badger3k

The Homer bit is the issue - using Loftus' standard, we should accept the "fact" that Asclepius really existed and was a physician in the Greek Army. Never mind that we really know nothing of Homer, who he (or she) was, whether there were more than one, whether what he quoted was myth or contemporary reality...you get the idea. The fact that there was some reality behind Troy doesn't mean that anything else was factual, and the best way of treating it is to take it with a huge grain of salt. About as far as I would go is to say that "Asclepius was said by Homer to be a physician in the Greek army". A bit different than saying he was. It's a matter of degree.

Likewise, just having a tradition or texts does not mean they have any basis in reality, either. Unless something is confirmed through external sources I think we are justified in the more general "it is believed" rather than "it is".

I think a good analogy is the whole Atlantis myth. There are numerous theories about whether there was a historical Atlantis, and what it might have been. Are any of them correct? We don't know, and we probably will never know. Plato certainly knew of several cities that were destroyed by floods (one just down the road from him, so to speak, that happened in his lifetime [IIRC]). Does this mean that we can say that Atlantis existed? No - we can just say that the story may have some basis in reality. That's all.

Another example, a while back some archaeologist claimed to have found the mansion of Achilles. No evidence to support this, from what I had read at the time, but the claim was made. Unless there is evidence that there was a historical Achilles, the idea that a mansion could be his is ludicrous - let's see evidence that he existed, and more importantly, evidence that linked the home to him, and we can make such a claim. Now, to be honest, I have not followed up on the story and seen if anything new has come up, so perhaps evidence was found. Perhaps not. But without such evidence, we can't claim what was being claimed.

To me, that is a more honest position than saying that things existed based upon the written word of an author we know little about. Most authors in that age were not historians and were not concerned with accuracy. We've discovered this time and time again, yet we still want to look at these texts as authoritative and accurate. We can only judge each authors' accuracy based upon external verification, and if none is available, then we have to be skeptical.

aa5874

Especially when the person who canonised the NT, Eusebius, admitted books he has included in the NT are NOT authentic or are disputed.

Even Eusebius is a skeptic of the origins of documents in the NT.

See Church History 3.3.

Doug Shaver

Here it is. It doesn't say that.

Jeffrey Gibson

Where on earth do you get the idea that it was Eusebius who canonized the NT? Furthermore, is this what historians of the canon such as H. von Campenhausen (The Formation of the Christian Canon), L.M. McDonald (The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon), B. Metzger (The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance (or via: amazon.co.uk)), J.A. Sanders (The Canon Debate (or via: amazon.co.uk)) R.M. Grant (The Formation of the New Testament), and J.T. Barerra (The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk)) say?

Do you even know?

Jeffrey

Didymus

Genre? I think provenance.

Genre is an interesting but relatively arcane question of literary classification. Some literary folks think the gospels constitute a genre unto itself.

The pivotal issues regard sources, the circumstances of authorship and the intentions of the authors.

Ddms

aa5874

I think you may have not understood me. Please see Church History book 3 chapter 3.

Church History book 3 chapter 3.1 And Church History book 3 chapter 3.4 Eusebius was skeptical about books in the NT.

spamandham

Uhm. Ok dude. I have no idea what you mean.

Ben C Smith

I have certainly seen certain stories in Josephus and others disputed as historical. But that does not change the fact that I have also seen Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Plutarch taken at their word here very frequently.

I myself do not regard any part of any ancient text unworthy of investigation; not that I would always volunteer to do the investigating, mind you; we all have our specialties and interests.

This notion of what is worthy and what is not (or less) worthy of investigation appears to stem from the importance that modern religion and nonreligion attaches to ancient religious traditions. But try telling a recent doctorate recipient that his or her dissertation pressing a postmodern feminist understanding of some obscure passage from a lost play by Euripides that such a topic is peripheral or not worth dissecting!

Ben.

aa5874

Are you implying that if Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius or Plutarch wrote about a character called Jesus exactly as the unknown authors of the gospels, that Jesus would be accepted as a figure of history or taken at their word?

If these authors wrote anything like the Jesus stories then Jesus would have been rejected as a myth just like Homer's Achilles.

Doug Shaver

I think you don't understand your own statements.