ercatli

OK, when did I "leap from specific evidence to general conclusions"? I don't think I ever did with John, as you allege, for I have always accepted that John's final composition was late. I suppose it depends what you mean by "a generally reliable source of a history" - source doesn't mean that everything in it is correct, only that it contains history.

So, can you show me where I said "John should be considered a generally early document as it exists today"?

Actually I have responded to that, though it would have been since you wrote this - there is an inevitable hysteresis when one person is responding to many. So I have pointed out there were 16 of 20 examples that demonstrated the case.

So now that I've responded, how will you respond? Accept the evidence?

I have given a more extensive quote in my previous post. That is what I have said all along, and that is what the expert says. Remember, this all started with my saying that archaeology provides small support for the historicity of Jesus, and people not accepting that. I never made major claims for it. But this evidence is an example. It's a pity you and other won't accept what the experts say - it makes your overall case for being evidence based somewhat weaker.

Like I said before, I find it unpleasant to have someone so ignore the facts, then try to establish by vague innuendo something that they want to be true. Can I again request that you approach this in a more open-minded and less ad hominem manner?

For the record, I made it clear I hadn't read the entire book, only bits of it. (The entire book is online, but its not an easy way to read!) But I have read the relevant portions of the two papers I quoted, several times. Have you? Here is the reference (or via: amazon.co.uk) again so you can do so and check the facts before you make any more insinuations or conclusions. Just click on "look inside", then go to the contents to find the chapters I quoted.

I want to give you the chance to retract this statement. You provide no evidence, just a nasty smear of competent scholars. If you have evidence of lack of intellectual integrity on their part, please provide it; if not, please consider retracting.

Of course I cannot show you their psychological frame of mind and demonstrate something that is virtually unknowable. You and others here seem quite happy to freely make quite libellous remarks about people without evidence, not realising that it reflects on you much more than on the scholars.

Most of the rest of your comments are answered by the references and my previous post. Therefore I won't respond to the rest until and if you (1) read the sources I quoted and (2) cease your approach to denigrating scholars without providing any evidence. And please also read my plea at the end of my previous post to you. I believe we can discuss these things amicably and without the ad hominems directed towards me and the scholars, and in the long run, that is the only type of discussion I am willing to participate in. Several of your colleagues are quite willing and able to do it, and I'm sure you are to if you put your mind to it.

Thanks.

ercatli

Hi Zenaphobe, how are you going?

I don't know. I wouldn't call it fiction. Even if I didn't believe it to be true, I wouldn't think "fiction" would be the correct description. It is metaphysics or something like that.

Again, I don't think "fiction" is the best word. Yes, it is generally recognised as probably not being part of the original writing (though a few scholars accept it), but that doesn't make it fiction necessarily, it is more likely a genuine story with its own oral transmission that was added later (there seems to be some evidence for this).

The question of fiction is a larger one than the historicity of an individual story. Non-historical stories can be included in otherwise historical documents, even up until news reports in the present day, but that doesn't make the document fiction, just inaccurate at that point. Fiction is a literature type, and my limited reading suggests that (1) very little of what we call fiction was written in the ancient world, and (2) the gospels are not "fiction" but "biography".

Best wishes.

ercatli

Doug, you seem a pretty friendly and reasonable guy. What have I said that gives you any evidence of this? I am interested to discuss this, but can you provide some statements in support please?

Thanks.

ercatli

Hi Johnny! thanks for joining in.

If you check back (way back in geological time!) to the original post, you'll find I outlined how I approach this in a two stage way - (1) What is the evidence and the expert conclusions, and (2) what do I believe on that basis.

Most people here have chosen to discuss (1), the evidence or otherwise for the historical Jesus, but I would be happy to discuss (2) if you wanted to. But I should add, I don't necessarily believe in the Jesus of conservative right wing US christianity - I much prefer the real Jesus, who is a little different in places!

Best wishes.

aa5874

Please say which of the following is biographical.

1. The conception of Jesus.

2. The Temptation.

3. The Miracles.

5. The transfiguration.

6. The resurrection.

7. The ascension.

It appears to be the reverse.

