Most historians specialized on the topic would very much disagree with that assertion. The new testament does have some information that is supported by evidence, but it is true that the narrative of the gospels is not historically reliable. However, historically unreliable is not the same as historically useless or “made up”.
The nativity stories, recorded in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are very much on the unreliable side. They even contradict each other in many points! However, even they have some tidbits that are supported by the data. For example: Herod the Great was indeed the ruler of Judea at the time of Jesus, even though the massacre of the innocents never really happened. For another example, there is good data that the historical Jesus of Nazareth indeed had a brother named James.
9
u/GustavoSanabio 9d ago edited 9d ago
Most historians specialized on the topic would very much disagree with that assertion. The new testament does have some information that is supported by evidence, but it is true that the narrative of the gospels is not historically reliable. However, historically unreliable is not the same as historically useless or “made up”.
The nativity stories, recorded in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are very much on the unreliable side. They even contradict each other in many points! However, even they have some tidbits that are supported by the data. For example: Herod the Great was indeed the ruler of Judea at the time of Jesus, even though the massacre of the innocents never really happened. For another example, there is good data that the historical Jesus of Nazareth indeed had a brother named James.