Toto

Not all apologetic literature is the same. Since Plato was concerned with philosophy, not with basing a church on the doctrines of a historical Socrates, we would not expect him to shape his arguments towards proving historicity. Christian apologists were defending a church that had established a doctrine based on particular events in history. A bias is more likely in that case.

Jeffrey Gibson

Don't know very much about Plato, do you, or his experiments on Syracuse with establishing a just society.

May I ask what the extent of your acquantaince with scholarship on Plato and his aims is?

Is this what scholars of Plato think with respect to The Apology?

In any case, Plato was concerned with finding (and employing a method by which one could come to know) the truth so that people could live justly and with establishing a school that would produce philosopher kings.

Is that what the gospel authors were doing?

Jeffrey

Toto

OK, Plato was concerned with philosophical issues, broadly defined. Is that acceptable? I have no particular expertise in Plato, only a liberal arts undergraduate education, some years ago. I am pretty sure that there was no church that required its adherents to recite a pledge claiming that they believed in the historical Socrates.

But there are a lot of academics who post course material on the web, and even a casual search indicates that the problem of the historical Socrates is not so simple.I think that is what aLuke in particular was doing.

Jeffrey Gibson

Let me say this again in the hope that it may finally sink in.

I am not interested in, nor am I dealing with, the problem of the historical Socrates.

I am asking if it is true -- and if it is regard so by Classicists and by professional historians (many of whom are classicists) -- that by virtue of its genre and its intent, apologetic literature is, as A what's his name claims, worthless as evidence for the historicity, let alone for reconstructing the life, teaching, and "ministry", of the figure whose teaching, actions, reputation, and ministry it is intent to defend, whomever that figure may be.

Jeffrey

Toto

Are you claiming that anything labeled "apology" is apologetic literature as understood in this discussion? That may be the problem.

"Christian apologetics" is a genre unto itself. While the term does derive from the Greek apologia, meaning a defense, I don't think that the Apology of Plato belongs in the same category.

aa5874's point in dismissing apologetic literature is that Christians have been known to repeat falsehoods in the service of their church. That may or may not be fair, but that is the claim. There may be some scholars who claim to derive historical data from other Greek works with Apology in their title, but that does not explain why Christian apologetic literature should be treated as reliable.

At this point, dragging Socrates or Plato into this discussion is off topic. In fact, I think this whole thread has become unproductive.

If you, Jeffrey Gibson, think that you can derive some sort of reliable historical data from Christian literature, please start a new topic and explain your position.

Jeffrey Gibson

If you are speaking of crap like Josh McDowell produces, yes -- at least to some degree.

But I'm not. I'm speaking of early Christian writings reconized early as, and intended by their authors to Apologia in the classical understanding of that genre, including, as does A what's his name, the Gospels.

And are you really saying that such examples of early Christian Apologia as those of Luke, Justin, Tertullian, Aristides, and Quadratus of Athens's are not cut from the same literary/generic/functional/rhetorical cloth as the Apology of Plato and that of Xenophon? Would any classical scholar/ancient historian agree with you? Heck, does Wiki?

May I ask what you've read with respect to what the genre of Apologia was?

Doesn't belong in the same category as what? As the category of ancient and classical Apologia of which those of the Gospel authors, Justin, etc. are a part??? Could you find me a single classical scholar (or ancient commentator on Plato's and Xenophon's Apologies from Aristotle onward) who would agree with you in your assessment of what these works of Plato and Xenophon were?


No, it's not (and your assessment of what he is claiming stands right up thee with you assessment that Peter was only floationg ideas about Eusebius that he didn't really believe were true). He thinks the Gospels are apologetic literature and as such are worthless as evidence for the historicity of Jesus and/or the reconstruction of his teaching.

Good grief. Why do you think these works haveApologia in their title if they weren't actual apologia???? When and by whom and why do you think these titles were given to the works in question?

