Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 11-10-2008, 05:55 AM

I am primarily starting this thread because the Reasons to Believe ministry is one of arnoldo's favorite ministries. Consider the following:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff...#jesus_gospels

Quote:

Originally Posted by reasons.org

No Eyewitnesses?

Most scholars believe that Mark, the first Gospel, was written between A.D. 70 and A.D. 100—40 to 70 years after Jesus’ death. Many non-evangelical scholars assume that the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have died by this time and that the Gospels, therefore, were written too late to provide good historical information about Jesus. This is simply an inaccurate assumption. We know of many people in the ancient world who lived to old age. For example, Cicero, Livy, Augustus, Tiberius, Seneca, Plutarch, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus were all said to have lived beyond their sixtieth birthday. Juvenal and Epictetus apparently lived into their 70’s, and Polycarp even lived into his 80’s.

Regarding the assumption that the Gospels were written too late to provide accurate historical information, the critics are often inconsistent. For example, they rely on Jewish historian Josephus to provide them with important information about the historical, social and religious climate during Jesus’ life, knowing full well that Josephus wrote from A.D. 70-100—the same dates they assign to the Gospels![15] Furthermore, Roman historians think nothing of using Tacitus, Suetonius, or Dio Cassius to reconstruct Roman history, but these writers were often further removed in time from the events they wrote about than the Gospel writers were from Jesus! Historians do not disregard these sources simply because they were written 40 or more years after the fact. Incidentally, good reason exists to believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written less than 40 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, but that will have to be pursued in a separate article.

Comments please.

brettpalmer · 11-10-2008, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I am primarily starting this thread because the Reasons to Believe ministry is one of arnoldo's favorite ministries. Consider the following:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff...#jesus_gospels

Quote:

Originally Posted by reasons.org

No Eyewitnesses?

Most scholars believe that Mark, the first Gospel, was written between A.D. 70 and A.D. 100—40 to 70 years after Jesus’ death. Many non-evangelical scholars assume that the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have died by this time and that the Gospels, therefore, were written too late to provide good historical information about Jesus. This is simply an inaccurate assumption. We know of many people in the ancient world who lived to old age. For example, Cicero, Livy, Augustus, Tiberius, Seneca, Plutarch, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus were all said to have lived beyond their sixtieth birthday. Juvenal and Epictetus apparently lived into their 70’s, and Polycarp even lived into his 80’s.

And all of these people were of upper society where the normal forces of mortality rates didn't apply as broadly. The average Joe(sephus) didn't live past about 40.

Quote:

Regarding the assumption that the Gospels were written too late to provide accurate historical information, the critics are often inconsistent. For example, they rely on Jewish historian Josephus to provide them with important information about the historical, social and religious climate during Jesus’ life, knowing full well that Josephus wrote from A.D. 70-100—the same dates they assign to the Gospels!

Josephus wasn't writing in the gospel genre, either. He wasn't trying to "sell" a religious idea and was, instead, trying to write history.

Quote:

Furthermore, Roman historians think nothing of using Tacitus, Suetonius, or Dio Cassius to reconstruct Roman history, but these writers were often further removed in time from the events they wrote about than the Gospel writers were from Jesus!

Because, again, the sources they rely upon were not writing religious propaganda. If you want to read about advances in biological medicine, do you turn to the AMA or the Discovery Institute?

Quote:

Historians do not disregard these sources simply because they were written 40 or more years after the fact.

That's right. They disregard much of the gospel writings as historical memory because of the genre they reflect. They were not written as a blow-by-blow, minute-by-minute description of what was seen and heard.

Petergdi · 11-10-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brettpalmer

And all of these people were of upper society where the normal forces of mortality rates didn't apply as broadly. The average Joe(sephus) didn't live past about 40.

.

Actually, I don't think the wealthy had lifespans much different from the average. Sir Isaac Newton once showed that the average lifespan of English and French royalty was somewhat worse than the average of their subjects.

People also forget easily that human lifespans tended to follow a "bathtub curve" with a lot of infant mortality, a fairly steady rate of midlife mortality and a rapid increase after age 70.

The first really good actuarial data comes from 18th century London. It is probably not very much unlike the ancient world.

see http://www.kabele.org/papers/dodsonms2.pdf for the first modern paper on actuarial science.

Out of 602747 deaths recorded in London between 1728-1750
- 218810 were under age 2.
- 270353 were under age 5
- 291653 were under age 10
- 310154 deaths were under age 20
- 474179 deaths were under age 50

-43268 deaths were over age 70
-16277 deaths were over age 80
- 2513 deaths were over age 90
- 200 deaths were over age 100

Life expectancy at birth was about 16
Life expectancy at age 2 was about 39
Life expectancy at age 5 was about 44
Life expectancy at age 20 was about 47
Life expectancy at age 50 was about 64

A 20 year old had a 14.8% chance of seeing age 70
A 20 year old had a 5.6% chance of seeing age 80
A 20 year old had a 0.85% chance of seeing age 90

If there were a few hundred people in their 20s who were witnesses to Jesus around the year 28
then there would likely still be dozens by the year 80.

