I believe that the usual historial tools of inquiry are helpful in evaluating the historial data. Most of the differences between scholars is in application, rather than the criterion.

Multiple attestation.
Coherence.
Embarrasment.
Dissimilarity.
Aramaisms.
Vividness.

I also believe that it is important to analyze the literary style, or genre, of the various New Testament books as a method of determining the author's intentions and approach to using sources.

Of course I haven't had the time to conduct my own independant evaluation of the entire New Testament. And I don't read koine greek. So I have done a lot of research and reading of respected New Testament scholars. As with most laypersons, I have developed some favorites: Raymond Brown, Luke T. Johnson, J.P. Meier, E.P. Sanders, Graham Stanton, David Wenham, Robert Van Voorst, Ben Witherington, and N.T. Wright. Others that I found informative are C.H. Dodd, Matthew Tenney, and John Drane.

The Jesus Seminar has some respected scholars, but I do disagree with many of their conclusions. I particularly find some of their scholars reliance on the Gospel of Thomas and the so called Cross-Gospel gleaned from the Gospel of Peter to be suspect. Moreover, the Jesus Seminar does not represent the majority view of New Testament scholarship.

As for the subjective component of my faith, I have not asked anyone on this board just to "take my word for it." Nor would I. I come here to discuss history.

While I tried to make it clear that my faith has a subjective component to it, I also believe that it does not lend itself to debate with hardcore skeptics on the internet. I hope, however, that in my off-screen life, that my example of integrity and love will reflect my subjective experiences and witness to people I interact with.

If you would like to see how I approach these issues, I encourage to look at some of the posts I have initiated. In particular, I recently intitated a thread entitled, "Jesus, Miracle-Worker." I apply some of the above referenced criterion. In fact, I will bring it to the top for your convenience.

Never let it be said that self-appointed apologists are humble.


I understand the terms.
However, the question of whether they are independent is not as settled as you make it out to be. Nice try, though.


If you want a truly independent source, you need to use something outside the bible.
It's all a question of how strong your case for independent testimony is.

Remember your original analogy here (about the neighbor with the tooth fairies)? And your statement about "4 or 5 nextdoor neighbors all telling you the same thing"? That is the quality and degree of eyewitness testimony that you claimed existed for the NT texts. And that is what I am holding you to - can you produce it, or not?

So far, that level of independent eyewitness testimony is NOT what you have here, with the NT. You have people borrowing from each other's manuscripts, incorporating non-eyewitness testimony, etc. etc.

All I'm doing is starting from your original analogy, and trying to figure out just how you think it maps to the NT textual situation. Apparently it doesn't.

You may way to retract your original example and provide a new one.

Then you agree that your claim for eyewitness testimony is actually bogus. See, that wasn't so hard.

Therefore, your attempt to compare the NT to a book on the Gulf War book is totally non-parallel.

Thank you.

Oh, please. You hand-waved, which is what I expected. Go back to your original analogy and start over, Layman.


Your text above contains "may very well", "I believe that", etc. Those types of guarded qualifications are inconsistent with a claim for independent testimony.


I did not concede that.

What I did was pose several problems to you that demonstrate how the text could come from two sources, and still not be independent. If two people interview the same person about an auto accident, that does not constitute two independent pieces of evidence about the car wreck.

Furthermore, the two interviewers cannot vouch for anything that the (alleged) eyewitness said.

If you understood the nature of evidence better, you would not make such mistakes.

Yeah, right.
You need to demonstrate that any such consensus even exists in the first place, Layman.

What if Paul communicated with Luke (which appears likely)? And what if Luke had access to Mark and John?

You yourself mention above that Paul had access to other apostles. If Paul relied upon what they told him, then Paul's testimony is obviously not independent of those sources.

And if those same sources are also either (a) authors of a gospel, or (b) served as sources for the authors of a gospel, then it's still a single source being transmitted through multiple channels.

It seems you don't understand what "independent" means.

BZZT. Hand-wave.

I specifically asked for independent sources of miracles. You responded to my question by offering Josephus. You intended to answer my request for independent sources, by giving me "Josephus" as a response.

I repeat:
1. I originally asked for independent confirmation of the miracles.
2. You quoted Josephus.
3. I responded that Josephus does not confirm any miracles.
4. Your response above is still not an answer to my question about miracles.
Try again.


Your use of Josephus in relation to church persecution does not refute my claim, or answer my question about independent sources for miracles.

Smooth move, Einstein.


Unfortunately, it is you who is wrong here. In the first place, the Josephus "quote" is bogus. That is a later Christian invention.

In the second place, your lack of knowledge about the obvious fakery in the Josephus quotation refutes your loud claims about being knowledgeable in NT textual criticism and history.


