Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-09-2013, 03:50 PM

New article on Bible and Interpretqtion:

Jesus, the Gospels and History By Amanda Witmer, Conrad Grebel University College

I have to admit that when I read this, my eyes glazed over - not just because of the OMG exclamation point:

Quote:

In some quarters it is now fashionable to argue that Jesus did not exist! At the opposite end of the spectrum we find the position that every word of the Bible is literally true and that the gospels provide us with an unfiltered historical account of Jesus’ life. This is a false dichotomy rooted in our human tendency to insist on absolutes and true or false claims. Neither position takes the evidence seriously. As it turns out, historical information about Jesus can be found, but sifting through the data requires some work. An open and enquiring mind is also a necessary requisite.

But the comments are good, and I look forward to Tom Verenna's rebuttal.

The author:

Blenheim Bible

Quote:

Amanda Witmer

Mandy is a biblical scholar who specializes in Early Christianity and Judaism. She is a part-time instructor in Religious Studies at the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University where she has taught Intro to Hebrew Bible, Jesus of Nazareth, and Roots of Western Religions. She attends Waterloo North Mennonite Church.

Vorkosigan · 08-09-2013, 05:02 PM

Argument by rhetorical question. You almost have to feel sorry for her.

Minimalist · 08-09-2013, 06:50 PM

Quote:

As it turns out, historical information about Jesus can be found, but sifting through the data requires some work. An open and enquiring mind is also a necessary requisite.

You'd almost think that a "god" could do better than that, wouldn't you?

DCHindley · 08-09-2013, 07:27 PM

Wow.

Mennonite instructors and a program based on a Catholic Publication! I've always admired Mennonites, who are followers of the teachings of Catholic priest turned Anabaptist teacher Menno Simon, and close relatives of the Amish, a Mennonite sect who followed the teachings of the super-strict Mennonite teacher Jacob Amman (the inventor of shunning).

I know several individuals from both of these groups (they are quite prominent here in NE Ohio), but Mennonites are by far more welcoming to modern scholarship (Amish do not go to school past 8th grade, and their "bishops" do not receive advanced education in religion, preferring to use Martin Luther's German translation of the Bible for worship, which is the KJV of German Bibles).

That being said, Mennonite scholars (yes, they do exist) are more akin to sound like Baptists than to J D Crossan.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

New article on Bible and Interpretation:

Jesus, the Gospels and History By Amanda Witmer, Conrad Grebel University College

I have to admit that when I read this, my eyes glazed over - not just because of the OMG exclamation point:

Quote:

In some quarters it is now fashionable to argue that Jesus did not exist! At the opposite end of the spectrum we find the position that every word of the Bible is literally true and that the gospels provide us with an unfiltered historical account of Jesus’ life. This is a false dichotomy rooted in our human tendency to insist on absolutes and true or false claims. Neither position takes the evidence seriously. As it turns out, historical information about Jesus can be found, but sifting through the data requires some work. An open and enquiring mind is also a necessary requisite.

But the comments are good, and I look forward to Tom Verenna's rebuttal.

The author:

Blenheim Bible

Quote:

Amanda Witmer

Mandy is a biblical scholar who specializes in Early Christianity and Judaism. She is a part-time instructor in Religious Studies at the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University where she has taught Intro to Hebrew Bible, Jesus of Nazareth, and Roots of Western Religions. She attends Waterloo North Mennonite Church.

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-09-2013, 07:51 PM

The page seems to be down.

Steven Carr · 08-09-2013, 11:50 PM

The article uses the 'criterion of multiple silences' to see if something is historical.

This criterion (which has wide ranging applications) state that something is likely to be historical if we can find not just one, but two or more sources which never state that it happened.

The silence has to be multiply attested before we know that what our sources are silent about must be historical fact.

'The gospels of Luke and John, written around 85 and 90-100 respectively, avoid any description of the baptism at all......
Luke acknowledges that Jesus was baptized, but avoids placing John at the scene by having him already in prison (3:18-22), and the writer of John’s gospel incorporates the imagery of the dove from the baptism tradition, but avoids directly mentioning that John baptized Jesus.'

A slam dunk application of the 'criterion of multiple silence.'

aa5874 · 08-10-2013, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

The article uses the 'criterion of multiple silences' to see if something is historical.

