aa5874

So how do you determine that an absurd text at face value can help you understand history if you cannot determine if the text is credible?

Any analysis carried out on bogus information will produce bogus results.

Credibilty or authenticity is of utmost importance for history.

spamandham

Even if we accept the Jesus blurbs in Josephus and Tacitus as genuine, they're so terse that they don't really tell us anything about Jesus.

spin

Main sources of what exactly?? Christian tradition? How do you take the necessary step of validating gospel content as historical?

You have tried your hardest to make these obviously tainted passages seem reasonable. I don't know how you can with a straight face make such a glib statement of such plainly contested material. Whatever the case, they are not useful as primary historical sources.


spin

spamandham

Can we conclude that the Gospels were written after the destruction of the temple?

Roger Pearse

There seem to be a couple of queries that we would need to address before this question could be dealt with. I.e.

How do we apply the same demand to other historical sources?

How do we know -- in advance -- that there is such a thing as "Christian tradition", and what evidence do we have that this has some connection with this?

I don't quite see why we should discard historical data, merely because someone tries to rubbish it.

The idea that Tacitus and Josephus are "not useful as primary historical sources" leaves only the question of just what primary sources we *could* use for the reign of Tiberius! They are, of course, the primary historical sources for that period, together with Suetonius and Cassius Dio. The presence of relevant passages in the texts is the primary data. The problems with one of the passages of Josephus are a side issue.

I do suspect here that you have grown accustomed to presuming all sorts of things that no normal person would accept. Probably you've spent too long with the lunatics. The company we keep insensibly informs and alters our notions of normal and abnormal, which is why it is important that we don't get into fringe groups.

But whatever we write about antiquity must be data-driven, not theory driven; whereas your comments -- I mean no offence -- seem to be ways to rubbish the data. Doing this is invariably the source of all bad scholarship.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

Historical sources must all be testable to some degree. If you cannot apply the same demand then the source becomes questionable. The main sources we use for history must rest on the primary historical indications we have from the relevant period, epigraphy, statuary, coins, etc.

We have so much evidence that there was a christian tradition. The only problem is where the gospels fit into it. Clearly we can see that both Matthew and Luke fit into a tradition which postdates Mark. Is there any problem in calling those gospels part of a christian tradition? If not there was such a thing, wasn't there?

You must first show that you have historical data. No-one seems to have shown that there is any in the gospels yet.

Actually, we were dealing with only specific passages (those I specifically called "tainted passages") which have been discussed here and elsewhere for so long the glib acceptance I was commenting on seems so glaringly out of place.

I'm sorry for your misapprehension regarding my appreciation of data, Roger, but so far I've seen nothing to suggest that a data-driven position means much to you. I've seen no sign of you unveiling the data behind a hypothetically historical Jesus. So far as a historical entity Jesus just hasn't made it yet, has he? Perhaps your position regarding Jesus doesn't need data.


spin

andrewcriddle

I think that all regular posters on this forum are aware of the arguments, good and bad, that have been made against the authenticity of this material. They remain evidence, which has to be considered. In normal speech 'evidence' is not the same as 'conclusive evidence' or 'indisputed evidence'.

I thought 'of one sort or another' sufficiently acknowledged the disputes concerning the weight to be given this material.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

If entirely authentic (which I doubt) then in total they tell us that Jesus was regarded as the Messiah, he was a teacher and worker of what were regarded as miracles, he had support and opposition from both Jews and Gentiles and opposition from his fellow Jews caused his death at the hands of Pontius Pilate the Governer. However, His death was not the end, his close followers claiming that he had survived death and appeared to them.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

In what respect? We have a source that tells us what happened in Britain after 396. No other source tells us. I don't quite see why you think we should ignore that source.

I don't think the remainder of your comments amount to more than reiteration.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

I think there are two points here.

a/ Paul in Galatians is emphasizing his independence from the Jerusalem apostles. Even in Galatians in 1:18 Paul mentions staying with Cephas for fifteen days and in 2:2 his discussion with the Jerusalem apostles as to the validity of his Gospel.

In letters such as 1 Corinthians, where Paul has other priorities, we have an account in 15:3-11 of the resurrection appearances of Christ which Paul is almost certainly claiming to have received from other Christians, and an account in 11:23-25 of the institution of the Eucharist by Jesus which IMO (on the basis of the technical language used) Paul is claiming to have received from other Christians. (I agree that the status of the account in 1 Corinthians 11 is less clear-cut than that of the one in 1 Corinthians 15.)

b/ I increasingly think that, as well as information from the Apostles on the one hand and private revelation to Paul on the other, we should recognise common knowledge as a source of Paul's ideas about Jesus.

When Paul is putting forward ideas about Jesus Christ which might be controversial to his readers, the question of the basis of Paul's information becomes important, and Paul will answer it in accord with the circumstances of the case.

However, when dealing with claims about Jesus such as that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate at Jerusalem one Passsover, I don't think that Paul would have based these sort of claims on either private revelation or information from the Jerusalem apostles. Such claims would be the sort of thing accepted by followers of Christ, opponents of Christianity and mildly interested bystanders alike. Paul's answer if asked as to how he knew that Jesus was executed by crucifixion would IMO be 'everyone knows that' rather than giving a specific source.

Andrew Criddle