spin

Responses to individual points by me in blue below:
This list has been constructed for apologetic purposes. It shows no knowledge of historical methodology. How can any of it be tested to falsify or verify it? Read the bible and check it out. There is no other way.

What we have here are examples of what people who should know better have when they take out the bits that are unpalatable to them. It is an arbitrary exercise in demonstrating one's inability to use historical methodology.

What about contemporary historians? (Pause. Silence.)

Let's just have the evidence. Huh? :constern02:


spin

ercatli

Hi SNM, thanks for continuing the discussion. What is BC&H?

I guess that depends on whether one is a determinist or not. If we have some sort of free will, then we can choose to some degree how much our culture influences us. But if we don't, then you're right. But then, why do we argue, why do you believe what you believe, and why do some others on this forum get pissed off at me because I continue to disagree with them? All of us would be controlled by factors ultimately outside us (we received both our genes and our culture externally). This is a completely different topic, and I don't think I'll go there!

I think this is factually doubtful at best, and therefore the conclusion is very doubtful. I don't regard Australia as a christian country with regard to belief (which is what we were talking about), even though it has a christian basis in ethics and law. It's not like the US, less than 10% attend church regularly, christians are not highly regarded in general (though some are). So I didn't imbibe a christian culture in the same way as I imbibed English - my parents were not believers either. I received christian influence for one hour a week at Sunday School (many non-believers sent their kids in those days), but the rest of the time it was agnostic/secular until I was in my mid teens.

So the reason I'm a christian is certainly not the same as the reason I speak English, though I won't deny that where I grew up had a big influence.

This is a familiar argument, but a faulty one in my view. It is statistically true that where one is born has a big influence on what one believes, but so what? If you had been born there, you would be a Muslim too, so does that invalidate your belief? Sociological or psychological causes for belief tell us little about the logical reasons for belief.

Sorry, but no. :huh:

So I don't think your comments help us. If you are correct and all is decided by genes and environment, then why discuss truth? Your agnosticism would be valid, but you wouldn't be believing it for that reason any more than I believe in christianity, it would just be a fact about you.

But if we have some genuine choice about our beliefs, and you have chosen agnosticism of a fairly sceptical kind (as I infer), then we are still left with why that is your choice whereas my choice is different.

I don't think we can resolve these issues of scepticism about knowing anything.. I think they are more assumptions than provable beliefs.

A better example is the archaeological discoveries that appear to confirm that there are two sources in John's Gospel, one of which is early and geographically reliable (see my post #141, down the bottom). One argument against the historicity of John was it's presumed late date of composition. If that was a valid argument, then finding that the narrative portions (as opposed to the theological ones) were from an early source surely diminish that argument, and so reduce the reasons to doubt the historicity of those sections. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to stop arguing that the gospels can't be true because of the time gap between events and writing. So I still conclude that archaeology lends some support to the historicity of portions of the gospels, and hence to the historicity of the person reported in those gospels. It's a modest claim, but it seems quite clear to me, and to the scholars.

Others have got quite upset at me when I say this, but I can only say the truth. I am not a historian, and I therefore don't know very well how we should discern these things. My main way is to trust the experts. I trust the experts about evolution, climate change, neuroscience, big bang cosmology, the archaeology of neolithic Britain and the trench warfare in WW1 - that is why I read so much on many of these topics. So why wouldn't I do the same about Jesus?

I have never read the Odyssey, so everything I know about it comes from other people, even the fact that it exists, and certainly the fact that it is a legend (I think - is there some basis in fact? I don't really know.). Is Troy mentioned in the Odyssey, or is that the Iliad? Either way, it is an example. I grew up "knowing" Troy was a legend, but since then they have discovered it existed. But I have never been there, so again my knowledge of it being legendary and then being historical both came from others.

So you see I, and you, accept so many things on the authority of others, so why not the historicity of Jesus?

My guess would be that we know enough Greek history from other sources (though a sceptic like you maybe should doubt them too) so we can judge the Odyssey, plus we know what legends and history look like, plus we don't believe in the type of supernaturalism that goes with Ancient Greece (most of the "proofs" of God work less well with polytheism), etc - all of these and more might be criteria for judging.

And so I suggest your own example demonstrates the falsity of what you are saying. (1) We know the Gospels contain history just as we know the Odyssey does or does not, because we know most things by authority from others. (2) So my thought processes re the Odyssey don't falsify the gospels but actually confirm them.

This is starting to sound like dogma on this forum - all the scholars are christians (so why do the christians mistrust them?), they must have wrong and dishonest methods (some people are so willing to smear them), but we of course have no such biases and can be trusted even though we haven't done the study. You have been much milder in how you have expressed it, so I don't want to be rude to you, but I think it is an unconscionable way to avoid the conclusions of eminent experts. So I won't say anything more about that.

Thanks for your comments. I hope my little rant at the end hasn't upset you as I certainly don't wish to. Best wishes.

Steven Carr

So not even an attempt at evidence. Who would have thought there would be nothing but smoke?

By the way, claims that the Bush administration were behind 9/11 are very early.

They are also incredibly accurate in claiming the Twin Towers were in New York.