The Gospels are fictional not biographical.

ercatli

Yes it is, especially the history of Jesus. But the objective of historical study (as opposed to metaphysics) is to reduce or neutralise that ideology so all of us can agree on a lowest common denominator of historical "facts". I think my biggest problem with what most of you are saying here is that you are making it more ideological, not less. That is one of the reasons why you end up doing bad history.

Christianity is a personal belief - a person can live in a "christian" country or work at a "christian" university and not have that personal belief. So we don't really know exactly what beliefs the scholars have unless they state them. But however right or wrong you may be (I simply wouldn't know about most scholars), you are wrong about some:

Burton Mack is an atheist I am told as is Robin Lane Fox.
Michael Grant was an unbeliever.
Robert Price is a Jesus-myther.
Bart Ehrman is a sceptic and I think agnostic.
Robert Funk was sceptical of orthodox christian belief.
JD Crossan has been very ambivalent in his belief and disbelief.
Gerd Ludeman is an unbeliever.
EP Sanders & M Borg have very liberal beliefs far from orthodox christianity.

Those scholars outnumber the believers that I know (NT Wright, C Evans) and have read. Of course there are many believing scholars that I don't quote and generally haven't read.

Further, most scholars I have read specifically try to avoid allowing their faith to bias their results - EP Sanders, J Meier & MA Powell are three who are very strong on this.

If we are talking about history, we are not talking about apologetics - the two are separate, although of course one may build on the other (and this can occur with both believers and sceptics!).

I would think most historians I have read - e.g. RL Fox, Sanders, Jesus Seminar (quite a few dozen sceptical scholars) & M Grant - believe the empty tomb was a historical fact. Just because you don't like WL Craig using that conclusion shouldn't be a reason for rejecting it - or are you making history more ideological than it needs to be?

I find it interesting how you have chosen to develop this point. I cite the conclusions of scholars which you don't like, so you disparage them, then offer a faith-based hope for the future. Don't you think it is ironic that a Moderator on the "Freethought and Rationalism Board" would be so closed to evidence and scholarly opinion and so open to wishful thinking, whereas the christian visitor is willing to accept the evidence of the best scholars?

As for what I will do - we'll see if and when it happens. How could I possibly know how I would respond to such a hypothetical? But we do know how you are responding to an actuality, and it isn't all that open-minded, is it? (I'm sorry to be so frank, but you are the one who first made that point.)

I don't recall making either of those statements. So you need not feel insulted. :devil1:

Best wishes.

ercatli

Aha, I have started a meme! I don't think anyone has proven that they exist (call me a meme-mythicist!), but I have still started one.

Robin Lane Fox is an Oxford historian, recently published and an atheist. His book "The Unauthorised Version (or via: amazon.co.uk)" (which I haven't read, only reviews) is strongly anti christian. Yet he nevertheless is not a Jesus-myther, believes John's Gospel was written by the disciple and concludes that the tomb was empty.

AN Sherwin-White was a classical historian (I think also a christian and not publishing currently because he is dead, so I suppose you will now write him off) who, based on his classical history background, believed the gospels were certainly not myth. E Judge is an Aussie classical historian (also a christian I think) who took the same view.

So which currently publishing historians are you going to cite?

Steven Carr

So still no evidence from Erclati. How many times is he going to embarrass his cause by his repeated inability to produce any evidence?

Look, that tailor says the Emperor is wearing clothes!

Doug Shaver

I have not been following the thread as closely as I could. If you can show me that my judgment was too hasty, I'll apologize.

The way it looks to me is that you claim scholarly support for positions that I know to be defended, with some rare and irrelevant exceptions, only by scholars committed to certain dogmas of evangelical Christianity. Those scholars are a minority within the academic community. You therefore are either disregarding the opinions of a substantial majority of the scholarly community, or else you're just unaware of what the majority has had to say on the topics you have raised.

My experience in debating Christians over many years in this and similar forums tells me that in most cases, Christians who argue as you are arguing regard the majority of scholars -- the ones who disagree with evangelical dogma -- as either incompetent or in some other way unqualified to be regarded as true scholars.

Doug Shaver

I have read that book. Twice.

Fox is not anti-Christian, or at least not in that book. (I haven't read anything else of his.) He is, I agree, unfriendly to evangelical Christianity, but most of the world does not agree with evangelicals that they are the only true Christians.