aa5874

But that is just your OPINION.
And you will never ever get everyone to have the same OPINION.


You have completely mis-represented the arguments here. The authors of the NT and the Church fathers made erroneous, mis-leading, and fictitious statements. These authors have, in effect, distorted history.

Every piece of fiction and distortion that I have detected in the NT or the writings of the Church fathers have been declared by making reference to the passage.

But my argument is concise and based on written statements from the NT and the Church fathers and it is this:

1. The authors of the NT and Church fathers wrote fiction about Jesus.
2. The authors of the NT and the Church fathers wrote fiction about "Paul".
3. The authors of the NT and the Church fathers could not identify "Paul."
4. The authors of the NT and the Church fathers distorted history.


Based on those facts, I have deduced that the entire cast of Jesus, his diciples and Paul are fiction.


On what do apologists based their opinions? Isn't it on supposition....conjecture.... interpretation given one set of biases?

You ignore the verifiable facts and then ask for them later. The verifiable fact is that fiction is in the NT and the writings of the Church fathers. What does that mean to you?

DevilsAdvocate

I do not disagree with any of the facts you present. In fact, if you have listed "Every piece of fiction and distortion that (you) have detected in the NT", then I suggest you study it more carefully because you have missed very many by your standards.

It is the leap of faith (IMO) from the facts to the your deduction that I question. However, it can be modelled and tested for its validity. Then you aproach proof.

Follow closely here... this may get technical for some readers...

Let's take the most basic distillation of your argument ...
Let's agree that the first three criteria are special cases of the fourth. If any of the other three are present, then the fourth criterium is met. So only the fourth criterium is necessary for the model. So here is a simplification of our assessment model.

1) If the authors distort history with mis-statements and incredible fanciful accounts, this represents the factual distortion of history.
2) If history is factually distorted by 1), deduce that the entire cast of characters are fiction and did not exist, and that the entire account is without historic basis.

Now, given that model for assessment, test the model on the originally assessed document, and I suggest it is verified. Therefore, we have a successful model for our original assessment.

Now comes the real test... Apply this model to other "historic" documents.

I challenge you to find a single one, especially more than 100 years old, that would meet your test of non-fiction and historicity. Therefore, we must conclude by our model that all of history is fiction (I would dispute that only a little) and none of the people existed (I think there is sufficient evidence to refute that). Since one of our conclusions seems to fail the test, our model needs to be adjusted.

If you disagree with these criteria for your assessment criteria, then let's restate them so we can test them according to agreed standards.

The outcome matters not to me, only the rationality and testability of the assessment.

DevilsAdvocate

[QUOTE=aa5874;5175989]Both sides are guilty of the same errors in analysis. Though you may not believe me, there are apologists that are skeptical and look for unbiased evidences to support or refute their own beliefs.

One assessment I saw recently reviewed the events of Acts and compared them to verifiable internal and external facts including tactile historic materials.

Most interestingly to me, they compared the places and timing of the Acts to places and timing of an expected similar journey of the time. The landmarks, terminology and timelines compared very favorably. They compared the details of the account of the places and people to verifiable historic evidences. Names, titles, economy, outside historic events ... compared favorably. Details in the account that seemed insignificant were said to be verified by inscriptions. Some of them I was already aware of, others not (references given but I have not traced all yet).


So...
"On what do apologists based their opinions? Isn't it on supposition....conjecture.... interpretation given one set of biases?"

Most do, and they are just empty airbags (IMhO). Others make excellent attempts to avoid that and find verifiable data to test their positions without presupposition, modify it when enlightening information is found, and keep searching and testing. After all, it is suggested in of the Pauline epistles that christians should "test everything" and to "count others as greater than yourselves."

andrewcriddle

Whatever its merits this seems a different argument than that of gurugeorge which IIUC was not based on unusually late datings of the NT writings.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

But you have fallen victim to your own conclusion, if all of history is fiction, then Jesus, the disciples and Paul would still be fiction.

But your conclusion that all of history is fiction is unsubstantiated, you cannot show that this is so. Can you show that Suetonius's writings about Tiberius is fiction or that Josephus' description of Jesus the son of Ananus is fiction?

On the hand, I can tell you, without contradiction, that the birth of Jesus, as described in the NT and by the Church fathers is complete fiction and that Paul's conversion as written by the author of Acts is also fictitious.

I have tentatively accepted all figures mentioned by historians or writers of antiquity as figures of history, but will question any figure if this entity appears to be supernatural, fictitious, unrealistic, or a forgery. For example, Jesus the son of Ananus is mentioned in Josephus, I tentatively accept this person as a figure of history, on the other hand, Jesus Christ is mentioned in Josephus, I have tentatively rejected this figure as fiction, since in Josephus, he acted like a Ghost. Jesus was seen alive after he was dead. Total fiction.

Toto

The only early data we have are the epistles of Paul and the Acts. (We also have the non-canonical Acts, and at least one scholar has tried to extract some real history from the non-canonical Acts of Paul IIRC, but most scholars ignore the non-canonical Acts.)

It is universally admitted that the two are incompatible. The Paul of the epistles lobs barely concealed scorn at the so-called pillars of the Jerusalem church, while the Paul of Acts is a loyal foot soldier. The Paul of the epistles is a braggart and an orator, while the Paul of Acts is humble. There are more. There are many contradictions in the character of Saul/Paul in Acts: he supposedly studied under Gamaliel and was a Pharisee, but he goes to Damascus as an agent of the High Priest, who was a Saducee. It all doesn't add up.

