Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I certainly would not encourage absolute conclusions. I have used the phrase, "tentative conclusions," because all conclusions in this subject are tentative. Even so, some conclusions really do fit the preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, those conclusions perhaps ought to be evaluated as "better" than the improbable conclusions or the conclusions that run against the evidence.

I think I will keep coming back to my analogy of the best-fit line. If you have five points, then you choose the line that roughly runs through the path best estimated by those five points. You certainly don't choose a line that runs through only one preferred point at an arbitrary slope and ignoring the other four points, which is what the fringe theorists guided by wishful thinking may do. The highly skeptical camp may say, "We don't have enough points, so let's refuse to draw the line." But, if you draw a best-fit line using the mathematical least-squares method, then you will probably have a line very close to the "correct" function.

Originally Posted by bacht

There is a powerful emotional component to Biblical studies that separates this area from other academic fields. This doesn't change the rules for making arguments and proofs. As amateurs we have the luxury of speculating without the restrictions of the academy. This means we might stumble onto new insights, or not. The experts have the advantage of wide and deep knowledge in the primary and secondary sources, which in theory should save them from wasting time on dead-ends.

I can't read Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, German or any other language but English. This excludes the possibility of looking at old mss or scholarship from around the world. I'm limited to general points, I can't analyze things in detail. I have my own experience of human nature, which is not as comprehensive as a psychologist or even a professional historian.

My conclusion is that people are gullible. Also there is no supernaturalism. These things can't be "proven" definitively, they're just part of my working hypotheses about the world. My tentative conclusion about Christianity is that it started with a small group of outsiders, and was transformed later into catholicism. No miracles, no resurrection, no astral visions, no messiah.

Originally Posted by bacht

....I can't read Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, German or any other language but English. This excludes the possibility of looking at old mss or scholarship from around the world. I'm limited to general points, I can't analyze things in detail. I have my own experience of human nature, which is not as comprehensive as a psychologist or even a professional historian.

Originally Posted by bacht

My conclusion is that people are gullible. Also there is no supernaturalism. These things can't be "proven" definitively, they're just part of my working hypotheses about the world. My tentative conclusion about Christianity is that it started with a small group of outsiders, and was transformed later into catholicism. No miracles, no resurrection, no astral visions, no messiah.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... I really do believe that I am closer to having the right amount of skepticism than those I call the "highly skeptical." But, it is not actually about who possesses just the right amount of skepticism. The difference is in values. The "highly skeptical" camp seems to value skepticism as an end. That is largely why they identify themselves as "skeptics." Such people may refuse to reach conclusions, instead maintaining that undermining certainty in the established conclusions is good enough. I value skepticism only as a means to an end. I am trying to find conclusions that are most probable, and I use skepticism and criteria of comparison to reach that end.

Originally Posted by aa5874

So are you implying that only a person who can read every single language ever known to man can make a determination about the historicity of Jesus or any other character from antiquity?

It is not at all necessary to understand every language ever known to man, it is just necessary that there is a translation that you can understand.

It must be that English translations of other languages were made so that those who read English may understand.

Why do you think other people NEED to prove things definitively?

It is ONLY necessary to show the EVIDENCE for a conclusion.

There is NO evidence from sources of antiquity to show "Christianity started with a small group of outsiders".

What source of antiquity identifies the "outsiders"? And they were "outside" of what?

Your tentative conclusion is no good.

The abundance of EVIDENCE from antiquity , even from apologetic sources, CLEARLY show that the JESUS story, with his disciples and Paul are fundamentally FICTION or MYTHS of the 1st century up to at least the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Originally Posted by Toto

This is highly confused. Skepticism is a means to an end for everyone. Everyone is trying to find the most probably conclusions.

When this board first started, there was a group of Christian apologists who liked to talk about the "hper-skeptics" (or the hermeneutics of suspicion.) They liked to claim that doubting the existence of Jesus was like doubting evolution because experts all agreed that Jesus existed. Their arguments were pure sophistry, and they have all retired from the scene - but you have picked up the thread. You gloss over all of the problems in the alleged "evidence."

In the field of evolution, you know that there is extensive research behind expert conclusions, that scientists and students have debated the data and its interpretation, and you know that you can pretty much rely on expert judgments most of the time. In the field of "New Testament Studies" you will continually find "expert" conclusions based on wild guesses, theological preferences, or misread secondary sources. Try to figure out why experts think that Paul's letters were written in the middle of the first century, or why Mark is dated to 70 CE, and you will come away wondering why anyone takes this field seriously as history.

