stonewall1012

patcleaver: "This has always been the rule in the Law, and in archeology, and for historiography (except for Bible Scholars). Even Bible Scholars are beginning to recognize its necessity."

This is poor reasoning indeed... Let us assume that every one of the documents that we have in history is forged... does it therefore follow that EVERYdocument we find MUST be forged. No each text should be evaluated on their own merits.

What this amounts to is the complete destruction of history prior to the 1500 century. Julius Caesars conquest is a single persons account.. HIS. Do we place the "burden of proof" upon defenders of Caesar to prove his actions against the Gauls? We can archeologically find "battle grounds" and evidence of their "actions" but the relationships stragity, time's places and actions are completly unverifiable. The same is true of Alexander the Great: accounts of accounts...

If you wish to disbelieve in God or Christ or Muhammad fine... call them liars call them crazy people.. but when you assume this crazy kind of skepticism you endanger ALL of history not just some particular groups view of history.

It takes about 3 seconds worth of thought to be able to doubt... just ask: How do you know that is true... boom epistomology screws you every time...

Lastly, all those quotes you just cited are references to the letters being interpolated in principle not in fact, a good historian does not just throw up his/her hands and say .... ooops well its interpolated the whole thing is garbage.

Their argument is that as a principle Pauls letters could have interpolation and that the burden of proof that they CANNOT have interpolations is upon those who claim this. NOT that as a matter of principle Pauls letter HAVE interpolations but that as a matter of principle that they COULD NOT have interpolation must be demonstrated. You have to undestand logic to get it.

Amaleq13

You offered three authors who appear to make the claim only for Paul's letters and, presumably, only after making specific arguments toward that conclusion.

Your claim is that this holds true for all ancient documents.

From which informed, professional historian did you learn that?

I also look forward to your answers to my other questions.

patcleaver

Your arguments have no merit at all.

The proponent of any positive proposition has the burden of proving that the proposition is likely true. The negative proposition is just a denial of the positive proposition and does not have to be proved - the negative proposition is the default proposition. Its the default that a document is not authentic until it is been authenticated. If you claim that some part of an ancient document is authentic then you have to prove that its likely to be authentic.

We have verification of everything in history that should be believed.
The stuff that we can not verify should not be believed until it is verified.
History will survive honesty.

If you want to assume something is true then say that it may be true, or could be true, or that you have presumed that its true, or that it is an hypotheses.
All you have to do is be honest about it.

If you claim that a portion of a document is authentic, then all you have to prove is that its more likely than not that the portion of the document is really authentic.

I think that there is sufficient archeological evidence to prove that Julius Caesar's conquests or Alexander the Great's conquests are true, but if historians can not prove that they are likely to be true then historians should not lie about it.

If you can't prove, that something in history is more likely than not, but you want to assume that it is true, then just admit that your assuming it - just be honest about what is true and what you can not prove.

Yes, these are from the historical literature on Paul's letters, but clearly the same reasoning applies to the rest of the New Testament or any other ancient documents. The point is that its dishonest to claim that these documents are authentic when we do not have reasonable evidence to verify that these documents are authentic.

Good historians are honest people. No historian has to throw up his hands and say that history is garbage. Historians provide the facts and their hypotheses - they tell us what is probably true and what is probably false. Its what the historians have already been doing for many years, and what the Bible Scholars have been avoiding for many centuries.

Jeffrey Gibson

Don't hold your breath. If Pat is true to form, he'll dodge what you (and I) asked of him.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

So ... where is your proof for your positive propositions about what Hadrian thought, what the composition of Alexandria was in the early second century, and that there was a Serapis cult that worshiped a pagan deity called "Christ" (not to mention your claims about πειράζω)?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I note that you've changed the rules of the game from whether what is asserted in a document is historically reliable to whether a document is "authentic" (i.e., from the author it purports to be from). So thanks for the equivocation!

But be that as it may be, I wonder if you'd be willing to put your money where your mouth is regarding your claim that Walker et al would support what you see to be the import of their views on interpolations in Paul -- namely, that we must judge not just the letters of Paul but the rest of the NT writings as well, as containing nothing that we should ever accept as historical until it is verified -- and write to them to see if they agree with you.

Here are Walker's and Doughty's addresses (Munro died in the mid 90s):

wwalker at trinity.edu

ddoughty at drew.edu

Jeffrey

patcleaver

I know you read my post 41, so are you having <edit> a memory problem?

Jeffrey Gibson

Neither -- since all that appears in post 41 is assertion.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Bare assertion. No evidence produced in support of what is claimed, let alone any argument showing that any document used as the source of this assertion is reliable.

Bare assertion. No evidence produced in support of what is claimed, let alone any argument showing that any document used as the source of this assertion is reliable.

Bare assertion. No evidence produced in support of what is claimed, let alone any argument showing that any document used as the source of this assertion is reliable.

Bare assertion. No evidence produced in support of what is claimed, let alone any argument showing that any document used as the source of this assertion is reliable.

Perhaps? Don't you know?

Probably? May?

Define reliable -- and please give us your criteria for detemining what is and is not reliable.

Bare assertion. No evidence produced in support of what is claimed, let alone any argument showing that any document used as the source of this assertion is reliable.

Bare assertion. No evidence produced in support of what is claimed, let alone any argument showing that any document used as the source of this assertion is reliable, not to mention that the assertion is countered by Pliny's letter to Trajan which indicates that there was awareness in Rome and among Roman emperors of Christians from the beginning of the second century.

Bare assertion. No evidence produced in support of what is claimed, let alone any argument showing that any document used as the source of this assertion is reliable. Moreover, why should we accept your judgment here?

Bare assertion. No evidence produced in support of what is claimed, let alone any argument showing that any document used as the source of this assertion is reliable.

:huh:
Not according to many of the honest historians you go on about.

Bare assertion. No evidence produced in support of what is claimed, let alone any argument showing that any document used as the source of this assertion is reliable. Moreover, there is engagement in the fallacy of bifurcation here.

Bare assertion. No evidence produced in support of what is claimed, let alone any argument showing that any document used as the source of this assertion is reliable.

Do you have a primary source that supports any of the claims you've made above?

Jeffrey

patcleaver

Yes, I said that I agreed that Historia Augusta may be a forgery (just like most early Christian documents may be forgeries) and I said that I was assuming that it was authentic for the sake of argument.

I have not tried to determine whether or not its a forgery.

I agree that its ambiguous - I am just arguing for an alternative interpretation to demonstrate that its ambiguous.

Roger's theory is that the second sentence is intended to support the first sentence and that it does not make sense because it confuses Christians with worshipers of Serapis.

The alternative theory is that the second sentence is merely an aside to define who the Christians and Bishops of Christ are, so that the reader knows who Hadrian is referring to in the third and fourth sentences. The first sentence is supported by the third and fourth sentences.

I have several reasons for thinking that the alternative theory is more likely (again assuming that its authentic):
1. the second sentence does not make sense in Roger's theory, but it does in the alternative theory.
2. There were probably very few followers of Jesus of Nazareth in Alexandria at that time 135 CE and it is unlikely that Hadrian would be referring to them.

I am not addressing what it might mean if its just another later Christian forgery.