Because trust is earned, not granted, especially considering the claims of the book itself, and the claims that its followers are making about said book.

If we had any other book of antiquity that made startling claims, we would also make that book demonstrate its reliability as well. So don't whine that you are being unfairly treated.

Furthermore, you continue to run from my original questions: what is the proof for independent eyewitness testimony?


Yes, I saw your earlier "explanation". But guess what? It hasn't gotten any more convincing since the first time you claimed it. It's simply not convincing, for the reasons I stated. Repeating your earlier claim does nothing to refute the reasons I gave.

Uh, Layman - wake up.

You made a lot of claims and assertions here. I am merely asking you to back up your claims. Asking me about my theories is off the topic. You still need to substantiate the wild pack of claims you made first.

If you succeed in ever doing that, then we can move on to my theories.


Unfortunately, you have done nothing of the kind. You've stacked assertion on top of assertion, and dodged the most elementary of questions. And, when you've been called on it, you've gotten rude and abusive.

This is a forum where he who claims, will be asked to substantiate. Gee; imagine that.

Now if you're uncomfortable with that level of accountability, then perhaps you'd prefer a less challenging newsgroup. I suggest alt.flyfishing.



[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 15, 2001).]

On the contrary. They are not cheap shots. It is accountability in action.

You made specific claims, and now you want to wiggle out of them.
I am just making that hard for you - as it should be.


No, I saw the point. But go back to your original analogy, which involved first-person eyewitnesses.

• You tried to call the gospel texts a recording of eyewitness testimony, and yet you cannot produce the eyewitnesses. This amounts to assumption and special pleading.
• Then when asked about independent sources of evidence, you offer sources that you yourself clearly indicate may have communicated, or borrowed from, each other - thus refuting any claim of independence.
• You tried to compare these texts to a Gulf War book, where the author is on record as interviewing a particular individual who is easily traceable - a situation not parallel to the NT texts at all.

I'm sorry, but you've way overstepped your original analogy here.


The Josephus quote is clearly a forgery.

Additionally, Tacitus was known to report miraculous events that Caesar performed.
Do you still believe Tacitus was not wrong, Layman?

No, your point was that these texts were of comparable quality as your original analogy.
You do remember your original analogy here, don't you? The one about the neighbor with the tooth fairies? And your statement about "4 or 5 nextdoor neighbors all telling you the same thing"?


Now you're just a common, garden-variety liar.

My point is not that the gospel texts are void of historical information.

My point is that they do not rise to the quality of evidence that you claimed, as set out in your original analogy.

If you're going to disagree with me, idiot, at least take the time to understand my argument.

Now, now folks, let's keep it civil.

Just curious, Layman - is there any reason why you don't use something like the quote function, or bolding, to indicate the flow of the conversation?


The baptism event itself was not the point I was contesting. I was contesting your interpretation of that event as an embarrassment.

Not surprised that you missed this, since in your egotistical rage you seem to be skipping my responses.


Point 1 is not an embarrassment - who cares if John is authoritarian? At times, so was Christ. Also see my other point below, about Luke 3:16-17.

Point 2 - re-read the text; Luke does NOT say that the baptism was for the remission of sins. Besides being against standard christian doctrine, the text clearly states that it was:

The baptism was merely the outward sign of repentance; it did not bring remission of sins, in and of itself.

Furthermore, the baptism event is not an embarrassment, due to text such as the following:
In these verses, we have the (alleged) words of John the Baptist who clearly puts himself under the lordship of Christ and who sets out, for the listener, his relatively low rank. And John's testimony as to what Christ's role and mission is actually works in favor of the Christian argument. Embarrassment? No way. This is priceless confirming testimony.

Additionally, these verses echo OT events such as the passage of the mantle from Elijah to Elisha (note that John was supposed to be the 2nd coming of Elijah).

What independent sources? There is only one source here, Peter. Multiple people reporting what Peter said he (allegedly) did - that does not constitute independent sources.

Or Peter's memory failed him. Or, the memory of the individuals whom he related the story to, and who only transmitted it orally for 30 or 40 years before setting it down in writing.

It's just not as airtight as you make it out to be.

Yes, and it's all in your own head, since you've clearly decided to invent my position instead of actually reading what I posted.




[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 15, 2001).]

1. You keep saying that I claimed the gospels to be authored by eyewitnesses. I have repeatedly reminded you that I only believe that one of the gospels was written by an eyewitness. My disagreement with you has been that you don't seem to think that any historical source that was not authored by an eyewitness is useless or unpersuasive. A fact which would rid us of much of Philo's, Josephus', and Tacitus' works, just to name a few examples.

So your allegation that I am trying to "wiggle" out of this claim is inaccurate. So far your debating style is a whole lot of mischaracterization, baith and switch, and "prove it!"

