dog-on

I assume that Shesh is alluding to your assumption that the NT contains something more than what a religious group happened to believe. The assumption that actual history can be derived solely from cherry picking the content itself.

Keep on spanking that monkey...

avi

Thank you Abe.

In my opinion, as one who is also climbing the steep staircase of learning about the origins of Christianity, you err here, if for no other reason than this single word "all", as in "all parts of the Bible".

If, instead of writing "minimalists", and "maximalists", we employ more judicious vocabulary, perhaps your assessment will appear more reasonable.

How about this:
Some folks accept as historical reality, most of the written text of one or another version of the new testament.

Other folks, deny that "most" of the written text of the new testament accurately portrays genuine historical events. War and Peace accurately explains certain historical events, for example, but it remains, overall, primarily a work of fiction, not history.

At the end of the day, this grey scale, applied to presumptive historical data found in the Bible, is irrelevant, however, for either one accepts the divinity of JC, or one does not. That issue, the question of JC's character, is not grey, but rather, black and white. One believes in his divinity, or one does not.

So, the problem then, is how to relate a grey scale of historical suppositions derived from a corrupted text, the new testament, the heart of which attributes mythical qualities to a supernatural entity, with actual historical events. Why do we proclaim War and Peace to be a work primarily of fiction, possessing however, a few genuine historical vignettes, rather than an oeuvre of historical reputation, containing a sprinkling of known fictional attributes?

In my opinion, such an attempt to compel binary scaling upon analogue properties is an exercise in futility. What can be accomplished by imposing such an artificial analysis?

avi

ApostateAbe

When we have many historical facts reflected in the contents of the Bible (or other ancient religious sources) that are corroborated by trustworthy historical sources outside the Bible, then such a possibility is not an assumption but a direct inference. That is what this thread is about.

1. There is one perspective that says, "There are some attested historical facts reflected in the Bible, and therefore everything else is likewise historical."
2. There is a second perspective that says, "There are some attested historical facts reflected in the Bible, but also a bunch of bullcrap, so we should assume that all of the rest of it is complete hogwash until proven otherwise."
3. There is a third perspective that says, "There are some attested historical facts reflected in the Bible, so let's examine other claims and find the best explanation for them (with either myth or history) on a case-by-case basis."

Obviously, I advocate the third way. It follows from my own methodology of history.

I am curious: did I get your perspective right or wrong when I stated the second perspective? If I got it wrong, then how would you phrase it?

ApostateAbe

Thanks, avi. I do not think that the important point of discussion is whether or not Jesus Christ is divine. To me, it is simply a given obvious point that he is not. Even among those who are in agreement with that point, though, there is a difference between a reasonable way to think about the scriptural canon and an unreasonable way to think. An unreasonable way to think, in my opinion, is to argue for as little historical value in the Bible as we can without seeming too absurd. That seems to be a perspective that a lot of us are strongly inclined to take.

Heck, if we can explain the New Testament the same way we can explain War and Peace (or via: amazon.co.uk), then maybe all of the central characters really are fiction. But, what if some of the central character apparently really are historical people? Further, what if the explanation that the gospels began as a fictional narrative is improbable because it has no close historical analogy and it does not fit the patterns nor the internal evidence nearly as well as their beginnings as Grecco-Roman biographies filled with unlikely mythical claims (as was typical for other such biographies)? The point is not that the gospels fit that genre, though it is what I believe, but I am arguing for the consideration of a third perspective that is potentially more reasonable. I think too many of us are stuck in the second perspective, which seems excessively reactionary and skepdogmatic. Do you agree?

aa5874

Well, please state a single ATTESTED historical fact about about HJ the insignificant obscure peasant preacher who was NOT Christ.

It is NOT an historical fact that there was an HJ in the first place.

HJ was just a presumption.

We ALREADY KNOW, and it has been ADMITTED by HJers, that very LITTLE is known or NOTHING is known about HJ so you really DON'T know what you are talking about

ApostateAbe

aa5874, I think of you sort of as the acme of the second perspective.

There is a second perspective that says, "There are some attested historical facts reflected in the Bible, but also a bunch of bullcrap, so we should assume that all of the rest of it is complete hogwash until proven otherwise."

Do you agree that this describes you?

dog-on

My perspective is simply that in order to determine the historicity of anything in the bible, you need external evidence. Without external evidence, you are simply going to end up spanking your well beaten monkey.

ApostateAbe

So I take it that you agree with the second perspective, but you would phrase it differently. Am I wrong?

ApostateAbe

dog-on, maybe this is your perspective:

"There are some attested historical facts reflected in the Bible, but also a bunch of bullcrap, so we should assume that all of the rest of it is complete hogwash until proven otherwise, so we don't spank too many monkeys."

dog-on

Kind of, see bold...


"There are some attested historical facts reflected in the Bible, but also a bunch of bullcrap, so we should assume that all of the rest of it is complete hogwash unless there is good evidence available that allows one to believe it may be otherwise, so we don't spank too many monkeys."