Guess that makes them true. After all, this is the very best of Biblical scholarship, according to Erclati. Early, geograhically accurate reports must be true.

By the way, where was this made up town of Arimathea?

There are lots of towns in John's Gospel that have never been found, despite your bluff that it is all geographically accurate.

Where was Aenon near Salim?

Where was Ephraim?

Are you going to keep bluffing? Or produce some evidence that these places existed?

gurugeorge

Hmmm, there's some subtle misunderstanding going on here, and either it's you or it's me.

OK, here's a thought experiment: just by chance, two new bits of writing are discovered on opposites sides of the globe. A jar is unearthed in the desert in Egypt, and a set of tablets are unearthed in South America.

The jar text talks about an entity, X, who subjugates the weather, walks on water, brings dead people back to life, etc., etc.

The tablet talks about an entity, Y, who talks to animals, flies through the air, erects a temple with a snap of his fingers.

Entity X has some bits of his biography that mention real ancient place names in Egypt, and there's the mention of a king who we know really existed. Entity Y's story has no identifiably historical mentions of anything in his story. There's not date, the story just takes place in some vague "yea time" in the past.

Would you agree that, so far as it goes, both stories are mythical? Both are fantastic tales about impossible things. They are myths, or legends if you prefer. In calling these myths, I'm not prejudging whether there was a real X behind the X myth, or a real Y behind the Y myth.

They are, simply, stories of fantastic entities. The story of this "Jesus" entity is, similarly, one of many such stories in the world, a story about a fantastic entity. It happens to have some historical-seeming references, just like X's story above - but that, in itself, doesn't prove anything.

To show that there was a real X behind the X legend, or a real Y behind the Y legend, would require some real historical digging. After such digging, it might even turn out, ironically, that despite the lack of historical-seeming references in Y's tale, there might have been a real Y behind the Y legend, while despite the abundance of historical-seeming references in X's story, there really was no real X behind the myth of X. (e.g., historical research might turn up some fellow who lived at a specific time and place, who was fond of animals and got the local community together to erect a once-famous temple, now sadly long since disappeared).

What some of the historically-informed people here are saying is that in the case of the Jesus myth, no appropriate historical research has been done. All that's happened is that people have largely taken for granted that the historical-seeming references in the Jesus myth prove that there was a man (called Jesus) behind that myth.

I hope the absurdity of that will now be evident.

neilgodfrey

You may have missed my post #165.

You overlooked the key point I made in my original post:

I have re-read your post #141 about John and believe that my post was addressing your argument head on.

Do tell me where I miss the point if you think I have ignored your case.

In short, the mere fact that a city (say Moscow) exists or existed in the past, or that a fountain in a city square exists in real life, or that Stalin really was a ruler of Russia, means absolutely nothing at all about the historicity of a story with a scene set beside a fountain in Moscow in the 1950's. Setting of a story tells us absolutely nothing about the historicity of the story itself. No matter what a thousand scholars in peer reviewed papers might say, anyone with a bit of nous knows that the facticity of a setting means nothing about the historicity of a narrative making use of the setting. It is only theological interest that seems to sometimes smudge the obvious and lead anyone willing to believe to think otherwise.

A hundred archaeologists can all publish the discovery of a first century pool in Jerusalem that is mentioned in John's gospel and it will have no more bearing on the historicity of the Jesus narrative than could a cave on Crete (named in myths about Zeus) establish the historicity of Zeus.

You spoke of genre as being reliable evidence for genuine historical intent, and I pointed to one clear case in particular where genre can be misleading (and has misled many) over questions of historicity -- the personal letter genre. One ancient author lampooned the genre of history writing by showing how it could, and often did, contain a bunch of lies; another wrote a false history of the Trojan war; etc. Forgery and deception in literature has always been part of the literary game -- genre is a tool for anyone who chooses to use it any way they like; it is not an official seal of authenticity.

I am not implying that the gospel authors were "frauds". I don't know enough about who they were or their contexts to think anything like that. I am quite comfortable with the idea that the earliest Jesus narratives were crafted as well-intentioned theological parables, and that later equally well-intentioned persons came to interpret them as literal history.

But if we are talking about history, then we need a bit more than the self-testimony of writings of unknown provenance to serve as an indicator of the reliability of sources. We need to apply the same standards re sources for the history of later periods to the ancient era. If the sources are more problematic in the ancient period, then we need to revise the sorts of questions we can ask of them, and not change the rules of the game to find a history that supports our faith or cultural heritage.

Neil

show_no_mercy

This is the crux of the matter:

There's a huge amount of special pleading going on here. I don't think there are any reliable historians who think that all four canonical gospels are 100% history. I don't know if that's what you're implying, but that seems to be the direction it's going.

How come your (1) doesn't say this: "We know the Gospels does or does not contain history just as we know the Odyssey does or does not, because we know most things by authority from others."? Are you implying that there are no parts of the gospel narratives that you think are fiction? Are you implying there are no people in positions of "authority" who don't think there are fictional pericopes in the gospels?

