Cross Examiner

Mageth,
No problem. It was no doubt an honest mistake.
I'll try to remember that.
You kicked things off, I'll cap it.
Before that, you claimed that the Gospels are 'not historically verifiable' and thusly proclaimed them 'myth'. I've been asking you to justify your assertion that the Gospels are 'not historically verifiable'. That's it in a nutshell.
There is a difference between something being verifiable and something that is verified, without dispute. You have been contending that the Gospel's are not verifiable based upon the claim that something is verifiable if and only if there is sufficient external corroboration and that the thing be beyond reasonable doubt, and I'd simply like to know why you believe all this stuff. You are apparently a rational man, your beliefs must come from somewhere. What is disturbing is when you offer up your beliefs as objective fact. Doing so will always catch my attention and I'll call you on it.
Please note the terms above in bold. This is an example of equivocation. You can understand my concern.
Not true. You made the assertion that they are 'not historically verifiable'. Now you get to back it up or drop it. Open a thread at BC&H if you think you've got a stong case and I'll bring a counter.
Mageth, I understand your point. My only bone of contention is this aforementioned dogmatic pronouncement that you make which you based upon a spurious method, to say the least. So, I'll reiterate the bottom line in case it was somehow missed. You initially asserted that the Gospels are 'not historically verifiable' upon what you see is a lack of external corroboration, events therein not being beyond reasonable doubt and are therefore of the literary genre that you call 'myth'. Now, before we can accept your assertions that the Gospels are rightly classified as 'myth', you need to justify said assertions. Thus, the question to you is:
Where did you get this method from, why do you choose to cling to it and why should we adopt it as our own? Please answer in light of the methods typically espoused by actual classical historians. Thank you.

Regards,
BGic

Mageth

First, you've got a valid complaint about the equivocation. Substitute historically verifiable wherever applicable, if you wish. But note that I've earlier pointed out that, when I say the Gospels are not historically verifiable, I mean currently historically verifiable, and indicated that it is possible that they may some day be historically verified, as in sufficient additional external evidence may be discovered to consider the documents verified. But I don't consider this likely.

I've been asking you to justify your assertion that the Gospels are 'not historically verifiable'.

I've given the reasons (justifications) for my assertion that the Gospels are not historically verifiable. I'll try again, in more detail perhaps:

1. They include conflicting accounts. They are thus not even consistent with each other. E.g. how many women went to the tomb, how many people did they meet there, did they or did they not go into the tomb, what were their actions afterwards, and where were the disciples? Some details even conflict with the earlier writings of Paul.
2. They include claims of supernatural events. These claims are not historically verifiable. How would you historically verify that God, the Christian God, intervened in a particular event?
3. They include descriptions of events for which no external corroboration is known (e.g. Herod's killing of the infants).
4. They include implausible, with current scientific knowledge, events. E.g. the wandering star in the Birth account, walking on water, raising of the dead (some overlap here with #2).
5. They include descriptions of implausible historical events, based on external historical knowledge - e.g. Pilate giving in to the Jewish crowd, the otherwise unknown, and unlikely considering what we do know of the Romans, practice of releasing one condemned person on the passover, etc.
6. They include many obviously midrashed events. For example, Matthew's Jesus is midrashed to closely parallel the life of Moses to make Jesus into the "new Moses", with the intent of appealing to the Jewish tradition.
7. They were written years apart, decades after the events they portrayed, in a particular order (Mk, Mt, Lk, Jn), and show a clear progression in development of the Jesus myth/Christian tradition. Include in this the earlier sparse accounts given by Paul, and the progression becomes even more clear. (See Spong's [i]Resurrection)
8. They are religious documents written with particular intentions, not as literal historical accounts of the life of Jesus. For example, Luke was clearly written to a "Gentile" audience and includes much Hellenizing of the story, which is consistent with the facts that 1) the author of Luke is considered to have been a Gentile with some exposure to Jewish tradition or perhaps a Hellenized Jew, 2) Luke was written some time after the fall of the Temple and when the Jews that remained Jewish were retreating into legalistic Judaism, "forcing" the Christian sect into the Gentiles. John was written, at least in part, in response to Gnostic beliefs that were growing in some churches, e.g. Thomists, and thus includes embellishments and stresses the divinity of Jesus to counter these Gnostic beliefs (and, specifically, to counter Thomas).
9. Of course, the earliest (Mk) was written decades after the events they portrayed, which itself makes their historicity questionable. Mt and Lk were based on Mark, add much not included in Mk, and modify other things.
10. There is little or no external historical corroboration for many of the events portrayed in the Gospel (this point was partially covered by some of the above). Heck, we're not even sure who wrote them.

