aa5874

Not all, I just do not have Jesus in history.

The issue is historicity of Jesus, period. Not unless you think there is another Jesus with respect to Herod or Cyrenius.

If you are refering to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, 1st and16th Presidents of the USA, then these are some of the worse examples that you could have provided. Washington and Lincoln are documented figures of history, their births and death are officially recorded, the schools they attended, and their places of employment among other things. Cherry trees and walks to the library do not affect their historicty in any way.

Your statement is mis-guided, I have effaced the phoenix and Jesus of the NT, their actions are strikingly similar.

Roger Pearse

That is true; but you were offering a list of standard points to use in assessing the reliability of the story told for *all* texts. That the manuscripts may be late is not an argument either way on this issue.

There is a separate issue of 'how well has the text been transmitted'. But if a text has been transmitted at all, usually it is perfectly good enough for most historical purposes. Parts of Tertullian's thought still reach us, even though the actual words have been cut off the only manuscript, and we have to guess what they are!

Yes, the biblical text is in better shape than any other Greek text from antiquity. Yes, other things being equal, an early copy is better than a late one. But... you may not realise this, but you've jumped a category in your thought here. These are not the same issues as all the other items in your list.

That that a text is only preserved in a late manuscript is not usually an argument to ignore it.

I hope that makes sense.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Exactly. That is a well-put qualification, incidentally.

For instance I would not be nearly as good a source on the policies of Tony Blair as someone who lives a century later but has access to the inside track of government, his papers, and his inner circle. All I know is what phoney Tony and his cronies want the hoi polloi to know. When those papers become available, we'll find out what they have really been up to.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Crucifixion under Pontius Pilate subthread has been split off.

andrewcriddle

Mark 16:9-20 is generally regarded as a 2nd century addition to the original Gospel of Mark.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

That's why I consider the Bible to be of little credibilty. I understand that the book called Acts may also be bogus.

Gamera

All I'm saying, Roger, is that the period of time between a purported historical event and the earliest extant ms recording that event is relevant to evaluating the event's historicity. This is due to the fact that the longer the transmission period, the more opportunity for redactions, edits, complete fabrications, and other scribal hankypanky.

I understand it's a separate category, but it still is relevant to determining historicity. History is texts; and the date of the earliest extant ms recording a purported event is always at the very least the terminus ad quem for that event.

Consider: if the earliest extant mss we had of the Christian scriptures were from 1200 AD, it would certainly be ammunition for those that doubt the historicity of the contents. Similarly, if we had an extant Greek ms of Herodotus within 70 years of hs life, it would certainly raise the value of his currency.

Again, I'm saying this is just one factor, and as applied to antiquity, the Christian mss are by far superior in this regard.

Gamera

Your premise seems to be that any purportedly historical texts that has fantastical or legendary material in it is not historical, and hence its must be completely disregarded. As I say, that completely effaces 99% of known history from antiquity.

Your use of the term "historically" here is loose. I'm not claiming that the Christian scriptures are 100% historically accurate or that they don't include legendary or mythic material. Virtually every text from antiquity does. My claim is simply that Jesus's historicity is established applying normal historical standards, given the texts that we have. Again, you seem to want to generate a new historical standard. If so, out with it and say explicitly what it is.

This is not a good argument, since legendary material gets attached to real historical figures all the time. I still think Washington existed, even if the cherry tree incident didn't happen.

Again, your assuming that the authors sat down and wrote these texts. The generation of these text was somewhat more complex and involved historical and nonhistorical material.

Who cares? All we need to do is establish that under standards of historical evaluation, these texts, along with other result in the conclusion that Jesus existed.

Herodotus believed Athena intervened in battles. Does that mean you don't accept a word of his histories as factual?

Yep, this is the issue; not what the authors of the gospels thought.

You've missed the point. Both Lincoln and Washington, like most famous historical figures, attracted spurious legendary narratives to their historicity. That suggests that your whole argument about Jesus has no traction.

No, you've effaced every historical text that mentions phoenixes and Athena and any legendary material.

Congratulations, you have just effaced 99% of history from antiquity.

Roger Pearse

I did understand what you were saying. I merely indicated that this is not so. You have confused two separate issues here:

1. What the text says
2. Whether it has reached us intact

The latter is normally a matter of detail, in that no important element of #1 would be affected by #2 (if a statement relies on a reading of one word in a text, it's probably highly dubious anyway).

That's because they make the same mistake, and don't know what exists for ancient books generally.

Would it? Why?

It ought to improve his text, but that is not certain.

Yes they are, but it has no relevance as to the truth of their content; only to the accuracy of the transmission of the text.

I realise this is a common confusion, but it is one to keep clear in our minds.

By all means email me if you want to continue this offline.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

That is not my premise at all. I maintain that there appears to be no oral tradition with regards to Jesus, his followers or his teachings. There are no anecdotes or legendary material from accepted credible contemporary historians.

I accept Augustus as an historical figure and reject Apollo for the same reason I reject Jesus. Both Apollo and Jesus are of fanastic origins.

My claim is that the historicity of Jesus cannot be established with the information presented. Jesus is presented as a god-man in the NT. The authors of the NT claimed he pre-existed, was the the son of the Holy Ghost, spent 40 calender days and night in the company of the Devil without food, at one time, perched on a pinnacle of the Jewish temple. His method of healing was outrageously fantastic, he could transfigure and take on the image of those long dead.

The authors claim this god, (he and his father is one), was crucified and raised himself and then went straight to the right hand of his father in heaven. And all these events, according to the authors are true and were prophesied in the Septuagint and witnessed by multitudes.

Historically, these figures are considered myths.

I accept that Washington is a figure of history whether or not cherry trees exist.

I made no such assumption. You are assuming that I assumed. I do not know how the texts were generated. I have not been able to identify or determine who were the authors of the Jesus story. I consider the material about Jesus to be Apollo-like.


I consider Jesus to be probably the most famous of mythical figures of all time, since I cannot establish any history, not even a single legendary non-interpolated anecdote about him.