spamandham

Is vaguary and arrogance all you have to offer?

Apparently, you also offer this sort of horse shit.

Chris Weimer

Well, I can't give you skills of comprehension nor logic.

What, so I'm not alone in calling you a fundy? I must be in good company then.

Again, I repeat my statement - Can you prove that you exist?

Toto

Can you give some examples of anthropologists who think that traditions are historically reliable?

Chris Weimer

Please reread what I wrote and correctly identify what I said. In the meantime, I'll be preparing some citations.

Chris Weimer

Here are some articles to get you started:

Sylvia Rodriguez, "Subaltern Historiography on the Rio Grande: On Gutiérrez's "When Jesus Came, the Corn Mothers Went Away", a review of Ramón A. Gutiérrez When Jesus Came, the Corn Mothers Went Away: Marriage, Sexuality, and Power in New Mexico, 1500-1846, American Ethnologist, Vol. 21, No. 4. (1994): 892-899.

Amsbury, Clifton, "On the Reliability of Oral and Traditional History", American Ethnologist, Vol. 22, No. 2. (1995): 412.

Ernest S. Burch, Jr. "More on the Reliability of Oral and Traditional History", American Ethnologist, Vol. 23, No. 1. (1996): 131.

Ruth Finnegan, "A Note on Oral Tradition and Historical Evidence", History and Theory, Vol. 9, No. 2. (1970): 195-201.

spamandham

Your inductive skills are underwhelming.

This is a first request, not a repeat, and I could care less whether or not you believe I exist.

S.C.Carlson

There was an oral tradition that Thomas Jefferson fathered a child with Sally Hemmings.

Chris Weimer

Post 48. But I seriously doubt that you would be willing to engage in such critical thinking, so perhaps you're better left ignored.

Solo

There is no historically reliable 'oral tradition' about Jefferson's fathering Sally Hemming's children. The tale is known to have started as a vicious, politically motivated rumour.

Jiri

3DJay

That might depend on your definition of reality, which would move us squarely into philosophy, and off topic.
Topic: Jim Walker says that there is no credible evidence that a historical Jesus existed.

Credible: 1. believable: easy to believe 2. trustworthy: inspiring trust and confidence

Evidence: 1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

You, post 47:
Bullshit. You just used the word "evidence", 11 times.
Proof: 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

You are the one who implied that Paul counts as contemporary testimony. Do you have proof evidence he even witnessed a historical Jesus, for which he could give testimony about? Do you have proof evidence of his contemporary writings, somwhere about 30 CE? In the first century?

There is no good reason why you should be putting the Bible in the same category as historians' writings, instead of writings about mythology. Beowulf mentions historical people. Homer mentions historical people. Many writers use historical settings and peripheral characters, for their stories.

At best, it's on par with Geoffrey of Monmouth, who shouldn't be considered evidence of anything historical, on his own. You're willing to scrap all the supernatural, which indicates writers of the Bible were either lying about supernatural events, were lied to, were stoned, were writing fiction, or some such...making the book, on a whole, unreliable, just like the History of the Kings of Britain.

Aside from the supernatural, there's a census, that doesn't hold up. There may be a whole village, Nazareth, that doesn't hold up. Reigns of Romans, that don't seem to mesh, quite right. I mean, even the basic setting, doesn't seem to add up. It is an unreliable source of evidence, and, like the History of the Kings of Britain, shouldn't be counted as such, on its own. Which doesn't mean it might not have some historical references.

Josephus, himself, has plenty of critics. And, numerous other ancient historians have critics, as well. Historians' writings have to stand up to scrutiny, as well. I'm a big fan of King Arthur, and hope he can be shown to have been a true historical figure someday, but, until there is some concensus, he's just a legend...a mythical figure. The supernatural writings, about him, are not evidence, on their own.


Peace