gurugeorge

I don't see how it's the same with your belief in Jesus - you used the analogy to make it clear that it was your justification for believing the fantastic elements. If I've decided to marry a girl, that means that, amongst other things, I've seen enough to know that she's not going to turn into a purple monster or fly to the moon as soon as I marry her.

Sure, you can have both a foursquare rational set of beliefs, and some beliefs based on faith. But the faith-based bit isn't the rational bit, and vice-versa. Sometimes I play around with possibilities beyond the ken of science, I've investigated a few woo-woo things in my time, and I'm old enough and ugly enough to know that "the Universe [may be] not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose" (JBS Haldane). No worries on that score. But I don't imagine that I have any rational support for those ideas I play with. I occasionally play with them (imagine what it would be like if they were true) and I may occasionally play with suspending disbelief and pretending they're true (e.g. if I try, for example, a shamanistic sweat lodge experience at a festival or something). But they're not part of my belief system, which is stingy, extremely stingy, and based only on what has been shown to have support through clear thought and public experiments. I don't mix the two up - I know when I'm suspending disbelief and I know when I'm holding something to be true based on evidence and reason.

Well of course it's your analogy and you can use it how you like But from my point of view, we go back again to what most of the people here are telling you: 1) there's no compelling evidence in the Bible that there ever was a human Jesus, and 2) even if there were, we still can't be confident that anything written in the Bible represents anything he said.

1) because the Jesus myth as we have it is indistinguishable, in respect of its fantasticalness and mythical quality, from many other myths in the world, the elements of his biography are strongly analogous to other mythical elements in other myths, and the appearance of historical facts in a piece of writing is no guarantee whatsoever of its authenticity as a historical document; and

2) because virtually everything that comes out of the mouth of "Jesus" has been shown by one scholar or another to be likely traceable to other sources.

As I said, even if you could show that there's a historical human Jesus behind the mythical Jesus (which is a rational enterprise), it's still a leap of faith to then re-believe in the mythical bits that had to be discarded to get to the human being. If you simply believed in Jesus in the sense of believing in a wise Rabbi who was unjustly executed circa 30 CE, that's a decently rational position (even though you couldn't quite be sure what he said, the general flavour of the NT texts are certainly instructive and may indeed reflect some elements of what such a Rabbi might have said). However, it's a whole different ballgame to take some elements as historically supportable, and then go and say that those elements then, by some sort of peculiar reflex, prove the fantastic mythical bits of the story.

I believe the technical term for this sort of fallacy is "sorites"? X is like Y, Yis like Z, therefore X is like Z. But in fact, X need not be like Z at all.

If you can show me where the type of historical investigation I and many others here are talking about has been done, then you might have some basis for sticking to your guns. All you've been pointing to is "historical" investigations which assume that there are "eyewitness accounts" in the texts that have been passed on by "oral tradition", and other such Heath-Robinsonesque gimcrackery.

Who wrote the texts? When? How? Why?

Do you know the answers to these questions? Does anybody?

Well, the number one reason is that history isn't really a science, it's a "humanity", although it certainly exists in a scientific context (i.e accepts that it operates in a scientific worldview and context). We accept consensuses in science because sciences are specialised subjects, practiced by people with specialised educations, who generally do interactive experiments that can actually get "answers" from "the Book of Nature" (unlike the scraps of paper that compose the Bible, which remain mute); and there are long-standing moral traditions in the universities; and there are supposed to be traditions of peer-review, etc. Biblical scholarship isn't quite a part of that. It's still largely a believer's field that stands somewhat apart from the rest of the academy (actually, the academy grew away from it over the years). Although it's no doubt true that critical methods first developed in biblical scholarship have beneficially influenced historical research in the past - the trouble is, as soon as the critical potato got too hot, with the Dutch Radicals, biblical scholarship circled the wagons and said "thus far, no further".

Remember, as I said: it's not a question of conspiracy, nor is it a question of stupidity. It's mainly cognitive dissonance. It simply seems inconceivable to most people (even mainstream non-biblical historians) that the whole thing could be a gigantic mistake. Somebody, somewhere, must have done the requisite leg-work, surely? .... erm, somebody? ... ?

Amaleq13

You are mistaken in changing "implies" into "had to be".

Relying on "knowledge or sources that had survived the destruction" is relying on an early source.

Amaleq13

Why do you ask questions to which you have already been given the answer? Your entire position involves a desire to leap from specifically supported claims about locations to the notion that the narrative content being generally reliable. And that continues to be fallacious thinking.

Either your entire position implies this desire and, as a result, engages in the identified fallacy or your entire position makes no statement of any interest or value.

You choose.

No, it depends on what you mean by the claim.

Do you, as you appear to, wish John and the rest of the NT to be considered generally reliable for history or do you only wish John and the rest of the NT to be considered generally reliable for those specific claims that obtain archaeological support?

Do you consider John to be generally reliable for history because the authors accurately describe several locations or because there is evidence to support the general reliability? You've only referenced the former so it certainly appears to be an example of hasty generalization.

First, an assertion by an author that there are 16 of 20 confirmed does not constitute evidence. The actual locations and the basis of the alleged confirmations does. You need to understand the difference if you wish to engage in a substantive and rational discussion here.

Second, you were asked (at least twice) how many of those 16 actually provide the same sort of indication of an early source as the reference to the 7 pools. You were asked this because your statements suggest you were generalizing what holds for the 7 pools reference to some or all of the other 16.

IIRC, there might be one other example that suggests an early source. If that is true, none of the others is relevant and it is misleading, at best, to suggest otherwise as you have clearly done.

