Steven Carr

Bart Ehrman gives a superb presentation on how real historians do real history, and why the Gospels are not sources that real historians can use to do real history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS37yrBwx2Q

So how do Biblical scholars use the Gospels to conclude that Judas, Thomas, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Salome, Bartimaeus, Jairus, Simon of Cyrene etc etc existed?

Do they check the Gospels against other records where those people are recorded by Christians as having existed?

Or do they realise that they would be out of a job if they admitted that there is no evidence for these people, outside unsourced, unprovenanced, anonymous works which plagiarise each other?

The stories can only be traced back as far as 'Mark'.

Some are so embarrassing to later Christians that they must have originated with Mark as they do not show the results of years of spin that the later Gospels show, let alone the results of decades of spin.

ApostateAbe

Out of a job? Does Dr. Ehrman not have tenure? I do believe he does, so it is unlikely that he would lose his job if he were to propose that there is no evidence that Judas, Thomas, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Salome, Bartimaeus, Jairus, Simon of Cyrene, etc. existed. Some people have filled volumes with their speculations about the sources of Christian gospel myths, be they historical or mythical.

To answer your question, they may conclude that at least most of those people existed, because the people you left off your list--Jesus, John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, James, Peter and John--do have independent attestation. If the gospels are apparently trustworthy to the existence of those people, then there seems little reason to doubt the existence of similar characters, like Judas, Thomas and Mary Magdalene. The gospels themselves seem to be sourced from a variety of traditions--Mark, Q, L, Signs--so a character that is found in a diversity of those sources gives us a greater reason to grant probability to their existence. Some of those characters I would think are people that we really do have reason to doubt--such as Joseph of Arimathea and Lazarus--characters that are not found in a variety of sources and are seemingly designed for a miracle story. I don't know Ehrman's opinion on that, though.

Steven Carr

Welcome to the world of conspiracy theories.

If people are well-attested in some stories , like JFK and Connolly there is little reason to doubt the existence of the second gunman who shot them.

So you have no evidence for these people , outside the anonymous, unsourced, contradictory works that Ehrman trashes in the video as providing historical support?

By the way, Luke and Acts never claim that Jesus had a brother called James.

But I guess this is just one more of the inconsistencies that Ehrman uses to trash the Gospels as history, while also writing books where he claims to squeeze history out of the Gospels, by looking at imaginary sources that nobody has seen.

Steven Carr

AABE
The gospels themselves seem to be sourced from a variety of traditions--Mark, Q, L, Signs-

CARR
So Mark is sourced from Mark is he?

And Luke is sourced from Luke?

This is a methodology?

Oh I forgot.

If things only appear in one source, 'Q', 'L', 'Signs' etc, then things are historical because those sources are independent.

And if things appear in more than one source, then things are historical because they are multiply attested.

You lose again, atheist suckers! Thanks for playing!

aa5874

Actually it was the authors of the Jesus stories who presented Jesus as mythology. The author of gLuke after having examined the CONTEMPORARY evidence claimed Jesus was the product of some Holy Spirit.

See Luke 1.35.

There is NO independent attestation for Jesus, James, Peter and John. Jesus was INTERNALLY attested to be the product of a Ghost of God. You will not find any independent attestation for such entity.

One does not expect to find independent attestation for Zeus, Apollo, and Jesus in the company James, Peter, and John.


Are you claiming that the Bible is inerrant? Or are you claiming that everything plausible in the Bible is history?

Well, if you think that everything plausible in the Bible is history, then Jesus was actually the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

All of the Bible was PLAUSIBLE in antiquity.

yalla

Somewhere, dunno where, I saw a quote attributed to W. Somerset Maughm which went something like this:
"All you need for a story to be plausible is for someone to believe it".

Chaucer

Hey, that's an improvement: At least, here's one myther who's ready to concede that the historicists can still be atheists! Thank you! Nice change.

Of course, his also calling us suckers in the bargain might also be taken by some newbies here as an indication that he has had a change of heart -- that he now views all atheists as suckers because he's suddenly "seen the light" and now views the entirety of the Gospels as not only uniform in its level of historicity (as he always has) but uniform in his accepting every word as history down to the miracles!

Careful, do you really want to make that impression?

Helpfully,

Chaucer

ApostateAbe

I lose. Mark stands on its own being sourced from an oral tradition, and Luke was sourced from Mark, Q and L. The method I am talking about is the criterion of independent (or multiple) attestation. Like any other criterion, it works only some of the time. There is independent attestation that the Emperor Vespasian had a healing touch. That doesn't mean that we believe it. But, criteria like that are a big part of the way history is done. The resurrection is part of a variety of traditions. Do we trust it? Well, I wouldn't. I would merely conclude that the myth has been present from the time very close to the beginning, before the sectarian branching. That reflects a limit to the application of this criterion to the gospel traditions. We can use it to find which traditions are earliest, and from that we may grant greater probability to the accuracy of some claims, but we can not claim concrete certainty.

Many historians would not be out of a job if they were to accept bizarre hypotheses, but I think many of them would be frustrated enough to quit their jobs if they were to abandon all of their methods of making decisions, like the superskeptics would have them do.

aa5874

It may be universally held that people generally believe whatever they think is plausible. The Bible was most likely accepted as plausible by those who believe in antiquity.

An HJer's beliefs appear to be no different to those of antiquity that is whatever is plausible in the Bible is likely to be history.

Steven Carr

AABE
Mark stands on its own being sourced from an oral tradition....

CARR
Evidence please.

People have only ever found the Old Testament when reading 'Mark'.

As Ehrman trashes the Gospels as history, why does he think that certain things cannot be established historically, but the existence of Judas or Joseph of Arimathea can, although not one first century Christian ever put his name to a document saying he had heard of either of them.