How accurate are the descriptions of Muhammed and Jesus and other events during the start of religions?

by -orcam-

When you grow up in the religion there is nothing but positivity regarding these figures. Are there reliable sources that talk about them negatively? And the events that happened around the time of Jesus and Muhammed, the wars and alike, are they accurately portrayed, or is it safe to say that these were manipulated and to fit a narrative? Also, how easy would it be at those times to manipulate historical facts?

ylapeltiseppa

The problem with Jesus is that our most important sources for his life, the four canonical gospels of the New Testament, are quite unreliable. While all of them make use of earlier written and oral traditions, which may contain some historically accurate information about Jesus, the search for that 'kernel of truth' faces immense difficulties:

  • The original writers of the gospels were already making the events fit a narrative by selecting, arranging and modifying their source material. Some parts are definitely composed by the authors themselves, e.g. narratives to set up a saying of Jesus.
  • However, we don't even have the original text that those authors wrote. New Testament text criticism is heavily reliant on codices from the 4th and 5th centuries, and even the oldest manuscript fragments that are preserved to us are from the 2nd century. That's plenty of time for the original text to get 'contaminated' by copying errors and deliberate modifications, additions, and omissions.

The extent to which we can find reliable information about the historical Jesus in the gospels is debated. The most skeptic scholars (such as H. Koester) hold that only the bare basics of his life are sure: that he was an Aramaic-speaking Jew, who was executed in Jerusalem by the Romans. Everything else is beyond our reach, including his original words. Others scholars consider various aspects of his career more or less plausible. E.g. according to E.P. Sanders, it is likely that the historical Jesus preached the coming of the kingdom of God, chose the Twelve, and was involved in some kind of a controversy involving the temple of Jerusalem.

I can think of only two passages in the NT that portray something negative or embarrassing about Jesus, and their historicity is questionable. The first is Mk. 6:1-6 (parallels in Mt. 13:53-58 and Lk. 4:16-30), in which Mark reports that Jesus visits his home town, but is unable to do any miracles there, because the people there know him and his family and don't believe in him. The other is Mk. 5:1-17 (also in Mt. 8:28-34; Lk. 8:26-39), where Jesus exorcises some demons out of a man and allows them to go into a pig herd instead. All the two thousand pigs then promptly run into a lake and drown, which doesn't impress the locals: Jesus gets asked to leave.

Outside of the canon, there are plenty of legendary accounts that probably don't mean to portray Jesus negatively but have Jesus do odd or embarrassing things all the same. E.g. the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the Gospel of Thomas) has a 12-year-old Jesus curse and kill other children for petty reasons.

Sources:
Helmut Koester: Introduction to the New Testament. History and Literature of Early Christianity, vol 2. (2000)
E.P. Sanders: Jesus and Judaism. (1985)

More great works on historical Jesus:
John P. Meier: A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus. (2001)
Dale C. Allison: Constructing Jesus. Memory, Imagination and History. (2010)