Toto

But that's the point - historians don't use simple minded "criteria" in any manner that resembles Biblical scholarship.

ApostateAbe

OK, thanks. I think I have a better handle on your perspective. If you establish that conclusion on the same premise as Richard Carrier seems to hold--that exceptions prove the absence of rules--then I would advise against it.

Toto

I would kindly advise that you do some background reading on the field of historiography, if not get a PhD in history, before you start passing judgment on others.

:wave:

ApostateAbe

Thanks for the advice. I'll get my Ph.D. in history now. :P

EDIT: What books on historiography would you suggest?

spamandham

...or it clearly isn't. You can find some astronomical event of interest for any year, but none of them will lead you to a particular house in a particular city.

Only a magic non-existent star can do that, unless maybe it's symbolic ...the magi are the 3 stars in the belt of Orion, and the star they are following is Sirius?

Of course that's impossible, since the story is historical rather than just silly ancient religious propaganda, as proven by the fact it includes known historical figures, and situations that would be embarrassing for messianic royalty of the line of David.

ApostateAbe

spamandham, I asked you a few questions, and Toto decided to answer them, but I would like to get a handle on your perspective, too.

arnoldo

The star didn't lead them to a particular city, the Magi went to Jerusalem to inquire the Jews about the particular city and the chief priests gave them the following information.

spamandham

Yes. There is possibly some value to the idea sometimes, but it is an unproven technique, and at best, it just barely helps, and is easily shown to be worse than useless in many cases.

Its primary use is to support whatever a Bible scholar wants to support using contorted reasoning no different that the contortions used to say that it is not embarrassing for the messiah to be born in a horse barn of peasants and then run off to Egypt. It's amazing people are arguing that isn't embarrassing, and I can only conclude the arguments are made in order to deny admitting that the criterion of dissimilarity is quackery. In ancient times, as in the present, if you found something embarrassing, you didn't write it down at all!.

In the case of the crucifixion specifically, there are theological reasons for it. It was needed so that the old covenant could be ended without god breaking his word. The Jews killed their own promised messiah, so that's why their reign as the chosen people is over. Jesus' resurrection is not for them, but for the new chosen people, the Christians.

I'd say this seems reasonable as a generalization, and is a good substitute for primacy in most cases, with primacy being part of the general historical method.

Multiple independent sources can be useful.

You're not applying it properly. According to this concept, things which are embarrassing are *more likely* true. It is embarrassing for a chosen people expecting a savior king to have that king born of peasants in a horse barn and chased out of his own land off to the land where his ancestors were held in bondage.

Since these things are embarrassing, they are more likely historical, so the criterion goes.

ApostateAbe

I suppose it is subjective about what counts as embarrassing and what does not. For whatever it is worth, the argument that the criterion of dissimilarity undercuts the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem counts for a helluva lot, because it follows from an interpretation of a messianic prophecy:

Mic 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."

That really seems to be the only plausible reason that Jesus was born in Bethlehem according to Matthew, and we may not make that conclusion so strongly if it were not for the criterion of dissimilarity, which tells us to distrust claims of prophecy fulfillment. Jesus' title was "Jesus of Nazareth," his family was from Nazareth, and it was a small backwoods town that had nothing to do with prophecy fulfillment and nobody ever heard of it if they didn't know who Jesus was.

spamandham

If you apply this standard consistently, then what would you make of the following?

Matthew 2:21-23

So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

The author of Matthew clearly thought Jesus needed to be from Nazareth in order to fulfill a prophecy. How do you disregard his birth in Bethlehem and yet embrace his home town being Nazareth, when both originate in prophecy from the perspective of the author of Matthew?