Toto

Wrong - not biographies, but bioi - a literary genre that might include the lives of gods. Read Burridge.
.
...
CS Lewis studied classical Greek, and from his point of view, the gospels were rough and semi-literate, not worthy of being called literature. But I suspect that he wrote this before linguists, based on discoveries of more documents written in Koine Greek, realized that the Greek of the NT was a different language from classical Greek. Later analysis has shown that the gospels have a sophisticated literary structure.

There are no modern scholars who endorse Lewis' conclusion, although apologists keep repeating it....

ercatli

For the record, I did not say there was archaeological evidence for Jesus. I said, in this post, in response to a statement that we had no evidence for Jesus: "We have the documents, NT and other, we have some limited archaeology." In subsequent discussion I explained what I meant by "limited".

In response to a comment that "there is NO archeology to support the existance of Jesus.", I said (here): "when archaeology, sometimes unexpectedly, supports the historical veracity of a document, that document's credibility is enhanced (just as its credibility would be reduced by mistakes). In that sense, archeology does indeed "support" the existence of Jesus indirectly by supporting the credibility of the gospels"

And then, when asked to explain further, I gave the example (beginning here, through here to here) of recent archaeology which shows John's Gospel to be accurate about 16 locations, from which the experts conclude that a significant part of John is based on an early and historically accurate source.

According to the accepted historical method, one of the core principles is: "The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened". Having an early source with proven accuracy where it can be tested, gives (other things being equal) greater confidence to its value to historians.

So, we have an early source in John which mean we are more able to "trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened". Notice it doesn't say that early alone makes the source fully trustworthy, simply that early improves its relative trustworthiness. Thus this archaeology provides support for the historicity or trustworthiness of some of John (which obviously mentions Jesus) and thus limited evidence in favour of the historical Jesus - which is all I have ever claimed.

That is a very modest claim, and one well supported by the evidence presented by scholars. And of course there are other examples I could give. So while I agree that we have no direct archaeology referring to Jesus (and I have never suggested otherwise), it is reasonable and based on evidence and the conclusions of scholars, to say that archaeology provides some support, some limited evidence in support of the historicity of Jesus. Why anyone who cared about evidence would deny this small claim is beyond me.

I hope that explains things better for you. And I hope you and I at least can lay that matter to rest. Best wishes.

ercatli

I wouldn't imagine they have. But no-one has yet demonstrated that they prevent the supernatural from existing and affecting our world.

But I didn't come here to convince you of that, but to invite you to share your ideas with me. You have done that, and I have commented. Thanks.

ercatli

No, I mentioned 16 archaeological instances and the conclusion of two scholars based on them. They were just from John. Many similar references could be made re other books.

No, I quote scholars who conclude this (about the Gospels and other books now in the NT):

Michael Grant, Jesus, An Historian's Review of the Gospels:

"if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." page 199-200.

"If we apply the same criteria that we would apply to other ancient literary sources, the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty." page 176.

[much of contemporary Jesus studies] “is too extreme a viewpoint and would not be applied in other fields.” page 201.

"the picture they [the Gospels] present is largely authentic .... information about Jesus can be derived from the gospels." page 204.

Robin L. Fox. The Unauthorized Version.

"I regard it as certain, therefore, that he [Luke] knew Paul and followed parts of his journey. He stayed with him in Jerusalem; he spent time in Caesarea, where he lodged with an early member of the Seven, Philip, who had four prophetic daughters, all virgins (Acts 21:8-9). It must have been quite an evening. He had no written sources, but in Acts he himself was a primary source for a part of the story. He wrote the rest of Acts from what individuals told him and he himself had witnessed, as did Herodotus and Thucydides; in my view, he wrote finally in Rome, where he could still talk to other companions of Paul, people like Aristarchus (a source for Acts 19:23 ff.; cf Acts 27:2, 17:1-15) or perhaps Aquila and Priscilla (whence 18). From Philip he could already have heard about the Ethiopian eunuch (Philip met him), or Stephen and the Seven (Philip was probably one), or the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius in Caesarea (Philip’s residence); from the prophet Agabus, whom he met at 21:10, could come knowledge of Agabus’ earlier prophecy in 11.28." page 210.

A.N. Sherwin-White. Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament

"The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time.... Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, [showing that] even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core." pages 189-190.

"So, it is astonishing that while Greco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism... that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot be written. This seems very curious." page 187. (Note, this may have been true when Sherwin-White wrote, but the consensus has since become similar to his views.)

"For Acts the confirmation of history is overwhelming" and "any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted." page 189.

Expert reviews of Sherwin-White's book agree:

John Crook reviewed "Roman Society and Roman Laws" for Classical Review and agreed that Acts is “an historical source talking about exactly the same world as Tacitus and Suetonius.” He thought that Sherwin-White’s work “support the authenticity in detail of Acts.” Classical Review 14 (1964): 198-200.