2. The analogy is not perfect. But then, no analogy is. My analogy is actually a better analogy than the first one that is offered: That belief in New Testament is comparable to belief in tooth fairies. Do you see the flaws in that one? Are you an equal opportunity accountablity holder? Or are you going to ignore this point?

The analogy I used is illustrative of the fact that we have more than one person claiming to have experienced the risen Christ. That is as far as it goes. The claim was made that if one neighbor came over claiming to have seen fairies, would I believe him. I said probably not, but that if he was joined by others who claimed to have seen the same fairies, then my presumed disbelief would be challenged.

As I remember it the analogy made the following points:

1. Independent witnesses. Now, you seem to be using some hyperspecific meaning of this term. I mean it to mean that we have sources, attesting to the same events, which do not depend on each other.

Mark, whose most likely source of information was Peter, has Peter as his primary source.
Paul, who had access to all of the members of the Jerusalem church, including other disciples and James, the brother of Jesus. It is highly unlikely that he relied on on Peter's word for it. Paul goes out of his way to separately mention Jesus' post-resurrection appearance to James. Something not found in any of the other gospels.

John. John was an eyewitness to many of the events he describes, including the resurrection appearances. His knowledge is independent of Peter's because it is not derived from Peter's representations. The fact that the two knew each other and may have talked about their experiences doesn't mean that John's attestation is derived from Peter's, or James', or anyone else who was there. It derives from what he witnessed.

L. There actually is a consensus that M and L are completely independent of Q and Mark. If you have information otherwise, please refer me to the appropriate scholar or evidence? More studies have been done of Luke's use of his independent sources, and the scholars who have looked into it, such as Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, and Kim Paffenroth, The Story of Jesus According to L, have determined that Luke's indepenent sources are probably preexisting, perhaps even written, traditions regarding Jesus.

Hebrews. The authors states that he has derived his information about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus from eyewitnesseS. I recently posted on this epistle, but my study of it is one of many ongoing works. Please review it, as you previously asked about my knowledge re Hebrews.

Q. It is generally accepted to have derived from a different community than Mark's gospel, one in which Peter does not appear to have played a prominent role. You believe that Q is dependent on Mark? Seriously?

3. Josephus. Rather than demonstrating my "ignorance" of New Testament studies, by belief that the Josephus passage at issue originally attested to Jesus' performance of miracles is a result of extensive study. John D. Crossan, Marcus Borg, Ben Witherington, N.T. Wright, Raymond E. Brown, Graham Stanton, J.P. Meier, S.G.F. Brandon, Ernst Bammel, F.F. Bruce, Luke T. Johnson, and Graham Twelftree ALL accept that Josephus' reference to Jesus' miracles is originally Josephan.

Now, is it your contetion that the above scholars are demonstrating the same "lack of knowledge about the obvious fakery in the Josephus quotation" as I am? If so, I will choose their company over years. Have you ever read anything by the above mentioned scholars? Or have you read the original greek and come to your own conclusions?

4. Asking you about what you believed happened is hardly "off the topic." It would greatly cut down on the BS and allow us to start from a common point of reference. Your refusal to engage in any discussion of what you believe smells of inability, rather than irrelevance.

5. Tacitus. Could he be wrong about some of what he wrote? Of course. What's your point? My point was that just because he wasn't an eyewitness to all he wrote about doesn't detract from most scholars' views that he is a generally reliable historian.

6. Labelling me a liar. Now this is something that I have not lowered myself to accuse you of, despite your selective reading and distortions of many of my claims. Notice that I said "implied." I think that is a fair characterization of your posts. You have impliedly questioned Paul's accounts of the persection of the early church, denied Acts' accounts of the persecution of the early church, denied that the authorities had Jesus killed. You've even denied that Jesus was crucified. Just which parts of the New Testament do you believe are historically reliable?

7. You calling me an idiot because I don't understand your point. Your point has ebbed and flowed with the discussion which is normal. When you start getting whipped on you overgeneralizations, you retreat back to your more limited point, attacking the analogy.



[This message has been edited by Layman (edited March 15, 2001).]

"The baptism event itself was not the point I was contesting. I was contesting your interpretation of that event as an embarrassment."

My frustration with your posting style is your complete disregard for New Testament scholarship. The leading New Testament scholars use this text as THE example of the criterion of embarrasment. But you not only disagree with it, but pretend that it has no persuasive value whatsoever. In fact, you suggest that this is just the sort of thing that the gospel authors would invent.

And your attempt to explain this a fulfilled prophecy is absurd. While John himself might be construed as such in light of the passages you cite, we know that he is not because Josephus writes about him (or do you deny this too?).

