spin

Just as a personal aside, I think that archaeology can support the historical veracity of a document, when what is discovered by the archaeologist relates to substantive content in the document. The story in Josephus about the siege of Masada was not given much credence until the traces of Roman camps were found around the base of the rock. Archaeology has done much to validate much of the narrative of Josephus with indications that support the events narrated.

However, although there are lots of real context in the Robin Hood narratives -- numerous locations and historical people --, how does one validate any of the events narrated?

There are qualitative differences between narratives as to what can be demonstrated. Events that don't leave an impact on the context provided by the narrative don't get much, if any, tangible support from external validation of context. Although Trimalchio's feast is reported to have taken place in Puteoli near Naples, there's no way that the report can be validated.

Events that are central to the narrative and that do leave an impact get validation when that impact is shown from studies such as archaeology. (We keep the baby, not the bathwater.)


spin

ercatli

Thanks Doug, I appreciate what you have said here. But if you check back through this discussion you'll find it is I who has been arguing for following the consensus of scholars, and others who have argued either to not trust any of them or to trust only the extremely sceptical ones.

I have outlined my approach here, but I will summarise.

1. I have a two stage approach. First, I base my understanding on the consensus of scholarship. Then second I build my personal beliefs on that base.

2. I find that some scholars (e.g. Craig Blomberg and the other scholars Lee Strobel quotes) work from christian assumptions or using a non-neutral historical method. I think that is valid once a person has formed their belief, but not before. I don't read many of them and I don't quote them here. Likewise, I find some scholars (e.g. Robert Price, the Jesus Seminar) work from sceptical assumptions or using a non-neutral historical method. I think that is less valid once a person has formed their belief, because it subtracts from the scholarly consensus (whereas the first case adds to it). I don't read many of them and I don't generally quote them here.

3. In between are the scholars who specifically put their beliefs and assumptions aside and use a neutral approach. They are the ones I use in assessing the historical evidence - I prefer general historians for their overview, but prefer specialised NT scholars for their expertise. And I try to find the ones most respected by their peers. I have listed in the reference post the ones I have found most meet these criteria.

4. I find these scholars produce a "lowest common denominator" of historical facts about Jesus, and while there are differences, there are enough commonalities to make general statements as I do. I have listed these here, based on lists in Grant (an unbeliever), Wright (a believer) and Sanders (neutral).

5. Having established these matters using the best history available, I then consider all the matters on which historians cannot make definite judgments, and the matter of my response to the historical Jesus. I conclude that there is enough there to justify belief in Jesus, and enough to justify my believing the remaining portions of the gospels on faith. Few people have asked me about this step, so I have made few statements about my faith. If I did, in this context, I try to make it clear what is historical and what is my belief.

So that is my basis. I hope you can see that I do not base my historical conclusions on biased christian scholars, in fact I generally don't even read them. I think the evidence of this discussion is that more often the boot is on the other foot.

Thanks again and best wishes.

Johnny Skeptic

What historical evidence do you have that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb?

ercatli

Hi again gurugeorge,

Thanks for a reasonable and friendly post. I think we are at the stage where most of what I would say in response to it would be repeating what I have said already, so if you don't mind I won't do that, and will just give brief response (it still adds up to a longish post!).

I can only repeat that in the historical Jesus and the Gospels generally I've seen enough to believe that he's not going to turn into a purple monster, but is in fact trustworthy.

There are times when our rationality tells us we are beyond what it can deliver on its own. Falling in love, escaping from a burning building, believing in Jesus (or not) all seem like that to me. It's not rationality for a while, then the abyss, but both rationality and belief working together.

But people can only say that by disregarding or discounting what the best experts tell us. I can understand that but I cannot do it.

The experts say it can readily be distinguished. But of course there are no guarantees - for me, or for the strongest Jesus myther, or for an agnostic like you. We each decide on the basis of the facts what we will believe.

I don't agree, but I've said all that before.

The supernatural bits aren't discarded to get to the human being, they are just put to one side or considered in a slightly different way. But you've got it - it's a leap of faith to go from the historical to the "real" Jesus. But the main disagreement in this discussion hasn't been that leap, but the historical "facts".

