Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 10-24-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

My password keeps failing and keeps needing to be reset. Is that happening to anyone else??

...should be cleared up now. Apparently, the board has been rehosted.

spin · 10-24-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Historians like E.P. Sanders, Michael Grant, Burton Mack, Gerd Theissen, Geza Vermes, even admitted secularists like Michael Arnheim, Jeffery Lowder.

Of these, only Michael Grant can seriously be called a historian. The others are text scholars or whatever.

spin

andrewcriddle · 10-25-2008, 02:42 AM

As an example of the use of the criterion of embarrassment in a historical work there is Macaulay's essay on Barere Macaulay Miscellaneous Writings

Quote:

The account which Barere has given of his journey is the most interesting and the most
trustworthy part of these Memoirs. There is no witness so infamous that
a court of justice will not take his word against himself ; and even Barere
may be believed when he tells us how much he was hated and despised.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 10-25-2008, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

As an example of the use of the criterion of embarrassment in a historical work there is Macaulay's essay on Barere Macaulay Miscellaneous Writings

Quote:

The account which Barere has given of his journey is the most interesting and the most
trustworthy part of these Memoirs. There is no witness so infamous that
a court of justice will not take his word against himself ; and even Barere
may be believed when he tells us how much he was hated and despised.

Andrew Criddle

The criteria of embarrassment is a useless tool since the embarrassing account must first believed to be true.

For example, teamonger believes that Jesus was crucified, whether or not the crucifixion was embarrassing, he already believes Jesus existed and was crucified.

If the veracity of an embarrassing account is not known or cannot be verified , the criteria of embarrassment is useless to detemine veracity.

Rick Sumner · 10-25-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Yes. John the Baptist had a following which may include modern Mandeans, yet he was not divinized the same way.

That's debatable. As I mentioned in another thread recently, Raymond Brown has suggested that some of the prologue to John may have originally been a hymn with JBap in mind.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner · 10-25-2008, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

As an example of the use of the criterion of embarrassment in a historical work there is Macaulay's essay on Barere Macaulay Miscellaneous Writings

Doubly good (at least if you're me:wave

, it also compares it to statements against interest.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Minimalist · 10-25-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

My password keeps failing and keeps needing to be reset. Is that happening to anyone else??

...should be cleared up now. Apparently, the board has been rehosted.

Whew....I thought it might have been another one of those "miracles!"

teamonger · 10-25-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

...
But why would you assume such things, when you have no evidence that Mark was fabricating of whole cloth? Why would you assume the Q writer simply made up parables to put into Jesus' mouth? Certainly, someone had a way with graphic parables... why couldn't it have been a Galilean preacher named Jesus? When Paul states his belief that Jesus was crucified, that he was "descended of David according to the flesh", why not just accept that he heard these historical details from Peter or James? A historical Jesus is the simplest explanation for the evidence we have.

Why are you trying to put the burden of proof on me? Why do you assume that the gospels are some sort of true record, when we know that most ancient documents are not reliable? We know that Paul's letters were edited and amended by later people.

And I disagree that a historical Jesus is the simplest explanation of the evidence. A later fiction writer is much simpler.

As I see it, the burden of proof is on you, because you're the one disputing the prima facie evidence, claiming a total fabrication conspiracy by multiple sources.

Fundies declare to us that the NT is all perfectly true. Is the correct response to declare back, "no it's all perfectly false"? That seems to be the knee-jerk reaction of many atheists, but reality is seldom so simple. The NT is a complex set of documents which require evaluation on a case by case basis.
t

teamonger · 10-25-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Seems to me dating Mark to the 2nd century would require that Mark placed Jesus in the late 1st century, if he thought some of Jesus' followers were still alive at the time of writing. That wouldn't make sense, as there wouldn't be any temple for Jesus to visit.
t

You are assuming, with no basis whatsoever, that Mark was attempting to record history. The genre of the canonical Gospels has been well covered by scholars. The best and most recent analysis concludes Mark is a hero biography (Talbert, "What is a Gospel"). This argues against an early date, since the purpose of hero biographies was to settle doctrinal differences that arrise over time.

If Mark was writing a hero biography, don't you think he would've covered Jesus' whole life, rather than just one or two years of his life? There is simply no reason to doubt that Mark was recording oral tradition, history as he understood it, complete with rough and embarrassing edges which later gospel writers tried to smooth out.

Talbert may be the most recent, but whether his analysis is "best" or part of a mythicist fad is open to question.
t

teamonger · 10-25-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Bad example. The Book of Mormon purports to describe ancient history.

It is no different than the gospels. It is nothing more than assumption that the writers were recording their own memories, or those of other witnesses. My timeline is consistent with all the evidence - internal and external, yours poses problems. Mine is simpler.

For a nonchristian, I'm amazed you would even propose such an argument. Clearly, the Gospels contain mountains of fantasy that didn't happen. They can not possibly have originated from an honest witness, whether first or second hand. Yet you assume they are attempts to purport history nonetheless. Bizarre.

Please, before you continue, consider reading Talbert. If you do, I think you'll drop this argument.

As a non-Christian, I simply propose that the NT be analyzed like any other set of human documents promoting an agenda. That's what I suggest to both Christians and atheists.

I have discussed some reasons how historians find valid history in the gospels.
Can you say briefly why Talbert claims there could be no history in the gospels?
t

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.