Are the Gospels historical or allegorical?

[polonius]

In using the Gospels, one must recognize it's limitations.

1. First of all, the four books were written between 70 and 95 AD.

2. It is claimed that two of the writers were actual witnesses to the events. That view has largely been abandoned by those who are not of the fundamentalist persuasion.

3. Jesus himself wrote nothing.

It's recognized that Mark was a Syrian convert and Luke was also a Syrian Christian
They were not apostles.

The Introduction to Matthew in the New American Bible points out the obvious.

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories"

Moreover, the writer never identifies himself and there is no dialogue between the author, and Jesus or any other Apostles.

The author of the Gospel we attribute to John never identifies himself either as John or an apostle, and, of course, would have been around 90 years of age or older then John was written.

Among its most significant contradictions, the gospel of John has Jesus crucified a day earlier than the other three Gospels and has no institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

[Tcg]

When competent present day historians write about WW2, where do they get their source data from?

Bold MINE


Why did you ask this?

I asked because I hoped that you might take a stab at answering it.

Now that you know why I asked it, will you take a stab at answering it?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 11 by Tcg]

What is the relevance source data ? And would reliable sources validate the historical account regardless of when said account was penned? Would this be the case even if the central figure himself wrote nothing?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 11 by Tcg]

What is the relevance source data ?

It's relevant because that term is included in my question.

Will this answer help you answer my question or does this latest reply indicate that you have no intention of answering it?

[polonius]

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/30323/data-source

Data Source
Definition - What does Data Source mean?

"A data source, in the context of computer science and computer applications, is the location where data that is being used come from. In a database management system, the primary data source is the database, which can be located in a disk or a remote server. The data source for a computer program can be a file, a data sheet, a spreadsheet, an XML file or even hard-coded data within the program."

See how great a computer! If you don’t know what term means your can look it up!

[liamconnor]

In using the Gospels, one must recognize it's limitations.

1. First of all, the four books were written between 70 and 95 AD.

2. It is claimed that two of the writers were actual witnesses to the events. That view has largely been abandoned by those who are not of the fundamentalist persuasion.

3. Jesus himself wrote nothing.

It's recognized that Mark was a Syrian convert and Luke was also a Syrian Christian
They were not apostles.

The Introduction to Matthew in the New American Bible points out the obvious.

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories"

Moreover, the writer never identifies himself and there is no dialogue between the author, and Jesus or any other Apostles.

The author of the Gospel we attribute to John never identifies himself either as John or an apostle, and, of course, would have been around 90 years of age or older then John was written.

Among its most significant contradictions, the gospel of John has Jesus crucified a day earlier than the other three Gospels and has no institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

Is there a question in the OP? If so, I missed it.

Has the OP compared the gospels with other biographies of antiquity? If so, it has completely ignored the common style of Plutarch.

[polonius]

In using the Gospels, one must recognize it's limitations.

1. First of all, the four books were written between 70 and 95 AD.

2. It is claimed that two of the writers were actual witnesses to the events. That view has largely been abandoned by those who are not of the fundamentalist persuasion.

3. Jesus himself wrote nothing.

It's recognized that Mark was a Syrian convert and Luke was also a Syrian Christian
They were not apostles.

The Introduction to Matthew in the New American Bible points out the obvious.

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories"

Moreover, the writer never identifies himself and there is no dialogue between the author, and Jesus or any other Apostles.

The author of the Gospel we attribute to John never identifies himself either as John or an apostle, and, of course, would have been around 90 years of age or older then John was written.

Among its most significant contradictions, the gospel of John has Jesus crucified a day earlier than the other three Gospels and has no institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

Is there a question in the OP? If so, I missed it.

RESPONSE: There are no questions. Only statements of historical facts.

[elijahpne]

2. It is claimed that two of the writers were actual witnesses to the events. That view has largely been abandoned by those who are not of the fundamentalist persuasion.

It was "abandoned by those who are not of the fundamentalist persuasion" because rejecting the historicity of the Bible is the fashionable thing to do in this day and age by people who live about 2,000 years removed from the actual events. But that's not what the early Church Fathers, those obviously closer to the time of Christ, thought. This is what one reputable publication (Insight Volume 2, p. 352 "Matthew, Good News According to" ) wrote:

---------
Time of Writing. Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew's Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the tenth century C.E.), say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ's ascension (c. 41 C.E.). This would not be at variance with internal evidence. The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy respecting Jerusalem's destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. (Mt 5:35; 24:16) And the expression "to this very day" (27:8; 28:15) indicates a lapse of some time between the events considered and the time of writing.

Originally Written in Hebrew. External evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language." (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16) Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew's account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the "first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language." (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6) The scholar Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) wrote in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, that Matthew "composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected." - Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur," Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9..

It has been suggested that Matthew, after compiling his account in Hebrew, may have personally translated it into Koine, the common Greek.

--------

Moreover, the writer never identifies himself and there is no dialogue between the author, and Jesus or any other Apostles.

Moreover, not because the writers did not identify themselves has no relevance to it's historicity. The writers chose to remain anonymous, so what?

Read the conversation between Jesus and his disciples, including the apostle Peter, at Matthew 16:13-19, as an example of a dialogue between Jesus and an apostle.

3. Jesus himself wrote nothing.

Even if Jesus wrote about himself do you think Bible critics would believe that writing? You will be naive to believe so, no not in this day and age. But, again, that has no relevance.

It is the internal evidence that really matters.