step back took a deep breath and realise that it is all BS from the Beginning to End.
Truly…you are NOT in Kansas any more.
Finding Truth 
William, it is very simple. If every Gospel said exactly the same thing about every incident that happened with Jesus ,it would raise questions about the authors coordinating to make sure the stories are congruent. “…if the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses” (“the Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel, pg 45). Amanda, what is the link to your blog? I am interested in reading more from your experience.
LikeLike
also. maybe there are such extraordinary things recorded in the bible because they are exceptions.
Not everyone, among the many people living at biblical times, witnessed or were involved in these signs and miracles God expressed.
Maybe thats why they are included in the bible, because they are rare, and as being rare they we’re recorded as testaments, although possible misquotes in some translations, but still the testimonies are all there as a reference.
LikeLike
Amanda Dodson Gremillion,
I can’t speak for everyone, but I personally would find it so much easier to read your posts if you broke them up into bite size pieces, and included paragraphs.
respectfully, Ryan 🙂
LikeLike
Amanda Dodson Gremillion,
And I’m only saying this because I want to read what you write, I think you make some interesting points 🙂
LikeLike
Nate,
say if the accounts in the Bible were all exactly the same, do you think people would still find reason to not believe in the books accuracy, or would this resolve many questions?
LikeLike
Good question, Ryan (portal001). If all 4 were virtually identical, then yes, I could see where that would raise heavy speculation that they were copies.
However, I don’t think the only possibilities are identical or conflicting. If you watch a news story covered on different networks, they’re going to use different words, possibly tell the events in a different order, and have different footage to show. They may even have different “experts” on to discuss the issue. Yet despite all those differences, the different networks rarely contradict one another.
The Gospel of John, for instance, tells many details about the events surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection that you won’t find in the synoptic gospels. That’s really not a problem — he may have just been focusing on some different details. However, when he gets into what day and time Jesus was crucified, he directly contradicts the day and time the synoptics reported. They can’t both be true, at least not in a literal sense; whereas, the other details that John lists may have just been omitted by the other gospels. In those instances, though they relate different events, there’s no contradiction.
So I definitely think there’s a middle ground that would have limited the criticisms one could bring about the Bible, but that’s not the situation we find ourselves in.
LikeLike
Noel, what nate said. In this instance, being exactly the same would have at least eliminated contradictions. But yes, every little detail being just the same sounds like collusion, while blatant contradictions, such as we have in the gospels, look contradictory.
LikeLike
And yet, most of the news is fictional as well, if you consider that it is painted from the newscaster’s (or network’s) point of view. Fox verses CNN, for example. I believe the Bible WAY before I believe one single shred of what I hear on today’s news channels! 🙂
LikeLike
What if, like our modern newscasters the Gospels reflect POINT OF VIEW of the facts, since we know (from the news) that no one actually reports facts.
LikeLike
I think that’s an overstatement. Granted, Fox News is ridiculously slanted to the right, and MSNBC is ridiculously slanted to the left, but that’s mostly their commentary shows. When they show actual news, it’s relatively straightforward. And we still have CNN, PBS, NBC, CBS, etc that have some straight news programs that are usually reliable.
I think transmitting fact is not that difficult, most of the time. For instance, when we have a Presidential inauguration, different networks are not going to report that it took place on different days, or had different participants, or that they said different things, etc. They each may highlight different aspects of the event, but they’re not going to get the basic facts wrong.
That said, I do think the gospels reflect what each writer thought happened during Jesus’ life. I think they reflect different traditions that each incorporate some factual things as well as inaccurate things. I have no problem with them as a loose history — I just can’t bring myself to view them as anything with a basis in the divine. But again, that’s my conclusion on it; others certainly disagree.
LikeLike
“For instance, when we have a Presidential inauguration, different networks are not going to report that it took place on different days, or had different participants, or that they said different things, etc. They each may highlight different aspects of the event, but they’re not going to get the basic facts wrong.”
