gurugeorge

On the contrary, you make the decision to marry (if you are rational) on the basis that you have "seen enough" to make a judgement. It's not a faith-based bet that the hitherto-unseen components of your beloved's character will prove to be fantastically more fantastic than the ones you have seen, it's a rationality-based plumping for the fact that the manifest qualities you have seen are likely to be representative of the hitherto-unseen bits (on the general principle that s/he isn't insane or otherwise random), and since the manifest bits have been nice, there are no bad surprises in store.

Yes, it's a faith-based claim, not rational. If you were being rational, you would carry through on your belief that the human Jesus was the human Jesus (just as, the girl you marry, you presume has a consistent character that has been represented to by the bits you've seen in your meetings so far).

Whichever way you look at it, the leap to belief in the miraculous is just a leap.

Again, begging the question - what is the plain meaning of the documents? Who wrote them? Why? How? Before historical questions could be answered with more confidence (i.e. before we could give belief to any putatively historical data in the texts), such prior questions would have to be answered. They haven't been - and it's not necessarily because of bias, but simply because it's very difficult to answer such questions after such a long period of time.

And such prior questions are not asked by most scholars - that's the result of bias (not conscious, but unconscious, not necessarily wilful or malicious, just habitual). IOW, I don't claim they are biased in their actual scholarly investigation - I trust that their arguments are just and rational within their own parameters - I claim they are biased in their presuppositions and in their avoidance of such provenance questions, etc.

Of course people who argue against the standard view are biased, in another sense - that's precisely why they persist against the tide. Bias is on both sides, and kind of cancels out - what's left is whatever the precipitate of honest confrontation between the two points of view turns out to be - such that unbiassed observers (or even biassed observers in an unbiassed mood) will be able to notice it. But there has been no such honest confrontation (except possibly with Schweitzer, who did take seriously some of the Dutch Radical arguments?)

History teaches us that we shouldn't be too impressed by the numbers of people believing something. Large numbers of people have been hopelessly mistaken about things in the past. It's simply not hugely relevant to the truth (although to some extent, at least in practical matters, it may be - the "wisdom of crowds" and all that).

Anyway, yes, it's clear that we've pretty much said what we can on these topics - I think we'd just be repeating ourselves if we went any further.

Amaleq13

As easy as it is obvious, I would think. You do it when you leap from specific evidence to general conclusions. You engage that fallacy when you go from the specific evidence that specific claims in John have an early source to concluding John is a generally reliable source of a history and imply that John should be considered a generally early document as it exists today.

"[B]etter" is what sense? Certainly not in any sense that they somehow lend credibility to other, unsupported claims elsewhere in the text.

Not enough for you to consider it a "consensus"? What number does? Does your personal preference enter into the consideration?

No, my understanding is multiple authors over time. IOW, at least one later author added to and changed the work of an at least one earlier author.

The archaeological evidence for the 7 pools gives support to the notion that one of John's authors had a source that included early 1st century information about the 7 pools. What other specific evidence have you got that indicates an early source?

Strictly speaking, you've been asked to produce specific examples numerous times by numerous individuals and have failed to respond. Why is that?

How many are relevant like the 7 pools reference? If they aren't, this is just more fallacious generalization on your part.

Are you suggesting unique details suggest an early source or that they suggest historical reliability or what?

So you've only read what somebody has told you the scholar say?

I'm sure you can identify a "number of scholars" who already held that belief but I do not think you can show that they held it as the result of the evidence.

You need to provide a source for quotes.

"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"

I would agree that one should reject a claim of complete fiction if that is what is meant by "sheer fictitiousness". The final phrase is a bit vague but I suspect the author might be indulging in the same fallacy and claiming that confirmation of the pools can be generalized to other, unrelated portions of the text.

"we are coming to see that the Gospel is indeed a mixture of early and late .....

Yes but, beyond the specific reference to the pools and arguably the immediate surrounding narrative being early, one needs additional specific evidence for other claims. Anything else is hasty generalization. The fact that one of the authors had a source of early 1st century information regarding the pools does not tell us whether that source provided any other information.

