Gamera

I think this makes my point. Most of us think Tacitus wasn't fabricating narratives entirely. But rather, he got stuff wrong.

Therefore, pointing out that the gospel writers got stuff wrong doesn't imply that they were fabricating narratives entirely.

You seem to have concluded ab initio that the gospel writers aren't writing history, and then conclude that therefore since the got stuff wrong, they weren't writing history.

Needless to say, there is a double standard here.

Gamera

Nonhistorians use all kinds of crazy terminology to discuss the past. Most modern historians realize that historiography is the production of narratives, which have their own rules that are unrelated to the concept of accuracy.

What does it mean for a story, that involves a million decisions of what to put in, what to leave out, and in what order, to be "accurate." Most historians are more interested nowadays in the social usage of historical discourse, and not in its putative relationship to events that we only know about because of the texts themselves.

spin

You seem to assume that the gospels writers wrote history ab initio. I work from the notion that nothing is sacrosanct ab initio. Yes, there's a double standard. You refuse to do the work that will place the bulk of the gospel material into the realm of history. Instead, you attempt to reduce any other text, any other figure than you leading character, to the same level of non-historicity, imply that "unless you accept my guy I won't accept any of your guys. So there."


spin

Gamera

Au contraire. Comparing the gospels with other "historical" texts leads me to conclude, without making any assumptions, that they were intended as biographies of Jesus and that they probably got most of the stuff right, with paraphrases, and some garbled historical references. No unbiased person would categorize the gospels with the genre of fictive literature of the time.

The theological claims are of course not subject to empirical support one way or another.

The Jesus movement clearly was an event grounded in the existence of a man who clearly made certain claims that propelled the religion of Christianity forward. The claims purportedly made by the Jesus characterized in the gospels are consistent with that historical tragectory.

Sven

Of course we also know a lot of history due to artifacts, not only due to writings.
[edited to snip some statements which will get us nowhere]

Jobar

What DID the early Christians believe?
From Apollo to Christ
2nd century apologists

I suppose none of that can be counted as "unbiased" since it contradicts your opinion?

Gamera

Texts convey meaning: what somebody thought happened. Artifacts don't. They are subject to interpretation, but not being discourse they can never tell us what somebody thought happened. They are merely evidence of the material culture of the time. That may be relevant to some historical questions, but usually not historicity.

If you are refering to artifacts which include texts, like coins, that's a different matter.

Gamera

I don't think your citations are unbiased in any possible sense, if that's what you mean. Their agenda is obvious.

Sven

Sorry, I don't get the difference between historical questions and historicity. Isn't the question if something is historical accurate an historical question?

Koyaanisqatsi

And why would that be? Because the authors did not begin their stories with "Once upon a time...?" Neither does Stephen King, or Dostoyesvksi or many of the "fictive" authors of the time.

These are biased accounts; they are, at best, written by cult members about their cult mythologies. Not only are they fictional in the sense that they recount conversations the authors could not possibly have been around to dictate, but the second anyone writes about a dead god resurrecting from the grave or healing the blind, or "miraculously" turning water into wine, etc., is the second they are ipso facto writing mythology, no matter how strongly their claims may be that they are not as you point out, if indirectly:

Which is a convenient end run, yes? You attempt to claim the documents are written as if they were historically accurate (i.e., by unbiased, indifferent recorders of facts) and then say, basically, the claims of divinity are can't be proved one way or another.

But this is simply disengenuous as there is no way one can consider the recounting of a conversation with Satan, for example, in the desert to be historically accurate reportage; or the personal "discussion" Jesus has with God, where he throws himself to the ground and asks that his burden be taken from him, etc.

At best, these are myths; fictionalized imaginings from later, biased authors, pure and simple and cannot be considered anything other.

Beyond what Jobar posted, no. If anything, the only thing that "propelled the religion" of Christianity forward, it was the cult leaders (like Paul) and members themselves (in particular, Constantine).

Meaningless, untenuous apologetic nonsense. At best, they are cult myths about cult leaders written by cult members.