ercatli

I'm sorry Steven, you have made several posts and I still don't understand what you are saying, I don't see any point being made and I see no evidence. As such, there is nothing for me to respond to. There are other posters to respond to, and life's short, so pardon me if I don't reply.

Best wishes.

ercatli

Hi Clive. Would you like to amplify that statement a little please?

I guess this is the same Michael Wood who wrote a book on the Domesday Book? I just love that book, and another he wrote on English history!

ercatli

G'day to you too, from the other side of the continent.

I wonder if I am misunderstanding you. There are clearly statements that are intended to be historical in the NT. For example, in a much argued-over passage Luke says in Acts 18:12 that "Gallio was proconsul of Achaia". This is a historical statement, and its truth or falsity should be assessed historically. Would you agree?

I have read very little on those topics. But where (if at all) they claim to be writing about actual events, those are historical statements, and where they are writing about beliefs, they are something different - probably metaphysics. Each needs to be assessed by the appropriate methods. Would you not agree?

It's not all that different in principle to reading a newspaper - some articles or paragraphs speak of events, and they have to assessed for truth in a quite different way to those that are providing editorial opinion. But the paper will generally have both. Again, would you not agree?

I have mentioned this briefly in the OP. I believe the historical events recorded in the NT have been shown by the consensus of competent historians to be broadly historical. On that basis, I have made a choice to believe the beliefs bits. Some other historians do likewise, others accept the history but not the beliefs. In each case, they make their judgment about the historical facts as professional historians, but they make their judgments about the beliefs the same as you and I do, as human beings.

An interesting statement, and one that could perhaps be taken in several ways. I will try to take it on face value, and as such, I suggest it is incorrect. Prof James Charlesworth of Princeton University has edited a book "Jesus and Archaeology (or via: amazon.co.uk)" and it contains many examples of where the gospels have been verified by archaeology, thus "supporting" their truth on other matters. I have not read this book (though I intend to), but please look up the Amazon page and then perhaps you may wish to tell me if you still think the same, and why.

Thanks, and best wishes.

ercatli

Hi bacht, thanks for responding to my question. I appreciate your comments.

I think each of these statements is at least partly correct, but (1) I think you may have overstated them, and (2) you have not drawn any conclusions from them.

(1) Let us say "apparently contradictory". It is certainly true that the two birth stories are generally considered to be at odds, though some scholars think they can be reconciled. But I don't think there are significant contradictions about the other things you mention. Can you elaborate on at least one of those three?

There may not be a statement that says "this is history", and the gospels overall may be something else than history as we know it, but they still make claims about historical events. Luke outlines his methods and they look very much like history.

And of course there is some biographical data, just not a lot.

(2) But can I ask you what you conclude from this? Do you conclude that therefore they cannot contain history? I suggest this would be a strange conclusion. Lots of documents used in history do not claim to be history - letters, commercial agreements, etc - but historians use them. Likewise they use the gospels. Why not?

Again, surely your first sentence is an overstatement, and inconsistent with the others? Problematic is probably an overstatement, but even if we grant it, "problematic" does not equal "no evidence at all". Generally the scholars seem agreed that these sources provide some evidence, though of course it isn't a lot.

But "external evidence" is also a bit of a mis-statement. The NT is made up of many separate sources, some of them interdependent, and some of them independent (it is believed). Each of them is external to the other. To look at them as one book is to jump forward several centuries. Scholars generally regard that many sources as pretty good. Would you disagree?

Before you can say that, you need to establish that "miracles, demons, resurrection etc" are merely and certainly "superstition", and I don't know how you could do that. And anyway, they knew enough to know that resurrection and other miracles didn't happen in the normal course of events, they weren't that gullible. So I think you have assumed what we are discussing, which makes it a circular argument. I agree that these things are "scientifically untestable", but that doesn't make them impossible, or possible, just unknown. And anyway, their beliefs didn't prevent them recording factual events, otherwise we'd have no history at all from that period.

So I suggest that overall your comments are useful matters for further investigation, but none of them, of themselves, provides any real reason (yet) to disbelieve that the NT provides at least some useful historical information - and that is what the majority of scholars think.

What do you think about that?

andrewcriddle

Are you claiming that the differences between existing ancient copies of the New Testament books cause major issues about the content and meaning of the original text ?

The only case I can think of where this might be true is the question of the ending of Mark. Do you have any other examples ?

Andrew Criddle

ercatli

On this thread I am inviting you and others to choose the matters you want to discuss, the things where you think I am wrong. If you present me with an argument (as below) and some evidence (as is missing below), I would be happy to respond and to present evidence. That is what the OP says.

So I guess you are agreeing that the majority of the scholars support the existence of the historical Jesus and a number of facts about him? But if you have information to show they (and I) are wrong, I again invite you to pick an issue and present it.

These are more assertions without evidence. I believe they are both wrong and contrary to the evidence. I can't really respond unless you give me something to work with.

As I mentioned to bacht (above), that is not the view of the majority of experts. If you want me to consider your alternative viewpoint, you need to present evidence.

So I'm sorry to sound like a cracked record, but if you want to answer the OP, please present a case, so we can all examine it. Thanks.

gdeering

I have twice asked you to simply answer a few basic questions so we have some stating point. I have even laid out my next step so you know why I am asking these questions. If you are one of those believers who simply wants to pretend to engage without ever having to commit to looking at the texts or questions of historical method then there you are not interested in knowledge, but in control.

I am not interested in changing your mind (as if you really came here for that), I'm interested in what you think you know.

Doug Shaver

I could add a great deal, if space permitted.

If you'd like to get an idea of how much I could add, please visit my Web site: http://dougshaver.com/.

Minimalist

Again, Ehrman has several examples...including that one.

Off the top of my head another is the famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" routine. That also shows up in later versions but not the earliest versions that we have.

Clivedurdle

Yes same guy. This book explores the famous stories mentioned and what roots they may have in history. I found it very valuable to think about Jesus - is it the equivalent of a search for the Golden Fleece or a Shangri-La? It is a story about the search for everlasting life...

There is a quote to the effect of taking historical kernels with a pinch of salt.