Originally Posted by Toto

No - it means that you actually have to address the argument rather than pin a label on the argument.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
I need labels of some sort in order to make the points that I want to make. I know that labels aren't necessary for the points that you want me to make, but ideologies and patterns of thinking are central to the way that I make sense of the world. Without a word or phrase to denote the kind of argumentation that discourages all conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence, then of course I can not criticize it. I know that you would prefer that I don't criticize such thinking, which is a downer, but to be honest I have greater priorities than what you would prefer. Please be aware that I am not trying to be offensive. If you can think of a better label than "highly skeptical," then I will use it.

Originally Posted by Toto

If you feel the need to criticize people who discourage conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence, I seriously question whether you have any contribution to make to this forum.

Originally Posted by bacht

Okay, you win, I'm putting you on Ignore. I already have enough crazy people to deal with in real life.

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IF the Apostle Peter was one of Mark's sources then his information was first hand.

If we reject this then we are left with speculation. However, on the traditional dating of Mark's Gospel, it would not have been difficult for Mark to obtain information from people who had spoken with eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The author identifies himself in the opening verse as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus", and the view that the epistle was written by St. Peter is attested to by a number of Church Fathers: Irenaeus (140-203), Tertullian (150-222), Clement of Alexandria (155-215) and Origen of Alexandria (185-253). Many scholars believe the author was not Peter, but an unknown author writing after Peter's death. Estimates for the date of composition range from 75 to 112 AD.

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Eric Eve writes: "It is not clear that similarities between 1 Peter and, for example, Romans and Ephesians require literary dependence, but at first sight the letter does have a deutero-Pauline feel. Yet many distinctive elements of Pauline theology (e.g. justification by faith) are entirely absent from 1 Peter, and even where characteristic Pauline expressions, such as 'in Christ' are employed, they are hardly used in a distinctively Pauline manner (see 1 Pet 5:14). The epistle also shows some affinities with non-Pauline writings such as James, Hebrews, and 1 Clement. This suggests either that all these writings are drawing on common traditions, or that at least some of them were sufficiently well known to our author to have influenced his language (in favour of literary dependence, see Beare 1970; in favour of common catechetical and liturgical traditions, see Selwyn 1958; Achtemeier 1996). Knowledge of any of these writings would point to a date later than the apostle Peter is meant to have perished, in the Neronian persecutation (c. 66 CE). Indeed, the thought and tenor of the epistle would seem to place it towards the end of the first century" (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)

W. G. Kümmel writes: "Many scholars have sought to weaken both these arguments on the ground that 5:12 dia eigouanou umin.......egraqa assumes that Silvanus is the real author to whom Peter gave the responsibility for the actual writing. Some think that they can prove that clearly common elements in language exist between I and II Thess, I Pet, and Acts 15:29, which indicates a common authorship by Silvanus. But these linguistic contacts are much too insignificant for much weight to be attached to them, and furthermore the distinction in style between I and II Thess and I Pet is important. No one has yet proved that grafw dia tinos can mean to authorize someone else to compose a piece of writing. Furthermore, if this were the case, then Peter would not be the real author of I Pet in any sense." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

Indeed, other occurences of the phrase in Acts 15:23, the letters of Ignatius (Rom. 10:1; Phil. 11:2; Smyr. 12:1; Pol. 8:1), the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 14:1, Martyrdom of Polycarp 20, and the subscripts at the end of letters by Paul (in the Byzantine text tradition) confirm that the Greek is used of the carrier of the letter. Wayne Grudem adds: "Moreover, the fact that Peter calls Silvanus a faithful brother as I regard him, argues strongly for Silvanus as the bearer (note Paul's similar commendation of the bearers of his lettersin 1 Cor. 16:10-11; Eph. 6:21-22; Col. 4:7-9; Tit. 3:12-13). And though Tertius mentions himself in Rom. 16:22, no New Testament author ever explicitly mentions or commends an amanuensis elsewhere." (1 Peter, p. 24)

Grudem avoids the conclusion that Peter did not write the letter by pointing out that Greek (koine Greek) was used in Palestine to facilitate trade and by speculating that the apostle made an extraordinary development in his Greek literary skills during his missionary career, without a formal education, citing John Bunyan (author of Pilgrim's Progress) and Joseph Conrad (author of Lord Jim).

Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "The type of Greek found in 1 Peter reveals that whether or not the author was born a Greek, he had enjoyed some level of formal education, if not an 'advanced' education in rhetoric or philosophy, at least a 'middle' education that would have included, along with geometry, arithmetic, and music, a reading of such classical authors as Homer. While one may surely presume some facility in Greek even among Palestinian fishermen in the first century who lacked formal education, the kind of Greek found in this epistle was probably beyond such a person, and hence the language was in all likelihood not given its present form by Simon Peter." (A Commentary on First Peter, pp. 4-5)

J. R. Michaels writes: "The notion that Peter had help in the composition of this letter does not stand or fall with the theory about Silvanus. If 1 Peter is, as it appears to be, an encyclical on behalf of the church at Rome ('Babylon') to a wide circle of churches on the frontiers of the Roman Empire in five provinces of Asia Minor ('Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,' 1 Pet 1:2), then the author would likely have had scribal help with vocabulary and style, and his helpers would likely have remained anonymous." (Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments, art. "1 Peter")

Daniel Wallace also suggests Peter's use of an anonymous scribe, indeed a companion of Paul, nominating Luke as one candidate. While it may be impossible to disprove such an idea, Eric Eve writes: "One cannot save Petrine authorship by arguing that Peter employed a secretary. If one argues that this secretary was Silvanus, the travelling companion of Paul (e.g. Selwyn 1958) or an anonymous amanuensis of the Roman church (Michaels 1988) the letter then becomes the product not of Peter, but of the secretary, since it is the latter's language that the epistle exhibits (see Beare 1970)." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)

W. G. Kümmel writes: "I Pet contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

Donald Guthrie writes: "It is further maintained that an apostolic author such as Peter would have reflected in his writing far more reminiscences of his personal contacts with Jesus, and of his knowledge of the sayings of his Master. But this objection cannot be regarded as serious since the presence of such reminiscences in the case of 2 Peter is regarded by some as an objection against apostolic authorship, and there is no sure canon of criticism which can pronounce on the validity of either." (New Testament Introduction)

Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "An argument often cited against the authenticity of 1 Peter is the lack of personal reminiscences from the life of Jesus, something one would surely expect in a letter from one who had accompanied him from Galilean ministry to resurrection. In defense of Petrine authorship, a variety of indications have been cited taht are held to represent such reminiscences. For example, the alteration of first and second person in 1:3-9 is claimed to show that while the readers have not seen Jesus (v. 6), the author (by implication) has (v. 3). Again, the reference to 'witness' in 5:1 is taken to mean Peter is calling himself an eyewitness to the passion of Jesus, a witness reflected supremely in 2:22-25. The difficulty with finding assurances of the report of an eyewitness is that these verses are patently drawn from Isaiah 53, and hence may owe more to the author's demonstrable reliance on the OT, and even to a notion of the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, than to the reminiscences of an eyewitness." (A Commentary on First Peter, p. 9)

Udo Schnelle writes: "In 1 Pet. 1.1 the author describes himself as apostolos (apostle), but in 1 Pet. 5.1 as sumpresbuteros (fellow elder). One who was a member of the original circle of the Twelve, an apostle, the one to whom the risen Jesus first appeared, need hardly have resorted to this title that appeared late in the development of early Christian ecclesiology." (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 400)

Donald Guthrie writes: "That Peter would not describe himself as a fellow-elder.......is by no means as self-evident as has been supposed. Quite apart from the fact that the term 'elder' seems to have been used as late as the time of Papias as a description of apostles, and therefore could not have been regarded in the primitive church as an inferior title, the context almost demands such a description for the exhortation of the elders to have its fullest effect. It could be seen as an expression of modesty on the writer's part. It is even more an evidence of his sympathy with his readers." (New Testament Introduction)

W. G. Kümmel writes: "The situation of persecution of those addressed can be understood only as occurring at the beginning stages of civil persecution (see pp. 418 f). According to the unanimous tradition of the early church, the first persecution of Christians on more than a merely local basis (cf. 5:9) took place under Domitian. But that, of course, takes us beyond the life-span of Peter." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

Raymond Brown writes: "If one thinks the work is pseudonymous and written about 90, the references could be to imperial harassment in Domitian's time.......A more recent tendency has been to refer I Pet's suffering/trial language not to imperial persecution but to local hostility wherein non-Christians spoke badly of Christians, treating them as evildoers (2:12), defaming their conduct (3:16), vilifying them (4:4), and insulting them because of their belief in Christ (4:14). Christians would have constituted a new cult, exclusive and, to outside eyes, secretive and subversive—suspect of immorality or even of atheism because they did not participate in the public cult and thus insulted the gods. On the one hand, 'trial by fire' (4:12) might seem overly hyperbolic for such treatment; on the other hand, this explanation accounts very well for the atmosphere of alienation that pervades the letter. The strong stress on the dignity of Christians and their status would be meant to encourage a group being ostracized by their countrymen, a group that can be addressed as homeless and sojourners (2:11; also 1:1,17). They are like Israel in the exodus on the road to the Promised Land; they should not look back to their former status as did the Israelites (1:14), but press on to their imperishable inheritance (1:4). Although they may have been accepted by their neighbors before, they were then 'no people' in God's eyes and had not received God's mercy (2:10 echoing Hos \1:9, 1:6); now they are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people (I Pet 2:9)." (An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 713-714)