Peter.

gilly54 · 11-10-2008, 04:34 PM

Even if there were eyewitnesses, it doesn't explain why there are no documented extra-biblical accounts. People back then were not illiterate, many were multi-lingual. All those throngs of admirers, watching wondrous feats, and nobody wrote anything down? That is another unbelievable aspect about Christianity.

Petergdi · 11-10-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilly54

Even if there were eyewitnesses, it doesn't explain why there are no documented extra-biblical accounts. People back then were not illiterate, many were multi-lingual. All those throngs of admirers, watching wondrous feats, and nobody wrote anything down? That is another unbelievable aspect about Christianity.

I think your expectations are unrealistic. Any reasonably critical reading of the New Testament suggests that Jesus and John the Baptist had followings of a comparable size, and yet all the sources for John the Baptist (NT, Josephus, Mandaean) also mention Jesus.

There were probably some people of comparable fame we don't know anything about at all.

In any case Christianity is about the good news that you can be a child of God and an inheritor of the kingdom of God by following the way of Jesus and not about miracles interpreted as paranormal events.

Peter.

neilgodfrey · 11-10-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I am primarily starting this thread because the Reasons to Believe ministry is one of arnoldo's favorite ministries. Consider the following:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff...#jesus_gospels

Quote:

Originally Posted by reasons.org

No Eyewitnesses?

Most scholars believe that Mark, the first Gospel, was written between A.D. 70 and A.D. 100—40 to 70 years after Jesus’ death. Many non-evangelical scholars assume that the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have died by this time and that the Gospels, therefore, were written too late to provide good historical information about Jesus. This is simply an inaccurate assumption. We know of many people in the ancient world who lived to old age. For example, Cicero, Livy, Augustus, Tiberius, Seneca, Plutarch, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus were all said to have lived beyond their sixtieth birthday. Juvenal and Epictetus apparently lived into their 70’s, and Polycarp even lived into his 80’s.

Regarding the assumption that the Gospels were written too late to provide accurate historical information, the critics are often inconsistent. For example, they rely on Jewish historian Josephus to provide them with important information about the historical, social and religious climate during Jesus’ life, knowing full well that Josephus wrote from A.D. 70-100—the same dates they assign to the Gospels![15] Furthermore, Roman historians think nothing of using Tacitus, Suetonius, or Dio Cassius to reconstruct Roman history, but these writers were often further removed in time from the events they wrote about than the Gospel writers were from Jesus! Historians do not disregard these sources simply because they were written 40 or more years after the fact. Incidentally, good reason exists to believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written less than 40 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, but that will have to be pursued in a separate article.

Comments please.

This argument is a straw man start to finish. It makes the author look clever while attempting to make much smarter people than he look like idiots.

Quote:

Many non-evangelical scholars assume that the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have died by this time and that the Gospels, therefore, were written too late to provide good historical information about Jesus.

Rather, anyone who reads "many non-evangelical scholars" will quickly see that what they assume are various "traditions" handed down to the time of the gospel authors, and that they believe reasonable assessments of Jesus' life can be discerned from a careful analysis of these in the gospels.

Quote:

Historians do not disregard these sources simply because they were written 40 or more years after the fact.

The same applies to how "many non-evangelical scholars" treat the gospels, too.

Did I say that the whole argument is a straw-man?

Neil

spamandham · 11-10-2008, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Most scholars believe ...

Most Biblical scholars are Christians. Why should I care what they believe?

I'm interested in their arguments, not their preconceptions.

spamandham · 11-10-2008, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brettpalmer

Josephus wasn't writing in the gospel genre, either. He wasn't trying to "sell" a religious idea and was, instead, trying to write history.

Is there any reason to think Josephus is unbiased? His biases are more political than religious, but the concept of 'unbiased reporting' certainly did not exist when he wrote, and would not apply to an official Roman history even if it did exist.

squiz · 11-11-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

If there were a few hundred people in their 20s who were witnesses to Jesus around the year 28
then there would likely still be dozens by the year 80.

Peter.

Except that there had been a huge war in the intervening years.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-11-2008, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

I think your expectations are unrealistic. Any reasonably critical reading of the New Testament suggests that Jesus and John the Baptist had followings of a comparable size, and yet all the sources for John the Baptist (NT, Josephus, Mandaean) also mention Jesus.

There were probably some people of comparable fame we don't know anything about at all.

In any case Christianity is about the good news that you can be a child of God and an inheritor of the kingdom of God by following the way of Jesus and not about miracles interpreted as paranormal events.

Do you by any chance have any non-Christian, first century sources regarding the miracles that Jesus performed?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2008, 04:34 PM	#4
gilly54 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New Almaden, California Posts: 917	Even if there were eyewitnesses, it doesn't explain why there are no documented extra-biblical accounts. People back then were not illiterate, many were multi-lingual. All those throngs of admirers, watching wondrous feats, and nobody wrote anything down? That is another unbelievable aspect about Christianity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.