torquemada

The small group of Mandaeans in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East still follow John the Baptist as their messiah and consider Jesus as his enemy.

jeffevnz

Here ya go.

No account is even similar to each other, eh?
I agree that it's possible, as I indicated above. However, we must assume, at least until we see some corroborating evidence, that the authors did not check the facts. You don't go assuming every ancient synopsis you come across was thoroughly investigated by the writer, especially not one of unknown origin, laced with improbable claims, and, most importantly, which does not even cite specific sources. It has to be verified. And insisting that it be verified tentatively assumes that it has not already been properly investigated.
Critical historiography is a recent development.
Suppose you were investigating claims about the life and execution of a religious leader 30+ years ago. Suppose further that you had no television, no internet, and no photography (so you couldn't verify the identity of anyone who claimed to have been involved). There's no printing press, so you have few, if any, relevant writings (in fact, the Gospels appear to be drawn from oral traditions). And, as I noted, life expectancy was under 40 years, so it was likely anyone who had been old enough to understand what was going on at the time would be dead by now. That leaves you with 2nd or 3rd-hand "testimony", at best. Anyone who's ever played the "telephone game" knows you can't rely on that.
Yes, I believe that was his point. If you read his post, you'll see that he thinks there probably was a historical John.
First of all, it's not clear GLuke was actually written by Luke. Like all the Gospels, it was originally anonymous, and the attribution was added several decades later, by people who didn't know what they were talking about. There is no contemporary attestation linking Paul's buddy with the book... We don't know who wrote the thing.

Secondly, plenty of Christians, from Eusebius down to modern-day Creationists, including a lot of popes, bishops, and other leaders along the way; have routinely lied to promote their religion, believing that the importance of spreading it outweighs the damage of lying. Some have openly advocated this. So, yes, the author of GLuke very easily could have lied. Why is that so incredible?

Thirdly, you're creating a false dichotomy. There are other possibilities besides the author of GLuke correctly characterizing his investigation, and the author of GLuke "lying through his teeth". He could have been exagerrating, or maybe his notion of an investigation was half-assed by modern standards. It's also possible that he didn't write the passage you cite, and that it was inserted later (the kind of thing Eusebius would have done). So we have at least three other, very plausible explanations.

The bottom line is that simply saying, "I looked into this and it's all true. I swear." does not add to the author's credibility.

Clouseau

That doesn't prove anything, does it, it merely parrots your own claim without any evidence in support. I suggest you check facts yourself before posting claims.

Then you have no case- just empty words.

So you need a highly tilted playing field if you are to 'win'? Farewell scholarship!

But historiography is irrelevant.

If TV and the 'net are sensible sources of anything other than evidence of the brainlessness of the human race, there is no hope of knowing anything much!

It is a common fallacy that oral tradition was unreliable. On the contrary, it was very hard indeed to corrupt, unlike a newspaper report or TV program that can be manipulated by a single person to influence the way millions think very easily.

Life expectancy was comparatively low because infant mortality was high. Once one had survived early childhood, a full life expectancy could be had- so there must have been many of John's followers around well into the second half of the 1st century.

We're agreed on something, then.

That doesn't matter much.

Evidence? No more empty links, please.

How do you know that they were/are Christians? Can you prove anything at all that you claim?

They lied about the likes of Luke, though.

And what would the Sanhedrin and the Romans have made of that?

aa5874

I consider the Gospels to be the result of plagiarism, not oral tradition. The primary sources, in my opinion, for the Gospels are the Septuagint and the writings of Flavius Josephus.

Clouseau

Wow.

jeffevnz

Go read it again, or, more likely, for the first time. It tallies the textual coincidences and shows just how improbable they are without plagiarism, which was my claim.

It also documents both the coincidences in word choice and non-chronological ordering. If you'd actually read the linked page, you would have found this link: Gospel Outlines, which notes all the evidence in excruciating detail

How embarassing for you.

It is you who needs to check the facts before posting. Furthermore, I suggest you actually take the time to learn a little about the Gospels before you go attacking a theory that is clearly supported by the evidence and accepted by a large majority of scholars, Christian, non-Christian, and skeptic alike.
You have a curious epistemology. You seem to think all of your claims should be assumed true until someone "disproves" them.

I suggest a different one, which is used by nearly all academics today, and which has the advantage of tending to avoid false conclusions. Consider the truth of a claim to be unknown, until evidence is found that either supports it or contradicts it. Then, judge the likelihood of the claim accordingly. Note that actual "proof" of anything is rare, but probabilities can still be judged without it.
Another bizarre claim... Anyway, critical historiography is a recent development. In other words, the importance of careful fact-checking in historical investigations was not widely recognized until the last few centuries, so you wouldn't expect that people generally did that 2000 years ago.
TV and the net provide plenty of evidence of the brainlessness of the human race. They also provide lots of useful information. If you disagree with the second point, then what do you hope to gain by logging on to this discussion board?

And that wasn't even the point. The point is you would have access to less information that you would today. Far less. Such that adequately conducting such an investigation would be practically impossible.
I'm starting to feel like I'm on Candid Camera. Are you seriously defending oral tradition as a reliable source of information??
I can't find a source for ancient Palestine, however I can find sources for ancient Rome and ancient Egypt, which both give age-adjusted life-expectancies. They should be decent guides to the demographics of ancient Palestine... Both estimate LE from age 1 (ie, after infancy, as defined for infant mortality) at under 40 years.
We were agreeing with you all along about John's historicity. I don't know how you missed that.
The Gospel never identifies its author as Luke. The earliest writings that identify Luke as a disciple are from the late second-century, and come from letters written between chuch fathers who were debating the authorship. The earliest references to the Gospels did not name authors.

And "empty links"?? Are you referring to the one above which documented exactly what I was claiming, which you didn't realize because you didn't actually read it?
Again, I'm wondering if you're kidding. I suggest you read up on Eusebius, who was an important church father, and who was clearly a Christian by any measure. As far as Creationists go, there are millions of them around, and even the ones that lie regularly about the evidence regarding evolution appear to be devout Christians.

Or are you attempting the No True Scotsman Fallacy?
I don't understand this comment.
Of Luke lying to Theophilus about having thoroughly investigated the narrative related in the Gospel? I can't imagine they would care. :huh:

Clouseau

Garbage. Find two pairs of identical sentences concerning John the B.

jeffevnz

Considering that a typical sentence in the Gospels runs on for several verses, and that even plagiarists typically make some changes to the text they copy, you would not necessarily expect to find such pairs, especially not if you're constraining yourself to a narrow topic.

Having said that, I followed the link I gave you, and, right off the bat, found several pairs and even trios of long, identical passages concerning John the B. Took about two seconds to find 'em.

Here are some highlights:

"John....in the wilderness....preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."
- Mark and Luke

"As it is written in....Isaiah the prophet."
- Mark and Luke (Luke apparently corrects Mark's poor grammar)

"The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
- Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John

Clouseau

Good 'ere.

squiz

Apollos was also supposed to have known only the baptism of John, according to Acts. It seems to me to be a rather strange interpolation, if there were no truth to it.