stonewall1012

I am curious, I have heard assertions that certain texts are not believable unless it has independent attestation. What would independent attestation look like that would provide "verification" of the "gospel" account?

mountainman

Think of a court of law and the testimony of witnesses. Whoever fabricated the four gospels attempted to establish four independent testimonies to the existence of a new Roman god. See also the thing called "The Eusebian Canon Tables" by which these four testimonies were carefully cross references, whereby we have a list of all saying in which the 4 agree, in which 3 agree, in which 2 agree, etc.

We have no profane historian providing an independent attestation to either the gospels or Jesus or indeed christianity itself in the first century. Things appear to be attested however in the second century, via the name of Eusebius.



Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

For example, the sect called the Essenes were written about by Philo of Alexandria, Josephus and Suetonius, and even though their descriptions may have some differences, the writers' records of this sect are very good indications that the sect did indeed exist during the 1st century.

However, even though the NT claimed Jesus had thousands of followers on a regular basis and was believed to be the prophesied Christ and the Son of the God of the Jews, neither Philo, Josephus nor Suetonius wrote a single word about the Jesus followers or Jesus except for forgeries in Antiquities of the Jews. And, both Suetonius and Josephus wrote that the Jews were looking for the Messiah at around 70 CE NOT during the time of Pilate, at around 32 CE.

Roger Pearse

No, no, don't start with the gospels, or indeed any other text that pushes peoples' political or religious buttons. Start with some text that no-one cares about, and establish criteria without the risk of special pleading.

The idea that in ancient history we ignore all statements not found in more than one source seems ridiculous to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

2-J

It's not about 'ignoring' all such statements, it's more that it might be prudent to be close to agnostic about them.

And if that is not the standard of Classics (I'm not sure that it is, but that is what you appear to claim continually Roger) then, I might venture, Classics as a field is out of touch with everyday standards of reason and credibility.

Keith&Co.

Aren't the criteria already established?
For starters: Know when a document was written, know who wrote it, know why it was written. History being written by either the winners or the critics, it would help to know where your document's 'spin' came into play.

Roger Pearse

If we are not careful, that would easily become a search for reasons to justify whatever we wanted to believe or disbelieve.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Keith&Co.

Really? I'd say that was the opposite.

If we buy the Gospels as historical documents, without any real proof of their source, then THAT is justifying desired beliefs.
If you can find any actual contemporary account of gospel events, esp. by a critic, say someone in Rome in 30-50CE dismissing accounts of a religious activist reborn, that would go further to establish a historical event of some kind than 2nd century pretend-eyewitness accounts.

But maybe i'm wrong.

What are the standards for evaluating historical documents, Roger?

Roger Pearse

The idea that any text can be rejected unless a second text written at the same time records the same events hardly needs discussion. Please think about these slogans before repeating them, hey?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Deus Ex

I do not think that people reject the historical facts in the Gospels. Pontius Pilate, Herod, and Quirinius all existed, right?

How do we know that these people existed, and is there a similar amount of evidence for Jesus of Nazareth?