Sauron

But that is the christian position, isn't it? How else does one debate it without going directly to the core of their belief structure?

Hogwash. Your claim about 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' is just an example of a false dilemma - either we accept ancient texts as they are, no questions asked, or we have to throw them all out. Later in your post you refer to mushy thinking; how ironically appropriate.

Pointing out that there are inherent (and sometimes significant) limitations in the reliability of ancient documents does not eliminate their usefulness; far from it. It merely reminds us that:

* they do not stand alone, and their usefulness to history has to be seen in context;
* we should not be afraid to challenge them if we have good reason to do so; and
* it sets an upper boundary on our willingness to accept what they claim at face value

All three points hold for pretty much any ancient document - and good historians are not shy about admitting this, either. It just so happens that all three points are kryptonite for christian literalists.

Back to reality.

Then how would you approach a christian who was convinced of the infallibility of his/her ancient texts?

mountainman

Johnny Skeptic,

Why are you not skeptical of the blatant fact that
history is a also multi-threaded tapestry and weave of
things other than the "written record"?

To have any sensible dialogue whatsoever about the
history of the pre-Nicene epoch one must consider,
in addition to the purport of whatever written records
are available, the following archeological and/or
scientific citations:

* the propaganda of architecture and buildings
* the propaganda of coins (gold, silver and others)
* epigraphic inscriptions on stone, metal, mosaic
* art, graffitti, etc
* sculpture, reliefs, frescoes, etc
* sarcophogii, burial relics, etc
* archeological relics
* carbon dating citations

These things I consider to be evidential, apart from
the written record. And the threads of these separate
specialist fields of enquiry all tell the one and the same
story: namely that christianity bloomed in the fourth
century --- with contestably zero evidence
emergent from prior centuries.

Separate the threads!
Separate the written from the above.

We have the written record of all things pre-Nicene
being delivered by Eusbius, the purportedlly very very
first christian historian, to the military supremacist
Constantine between the years 312 and 331 CE, at
which date the literature, known to the planet as
"the bible", was lavishly published by the malevolent
despot, and Hellenic-persecutor, Constantine.

My advice to you Johnny Skeptic, is to go through
the list of things above which do not relate to the
"literature record", one by one with a fine tooth
comb, and get some of your friends to assist.

At the end of the day I think that you will be amazed
at what you actually find. The existence of christianity
may be supported by a fourth century tendered collection
of "earlier christian authors", but the only problem with
this hypothesis, is that it is unsupported by anything
that is remotely acceptable to a critical and skeptical
examination of the evidence.

Best wishes in all your research,



Pete Brown

Roger Pearse

By 'physical evidence' I take it that you mean archaeology? Obviously if we could dig up Cicero as he delivered his Philippics this would be preferable to the transmitted texts. Sadly this is not possible.

What we actually get are belt-buckles and the like. The use that can be made of these is naturally limited. To the extent that these are physical remains, they are certainly data and more directly from antiquity. But to speak they usually require interpretation. I would prefer not to oppose the two sources of data, myself.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Correct. And this leads straight to obscurantism.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

I think the OP is confusing the scholarly analysis of texts and the religious use of them. This forum is primarily concerned with the first.

Most religions do not worship ancient texts. They have traditions and practices, as well as beliefs, and inner experience. But the American fundamentalist has no tradition and no religious practices, since these were dispensed with when the original Protestants rejected the traditions and rituals of Rome; besides, Americans don't do tradition or ritual.

Sauron

Fortunately, it isn't necessary. We can judge the accuracy of many ancient texts based upon whether their claims are supported, not supported, or contradicted by archaeology.


Ah, yes. Your trademark attempt to tell everyone that manuscripts form some kind of primary evidence about antiquity, to which everything else must hold a distant second place. You tried this handwave before. It failed, not merely because it was incorrect, but because when confronted you were unable to support your contention.

That depends upon what information one is trying to derive. Their physical content, age, provenance, etc. do not require interpretation.

Of course, to pretend that ancient manuscripts don't require interpretation - in light of social/historical and religious milieu - would be folly. Only someone who was excessively enamored of manuscripts would do make such an absurd claim.

Ahem.

Preference is irrelevant. The physical evidence and the manuscript evidence may very well contradict each other. Historians have no problem living with such a scenario, because historians have no requirement every question of history resolve itself cleanly and promptly. Some things may be left to future generations to figure out. Forcing an unnatural resolution merely because it satisfies your sense of required harmony is not practicing history. Neither is keeping the two lines of evidence apart, to prevent them from contacting and contradicting each other.

Sauron

No.

Merely because you have found a cohort who also enjoys the false dilemma of accept in toto / reject in toto, that does not make a false dilemma into a valid one. There is a wide spectrum between your two choices:

a. accept ancient texts at face value, no questions asked; and
b. "but you are saying that all texts are garbage and have to be ignored, so nothing can be known about the ancient world, woe unto us....."

But of course, exploring this spectrum requires substantial effort and a willingness to give up one's sacred cows about sacred texts. I doubt you're up to the challenge.

Cheerful Charlie

A silly thing is a silly thing even if documents show us many ancient writers thought it was true, and left us writings claiming a silly thing was true when obviously, it is not true.


CC

gstafleu

I think there are two questions here. The first is: are ancient documents useful in finding out about ancient history? I'd think most here would agree as to the answer to this: Yes.

The second question is: is it reasonable to believe in a god who has only announced himself through documents that are about 2K old and then hasn't bothered to show up since? the answer here is of course: No. But that answer depends on reason, and belief is notoriously unreasonable (perhaps Roger can provide the real Tertulian quote here ). So that doesn't get us very far, except as one of the many arguments about the unreasonableness of Abrahamic faith.

Gerard Stafleu

Minimalist

People lie in documents. Objective history is a false concept in and of itself.
The classic contradiction for the purposes of these boards would seem to be the OT account of Jerusalem as the capitol of some far flung empire while archaeology shows it to have been a miserable little hill town.

One must always seek to tone down the claims made in ancient texts. These documents were written for specific purposes.