Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 12-19-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

I guess I needed to say that. If it was written in crayons and on printed notepaper with flowers on it then no. But what if it clearly was very old that indicated it might be from the time of known pirates who once landed at that spot, and/or Pirate Pete was known in those parts?

Hi, John.

I think you will find most of your disagreement with the mythicists and Jesus agnostics on this board will come at that initial point of deciding how much the text is worth. Most here have no problem treating various ancient historians in exactly the way you seem to be taking the gospels. I have seen Josephus (except the Testimonium and the James reference), Tacitus (except the passage about the fire), Suetonius (except the part about Christians), and Plutarch taken at their word here very frequently, with little or no confirming evidence from outside, simply because nothing cast doubt on whatever the historian was saying. Few here, however, treat the gospels in such a trusting way. They may view the historians as old maps found in places once frequented by pirates, but they view the gospels as crayon sketches on stationary, as it were.

I am neither confirming nor denying here that this picture of the gospels is correct. But, if you are treating the gospels as biographies or histories with legendary accretions while your debating partners are treating them as pure legends with only coincidental attachments to history, that goes a long way toward explaining your disagreements. You are disagreeing, in effect, over the genre of the gospels.

Ben.

Ben, just like the Clement discussion, you are once again correct.

aa5874 · 12-19-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

[ You are disagreeing, in effect, over the genre of the gospels.

Ben.

No, not really. The disagrement is actually with the OP, that textual evidence is prima facie true unless disconfirmed. No-one has mentioned "genre" yet.

In effect, Homer's Achilles is true or any other text, unless disconfirmed, the genre is irrelevant.

spamandham · 12-19-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Most here have no problem treating various ancient historians in exactly the way you seem to be taking the gospels. I have seen Josephus (except the Testimonium and the James reference), Tacitus (except the passage about the fire), Suetonius (except the part about Christians), and Plutarch taken at their word here very frequently,

Josephus says it. I believe it. That's that.

I think you're giving the skeptics short shrift. It isn't that Josephus et. al. is blindly accepted, it's that those writings here are generally only part of peripheral issues, and not worth dissecting too much.

Is the story of the crazy Jesus in Josephus actual history? Highly doubtful. Is the story of the canibal mother actual history? Of course not. Is the story of the flying chariots history? No. To me, Josephus is about as credible as the National Enquirer.

If you used the National Enquirer to try to prove Jesus was real, I would attack that specific argument rather than delve into a tretise about how the whole thing is junk journalism. But even the National Enquirer doesn't go as far as claiming Napolean is the current President. Some aspects of it are historically useful.

aa5874 · 12-19-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Most here have no problem treating various ancient historians in exactly the way you seem to be taking the gospels. I have seen Josephus (except the Testimonium and the James reference), Tacitus (except the passage about the fire), Suetonius (except the part about Christians), and Plutarch taken at their word here very frequently,

Josephus says it. I believe it. That's that.

I think you're giving the skeptics short shrift. It isn't that Josephus et. al. is blindly accepted, it's that those writings here are generally only part of peripheral issues, and not worth dissecting too much.

Is the story of the crazy Jesus in Josephus actual history? Highly doubtful. Is the story of the canibal mother actual history? Of course not. Is the story of the flying chariots history? No. To me, Josephus is about as credible as the National Enquirer.

If you used the National Enquirer to try to prove Jesus was real, I would attack that specific argument rather than delve into a tretise about how the whole thing is junk journalism. But even the National Enquirer doesn't go as far as claiming Napolean is the current President. Some aspects of it are historically useful.

Now, if we say textual evidence is prima facie true until disconfirmed, the crazy Jesus, the cannibal Mary and the flying chariots must be accepted as true by John Loftus.

spamandham · 12-19-2008, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, if we say textual evidence is prima facie true until disconfirmed, the crazy Jesus, the cannibal Mary and the flying chariots must be accepted as true by John Loftus.

Right. It's nice to find a point of agreement with you on rare occasions such as this.

sdelsolray · 12-19-2008, 11:14 PM

It is, or should be, a matter of degree, and subject to the discriminating view of the reader. For example, hearsay is hearsay, regardless of whether it is spoken or written. Any written text which is hearsay is, on average, less reliable than text written by the actual witness. Similarly, textual material which has independent verification from another source is inherently more reliable. As another example, text which contains curious or stupendous claims (e.g., talking donkeys) will be met with more skepticism than text that contains common understanding (e.g., recipe for bread).

There is not hard and fast rule.

aa5874 · 12-20-2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, if we say textual evidence is prima facie true until disconfirmed, the crazy Jesus, the cannibal Mary and the flying chariots must be accepted as true by John Loftus.

Right. It's nice to find a point of agreement with you on rare occasions such as this.

You only think it is nice to agree with you? You only want people to be nice to you?

renassault · 12-20-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

I have to admit that I have been following the "debate" (if you can call it that), and I honestly don't understand Loftus' position. At best, I can see that many things we find in historical documents are tentative, and unless confirmed or supported by other sources remain tentative. We can't say with certainty many things that are commonly considered historical, but as with everything they are subject to revision.

In regards to the historical Yeshua argument, I can't see much evidence for one, even if the mythicist position still has a lot to prove as well. I am skeptical that a man is at the root of the myth, but it is possible. It is also possible that Asclepius was once a man, but, like HJ, we have no evidence for that, except to say that a man could have been at the heart of the myths. Do we accept the idea of Loftus that these documents constitute evidence for a human Asclepius (an HA maybe?)?

Actually yes, in Homer Asclepius is a mortal and he and his sons are physicians in the Greek army, but that is I think an exception. That's where the myth came from. But there would be mythical figures that don't have any basis in reality, but they certainly didn't have the same kind of tradition and texts that Christianity did in the 1st century.

The Dagda · 12-20-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedistillers QUOTING JOHN LOFTUS

You simply cannot be serious. Be consistent then with all textual evidence and see where that gets you. Become a historian and then you'll know why they treat textual evidence as prima facie true unless discomfirmed. THEY MUST DO THIS! THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE!

No most decent historians try to extract context from material evidence as well as bias. So that is only true if you only have one text. Then you don't assume it is true, only that it is the only source. However theologians of the more devout kind can be guilty of bias themselves, but so can anyone.

I would like to ask though just how seriously historians take Herodotus: Histories, and how seriously they take The Bible. Because there seems to be a double standard in some interpretations, ok The Bible is many books but even so.

Zaphod · 12-21-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The original definition cannot be accepted because of the known evidence of the existence of forged documents.

Exactly. I would think that the inquiry into the origins of Christianity would qualify as a special case deserving much more skepticism than the usual historical analysis.

Is there any other historical topic so confounded by such an unhappy intersection of revisionism, contradictory documents, forgery, active destruction of sources, time scale and ahistorical apologia?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-19-2008, 11:14 PM	#36
sdelsolray Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 890	It is, or should be, a matter of degree, and subject to the discriminating view of the reader. For example, hearsay is hearsay, regardless of whether it is spoken or written. Any written text which is hearsay is, on average, less reliable than text written by the actual witness. Similarly, textual material which has independent verification from another source is inherently more reliable. As another example, text which contains curious or stupendous claims (e.g., talking donkeys) will be met with more skepticism than text that contains common understanding (e.g., recipe for bread). There is not hard and fast rule.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.