Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[ddt]

Yup. I'm not as knowledgeable about the holocaust denial theories as you are, but my guess is they pick up on relatively minor points in each of those sources. The point is that the preponderance of evidence points towards it happening, even with little curiosities or errors here and there in the sources.

I'm far from the most knowledgeable in that field, but yes, they only try to pick on the part of gassing in the extermination camps. The Einsatzgruppen are generally not disputed, the records from transit camps like Westerbork neither (which tally how many Jews/gypsies/... were shipped to Auschwitz/Sobibor/...) but they pick on testimonies which may indeed be contradictory or seemingly contradictory. Elie Wiesel is a favourite there, or the couple of recent forged accounts of people who never were there.

Naturally, the contention that they wrote nothing but the truth is false.

In that regard, your contributions would have been better in place in the recent Christ Myth theory thread. Don't let that remark chase you away here though.

The contention even that they were always primarily interested in historical accuracy is false.
With regards to Jesus' birth, that's an interesting point that I've talked about in this thread. The presence of wild contradiction doesn't actually mean that the stories can be dismissed. It makes the stories much more interesting.
If the two accounts conspired, they could have done a much better job of getting the stories to work, so it is reason to believe that, for this tale, they were independent. But they both agree on a few points. One is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. This is unsurprising as that was predicted in the old testament, so this could have been made up by two independent sources quite easily. Another is that Jesus was from Nazareth.
That is more interesting. Why would two independent sources make up stories that are wildly contradictory but make sure that Jesus comes from a small village that nobody had heard of? A good bet is that Jesus really was from Nazareth, and so the two authors couldn't claim he was from Bethlehem, and instead did some horrible fudging to make him be both. The two authors picked different solutions, and so we have the wild contradictions.

The Bethlehem story clearly seems to be fitting in with OT prophecy. The claim that Jesus came from Nazareth is already present with Mark, see Mark 1:9:

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

And if you check the Greek, it really says "ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας", i.e., it names the town. Well, town - archaeological evidence says that the village had less than 500 inhabitants, so Luke's and Matthew's calling it a "polis" (city) is a stark embellishment.

Then, the two solutions Matthew and Luke choose for this are quite different. Matthew doesn't mention Joseph and Maria being natives from Galilee: they seem natives from Bethlehem in his story. They flee to Egypt with their newborn son to escape the massacre of the innocents. Returning from Egypt, Herod is succeeded by his son Archelaus in Judea and they decide to resettle in the Galilee (never mind Herod's other son Antipas reigned there); and that's the first time Nazareth is mentioned.

Luke has Joseph and Maria actually come from Nazareth. They go to Bethlehem on orders of Quirinius' census while Mary is pregnant (El Al wouldn't have taken them on board, but donkeys don't have such qualms) and Jesus is born there. When he's 8 days old, they take him to the Jerusalem Temple to be circumcised and then return to Nazareth.

So, they both run with Mark's only mention of the village Nazareth and weave a totally different fantastic story around it. The other mentions in Mark are the Greek words "Nazarenos" and "Nazoraios", and it is disputed whether these words actually mean "from Nazareth".

This is an interesting point. Egyptian myths might include Pharaohs and Egyptian landmarks that really existed, when the story is actually fabricated. My argument in general would be that there is much more historical reporting than in myths. The writers frequently give us what day of the week something happened, or will mention an upcoming festival, to give us a frame of reference in time. It could still be historical background to a fictional story, but this becomes less likely.
The other point is the agreement among independent sources. If one author makes up that Jesus had 12 disciples, then how come the other authors all think so too? Not to mention paul thinking this was the case as well?

The 12 disciples is a no-brainer. They are symbolic of the 12 tribes of Israel. Jews were (are) fond of such numerology. As to such details you mention: let's take Luke 1. Our OP has stressed time and again that Luke is the most historical gospel. Yet Luke 1 starts with the annunciation and birth of John the Baptist - during the reign of Herod the Great. Then it skips to Jesus' birth story. I nowhere see mention that ten years passed; OTOH, it suggests that they are less than a year apart, because Jesus' coming is announced around the time of John's birth.

I don't quite see the relevance of including weekdays or holidays in the story in general, though. Any fiction writer would do that, wouldn't they? Suppose 2,000 years from now, archaeologists discover a copy of "The Day of the Jackal". Was that true? No, it's fiction, but the whole background fits. De Gaulle was French president, the OAS existed and they actually planned multiple and executed at least one attempt on De Gaulle's life. Yet Forsyth's particular story is fiction, and there's plenty of detail in his story.

