ercatli

1. "theologians first"? Initial degree is not necessarily a good indication of a person's research and publications - acceptance by peers is probably more important.
2. Most NT scholars I have read bend over backwards to avoid allowing any faith to bias their findings. They are stricter or more sceptical than historians generally, according to some non-NT historians (e.g. Grant & I think Fox).
3. If believers are assumed to be biased, unbelievers should also be assumed to be biased. Where does that get us?

No, I understand logic and that is not what I am doing. Consider this case:

1. I believe document X is truthful.
2. I find evidence that X makes a mistake about A.
3. I conclude X is less truthful than before.
4. I find further evidence that shows that X was not mistaken about A.
5. This therefore returns the situation to where it was in 1.
6. Thus finding confirmation of A assisted in improving my assessment of the truthfulness of X.
7. If 1-3 had not occurred, 4-6 would still be valid. QED.

You say "Simply finding an accurate geographical setting means nothing about the historicity of the narrative", but that is not what I am saying. Let me say again, the experts say there is an early source in John. That must change our assessment of John because John was previously considered to be later.

So I find your comments here missing the point, I'm sorry.

Before I respond further on provenance, I'm going to have to ask you a question to make sure I understand what you're getting at. I understand provenance to relate to being able to trace authenticity and transmission from original to copy in hand. This includes looking at number of extant copies, textual variations, length of time between original and copy, etc.

Is this what you mean? If so, how would you compare the provenance of the gospels with other documents of similar age?

Thanks.

Doug Shaver

Why?

aa5874

But, 1-3 HAS occurred. You have point 2 which contradicts point 4. Your are only left with belief. And, in your scenario, belief and unbelief may have the same validity. QED.

Now, what evidence have you found to show that your belief is a MISTAKE?


Do ALL experts agree that gJohn is an early source? And what is the corroborative source for an early gJohn?

Trying to "appeal to authority" to cover massive holes in your belief is simple not working

Amaleq13

The experts says canonical John is late and the product of multiple hands but some specific claims appear to have a basis in an early source.

John is still considered late in its present form despite evidence that certain portions appear to have an early source.

Pretending otherwise is disingenuous, at best.

ercatli

G'day gurugeorge,

I think we have reached the crux of two differences between us. Which is progress in understanding, even if not progress in agreeing.

I think you are confusing rationality and historicity. If we take a quite different example to illustrate ..... If I fall in love with a woman, I will be able to assess some aspects of her and our relationship by rationally considering factual evidence, but there will not be enough certainty there to base a decision to enter into (hopefully) life-long marriage. My relationship will be more than rational and evidence-based - and it would be a pretty dead one if it wasn't. But it doesn't make my decision to ask her to marry me irrational - my rationality takes me so far, and then tells me it isn't unreasonable to trust my feelings from then on.

It is very similar to that for me with belief in Jesus. I start with historicity, which is based on evidence and rationality. You and others disagree with me about my assessment of that evidence, but I hope you can understand that is an honest conclusion, based on good scholarship. But that historical analysis can only lead to an assessment of Jesus as a historical human being who did and said certain things, who was executed, and whose followers were convinced from the beginning that he had been resurrected, and to an assessment of the gospels as written by honest people telling the truth in their own way (sometimes using figurative language and theological reflection, not just plain narrative as we know it today). So far, an atheist or agnostic, Muslim or Jew could come to the same conclusions, and some do.

But then, I am confronted with a choice, similar to deciding if I will ask the girl to marry me. Do I believe in the figure described in the gospels? Do I think his claims (which historians can conclude were made) were actually true (which historians cannot assess)? Ditto the miracles, especially the resurrection.

I haven't spent much time on this thread discussing this step, because most people commenting chose to pursue the historical vs mythical Jesus question, but the process is just as rational, just unable to be established clearly by historical evidence. But I make the judgment that the historical human Jesus of the historians was also the divine miraculous Jesus, just as others make the judgment that he was not.

This isn't anything unusual to me. In the "Cambridge Companion to Jesus" (2001) edited by M Bockmuehl, there is a very interesting chapter by F Watson of the University of Aberdeen, "The Quest for the Real Jesus", which discusses how a believing historian may separately consider and accept both the historical and the faith elements of the Jesus story. I think it is well worth reading, and throws some light on what I have been trying to explain here.

So I don't believe there is any circularity just the making of a judgment based on evidence and rationality, but going beyond what rationality can demonstrate. But all positions do that I suggest, except for total agnosticism.

So here we can identify where we part on one point. You seem unable to understand or accept as rational the process I have gone through, whereas I feel quite comfortable with it.