Is that enough justification? I think I've mentioned some of those before, but probably not all or in such detail.

Mageth, I understand your point.

Well, if you understand that paragraph, the rest is perhaps just semantical details. That's the core of what I'm saying.

Where did you get this method from,

From reading up on mythology, on the history of the Bible, and studying the Bible itself.

why do you choose to cling to it

I don't choose to cling to anything. Hence, my continued research into this topic (i.e. the historicity of the Bible).

and why should we adopt it as our own?

I don't ask anyone to adopt it as their own. I do ask that those interested read up on mythology, Biblical history, and other related subjects. From my efforts, I'm comfortable with my conclusions at this point (e.g. that the Gospels are properly classified as myth), but continue to open-mindedly look into the matter.

Please answer in light of the methods typically espoused by actual classical historians. Thank you.


Well, below are several definitions for what constitutes a "myth", which are commonly used in one form or another, I would assume, by both historians and mythologists to classify "myths" and distinguish them from "historical accounts". Now, I'm confident than many if not most unbiased historians would agree with many if not most or all of the ten points I listed above about the Gospels, and could probably add to the list. Now, considering my ten points (with perhaps some other aspects of Christianity taken into account), the Gospels quite readily fit into these definitions of myth. Therefore, I claim it is correct to classify the Gospels as myth.

From here comes a very concise definition (repeated on some of the other sites) which is an apt description of the Gospel accounts:

1. myth -- a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people

Also see:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/myth
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/myth
http://www.entrenet.com/~groedmed/greekm/mythdefi.html
http://dict.die.net/myth/
http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...-mythology.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...bldef-myth.htm
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/mythology.html
http://www.brandeis.edu/departments/...170/myth1a.htm
http://www.brainydictionary.com/word...yth193041.html
http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowle...cgi?title=Myth

Cross Examiner

Mageth,
This is my point. This method above that you offer us for your alleged 'factual' classification of the Gospels as 'myth' is clearly derived subjectively. You reference your personal studies as this 'objective' method. You rely on your personal study of mythology and, most importantly, do so without even the slightest reference to the typical methods for evaluating the historicity of ANE documents employed by respected classical historians. So you can see my concern when you repeatedly and dogmatically pronounce the Gospels as 'myth' based upon this spurious, subjective method of yours and expect me to nod in approval? I simply cannot.

Regards,
BGic

Mageth

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Mageth,

This is my point. This method above that you offer us for your alleged 'factual' classification of the Gospels as 'myth' is clearly derived subjectively.

No, it's derived from an objective study of the Gospels and their history.

You reference your personal studies as this 'objective' method.

Yes, I have objectively studied the Gospels.

You rely on your personal study of mythology and, most importantly, do so without even the slightest reference to the typical methods for evaluating the historicity of ANE documents employed by respected classical historians.

Yes, I rely on my personal study (of more than mythology) to reach my conclusions. How do you reach your conclusions? In that study, I take into account the arguments of mythologists and historians. That seems like a good thing to me.

BTW, for the record, please list these "typical methods" employed by "respected" classical historians. If I'm not using some of them and applying them to reach my conclusions, I'll try to do so. I want to learn.

BTW, I strongly suspect that many "respected classical historians" would agree that the Gospels are properly classified as myth, even after applying (and perhaps due to the application of) these "typical methods".

So you can see my concern when you repeatedly and dogmatically pronounce the Gospels as 'myth' based upon this spurious, subjective method of yours

I do not consider the method I've used to be "spurious" or "subjective". And note that you have been "dogmatically" denying that the Gospels are not properly classified as "myth", and I have as of yet seen no justification, subjective or otherwise, for why you so dogmatically assert that (other than your subjective criticisms of my "method").

and expect me to nod in approval?

I don't recall asking you to nod in approval. It would be nice if you'd actually make some counterargument as to why the Gospels should not be classified as "myth", and why they should be considered historical accounts, rather than just attacking my "subjective method", though.

I simply cannot.

Perhaps because you are subjectively and dogmatically resisiting classifying them as myth, insisting they are history, fearing that accepting that they are properly classified as "myth" will taint them with the label of "untruth". As I've said, by "myth" I do not mean "untrue". Your refusal is not at all surprising from one who thinks the Gospels must be accepted as literally true to be meaningful. Does that truly describe you? You indicated above that perhaps it does not.