However, that does not explain why Jesus would submit to baptism for the forgiveness for sins when the early church believed he had NO need to be forgiven AND that he was superior to John. That is the "embarrasment," not the existence of John. Again, which Old Testament passage did Luke claim the baptism fulfilled.

But will outlast me because you only play offense and will not committ to any mutual basis for discussion, and because you have a complete disregard for New Testament scholarship.

I cannot let this pass. I have been involved with Laymen in a number of debates. He is almost never abusive. Nomad only becomes condescending and arrogant when he is beaten. So consider it a concession.
Despite openly-expressed contempt in many posts, neither has Nomad become abusive, at least with me.

Michael

Then your point is off-base. Return to the original analogy to see what my point was.

And I never, ever said that texts were only valuable, providing they were written by an eyewitness. That is a total fabrication on your part, evidently because you didn't want to address my question. You've created enough straw men in this discussion to field an army - it's dishonest and pathetic.

Throughout this discussion, I have continually compared your claims about the NT texts to the only two examples (analogies) that you offered:

1. the nextdoor neighbor analogy
2. the Gulf War book analogy

In both cases, you have utterly failed to show that these analogies hold up.

Your analogy is not just imperfect; it is fatally flawed. The one point you hoped to prove (reliability as a result of eyewitness testimony) does not apply here.

In the nextdoor neighbor analogy, you were talking directly to someone who actually saw the events.
But with the NT texts, you are removed by several thousand people.

And you want me just to ignore the difference between those two situations, and pretend that they are of equivalent evidentiary quality?

Fat chance.


No, I am using it in the context of the analogies that you provided. You had 4 or 5 neighbors, themselves 1st person eyewitnesses, who all told you the same thing. So you are the direct receiver of 1st person eyewitness testimony; you are not hearing it 2nd-hand either.

You also talked about a book on the Gulf war. The same objections apply.

So By that context of your own analogies, the NT does not qualify.

You want to take the authority and authenticity normally associated in the modern world by the term "eyewitness", and transfer that wholesale to the NT texts, while ignoring the mountainous differences between the two scenarios.
This is duplicity and dishonesty in toto.

3. Josephus. Rather than demonstrating my "ignorance" of New Testament studies, by belief that the Josephus passage at issue originally attested to Jesus' performance of miracles is a result of extensive study. John D. Crossan, Marcus Borg, Ben Witherington, N.T. Wright, Raymond E. Brown, Graham Stanton, J.P. Meier, S.G.F. Brandon, Ernst Bammel, F.F. Bruce, Luke T. Johnson, and Graham Twelftree ALL accept that Josephus' reference to Jesus' miracles is originally Josephan.

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/ar...106456,00.html
Josephus, the Jewish historian at the court of Domitian who has depicted the history of his people and the events of the Jewish-Roman war (66-70), only incidentally remarks about the stoning in AD 62 of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ . . ." (Antiquities XX, 200). He understandably uses the proper name "Jesus" first (for as a Jew he knows that "Christ" is a translation of "Messiah"), but he adds, though qualified by a derogatory "so-called," the second name that was familiar in Rome. (Some scholars have suggested, however, that this reference was a later Christian insertion.) Scholars also have questioned the authenticity of a second passage in the same work, known as the "Testimony of Flavius" (XVIII, 63ff.), which is generally thought to contain at least some statements, apparently later insertions, that summarize Christian teaching about Jesus.


No, it's my conclusion that you are either (a)misrepresenting their positions, or selectively quoting only scholars that you agree with and pretending that they represent either the majority position, or the most scholarly position. I have seen christians (esp. creationists) do this before.

And keep in mind that I am not saying that Josephus had nothing to say about Christ at all; I am still specifically talking about an independent witness for miracles. The current belief is that the Testimonium Flavium contains a core of original material, around which the Christian "fluff" was woven.

On the contrary. We haven't finished discussing your claims; and it's abundantly obvious that you still do not understand my position.

Given that, it would be unwise to expand the discussion until we accomplish both.

But that wasn't what you said.
You said "I'll believe he's wrong when you prove he's wrong."

So I'm waiting on your response. Tacitus reported that Caesar performed miracles - healing the blind, in fact. So what say you about Tacitus' accuracy, Layman?

No, all you've done is be persistently condescending and obnoxious. You've accused me of being silly, ignorant, etc. In fact, your ad hominems started quite awhile ago; I've merely put up with them until now.


No, because you deliberately created a strawman that doesn't represent my point at all. This, in spite of me re-directing you back to your original two analogies on multiple occasions.


That's funny, I don't see anyone whipping me here; are you sure you're in the correct thread?


That was always my point.

The only person being whipped around here is YOU, and you're whipping yourself into a frenzy of your own making.

I'm not following you here.

Are you saying that someone openly expressing contempt is not being abusive?