This criterion (which has wide ranging applications) state that something is likely to be historical if we can find not just one, but two or more sources which never state that it happened.

The silence has to be multiply attested before we know that what our sources are silent about must be historical fact.

'The gospels of Luke and John, written around 85 and 90-100 respectively, avoid any description of the baptism at all......
Luke acknowledges that Jesus was baptized, but avoids placing John at the scene by having him already in prison (3:18-22), and the writer of John’s gospel incorporates the imagery of the dove from the baptism tradition, but avoids directly mentioning that John baptized Jesus.'

A slam dunk application of the 'criterion of multiple silence.'

The same article clearly states the Gospels were NOT written as historical facts.

It is extremely frightening when so-called Scholars admit the Gospels were NOT composed for historical facts and then immediately use the very Gospels for their "historical" facts of their Jesus.

Such blatant contradiction is wholly unacceptable.

See http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/201...it378008.shtml

Quote:

To say that the gospels are not pure history does not imply that they are complete fiction. They were written not for the purpose of documenting historical fact, but for presenting a portrait of the man the writers understood to be the savior of the world....

The baptism and crucifixion of Jesus were NOT written for the purpose of documenting historical facts.

Essentially the claims that Jesus was baptized and crucified are as historical as the claims that Jesus and Satan were on the pinnacle of the Temple and that the angel Gabriel spoke to Mary in Nazareth.

MrMacSon · 08-10-2013, 02:30 AM

Quote:

"In some quarters it is now fashionable to argue that Jesus did not exist! At the opposite end of the spectrum we find the position that every word of the Bible is literally true and that the gospels provide us with an unfiltered historical account of Jesus’ life. This is a false dichotomy¹ rooted in our human tendency to insist on absolutes² and true or false claims3. Neither position takes the evidence seriously. As it turns out, historical information about Jesus can be found⁴, but sifting through the data requires some work. An open and enquiring mind is also a necessary requisite⁴ ..."

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/201...it378008.shtml

1 it's not really a false dichotomy, other than a proposal it is by the writer of this piece! ie. they are not arguing against a false dichotomy.

2 hasty generalisation

3 a real false dichotomy

4 poisoning-the-well fallacies

This is likely to be true -

Quote:

"The gospels are colored by the conviction of those who wrote them that Jesus was the Son of God."

but the rest is mostly bare assertion as bait 'n' switch. She throws the word 'evidence' around like water at a baptism.

maryhelena · 08-11-2013, 12:06 AM

Surely - Amanda Witmer can't possibly think that her attempt to support historicity for JC has any substance on a scholarly playing field? Apologetics masquerading as scholarship.....

Amanda Witmer on “Jesus, the Gospels and Historicity”
by Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.org/2013/08/11/amanda-...d-historicity/

MrMacSon · 08-11-2013, 03:28 AM

apologists and theologians either don't know historical methodology, or shy away from it

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

08-09-2013, 05:02 PM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Argument by rhetorical question. You almost have to feel sorry for her.

08-09-2013, 07:51 PM	#5
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The page seems to be down.

08-09-2013, 11:50 PM	#6
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	The article uses the 'criterion of multiple silences' to see if something is historical. This criterion (which has wide ranging applications) state that something is likely to be historical if we can find not just one, but two or more sources which never state that it happened. The silence has to be multiply attested before we know that what our sources are silent about must be historical fact. 'The gospels of Luke and John, written around 85 and 90-100 respectively, avoid any description of the baptism at all...... Luke acknowledges that Jesus was baptized, but avoids placing John at the scene by having him already in prison (3:18-22), and the writer of John’s gospel incorporates the imagery of the dove from the baptism tradition, but avoids directly mentioning that John baptized Jesus.' A slam dunk application of the 'criterion of multiple silence.'

08-11-2013, 12:06 AM	#9
maryhelena Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England Posts: 2,527	Surely - Amanda Witmer can't possibly think that her attempt to support historicity for JC has any substance on a scholarly playing field? Apologetics masquerading as scholarship..... Amanda Witmer on “Jesus, the Gospels and Historicity” by Neil Godfrey http://vridar.org/2013/08/11/amanda-...d-historicity/

08-11-2013, 03:28 AM	#10
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	apologists and theologians either don't know historical methodology, or shy away from it

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.