If you think that the epistles represent some version of what Paul wrote, the only conclusion that is possible is that Acts was written to reconcile the Pauline faction with the Jerusalem church. This does not preclude some historical core in Acts, but it is very hard to find it. The incidents in Acts have many parallels to Hellenistic fiction - Paul and Barnabas are mistaken for gods, the sea voyages. There is no particular reason to see these as history, as opposed to moralistic fiction.

If you are looking for hard evidence, you are in the wrong field. All we have are texts and the tools of literary criticsm. When a story doesn't make sense, when it clearly calls on prior literary sources, including the Septuagint and Josephus and Greco-Roman theater, that's as much evidence as you will get.

Could you identify these "anti-apologists?" Have you read the standard scholarship on Acts?

spamandham

Josephus writes about flying chariots in The Wars of the Jews (chapter 5 paragraph 3) as part of the same story in which he discusses Jesus son of Ananus. Using your standards, why is Jesus of Ananus not a fictional character?

I suppose the account of it would seem to be
a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not
the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to
deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and
troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among
the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast
which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into
the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform
their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place,
they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they
heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove
hence." But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus,
the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years
before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very
great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our
custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple,
(23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a
voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against
Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and
the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his
cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of
the city.

Ben C Smith

Good one, spam.

And from immediately before the flying chariots we get this:

Thus also before the rebellion of the Jews and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people had come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house that it appeared to be bright day time, which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, gave birth to a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of brass and vastly heavy and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it. He then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again.

Ben.

DevilsAdvocate

Let's assume this premise...

We must be in different universes...

The only references I recall to Jerusalem in the epistles are Paul's several references to the collection to alleviate the sufferings from the famine there. I may have missed some. If there were some somewhat derogatory, see reconciliation in Acts.

The Paul of Acts was hardly a "loyal foot soldier" for Jerusalem. He perwecuted the church. His "conversion" was on his way out of the area; he spent time with Barnabas in Antioch presumably under his instruction; he went to more eastern regions for a time. ... He based his work in Antioch and reported back there. There were issues apparently between the Jerusalem and Antioch church with Judaising teachers from Jerusalem that Antioch rejected. It was years before he ever returned to Jerusalem. When he finally did, he was greeted suspiciously, and it was in part to confront the Apostles for some of their teachings regarding Gentiles. They decided to stay largely independant of one another.

Where is the evidence for the difference between the personalities?

The Paul of the epistles is a pastor figure writing to his churches. He does display some hubris with wordy apologies in II Cor in addressing their hubris and divisions apparently due to others attacking him there in his absence questioning his knowledge and authority. He also mentions to them how he first aproached them with all humility when he first worked there. He also refers to his "thorn in the flesh" that served to keep him humble. His oratory was pretty fair on accasions including in Athens where he was invited back for a second day, and his defense in Jerusalem before the Sanhedrin.

The Paul of Acts is a character being written about by another character from accounts and perhaps personal witness and records later compiled into a more complete and orderly account. That is a completely different purpose and perspective. Not necessarily a different characteristic given above references with more, and your position statement.

So what little difference that may remain is not necessarily unexpected in literary analysis,

Paul...Son of Roman citizen in Tarsus one of the major centers for education at the time would likely have been versed in Greek and Roman philosophy and language. The Paul of the Epistles quotes several Greek poets. The Paul of Acts demonstrates the same familiarity with literature and culture. Athens was a good example. A perfect choice as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul, son of a jewess educated after family moves to Jerusalem "at the feet of Gamaliel," a Pharisee, but likely regarded as a respected sage of the time by most Jews centered more on the Pharisee dominated synagogue than the Sadducee dominated priesthood). Paul declares himself a Pharisee. There were both Pharisees and Saducees in the Jewish Sanhedrin. They worked together whether or not they shared the same theology. They shared condemnation for the Jesus character, Steven, James, and Paul until Paul adeptly turned them against each other over his statement taking sides on sensitive theological differences between the sects (historic confirmation). They had a comon problem in the Christians, so a faithful Jew working with the high priest in defense of the faith is not a contradiction.

Saul (a name rather peculiar to the tribe of Benjamin) in Acts does not identify his tribe affiliation. Paul identifies himself as Paul from the tribe of Benjamin in Epistles. Independant likely corroborating references.

Where is the contradiction?

But, there seem to be no differences between the characters given your examples. No reconciliation required.

The details of travels and cultures in Acts would support some authenticity, though compiled by someone later as attested by the purported author. So some degree of authenticity is also a supported conclusion.

Paul travelled by land and sea. They had no trains, plains or automobiles. I fail to see the significance.

Being mistaken as gods is interesting. That was in a location where local mythology had Zeus and Hermes visiting there (was it Laodocia?). That is said to be a rather unusual coincidence that the Acts reports them being worshiped as these two gods returning. A possible corroborating coincidence with secular history.

There is more evidence. The peculiar sequences and details of the account can be checked against known records and archaeology ... hard evidence.

Literary cross-reference between the Epistles and Acts are not significant given their context. You can look for differences, or you can weigh similarities.

Literary criticisms are hardly certain and offer no proof whatsoever. They are very subject to bias on all points, and then subject to a perpetual literary criticism cycle.

DevilsAdvocate

That may bot be the best erm by which to refer to them...
This was the referenced text that seemed to summarize most of what I found and was mentioned in thei forum.
http://www.hermann-detering.de/A_forgotten_chapter.htm

What do you consider the standard scholarship on Acts?