"...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"

Accurate topographical references only indicate an early source if they were only known to early sources as with the "lost" pools. The rest is true and should indicate that each such "tradition" must be considered on its own merits with regard to historicity and relative dating within the complete text. That one tradition can be shown to have an early source doesn't necessarily say anything about any other tradition contained in a text thought to have passed through multiple hands to its current form.

"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."

No question about it. This sort of broad, general claim can be dismissed as easily as its opposite and for similar reasons. Why would you think this is relevant to my criticisms of your argument?

Only when the unknown author(s) appear to engage in the same fallacy. Otherwise, they appear to agree with me.

ercatli

Hi bacht. Wonder no more! I don't recall addressing that topic and I don't recall anyone raising it before, at least not using that word.

This remains an unproven assertion. It is true (obviously) that no names are given in the texts although Luke and John give some clues on authorship. But if the scholars are right, the first accounts of Jesus were oral (not surprising in those days, and shown to be very reliable). These were later compiled by different christian communities, as Luke, Papias and others relate and John hints. But the statement that they were wrongly "ascribed to early figures in Christian history" is an assertion that I don't believe you can establish from evidence. But I await your evidence before commenting further.

I think you should first demonstrate your previous assertion. And if you can, then I'll quote some scholars to suggest this conclusion is not entirely correct anyway. But first things first.

Thanks and best wishes.

aa5874

So, the story of the conception of Jesus through the Holy Ghost and the virgin Mary is reliable?

What reliable evidence can you provide for the temptation of Jesus by the Devil on the pinnacle of the Temple and that Jesus walked on water, was transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah, raised from the dead and ascended to heaven?

And it is NOT true at all that author of Luke did give any clues to his name.

Now, the reliability of the NT cannot be confirmed externally and internally there is confusion about the authorship, dating, and chronology of the books of the Canon.

A detailed study of gMatthew and gJohn reveals that if Matthew was a disciple then John was NOT AND VICE VERSA or none of them were with Jesus but simple manufactured stories using Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint or some similar source.

ercatli

But Neil, it is you making the argument and silence = no evidence for your argument.

aa5874

History cannot be fundamentally argued without historical evidence.

Mythology is DIRECTLY based on NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCEand KNOWN FICTIONAL ACCOUNTS.

The conception, temptation, transfiguration, resurrection and ascension of Jesus are KNOWN FICTION and there are NO credible HISTORICAL evidence for Jesus except for forgeries in Josephus where more fiction can be found, he was raised from the dead.

SILENCE makes the mythicist SALIVATE.

ercatli

Interesting how denigration works isn't it? You can make a vague allegation, and then never mention it again if you're wrong. I don't think I have bought any of the books I have quoted from from a christian bookstore. Most came from our public library, one or two came from Amazon. And what would it prove anyway? I think you can do better than this sort of innuendo Neil.

No, I don't think I have done that except in a very vague way. I don't even know the faith position of most authors I quote, beyond the fact that they are western and so from a culture with christian roots.

But since you have raised the possibility of bias, let me say I think this is a very serious charge. So let me please ask you two questions:

1. What exactly are you suggesting here?
2. What evidence do you have for any systematic bias?

This is a fair question, and I have (IMO) a fair answer.

It is important to me to try to base my historical understanding on the best information. The only "general perspective" I try to find is the historical and methodological assumptions each scholar may make, and how they are each viewed by their peers. And this is what I have found.

Imagine a bell curve (Normal Distribution curve) for scholars, with those making christian assumptions at one end (e.g. Craig Blomberg), those making sceptical assumptions at the other end (e.g. the Jesus Seminar) and everyone ranged in between according to where they sit in terms of methodology - the ones in the middle would use normal unbiased historical methods. I have found that when I checked what scholars said about each other, and other people's assessments, they could be fitted quite well into this schema.

• MA Powell in "The Jesus Debate", his summary of the views of the "guild" of NT scholars, indicates that the Jesus Seminar and one of its strongest critics, LT Johnson were both outside the consensus of scholarly opinion, though at different ends of the Bell curve. He goes on the identify who he regards as the leading lights within the consensus, albeit at different points, and these are: JD Crossan, M Borg, E Sanders, J Meier & NT Wright.
  