I'll repeat the concise definition of myth:

1. myth -- a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people

The Gospels are traditional stories accepted as history (which you seem to do, along with other Biblical literalists) which serve to explain the world view of a people, namely Christians. Disregarding all my other arguments, that definition alone is sufficient to justify correctly labeling the Gospels as myth. If you disagree with this, please explain why.

Mageth

BTW, you didn't answer my questions about the Native American myth I posted above.

Cross Examiner

Mageth,
I hate doing this to you since you've apparently spent a lot of time and effort chasing the red herring, and I do like you and appreciate your comments but we're continually talking past each other. So, let's cut to the chase. Please note that I am not saying the NT is 'myth' or not, a priori, you are ... based upon your own method. Now, there are established rules of textual criticism to which academia adheres. If your method is academic, then you will be able to show us a list of historians (i.e. not mythicists) who also espouse your method for categorizing the Gospels as 'myth'; please provide supporting citations. I thank you for your cooperation.

Regards,
BGic

Arken

I'm glad Mel specified that it's the Passion of THE Christ. Otherwise we might have all thought it was about Bob Christ or Phil Christ.

Cross Examiner

Arken,
Not really. What with Bob and Phil running about Mel's use of the definite article 'The' in 'The Christ' doesn't tell us to which he actually refers /predantic prattle.

Regards,
BGic

Mageth

If all you're going to do is to continue to attack my methods rather than to actually address my justification and conclusions, including pointing out the actual faults in my method (beyond the continued assertion that it is "subjective", which you have failed to prove, and that it is not the "typical" method used by "classical respected historians", of which I am not one, obviously, so expecting me to use their methods is uncalled for) and giving counterarguments to my justifications for my coclusion that the Gospels are properly considered myths (which you have failed to do, though you've been asked to do so repeatedly), then I reckon we are done here.

You're basically relying on an argument from authority (of "classical respected historians") - I am not using their methods, I cannot illustrate that any of them use my method, therefore my method is "subjective" and apparently invalid. You also appear to have some prejudice against "mythologists", though I would note that Mythologists are historians, many of them quite respected, and many of which use the "typical" methods you are so keen on. Further, your argument amounts to "poisoning the well" by simply trying to discredit my methods rather than to address my arguments and conclusions.

If you're really interested in some of my sources, I'll refer you to Spong's Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, all of Elaine Pagels' books, and, of course, Joseph Campbell (particularly Thou Art That).

From the literal interpretation side, please note that I was a Christian for the first 45 years of my life, have read the Bible and commentaries on the Bible, and have been lurking or posting on this site for the last three years, and thus have been well-exposed to the arguments for the literal Jesus. BTW, I have at least one of Josh McDowell's books at home which I have yet to read, as well as other books that make "the case for Christ".

And as far as how historians (and others) have recently approached the gospels, perhaps you can look into The Jesus Seminar:

http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/

They offer a number of books, some of which I wouldn't mind reading. And I'm pretty sure their conclusion quite handily places much of the Gospel in the category of "mythical", though they may or may not use that word for it.

And here's a good article that echoes many of the points I'm trying to make on this thread, and corresponds closely to Spong in Resurrection:

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Perio...tradition.html

A quote from the article (emphasis mine):

And here's a site that describes the Jesus Seminar:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm

From the site, note that many of their "assumptions" echo some of my ten points above, and others of their "assumptions" I would add to my list (I qualify these as "assumptions" because many are not merely assumptions):


BTW, I'm serious about wanting some information or recommeded readings on the "typical" methods that "classical respected historians" use. I want to learn what I do use and what I don't. I'm always keen on improving my method, if it needs improving.

Cross Examiner

Mageth,
No. I am within my rights to insist you use methods actually recognized by classical historians for classifying the Gospels as 'myth' before I accept this categorization as the 'fact' you pretend it to be.
If you are not an expert, and you admit that you are not, then you need expert testimony to establish that your assertions are anything more than another random atheist opinion.
I am already familiar with Crossan et al. Unfortunately, the Jesus Seminar has a real blackeye in the academic community for, among other reasons, using colored beads to 'vote' on which of the sayings of Christ they feel are His or not and averaging the results out. You can see why someone like myself wouldn't run to the bookstore, especially when we have better, more honest/academic options in Wright, Witherington, Habermas etc. I notice you didn't bring a list like I asked. That's too bad.

Regards,
BGic