 

[welshdean]

duplicated

 

[Akhenaten]

Show us some examples of what you mean.
From the NT.
This sounds interesting.

Ok then: Jesus knew John the Baptist

Is this the only thing the historical method has ever revealed to you? Even if if it turns out to be true, it's going to be a really long haul using this one story to demonstrate the truthiness of the New Testament, I'm afraid.

The sources we have available are close to the events.

We'll just take your word for that, will we?

The sources include independent testimony even though some had the others available.

Yeah but you're determined to keep them secret, apparently, so they're not much use.

The event fits the historical context, and rough social standing.

So does Doctor Zhivago.

Christians are unlikely to have made up Jesus associating with an
apocalypticist as they knew the apocalypse hadn't happened.

Christians didn't make up Jesus. Paul did, and then he invented Christians.

Christians are unlikely to have made up Jesus associating with a baptist who worked for sinners, as Jesus wasn't a sinner.

Yeah they are. It's an embarrassing detail to make the story more convincing.

(The counterargument to this that Jesus died for our sins wasn't actually Christian doctrine until later. The initial idea was the forthcoming end of the world.)

You get to do both sides of the argument? That'll cut down on the disagreements, by golly.

Thus it seems likely that Jesus knew John the Baptist.

Fiddlesticks.

It's not really that interesting. It's the same historical method that is applied to other sources of the time, and it doesn't find especially exciting facts.

None at all, as it happens. Not even boring ones.

And who are these known different authors 'with corroborating yet unique reports'?

It seems I worded myself too confusingly. We do not know who the authors are (apart from Paul really), but we know which are different.

If you can't trust anonymous authors, then who can you trust?

 

[Akhenaten]

If you are uninterested in finding what is likely to be true through discussion, or contributing material that you are confident of the veracity, then why participate?

Aberhaten sent me.

 

[welshdean]

Phelix, any good reason why these don't count? Bollocks to your 'must be teaching at a University today' nonsense. The fact that these guys have spent years of study in their fields is good enough for me and should be for you. [Appeals to Authority aside]

.

George Albert Wells (born May 22, 1926), usually known as G. A. Wells, is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He is best known as an advocate of the idea that Jesus is a largely mythical rather than a historical figure.

Wells is a former Chairman of the Rationalist Press Association. He is married and lives in St. Albans, near London. He studied at the University of London and Bern, and holds degrees in German, philosophy, and natural science. He has taught German at London University since 1949, and has been Professor of German at Birkbeck College since 1968

____________________​

Robert McNair Price (born July 7, 1954) is an American theologian and writer. He is professor of theology and scriptural studies at the Coleman Theological Seminary, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, and the author of a number of books on theology and the historicity of Jesus, including Deconstructing Jesus (2000), The Reason Driven Life (2006), Jesus is Dead (2007), and Inerrant the Wind: The Evangelical Crisis in Biblical Authority (2009).

____________________​

Thomas L. Thompson (born January 7, 1939 in Detroit Michigan) is a biblical theologian associated with the movement known as the Copenhagen School. He was professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen from 1993–2009, lives in Denmark and is now a Danish citizen

____________________​

Earl J. Doherty (born 1941) has a B.A. in Ancient History and Classical Languages and is the author of Challenging the Verdict (2001), The Jesus Puzzle (2005) and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (2009). Doherty argues for a version of the Christ myth theory, the view that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure.

____________________​

D. M. Murdock, better known by her pen name Acharya S, is an author and proponent of the Christ myth theory. She has authored six books and operates a website named Truth be Known. She believes Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths. Acharya received a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College, after which she completed her postgraduate studies at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in Greece.

____________________​

Victor J. Stenger (born January 29, 1935, Bayonne, New Jersey) is an American particle physicist, outspoken atheist, and author, now active in philosophy and popular religious skepticism.

As of June 2010, he has published nine books for general audiences on physics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, philosophy, religion, atheism, and pseudoscience, the latest of which include The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, which was released in September 2009, and The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Humanity (2011).​

____________________​

 

[phelix]

Welshdean, They do not count because they didn't meet the very clear standards I gave. Only one of them has any qualifications in critical biblical scholarship at all. If they are very well studied, then fine, but why do their arguments never appear in academia?
I am not making the argument that "0% of relevant experts believe the NT has no historical value, thus it isn't true" but rather "0% of relevant experts believe the NT has no historical value, and this must be acknowledged or explained in some way"
For instance, alternative medicine folk have no relevant experts on their side, and they explain this by saying the drug companies have bought out the health system.