You should know that most experts (NT scholars) think that John has the least reliable information about any historical Jesus. So bringing up the archaeology that supports John is damaging to your case, since the Jesus depicted in John is the most fictional out of the four, and the most obvious case of placing a fictional person in a historical context.

Also, experts say that people aren't born from virgins, experts say that people don't come back from the dead after three days, experts say that human bodies cannot self-ascend into the clouds, experts say that sickness and epilepsy are not caused by "sin" or demon possession, and experts say that the Pharisees would not have been the cartoonish arch-enemies of Jesus as they are depicted in the gospel narratives. So if you're going by what experts say, that's a huge chunk of the gospel material that has to classed as the same sort of fable as Minerva born in the brain of Jupiter, Achilles born from the sea nymph Thetis, Romulus (founder of Rome) born from the virgin Silvia, Melchizedek born from the virgin Sofonim, or Perseus born from the virgin Danae.

If you really are trusting the experts, all you're left with is a person named Jesus who was walking around doing "faith healings" like any modern charlatan, who was preaching in the streets and other gathering places, and was executed for causing a disturbance in the temple. This Jesus becomes quite unremarkable and impossible to pinpoint in the first century. The only difference from him and any other of the possible hundreds of Jews named "Jesus" in the first century who were executed or wrongly killed is that his followers started seeing him in some sort of visionary experience after his death. The only "experts" who seem to think that the resurrection was real are conservative Christians. I doubt you'll find any historians (not Bible scholars) who think the [bodily] resurrection was a real event.

If you really were trusting the experts, all of the supernaturalism in the gospel accounts would be placed in the same bin as the supernaturalism in the I&O, the supernaturalism in the Book of Mormon, the supernaturalism in the Vedas, or the supernaturalism in the Koran. To not do so is simple special pleading.

Solo

Well, hold on there, friend. It was Jesus' family, or at any rate those close to him, who thought he was out of his mind in Mk 3:21. They would have known Jesus and could gauge if he was acting out of character. John also repeats the charge Jesus was observed to have 'a demon' (7:20, 8:48, 8:52) ). So, bacht does not overstate but identifies a point of view which was well known to the earliest Christians.
Luke ? Surely not Luke. But, the implication that the believers in Jesus were thought strange themselves is again founded on the texts. Mat 10:25 ...If they have called the master of the house Be-el'zebul, how much more will they malign those of his household...(the charge of Jesus casting out demons by being Be-el'zebub possessed comes from Mk 3:22). As for Paul, he hints at the negative perception of himself in several places. He admits that his message when he started to preach at Corinth was not in 'plausible words of wisdom', (1 Cr 2:4)that when he prays to in a tongue his mind is 'unfruiful' (1 Cr 14:14) and reminds the Galatians of his pitiful state when he first came to them (and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. Gal 4:14)

Jiri

Steven Carr

So the guy reads 'experts' and thinks Luke was a disciple?

Why are people talking to him?

GakuseiDon

Yes, you've said this before, and no doubt you will say it again. You're kind of like a more knowledgeable version of aa5874.

Most claims about history are not verifiable. As an amateur, I am at the mercy of the "academic consensus", in this and in so many other areas. AFAIK (and correct me if I'm wrong) the academic consensus is that the Tacitus passage is probably genuine.

As a general rule-of-thumb, I don't mind taking on the assumptions of the academic consensus. Could it be wrong? Sure. That's why we argue things here.

Given the nature of researching what probably happened 2000 years ago, yours and aa5874's constant refrain of "but you don't KNOW" is absolutely correct. Redundant, but correct. And I'm okay with that.

Please consider this my blanket answer the next time you raise this point, yet again.

bacht

Luke and the proto-Catholic writers of the 2nd and later centuries seem quite sane, however they're presenting (inventing?) a 1st C history based on questionable people.

If we were upper-middle-class citizens of the empire strolling through Judea and met up with John the Baptist or Simon Peter would we find them appealing or credible? I doubt it. Just as the average N American finds the likes of David Koresh or Jim Jones unattractive and suspicious, so the earliest Christians probably seemed nuts to their contemporaries (this is a favourite theme of Paul, the "foolishness" of Christianity compared with the "wisdom" of the unspiritual carnal mind).

Judea and Galilee seemed to be full of wackos before 70 ce. This is not a knock against Jews in general, just the tense social and cultural situation in these areas. Diaspora Jews seemed to accommodate Hellenism and Roman administration well enough (the OT apocrypha show examples of Jewish writers acknowledging the gentile worldview, like the discussion of reason vs emotion in 4 Macc).

The psychological profile of hardcore apocalypticists is that of frustrated resentful outsiders. Counting the weeks and years to the day of doom is not the behaviour of healthy integrated people. The eschatological speculation so prominent in the years between Daniel and bar-Kochba was denounced by contemporaries like Josephus and the rabbis who picked up the pieces after the obliteration of the Jewish state and cult.

The proto-Catholics had the challenge of polishing the image of the early believers into the familiar mythology we all know. Surely in the 21st C we're all aware of the power of spin-doctoring and propaganda. I guess we can give credit to the church fathers for pioneering such dubious methods (but quoting P.T. Barnum*: "there's a sucker born every minute")

* yes I know he didn't really say it, but it's a great line