Nate-
This is really a question as I do not know the answer to this. Do we find, in other ancient writings similar to the NT, precise concern with timing, audience, grouping of what was said at what particular place and time? I’m just wondering how it compares, as the reading I’ve done suggests these were not particularly the concern of ancient writers – it was more important to get the message across. For example, your blog, and other sources, points out difficulties in harmonizing the timing of Jesus’ trial before Pilate and his crucifixion. However, there doesn’t seem to be any reputable skepticism that these two events did actually happen. Does it matter that we don’t know exactly what time or what chronology if we can reliably conclude the event is historical?
LikeLike
Humorous clarification: I wasn’t implying Jesus’ crucifixion took place before his trial in the last sentence of that previous comment. That statement was meant to be more generally referring to any recorded event. 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Josh,
I’m not an expert on ancient historical texts, but from what little I’ve read about it, I agree that most writings from the time period fall short of our modern standards of accuracy — especially about details like dates and times.
However, I think it’s important to make a clarification here. If you’re saying that the New Testament fits in with these other ancient writings, I would agree. That’s actually the point that many of us are making when we bring these things up. The NT is not unique in its construction or degree of accuracy when compared to other ancient writings. This is why some of us feel that the Bible is not actually inspired by God.
I don’t know that that’s accurate. We don’t have much reference to Christ from the time period that he actually lived. Aside from the writings in the NT, there’s very little reference to Jesus until long after his death. This is why there’s still some serious speculation as to whether or not he was even a real person. I also think it’s important to remember that many non-Christians of that time probably wouldn’t have cared a whole lot about what Jesus disciples said or believed. There are people today who maintain that Elvis Presley is still alive, but no one goes out of their way to prove them wrong or debate them. We usually just roll our eyes, smile, and ignore them. So I don’t know that we should expect a whole lot of commentary from people of Jesus’ time arguing against the disciples — they likely didn’t care or were unaware.
LikeLike
Thanks, Nate. I wasn’t aware there was considerable doubt about whether Jesus actually existed. My reading suggests that was pretty much accepted as good history, as well as his trial and crucifixion.
Just an afterthought – based on your last paragraph I’m unconvinced by that reasoning behind the skepticism. Again, this is where you and I differ about what would be expected – I wouldn’t expect that someone who wasn’t aware of, or didn’t care about, Jesus to write about him. God’s revelation of himself throughout scripture shows us that he meets humans where they are at in their understanding. This is consistent with how the NT is recorded. I wouldn’t expect 2013 standards. And, even if we had them, what would people in 4013 think of those standards?
Thanks, Nate. 🙂
LikeLike
I tend to believe Jesus existed, but I definitely do not see him as the New Testament portrays him.
Even so, to me, the real question is — why is there so little information about him outside the bible if he truly did die and return to life? Surely such an event would have been “something for the history books,” as they say. Yet, from what I’ve read, of the few writers who include any mention at all of Jesus, only one (Celsus) mentions the resurrection — and that was pretty much in derision.
LikeLike
“why is there so little information about him outside the bible if he truly did die and return to life?”
One thing to consider, which others have written about, is the ratio of people that were capable of writing such documentation at the time. It seems, from what I’ve read, that it was a small number of people. So, given the size of the area from which the writers come, it’s actually a fair number of NT authors we do have. And, given the rate at which it seems the documents were distributed throughout the region, it’s unlikely that many other people who believed the message would consider it necessary to write it down again.
Another thing to remember is that when the NT authors were writing, they weren’t writing “The Bible”. They were regular people documenting events they were convinced had happened. I find it very unlikely that anyone who didn’t believe that Jesus “truly did die and return to life” would write about it as if it happened. I think it’s kinda silly to suggest that, honestly. Thus, it’s unlikely that anything “outside of the Bible” would confirm Jesus’ resurrection. More than likely, most, if not all, of the authors who believed what happened to Jesus and reported it were included in what would later be known as “The Bible”.
LikeLike
Josh, I really really don’t mean to be rude, but from my perspective you are providing a “convenient answer.” I understand much of what you’re saying (about those not writing it down again if they believed it, limited number of people capable of writing, regular people documenting an event), but I still have a difficult time accepting that no one else would write about a man dying and returning to life. Even if they didn’t believe it, it seems some type of record would have been made. Surely the gospel writers were not the only people who could write.
