Steve Weiss

Your list is correct and long, but as you say not exhaustive. Even one case of a lie discredits the whole work, especially given the motivation. Both geneologies of Jesus are false because no real Jesus has been verified.

Steve Weiss

Like graffiti.

Steve Weiss

He doesn't have to prove that the Jesus accounts are false; advocates have to prove that they are true. That's called the burden of truth doctrine.

spin

Chris, I didn't exactly agree with you. I complained

Unless we are to go back to the very start and rebuild history from scratch, we have to assume that the data we have ascertained as stable through comparison amongst various texts and vetted with regard to inscriptions and coins and whatever else of an epigraphic or archaeological nature is a corpus from which we base our analyses.

From that basis any text we want to consider as historical needs to show that it not only contains material which fits the data we have, but that some of the central narrative material features data already in the core of accepted data.

If we look at the Jugurthine War we find all the protagonists are known from other sources. We know some of the basics from other sources. I'm not up with the historicity of the particular text enough to go to inscriptions, but I'm sure you might be able to say something on the matter.

If we turn to the Satyricon, we can't find any of the narrative core to be found supported by what we know. In fact, the text appears not to be of a nature to be taken as intended to represent reality directly. So, while the text does refer to known personages, their importance to the text being peripheral we must consider that they are there for some purpose other than a strictly historical one.

It is about what we can analyse meaningfully.

I would hope that there are quite a few people who are interested in the subject and are aware to some degree of its immediate bearing to BC&H.

How about if we carry out a survey? Or have you any ideas of how to go further on the topic?


spin

J-D

I am prepared to take your word for it that you have done a lot of research.

I am prepared to take your word about the conclusion that you have reached on the basis of the research you have done.

What you have not done on this thread is explain the reasoning that leads you to your conclusion on the basis of your research. Your conclusion may in fact be true, but I am not going to accept that it is true solely because you tell me that you have done a lot of research.

Insofar as you have attempted to explain part of your reasoning on this thread, it seems to involve jumping, invalidly, from the point where we agree that some of the things asserted about Jesus in the Christian Scriptures are false to the conclusion that all of the things asserted about Jesus in the Christian Scriptures are false.

I am prepared to accept that you may have more than that. But how can I know, when you haven't shown it to me?

J-D

The use of the Bible as an ideological weapon does not automatically make any part of its contents true.

But the use of the Bible as an ideological weapon also does not automatically make any part of its contents false.

J-D

You have presented no evidence for your views about the motivations of the writers.

I agree that the use made of the Bible has frequently been pernicious. But that does not automatically mean that every statement in it is false.

Chris Weimer

As far as I can tell, you complained that I was too sweeping, not that Steve Weiss was incorrect in saying that the Bible was "historical fiction". As you should be able to tell from his most recent posts, I must agree with you that he belongs in the category of aa5874 and mountainman as users who ought to be ignored. (Well, you said they couldn't deal with the text, I say they ought to be ignored.)

I would venture to say that we ought to accept the status quo unless good reason not to. That is, tradition is a legitimate form of historical knowledge as long as its not accepted uncritically.

Much from the Jugurthine War can be corroborated from inscriptions, yes.

While I agree with you, I'm wondering how you concluded this?

How do we determine what other purpose exists for the texts?

As in, miracles are ruled out completely? Because I would disagree with you. That miracles cannot be miracles, simply because miracles don't exist, is true enough, but that they didn't happen would be erroneous since there are other alternatives. People report miracles all the time - they're not all just "making it up". Sometimes people are deceived, sometimes they deceive themselves, sometimes it's natural phenomenon, sometimes it's psychosomatic symptons.

This is what I am taking you as when you say "beyond the normal world" - am I right?

A survey of all Greek and Latin literature would be huge. I'd like to analyze the internal arguments, apart from tradition, that would lead one to believe a text is to be taken one way or another.

Once we have a thorough methodology, it cannot be too hard to tweak it as it needs be to apply it to all extent literature and compare it with traditional understandings of the text. If we're too far from tradition, we're probably wrong, but if we're dead on, we may then proceed?

Does that sound fair? Do you have an alternative method?

J-D

I am not sure that this statement is true, even as it stands; but in any case, no evidence has been presented that any of the statements we are dealing with here are lies. A statement can be false without being a lie.

J-D

He or she doesn't have to prove anything at all if he or she doesn't want to. But he or she appears to be asserting that he or she is in fact in possession of such a proof. All I'm doing is pointing out that he or she has not yet produced it. I am not going to believe that the alleged proof is valid without seeing it.