Johnny Skeptic

I look forward to reading comments from readers.



Title change request fulfilled.

Mountain Man

There is none. But I'm sure many will come up with anecdotes and such written 35 to 1000 years AFTER the alleged incidents. No one will come up with any contemporary proof.

Vorkosigan

The historical evidence consists of the Josephus mention, the early Christian writings, and perhaps other things such as Tacitus. Since the historical evidence is accepted as historical by NT and other scholars, the burden of proof is on the skeptic to show why it is not. That is perhaps unfair, but that's the way things are.

Michael

jgibson000

What do you regard as "comptemporary"? How close in time does the origin of testimony to/evidence for an event have to be in order for it to qualifiy as "contemporary"?

And are you actually claiming that evidence for/testimony to an event that is not "contemporary" with an event is not evidence at all? Or do you mean that it is not "good" evidence?

And why would an anecdote not be evidence/testimony?

Jeffrey Gibson

Mountain Man

The Josephus "mention" is a proven interpolation."accepting" something does not relieve them of their burden of proof. It's just an excuse to not have to prove anything and a dishonest attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

Mountain Man

How about something, anything, from an eye witness? Any court documents? Nice trick, but it won't work. A complete lack of contemporary support for something like this speaks loudly. Claiming that something happened based on religious belief, which is what you have here, is not proof, or even evidence; it's just people repeating the same story.Bias.

jgibson000

Are you sure we don't have what you are asking for? Do we not have this at least at some points in the Gospels? And if you say no, since the Gospels were't written by eyewitnesses, aren't you stacking the deck by assuming that the only thing that qualifies as "eye witness testimony" is testimony written by an eye witness him or heself?. If so, then you are ignoring how eye witness testimony is recorded and transmitted in both the ancient world and our own.

Why would you to expect there to be any extant? Is there any for the trial and execution of Vercingetorix or of Thedas?

What trick? I have asked some questions which you have dodged. So if anyone is playing tricks ...

Then by your own logic, we have no reason to believe in the existence of Alexander the Great, for we have no extant testimony to him written by those who were reputedly eye witnesses to his deeds, no court documents, and no extant biography of him until 300 years after his alleged death.

Nor do we have testimony written by eyewitnesses to, or the court records for, the execution of Socrates or of Spartacus.

QED ...

Jeffrey

Chris Weimer

Here's the key, of course. How much of the gospels, if any, can we assume goes back to an eyewitness?

jgibson000

I have no ready answer to this. But I do think that in the light of both Luke's preface, the parallels between what Paul reports as Jesus tradition derived from eyewitnesses and co-ordinate material in the Gospels, the testimony of Papias, the observations of the form and rhetorical critics about the nature of the Gospel materials and their transmission, the work of Gerhardsson in Memory and Manuscript, and the known methods of reserach and composition employed by Greco Roman authors of the literary genre of which the Gospels are a part, and by ancient historians, that it is special pleading to say apodictically that none of it does.

What reason(s) have you to think to the contrary?

Jeffrey

Vorkosigan

Funny, because all this looks like special pleading to me. On the reading of many Luke's preface is a blatant lie, the co-ordinate materials in the gospels and Paul are there because Mark knows Paul through and through and the other gospels copied him, Papias clearly knows nothing about the actual gospel of Mark as we have it, so is either lying, wrong, or forged, the form and rhetorical critics typically assume transmission of materials where no evidence for transmission exists (and all their work is hotly contested), and the genre of the gospels has not been settled. In short, each of the assertions you make is a thin reed resting on interpretive frameworks rather than unequivocal facts.

What genre are the gospels anyway?

Vorkosigan