It still comes down to saying that thousands of scholars are hopelessly mistaken, even ignorant, while believing that a very few scholars and amateurs can somehow be trusted to have got it right without any of their own bias. And believing arguments that are terribly attenuated and full of speculation and unprovable lines of argument rather than the plain meaning of documents. And believing that, 2000 years after the event, the speculations of a few people from another language and culture are somehow more believable than all the mainstream scholars and all the early writers and commentators.

So, here is another place where we diverge - you are willing to trust the highly speculative arguments of the small minority whereas I find them too incredible, especially in the light of what the mainstream scholars conclude. This not something either of us can prove to each other, it is a judgment, but I feel happy that the bulk of the evidence is on "my side".

Smoke and mirrors is an evocative term, but not really fair. It used to be that scholars didn't "waste" any time refuting the mythicist position because virtually no-one believed it. But now that it has gained some popularity, people are beginning to argue against it. For example, I don't like JP Holding, but the book he edited, "Shattering the Christ Myth" is apparently based on good historical analysis - and I got that opinion from an atheist historian who thinks the mythicist position is not just bad history but bad strategy. But when you look at how the book is received on atheist internet sites, you'll find the same "smoke and mirrors" dismissal by the unbelievers!

And note that Grant was a non-believer writing for a general rather than academic audience. So naturally he omitted what he thought was not important. So the book gives his conclusion as an experienced historian, but doesn't try to give his reasons in any detail. You and others can dismiss his conclusion if you choose, but it just reinforces the impression that in the end, you are interested in a conclusion, not in the evidence and the best scholarship. Perhaps that's unfair (and I'm sorry of it is), but it's the strong impression given.

So, to sum up, you prefer the speculation of a minority of scholars to the conclusions of the mainstream, and you are unwilling to use judgment to build on the historical evidence anyway. Two reasons why we disagree. Not much prospect of agreeing or convincing either way, would you say?

Thanks for the discussion. You have been thoughtful and courteous, and as a result I feel I understand your position better, even if I am, if anything, further from accepting it. Best wishes.

ercatli

G'day Neil. Here we go round the mulberry bush again!

I think you have overstated your case. Shouldn't you say rather "some ancients apparently did think it was a myth"? What actual texts do you know from the first or early second century that argued the myth case? My understanding is that even the enemies of christianity (both Jews & Romans) generally accepted that Jesus lived, they just denigrated him and/or argued that he was a criminal, a nobody, etc.

Again an overstatement. They and others obviously thought the beliefs about Jesus were superstitious, but they indicate he was a historical person.

A third overstatement. Experts examining the gospels tell us they look like biographies of real people, containing factual reporting plus interpretation and belief, not like myths, not at all like fiction. They tell us the gap between the events and the writing is too short for legends to develop. The examples you quote are very different to this.

It really is a desperate case, isn't it? Argue that the plain evidence, accepted almost 100% by Biblical scholars and classical historians alike, by believers and unbelievers alike, based on the existence of a number of good sources, is actually all wrong, then postulate a bunch of wild suppositions with even less evidence, dress them up by finding a way of rejecting what doesn't fit the latest speculative theory, and hope people don't know enough to refute it. Much easier, if you are really determined not to believe, is just to accept the historians' conclusions about the historicity of Jesus and then refuse to believe anything else. You're on credible historic ground, you can retain intellectual integrity, and yet you still don't have to believe anything. Much simpler, I reckon. But o course, we each have to decide for ourselves.

Best wishes.

ercatli

Hi Amaleq, welcome to the party!

This is an easy request. Where is the generalisation?

Agreed. But several true statements are better than several doubtful statements.

Not sure about that. Late? Yes. More than one source? Many say this. Author? Possibly the compilation by a community, so is this many authors or not? But the archaeology in question gives support to those who already found a significant early narrative source.

Strictly speaking a number is anything more than 1 or 2. There are about 20 locations unique to John, or with details unique to John. Like I said, I haven't read the book to know how many have been confirmed, but it's more than 1 or 2, enough for the scholars to draw the conclusions quoted.

Well that's a start! But since a number of scholars already held the view that the narrative portions of John were good historical sources, that view can now be held more strongly.

This is what the scholars concluded: "not only can any vestige of claims of sheer fictitiousness or symbolism be rejected once and for all, but also the value of the Johannine information for understanding various aspects of the ministry of Jesus can be seen more clearly"; "we are coming to see that the Gospel is indeed a mixture of early and late ..... The topographical references are entirely historical. Rather the Gospel represents a mixture of traditions some of which are quite accurate, detailed and historical, and others that are late, developed and anachronistic to the ministry"; "While much of John is theological, to claim that all of its content - or even most of it - must be ascribed to canons of ahistoricity and concoction is more than the authentically critical scholar will want to claim."

