Haran

If there is no God, then you are quite right.

I believe the Christian God exists, therefore, these events do not say "otherwise".

Regardless, even with history, a few embelished events that you disbelieve does not mean that the entire account is fiction or myth.

Amaleq13

Your hyperbole aside, don't you think it is simply common sense to at least be cautious when dealing with Christian texts given the number of known forgeries associated with the "genre"?

Haran

That's a fair question, and I would answer yes.

However, the true "forgeries" and apocrypha are the ones that were rejected very early on by church fathers during the process of canonization... But that's just my own opinion.

Solo

Two things: a) that's not what I said. b) I get usually quite well with the "religious folk" unless they start proselythizing.

BTW, I always wondered, perhaps you can answer this: How does a biblical literalist define "religious metaphor" ? Or does such a thing exist ?

Much obliged for your effort !

JS

Haran

I wouldn't know. I don't consider myself a biblical literalist in the strict sense.

Toto

How do you square this with the quote from Carrier above? Professional historians are generally skeptical of their sources, and do not give them any benefit of the doubt, but do not deny the history of the world.

Toto

I think that there is a tendency to accept the text as being original, not to avoid convenient explanations, but because some scholars can't face up to the consequences of admitting interpolations. Or at least that is what I got out of reading William Walker's Interpolations in the Pauline Letters.

Steven Carr

'The' text?

Sometimes there are many variations in 'the' text.

Amaleq13

Gamera is fond of appealing to the judgment of the early church fathers as well but he has so far refused to make any effort to support it.

With the semi-exception of the rejection of Acts of Paul (because the forger was apparently caught in the act), it is my understanding that the rejections you seem to want to rely upon were not based on a rational consideration of the evidence but upon the faith of those rendering the judgment. If it agree with their beliefs, it was declared "orthodox". If it agreed with the beliefs of "heretics", it was rejected.

Are you aware of any exceptions to this?

dog-on

If the purpose of the exercise is to try to determine the origins of Christianity, considering the history of this religion in the past 2000 years, it seems ludicrous to take any of the ravings of the "church fathers" at face value. These are the same people who, in the end, helped to obscure those very same origins. (Why are there no extant Marcionite works left, if indeed the Marcionite churches persevered until at least the 4th century)? Indeed, I would look closely at the apologies of these "fathers", not as an ally, but as an opponent. One thing seems to be certain, there was not just one pretender to the crown of "Christianity" prior to Constantine. Just as we see today, this religion is split into many factions/sects. What seems to be evident is that the Christianity that came out of the first few centuries was an amalgamation of the beliefs of the various sects, especially those of the Hellenic Jews and the Gnostics. For us to take anything as a given regarding the validity of any documents, is no better than the fundamentalist saying that "God didit".