J. J. Nicholls, agreed with Sherwin-White that the Gospels and Acts “are to be treated as equally serious and valuable evidence” as other ancient historians, such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Tacitus. Journal of Religious History (1964): 92-95. According to Nobbs, other leading classicists--publishing in the Journal of Roman Studies and Classical Weekly--found Sherwin-White’s book a welcome and sober historical inquiry that was a corrective of the work of more skeptical theologians. pages 286-97.

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University: "some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated." and "We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world." Where else can we learn these things except from the Gospels?

James H. Charlesworth, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature. Princeton University: "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." Again, where else can we learn these things except from the Gospels?

J Paget, Cambridge University (paper in "The Cambridge Companion to Jesus"): ".... a growing conviction among many scholars that the Gospels tell us more about Jesus and his aims than we had previously thought ..... subsequent Christianity may be in greater continuity with Jesus than was previously thought."

Jeffery Jay Lowder, writing on the Secular Web: "I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed."

How many more references would it take before you are willing to agree that the majority conclusion of both secular and NT historians is that there is good historical material in the Gospels? I'm not suggesting it is all historical, only that there is some, in fact, enough.

Quite true. But if you recall the discussion right through from the beginning (a bit of an ask, I'll grant you now it is more than a dozen pages long!), you'll notice that I never said that. My main conclusions about the historical value of the NT are based on the scholars, and only a very small part of that, almost minor, is from archaeology.

I also have made clear all along that I come to my conclusions in two steps. (1) Accept the consensus of scholars as the best conclusions of historical study. This becomes a basis, a lowest common denominator if you like, for us all to (2) arrive at our final conclusions. This agrees with how many experts approach things - Prof F Watson in "The Cambridge Companion to Jesus": "Modern historical study tends to understand ancient historiographical texts as 'sources', disregarding their ideological biases and other 'unhistorical' elements and using the residue as raw material for independent historical reconstruction (which will naturally display ideological biases of its own)." Also J Meier: "In contrast to the 'real Jesus', the 'historical Jesus' is that Jesus whom we can recover or reconstruct by using the scientific tools of modern historical research. The construct, a theoretical abstraction of modern scholars that coincides only partially with the real Jesus of Nazareth, the Jew who actually lived and worked in Palestine."

Almost no-one has asked me about that second step, everyone has concentrated on (1). So the archaeological evidence from John is a small part of the total archaeological evidence, which is a small part of the total evidence for the historical conclusions about the NT, which then forms a basis for my final beliefs.

I didn't make any miracle claim that required assessment. I simply challenged the statement that miracles couldn't happen, by asking where that was proven. You seem to have demonstrated that my challenge was correct.

You presumably are aware of the conclusions of almost all scholars that the Gospels as we have them were compiled from earlier, mostly oral, sources. There is almost universal acceptance that these sources include Mark, Q, M, L, John (Signs source), Acts, Paul. Some scholars postulate one or two others.

Like I said, I think I've said just about enough. You seem unwilling to accept the scholars' views when they disagree with you. I have no wish to try to persuade you. I invited you (collectively) to give me your reasons why you believed I am wrong. You have done that, and I thank you for it. Please don't be too upset that I find your approach anti-scholarly and (as you have presented it) lacking a coherent argument and instead relying on incredulity without much evidence. I did ask everyone at the beginning not to be upset if they didn't convince me. Thanks again.

ercatli

Doug, I have responded to this because you are a friendly guy and you said it is a genuine question. But I don't think I am going to spend valuable time on this thread trying to convince you that GWTW is fiction. :huh: You can work that out for yourself.

aa5874

Can you name a pagan personage whose reality as an historical figure is NEVER questioned?

Michael Grant, Jesus, An Historian's Review of the Gospels:

What does an empty tomb prove? If the women visited a burial site and there is nothing. What does that signify within an historical context with respect to Jesus?

Michael Grant, Jesus, An Historian's Review of the Gospels: Authenticity has no bearing on veracity.

spin

What methodological indications make you think "they are working as an historian"? When we talk about someone being a historian, it's a matter of the facility with the methodologies involved in the field that defines them.


spin

aa5874

But, to ask for such a demonstration is absurd. How can someone who does not believe the Supernatural can occur turn around and demonstrate what can prevent the Supernatural from existing?

You are the one who believe the Supernatural, then you must show that the Supernatural cannot be prevented from existing and affecting our world.

Now, please name some Supernatural events that you know and the effects that they had on our world.

youngalexander

The Laws of physics are in the province of science. Science is concerned with the natural universe. That is, the laws of physics describe observed phenomena. The supernatural does not exist because it has never been observed scientifically. Science does not prevent what it does not observe. What is not observed does not affect our world.

Tharn

Stop for just one half of one second and realize what you are saying.

You are literally saying that the millions and billions of dead bodies (of all species) that we've observed rotting away without a single one of them ever ever ever coming back to life is not evidence that dead bodies don't come back to life!

On this view, nothing can count as evidence of anything. But things do count as evidence for things. So that can't possibly be right.