You seem to be ignoring that the "quest for the historical Jesus" has been going on for a couple of centuries, and thousands of scholars have written thousands of papers and books on it. It began precisely because scholars wanted to apply the same historical methods to the NT as were applied elsewhere, instead of writing pious platitude. It has used quite well worked out methods, although of course they can't provide proof, just a gradually emerging balance of probabilities. For example, oral tradition is not gimcrackery, but has quite clearly worked out forms that can be traced. And there is pretty strong agreement about dates, authorship, purpose, etc, it's just that we can't name a single person as author, but a community as compiler.

I really think the "problem" isn't that the work hasn't been done but that some people haven't read it, and others have read it but don't like the results. I think some of it is too speculative myself, but I see no alternative but to accept the result as a starting point. (I think without the speculation, more would be able to be trusted.)

I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. Many, many scholars have raised such questions, and others have answered them. Read the literature! But please don't join others in repeating wrong statements.

Thanks again, and best wishes.

ercatli

Amaleq, I am tired of your twisting what I say to something I didn't say, and of your accusing me of things I haven't done but you apparently have.

You accuse me of not having evidence of archaeology beyond the "7 pools", because you appear not have read the source I quoted, which contained 20 cases. But still you say there is no evidence, even though it is there in the reference that you apparently didn't read.

Then when I re-state that I haven't read the entire book, just the papers in question, you hastily generalise to accuse me of not having read any authors. When in fact I have, and have listed them and quoted from them.

There are other people here who don't behave as you do, so I will spend my time with them. I am sorry you've taken such an adversarial and untruthful approach. Best wishes.

ercatli

That is your unsupported assertion. The consensus of scholars says otherwise, and no amount of denigrating them will change that.

I was simply answering the charge that all the scholar are christians. I showed they were not.

RL Fox, M Grant, E Sanders and many others all disagree. In fact a recent survey showed that 75% of scholars believe the empty tomb is historical. Asserting otherwise doesn't chnage that.

That is a good question. Maybe you should read them and find out!

On the contrary, I have several times outlined the reasons behind my decisions - for example here.

Well Toto, I think this discussion has degenerated to the point where it is neither pleasant not fruitful. Unless you object, I think we can cease, is that OK?

ercatli

So far we are agreed. ><

Bad logic. Correct logic would be: Science cannot tell us whether the supernatural exists or not unless it can be observed scientifically.

You are, I think you said, a physicist. There are two reasons why I think these statements are in error, I wonder what you think.

1. I wonder have you heard of qualia, the philosophical idea that there is more to pain or colour than what neuroscience can observe in our brain functions. There is also the experience of what this pain feels like to me, what this colour looks like to me. But those things appear to be real, in fact the pain appears to be more real than the neurochemistry. They can be experienced, but not observed externally, yet they manifestly affect our world.

2, For these and other reasons, particle physicist John Polkinghorne said: "... science describes only one dimension of the many layered reality within which we live, restricting itself to the impersonal and general, and bracketing out the personal and unique."

I think your views of science either make assumptions you cannot demonstrate or do not cover all the facts. What do you say?

ercatli

Hi Tharn, how are you going?

Actually I didn't say "dead bodies don't come back to life", for obviously they normally don't. What I challenged someone to prove from science is that they can't come back to life, e.g. if a God should do that miracle.

Can you prove they can't?

ercatli

I've never read GWTW, or seen the movie, or read much about it, so I really am ignorant of it. But I imagine I would know it is fiction because it is in the library under fiction, no-one has ever thought it was anything else (I imagine) and it makes no claims to be "real".

But you tell me. And while you're at it, you may explain were you are going with this because it also is a mystery to me. Thanks.

Toto

The "agreed upon facts" goes back to Gary Habermas of Biola University's program in Apologetics, not a scholarly source.

But some of the scholars you listed did not go along with your consensus.

That was not recent, and not a scientific survey. It is Gary Habermas' compilation (he does not put it on line.) It is a bogus attempt to avoid the lack of evidence for an empty tomb but substituting the idea that some educated people believe it, so it could be true.

I have in fact read them, so I know that the assumption of an empty tomb is based on invalid inferences and wishful thinking.

This has never been pleasant or fruitful. Your tactic here has been to put on a smiley face and post propaganda for your point of view, and refuse to engage in real discussion. I'm sure you would like to be allowed to do this without hindrance, as if your view is entitled to some sort of respect.