But it makes no sense! Exactly how do "unique details" suggest an early source or historical reliability? You must engage your brain rather than blindly gulping down what an alleged "expert" claims. What is the basis for such a seemingly illogical assertion?

Yes and this continues to be an example of hasty generalization because, from a logical standpoint, evidence supporting the existence of the 7 pools says nothing about the historicity of Jesus. You appear to have read or read about a scholar or scholars who engaged in this fallacy and gulped it down too credulously.

I'm not going to accept any claim that appears to be founded on fallacious thinking.

Vague references to general conclusions of a scholar or scholars you haven't actually read aren't facts. Bring the facts and the thinking applied to them resulting in the conclusion you are pushing or you are just trying to get others to do your homework for you.

Come back when you've actually read the basis of the position you have chosen to embrace and can offer a coherent defense of it.

I apologize for offering criticisms to which you are inadequately prepared to respond.

I should have guessed there wouldn't be much substance to your defense given your OP is essentially a fallacious effort to shift the burden.

Don't hold your breath because I stand by it. My position comes from nearly 20 years of reading the scholars you apparently haven't. There simply isn't enough evidence for the claim and I have only encountered it coming from a position of faith. Feel free to actually read the scholars you have chosen to support and get back to me with corrective information you believe you've found. I'll continue to breath during the interval.

I don't consider it a "nasty smear" when I observe that some scholars hold views that appear to be derived more from their pre-existing beliefs than any evidence. Some of my favorites do this but they tend to be honest enough to admit it (eg Crossan).

All you need to do is produce the evidence and argument which lead to the conclusion. If there is no evidence and/or the argument is fallacious, we'll have our answer.

I can't speak for them but my own views come from actually reading the scholars that you haven't. You can't rely on cliff notes and expect to do well here, amigo.

I see no evidence that you are genuine in your desire to test your conclusions. They seem to be held primarily by an untested faith in certain scholars and that is just another error in thinking (ie appeal to authority). You need to actually read their works as well as the work of others with whom they disagree. I've wasted enough time on this. You can't answer any of the important questions because you are ignorant of the actual facts and arguments. Feel free to continue on your blissful way. :wave:

Toto

The idea that there are certain "agreed upon facts" is a tactic of Christian apologists who pretend to do history.

Why do you bring up Burton Mack? He does believe in a historical Jesus who was a wandering sage, but he doesn't think that there is much history to be recovered from the gospels.

Robert Price has two PhD's, and does not agree with your consensus.

Ehrman does not believe in god but does believe in a historical Jesus, although he will not defend his belief on historical grounds.

Funk founded the Jesus Seminar in part because he wanted to combat American fundamentalism.

JD Crossan believes in a historical Jesus but does not believe that he can support that on historical grounds.

Luedeman is a post-Christian who was removed from his academic position in Germany when he decided that the Resurrection did not happen.

So?

They are, of course, going to claim that they do not allow their faith to bias their results, but how would you know? Robert Price in particular would disagree.

There is absolutely no historical support for an empty tomb. Even Crossan thinks that Jesus' body must have been buried in a mass grave or eaten by dogs, which was the typical fate of a victim of crucifixion. The earliest mention of an empty tomb is in Mark, written after the Jewish War.

How can any rational, evidence-based historian think that the empty tomb is a historical fact?

No - you cite scholars that you claim are the "best" but refuse to discuss what goes behind your decision that these are the best, or that being the best in the field of NT studies is any indication of reliability. And I have a bit more than faith that Richard Carrier's upcoming book will change the debate.

Toto

Robin Lane Fox is writing outside his speciality when he accepts a historical basis for the gospels. But he is writing in an overwhelming Christian culture, where Protestants have turned the gospels into accepted history. He does not use any historical analysis to question this assumption.

There are no currently publishing historians who have examined the historicity of Jesus.

Petergdi

It seems to me that you have a number of ways of excluding scholars who might be thought to fit the bill. The game is no fun if the rules aren't known to all parties. So could you please list all the ways scholars can be excluded from consideration up front?

Peter.

Johnny Skeptic

If a religious teacher named Jesus existed, how do you propose that historians determine whether or not he probably performed miracles, and whether or not any other historical people probably performed miracles for that matter?

If a religious teacher named Jesus existed, how do you propose that historians determine what he probably said? Without being reasonably certain what Jesus said, even if he rose from the dead, how could we be reasonably certain why he rose from the dead?

Toto

Those with PhD's in history. Do you know of any who have written on the historical Jesus?

Petergdi

I spent a little time looking, but it is not always as easy as you might think to find out what department of a university someone worked in for their PhD. In most cases a specialist in the field works in the Religion department rather than the in the History department even if they are working as an historian, just and someone doing ancient Greek and Roman history often works in the Classics department of their university.

Peter.

ercatli

The matter has indeed been studied to death, and I wonder how you can say what you do.

On whether John is fiction:

• Richard Burridge's What are the Gospels is a recognised work on the topic, concluding that all four gospels are biography. (Not such a surprising conclusion!) On another thread, another member suggested reading "the review of the history of scholarship on the genre of the Gospels, and of Mark in particular, that appears in the introduction of Adella Collin's Hermeneia commentary on Mark".
  .
• You seem to disregard the efforts of thousands of scholars over several centuries have been directed at "provenance, who wrote it, why, how, when, where" (just as scholars do the same for other ancient writings). I think what you mean is that you are not satisfied with their conclusions.
  .
• CS Lewis (not a historian but an expert on ancient literature) summed up his assessment: "I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage -- though it may no doubt contain errors -- pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind."

I could say more, but I have too much to do to dig out further references. Either these references will make a difference to your view, or they will not. But if you want to explore more with an open mind, I would be happy to dig up some more. Best wishes.