But more importantly, the issue isn't whether "some (or any) scholars have claimed to derive data from ancient Apologies.

It's (a) whether any classical scholar/professional historian thinks that that by virtue of their genre, their function, and their intent, apologies are worthless as evidence for the historicity, and as sources for the life, and teaching, and "ministry", of the figure whose teaching, actions, reputation, and ministry they are intent to defend and (b) if not, why not.

Is there some reason why you can't keep this straight?

Jeffrey

Toto

Hi Jeffrey: you are trying to establish some abstract question that scholars in theory do not treat classical works with apologia in the title as worthless for historical purposes.

Fine. That's true.

It's also irrelevant to this thread. This thread is about whether Christian writings are worthless for historical purposes.

In this context, the word apologetic is used derisively to refer to spin-doctored propaganda written by unreliable sources, including the gospels. Some of them may be of a higher literary quality than Josh McDowell, but it remains to be established that they are any more reliable.

Do you have any comment on this point?

mountainman

Yes, what is your position on christian origins Jeffrey? The history I mean and not the rhetoric. I for one would be interested to read how you might summarise your own opinions for a change. Who knows, they might even be interesting.

Best wishes


Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

I said noting about works with apologia in the title. I have been speaking of ancient works of the genre Apologia and wondering why it is that the judgment that A what's his name has made with respect to the worthlessness of works of this genre as evidence for the historicity of the figure that they speak of, and as a source for reconstructing that figure's teaching and ministry, is not shared by any classicist or professional historian.

It's hardly an abstract point.

Umm, how you think what I've said is irrelevant to this thread, or that I've not been dealing with this very topic, is beyond me, especially since what I've been doing is to ask whether the criterion that is being used to conclude that Christian writings are worthless "for historical purposes"-- i.e. that if something it is apologetic in nature and/or written by someone with a bias, then it is useless in this regard - is sound, let alone accepted and employed by professional historians.

I'm not sure that propaganda (let alone any other form of literature) can be written "by sources", unreliable or not.

But even if so, and even if "spin-doctored propaganda written by unreliable sources" is how the term "apologetic" is being used in this context, let alone by Awhat's his name (is this really so?), then you are committing yourself to two things:

(a) to the application of this definition to any work -- including the Apology of Plato and that of Xenophon -- of the genre Apologia, because spin doctoring on the part of authors with a particular and strongly held bias is exactly what lies at the heart, and is the express and intended function, of Apologia, and also

(b) to the view that we can know next to nothing about the trial of Socrates, not to mention whether or not he actually was tried, because our only sources for our "knowledge", and any claims about the historicity, of the trial as well as what it was about, and what went on within it (assuming it did take place), are "spin doctored" pieces of propaganda written by very biased (and therefore "unreliable") people.

To think otherwise is to be guilty of a double standard.

Other than that you have been continuously misrepresenting and/or not grasping what I've been saying, or the importance of what I've been saying for seeing whether Awhat's his name's assertions about what can be concluded about Jesus from the Gospels has any merit? See above.

Jeffrey

Toto

Are you sure that there are no classicists or professional historians who agree with him? Not all classicsts think that they can recover the historical Socrates with any degree of certainty.

But aa5874's claim is not about apologia in general. It is about apologia written by Christians.

I'm sure that professional historians could find some more nuanced criteria for their methods of evaluating questionable sources.

I don't think so. Spin doctoring goes well beyond mere arguments, or biased arguments.

Oh, horrors, the old double standard charge. Is that the best you can do?

I frankly do not see how any classicist or professional historian can claim to know much if anything about the trial of Socrates. It appears to be a literary creation, not a trial transcript. I notice that some classicsts share this opinion, and that it doesn't seem to make much difference.

So I don't think I am guilty of a double standard.

But I also don't think that you have added anything to the discussion with this digression. Can you provide some reason for aa5874 to trust the Christian sources that claim that Jesus and his disciples are historical figures?