Is there any particular example you can give that would not be known to anyone writing a story (as opposed to researched history or biography) set in that time and place?
The question I have is how anyone can be sure that the authors of the gospels (or at least the first one) was a researcher dedicated to getting his facts right. If we find what seems to be more plausible Hebrew wording behind the gospels then all that does is remove the question one step back -- but it's the same question: if the story was originally told in Hebrew, how can we know if the story was motivated by a desire to pass on historical truth?
The one about Hebrew translations of the Greek words of Jesus? Yes. I found it most interesting because it ties dovetails with what I am reading about a more detailed thesis that the gospels were originally written in Hebrew. That thesis, contrary to yours, sees in the Hebrew retroversion of the Greek many indicators that the original story was entirely creative theological midrash and not at all indebted to oral tradition or historical research.
For the claims of a source to be "trusted" as historical evidence one needs independent confirmation of some sort. Generally sources from a 100 years after an event or life of a person can only tell us what someone 100 years after that time wrote about or believed and not what actually happened 100 years earlier.Gd1234 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm
I'm not catholic. I'm a new studier of church fathers. My reason is that i wish to understand the literature from a perspective of its original time period rather that modern or church doctrines. . . .
As we get farther, it becomes more strained. However quotes from earlier sources that no longer exist are important considerations.
It may not be perfect but it's the best we have. We're fortunate to have so many testimonies within 100 years of Jesus life.
There are exceptions. If someone 100 years later informs readers how he came by the information he is to write about, and if he explains who his sources are and how they go back to first-hand accounts, etc, then we have a much better starting point. That's how we know as much as we do about Alexander the Great, for example.
What is also needed is independent confirmation of some sort. Herodotus, for example, claimed to have been an eyewitness of some things but some modern scholars have checked the sources and believe Herodotus was fabricating his claims.
We can't get independent confirmation for every detail but the more we can get the greater our confidence in other material penned by the author.
Any source that comes to us anonymously and as long as its place and time of origin remain matters of speculation, then by definition is must be a suspect document for historical reconstruction -- especially if the same source does not inform readers how the author came by his information.
That alone does not mean the source is not historical but it does mean we cannot assume that it is.
Justin is a very late audience and he seems to have treated other gospels on an equal par with our canonical ones. As for the Gospel of Hebrews, we return to the same question: why assume the original authors believed they were passing on history?Gd1234 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm 5. It was accepted as truth (in general) by both the Jewish and gentile congregations. Where there would either be eye witnesses or decedents of eye witnesses. . . .
The evidence is two fold. Church fathers such as Justin Martyr and the gospel of the Hebrews which is very similar.