It is not definitely wrong. If you have 0% of the expert base backing you, you might still be correct, but there should be some sort of argument as to why the entirety of the field has not been overthrown.

 

[ddt]

Of your list, there is only one biblical scholar (Robert Price) and he is unable to get a teaching position at an accredited university.
I will not find an objection if you suggest anyone who falls within the clear scope of the original challenge, but you cannot.

Could you elucidate on the "unable" part: it implies he actually tries/has tried. Furthermore, I looked a bit into biblical scholars who tackled the question of Jesus' historicity, but all I've found thus far are actually trained theologians, not historians. I'd think that historians would be the prime candidates for knowing how to apply the historical method, don't you? The oft-quoted criterion of embarrassment is a criterion which, AFAIK, is only applied in the case of Jesus and the gospels and not for, say, establishing the historicity of Socrates.

 

[John Jones]

Something is a false dichotomy if other options are available. If you can give a possible alternative to "sincere history" or "fake" then do so, and it will be a false dichotomy.

The false dichotomy is "sincere history" or "conspiracy"

 

[phelix]

Is this the only thing the historical method has ever revealed to you? Even if if it turns out to be true, it's going to be a really long haul using this one story to demonstrate the truthiness of the New Testament, I'm afraid.

It is the other way around. The accuracy of some parts of the NT is why we know Jesus knew John the Baptist. Of course it is not the only thing. It is likely that Jesus was killed by the Romans. It is likely that he thought the world was about to end. It is likely that he had 12 disciples, or at least spoke of these. I go with John the Baptist because, after the existence of Jesus, it is the next most secure historical fact from the NT. There may well be a scholar who thinks Jesus didn't know John the Baptist, but I doubt it.

We'll just take your word for that, will we?

I've already given the common datings for the gospels, but these can be looked up. They start being mentioned by church fathers after 100AD. Two of the people on your list (acharya s and earl doherty) place the dating of the gospels after their citations from church fathers. There is no explanation of why, but hey, no need to stop a good conspiracy theory.

Yeah but you're determined to keep them secret, apparently, so they're not much use.

Keep what secret? A quick revision of the synoptic problem will make it clear that independent testimony is present. Also John is independent from the synoptics.

So does Doctor Zhivago.

This is why the historical method does not work when applied to fiction.

Christians didn't make up Jesus. Paul did, and then he invented Christians.
Yeah they are. It's an embarrassing detail to make the story more convincing.

I think Poe's law is coming into play here. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take that as a joke

None at all, as it happens. Not even boring ones.

No. The historical method finds what probably happened in the past. The further back you go, the worse the sources become, but this doesn't mean we have to wipe all ancient knowledge other than the most famous people.

If you can't trust anonymous authors, then who can you trust?

Nobody. History isn't a game of trusting some sources and not trusting others. You need to evaluate where there is error, where there is exaggeration, where there is censorship, in all sources.

 

[phelix]

The false dichotomy is "sincere history" or "conspiracy"

OK then. If you accept that the dichotomy of "sincere history" or "fake" is a genuine one, then I would propose it is a natural step from fake to conspiracy theory. We need multiple authors all faking their stories, they need to agree on minor points one second but disagree the next. How can this be achieved without conspiracy?

 

[welshdean]

Welshdean, They do not count because they didn't meet the very clear standards I gave. Only one of them has any qualifications in critical biblical scholarship at all. If they are very well studied, then fine, but why do their arguments never appear in academia?
I am not making the argument that "0% of relevant experts believe the NT has no historical value, thus it isn't true" but rather "0% of relevant experts believe the NT has no historical value, and this must be acknowledged or explained in some way"
For instance, alternative medicine folk have no relevant experts on their side, and they explain this by saying the drug companies have bought out the health system.

It is not definitely wrong. If you have 0% of the expert base backing you, you might still be correct, but there should be some sort of argument as to why the entirety of the field has not been overthrown.

Fair enough, I think you're playing a game of sematics. Define 'Historical Value'.

I've seen this ploy before on these boards, is the NT an 'historical' book or a 'history' book - Let your [semantic] games commence. It's dishonest mate, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

OK then. If you accept that the dichotomy of "sincere history" or "fake" is a genuine one, then I would propose it is a natural step from fake to conspiracy theory. We need multiple authors all faking their stories, they need to agree on minor points one second but disagree the next. How can this be achieved without conspiracy?

It was already explained to you several times...
Go around and read various fan fiction written by people on the web.
Surprisingly enough, a lot of them agree on some things and disagree on others.

No conspiracy is involved.