• In her book "Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews", Paula Fredriksen lists who she regards as the most respected scholars, and they are the same five, plus G Vermes.
  
• Other books I have read, but can't remember now, have made similar comments, and also included J Charlesworth, plus the classical historians M Grant, RL Fox and AN Sherwin-White.
  
• I asked an atheist historian, who doesn't believe the Jesus myth is good history, who he would regard as most helpful in evaluating the Jesus myth, and he said Geza Vermes, Paula Fredricksen, Dale Allison, Gerd Ludemann, plus M Grant, JA Fiztmeyr, JD Crossan & R Horsley for some specifics.
  
• A christian historian I know wrote on the Jesus myth and used the following authors: Crossan, Johnson, Koester, Mack, Meier, Sanders, Schweitzer, Vermes & Wright.
  
• I also asked a christian author with an interest in history, and he suggested Richard Bauckham, James Dunn, N.T. Wright, John P. Meier, Craig Evans, Martin Hengel, Dale Allison & Larry Hurtado, with Richard Burridge helpful on the gospels.

I think there's a fair degree of commonality there, though I'm sure there are others. You will note therefore that I rarely quote from scholars outside the mainstream, whether at the christian end or the sceptical end, and deliberately, as a result of this analysis, try to use the ones nearest the centre, or a balance across the mainstream.

So let me finish with another question to you:

3. How do you know the authors you read and take notice of are balanced and fair?

Thanks and best wishes.

aa5874

But having said all that, are not your views about Jesus outside of mainstream scholars? Do you not believe Jesus resurrected?

ercatli

I hope I would never use a word like "twit" in that context. And I guess some scholars feel the need to try new ideas. But in the end, it is peer review and consensus which determines what the rest of us can believe to be true.

1. Would you not agree?

Obviously we all assess things. But the question is whether our assessment is based on the best information or on poor information and theories. And the only way for me to know the best information is from the best scholars. If I was a qualified historian, or even if I had the time to be an amateur historian, perhaps I would be able to do more, but relying on "fringe" people, especially ones with a metaphysical viewpoint to support, is unlikely to be helpful in knowing the facts.

No doubt. But you know as well as I that they are in a small minority. The vast majority conclude around 70-80.

2. Why would you choose the minority opinion rather than the strong majority?

I've answered this in another post (above).

"Posing" is an emotive word, isn't it? I think we have addressed the matter of the qualifications for being considered an expert, and I don't think you have made any case that requires answering. Perhaps you'd like to make a more specific comment or question?

I think this is a sad and unnecessary comment. Rather than say anything more in response, I will ask several questions:

3. In what way does your view of my motivations have anything to do with the historical facts?
4. Is it not possible that I could be both?
5. How would you rate yourself on the same criteria?
6. What is BCH?

So there's another answer to another post. Do you feel you are achieving anything? Am I? I think if I were in your position I would feel a bit dissatisfied. You seem to depend on vague insinuations and questioning the established viewpoints without providing any evidence, only slight misrepresentations. You know, you could do better, if you wanted to. It's a choice you know.

Best wishes.

ercatli

Hi YA. Dammit, I thought I was serious, and now you tell me I can't be, and who could doubt you? : )

Nice try mate, but a faulty analogy (which is bad logic).

The reason why GWTW was regarded as non-historical was because it was presented as fiction and known to be fiction. It never needed to be tested as history. So verification of places was irrelevant. But John is not written as fiction, and its value as history did need to be tested. In such testing, an early date is important, and a late date makes it less useful as history. The archaeological evidence helped set an early date for some of the gospel. So that makes those parts more likely to be useful as history. And that was what those authors were saying, as I understand them.

I'm sure you can understand these differences. I think you need a genuine analogy if you want to make this argument, not a cute but invalid one.

I have not addressed the rest of your post because it all seem to depend on the invalid analogy. So my best wishes to you, my fellow Aussie.