Seems to be a little more than you are saying. That is what I'm going by, and if my summary has been inaccurate at any point, trust the scholars!

Thanks.

youngalexander

The novel 'Gone with the Wind' used to be regarded as not historical.
But then archaeologists started to confirm some of the distinctive locations mentioned in GwtW - Atlanta, Georgia etc. This put a dent in the arguments against any historical content in GwtW, because unless the sources of GwtW dated back several decades at least, and hence much closer to the events, they could hardly have provided the descriptions that GwtW does.

ercatli mate, you cannot be serious? The Gospels place Jesus in a historical context. GwtW places Scarlett in a historical context. That archaeologists find physical data concerning those historical contexts is hardly remarkable. Does this provide one whit of info re the historicity of either Jesus or Scarlett? Now, such evidence may indeed exist, but it is quite seperate from that concerning the historical context. In fact, there is no archaeological evidence for either individual. Demonstrating that various aspects of 1st C Palestine or 19th C Georgia have been more or less accurately described in a work of fiction does not provide any evidence that the protagonist of the fiction existed.

Let us work our way thru this quote. Any vestiges of "claims of sheer fictitiousness or symbolism" should be rejected. These claims apply to what? That the life and times of Scarlett/Jesus never in fact occurred, or, that the historical context is false? Clearly it is the latter, then by implication the former. Thus apparently if we exonerate the context we also give credence to the protagonist. Yet demonstrating that the context has some genuine aspects says nothing about the character set in it. I am implying that you are conflating the protagonist and the context. Of course an accurate context will provide "information for understanding various aspects of the" life of Scarlett. Does this provide any evidence for a historic Scarlett/Jesus? It does not. Evidence of the historic Scarlett/Jesus must pertain to them specifically. Achaeologically, there is none.

In addition, this quote begs the question of the "minstry of Jesus" - the very point that we are investigating. A fictional character (Scarlett) has been placed in a historical context which has been rendered more or less well. In the case of Jesus, as many previous respondents have demonstrated, the historical rendering is rather less than more. In neither case do we have any evidence for historicity of the protagonist.

The point of my previous post was to differentiate between archaeology of the historical context (eg. 1st C Palestine) and Christian archaeology. There is a good deal of period archaeology. Christian archaeology, that is archaeology produced by Christians (which includes Jesus), does not exist prior to ~180 CE at the earliest. If you want to know why not then see here.

spin

Watson does little other than state beliefs. For example:

There was, no doubt, a first-century Jew of that name who came from Nazareth and was crucified in Jerusalem (p.156)

Why does Watson think this? Look for any evidence to support this pair of claims. Please cite what you find.

The first chapter of the book in a section called "the Jesus of history" was written by Craig Evans, who merely rehearses his beliefs, attempting in no way to present historical evidence for any of his substantive claims. James Carlton Paget ("Quests for the historical Jesus") talks about Papias, Tatian and Origen, all of whom are well after the time and provide us with no historical indications. The first admission of having nothing comes from Christopher Tuckett ("Sources and methods") who open states,

"The first general point to make is that our evidence for this 'historical' Jesus is almost exclusively literary." (p.121)

(See how much faith he has in any archaeology?) This is an admission of no substantive evidence at all, as the texts cannot be dated, provenanced or attributed. Perhaps out of somewhere in this book you can pull some evidence, but it certainly doesn't get up and knock you down. Do try. Find evidence in favor of a historical Jesus rather than what everyone in the book seems to be doing, ie assuming what needs to be demonstrated. Scour the work. I have it, so I can see what it says. Work its best punch. Shatter the glass jaw of the no-name skeptics. Somewhere in those seventeen essays there must be something useful, right?


spin

Solo

This 'allegory' pertains to the covenant Paul promises will be effected by the (now risen) Lord descending and the believers caught up in mid-air (1 Th 4:16-17). It has nothing to do with the place where Jesus faithfully served.


You are misreading the intent of this verse also, as it needs to be read against the one that follows: he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

He entered the Holy Place...where was he before ? (BTW, no parousia acc to Heb 9:12 !!!)


But this again refers to Christ's pre-existence (as in Phl 2:6-8), and affirms that the sacrifice was that of a divine being. This in no way contradicts his coming to earth as Jesus.

The blood would have been spilled on earth. This appears to have come from a reading of the Nazarenes of the vision of Zechariah 3 (cf Heb 3:1) where Jesus is cleansed of the iniquity he suffered on earth in heaven before being clothed there as high priest.

Jiri