Further, while virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most agree he died via crucifixion, not many attest to the validity of the resurrection.
LikeLike
Hey Nan-
You may feel I’m providing a convenient answer. I don’t see it that way at all. I think it’s a reasonable answer. Maybe I’ll become “more reasonable” some day 🙂
“not many attest to the validity of the resurrection.”
It doesn’t really mean much to me that they don’t. I think it is a reasonable conclusion based on what we do know. The Jewish Leaders and the Romans knew about the claims made regarding the resurrection. These were two of the most powerful, influential groups of the time and place. Neither one of them would want this story getting out and gaining support. There is no record of any attempt to provide contemporary evidence to discount the resurrection. I find it highly questionable that a group of uprising “nodoby’s” could squelch an attempt made by either of these groups to provide evidence disprove their claims. Thus, I find it reasonable that no significant attempt to do so was even made.
LikeLike
On second reading, I didn’t really come to a conclusion on that last comment. The last sentence “Thus, I find it reasonable that no significant attempt to do so was even made.” is meant to provide some “extraordinary evidence” to the mystery surrounding the resurrection. If it didn’t happen, why was there not even any real attempt made at disproving it. The Jews didn’t want Jesus perceived as Messiah. The Romans didn’t want Jesus perceived as Lord over Caesar. Isn’t it strange neither was able to squash it?
LikeLike
This is a big assumption. I know it gets bandied about a lot by apologists, but I think it asserts way too much. While just reading the NT can make one think that Christianity was a big movement that attracted a lot of heat, external sources seem to indicate that it was actually quite small initially. I just don’t think the Roman authorities cared about it a whole lot, so why waste resources discounting something that most people don’t even give a second’s thought to?
LikeLike
Nate-
I don’t see how that’s an assumption. Paul’s ministry alone spread from Jerusalem to Rome within a relatively short time. I was under the impression that we were in general agreement that the NT functions as decent history of the time apart from much of the more fantastic claims. In this case, we would agree on the spread of the church, and also that Paul was jailed on various occasions for his message – the latter indicating that it was not going unnoticed. Alternatively, if we’re not in agreement that the NT functions even as basic history of the time, then we probably are left with nowhere to go.
LikeLike
Sorry, Nate. Let the end of that comment get away from me. I actually am trying to have a conversation, and am interested in what your perspective is and learning things I haven’t thought of or just plain don’t know. I conveyed the opposite there, and didn’t intend to 🙂
LikeLike
Basic history, yes. I do think Paul went on his missionary journeys. I’m a little more skeptical of the claims like in Acts 2 where 3000 people are converted in one sermon. From the reading I’ve done, Christianity was a fairly small movement initially. It would have been in the second century at least before things really began to gain momentum. By that time, how would anyone have been able to prove anything about whether or not Jesus really rose from the dead, etc?
It’s also been pretty well established that the stories of rampant persecution are much later exaggerations, not built on much evidence. So the idea that Rome was on a mission to disprove the resurrection, etc, especially immediately following Jesus’ death, just doesn’t seem to be borne out by the evidence. At least not from the sources I’ve seen.
LikeLike
Yeah – the 3000 people thing is one of the more fantastic claims, and I wouldn’t expect that to be a focal point in the discussion. I do think the breadth of Paul’s ministry in the Mediterranean area, as well as the fact that he was jailed for preaching his message, both by Jews and Romans, makes a fair case for the fact that it was getting noticed.
LikeLike
@Josh.
LOL…Saul of Tarsus….what a plonker. Another great narrative construct brought to you by our wonderful ( we don’t tell lies…Honest!) christian friends.
Oh…but wait a moment…there is loads of contemporary evidence for him too, right?
Pffft…’Bout time all you believers really took a step back took a deep breath and realise that it is all BS from the Beginning to End.
Truly…you are NOT in Kansas any more.
LikeLike