 

[phelix]

Could you elucidate on the "unable" part: it implies he actually tries/has tried. Furthermore, I looked a bit into biblical scholars who tackled the question of Jesus' historicity, but all I've found thus far are actually trained theologians, not historians. I'd think that historians would be the prime candidates for knowing how to apply the historical method, don't you? The oft-quoted criterion of embarrassment is a criterion which, AFAIK, is only applied in the case of Jesus and the gospels and not for, say, establishing the historicity of Socrates.

Theologians are generally pretty poor. Biblical Scholars are the ones who know and teach the critical approach to the bible. The historicity of Jesus does not need or rely on the criterion of embarrassment though. That is only applied after other criteria have been met. If something passes the criterion of embarrassment, but is implausible, it will still fail scrutiny.
I wouldn't have thought that historians would be the best, no, because the massive knowledge of the bible required, and frequent overlap with theology, makes it pretty difficult for your standard historians.
John says Jesus died the day before the passover meal. He gives us precise dating. There's no good reason why he'd lie. The story makes sense and is plausible. Everyone's acting how you would expect. Sounds historical.
Only it isn't. John was quite happy to change the date of Jesus' death to before the passover in order to get Jesus to represent the passover lamb.
This crossover between theology and history makes it a difficult subject in which pure historians might not be best equipped. Of course, they are better than nothing though

 

[GrandMasterFox]

This is why the historical method does not work when applied to fiction.

Good, so for your "historical method" to be of any value, you must first prove that the bible is not fiction.

 

[John Jones]

OK then. If you accept that the dichotomy of "sincere history" or "fake" is a genuine one, then I would propose it is a natural step from fake to conspiracy theory. We need multiple authors all faking their stories, they need to agree on minor points one second but disagree the next. How can this be achieved without conspiracy?

No. They could be working from a common source tale or document at different times/places; never having commincated with each other.

A conspiracy requires that two or more people actually conspire.

 

[phelix]

Fair enough, I think you're playing a game of sematics. Define 'Historical Value'.

I've seen this ploy before on these boards, is the NT an 'historical' book or a 'history' book - Let your [semantic] games commence. It's dishonest mate, nothing more, nothing less.

By saying something has historical value, I mean some likelihood from the past can be learnt from the source. The NT is not a history book, like the writings of Josephus would be. It is a set of historical sources, like pottery would be.
I don't see how this is a semantic game. You're the first to bring it up

 

[phelix]

It was already explained to you several times...
Go around and read various fan fiction written by people on the web.
Surprisingly enough, a lot of them agree on some things and disagree on others.

No conspiracy is involved.

Are you suggesting the following set up for christianity:
1 person writes a fictional story about Jesus
Lots of people write fanfiction pretending to be historical

 

[GrandMasterFox]

For instance, alternative medicine folk have no relevant experts on their side, and they explain this by saying the drug companies have bought out the health system.

They have experts. Dr. Oz is a medical doctor. Dolores Krieger was a working nurse, I'm sure there are tons of others I can't think of at the top of my head.

You see, real life doctors can be corupt or delusional just like everyone else.

What alternative medicine proponents don't have, is evidence.
Which is what we're asking you.

It is not definitely wrong. If you have 0% of the expert base backing you, you might still be correct, but there should be some sort of argument as to why the entirety of the field has not been overthrown.

Umm... You mean that when it comes to the story of Jesus, people were actually facing death threats in the old days if they doubted it?
Or the fact that many of the texts were kept by the various members of the church and were forged?

It's actually far easier to see this for Jesus than alternative medicine.

Again, as you yourself admitted, it doesn't matter who says what.
The only thing that matters is evidence.

Do you have any yes or no?

 

[phelix]

No. They could be working from a common source tale or document at different times/places; never having commincated with each other.

A conspiracy requires that two or more people actually conspire.

Did these people know that the sources they were working off were all made up?
Did any of the people mentioned in the book of Acts exist?
Was Paul's relationship to the Jerusalem church fabricated?

 

[phelix]

Umm... You mean that when it comes to the story of Jesus, people were actually facing death threats in the old days if they doubted it?

I don't see what this has to do with anything. There are no current threats for doubting the historicity of Jesus. The claim is often made that controversial ideas are not supported by experts because if they did they would lose their job, but this is special pleading.

Or the fact that many of the texts were kept by the various members of the church and were forged?

It is the same critical scholarship identifying these forgeries that is certain Jesus existed.

Again, as you yourself admitted, it doesn't matter who says what.
The only thing that matters is evidence.

Do you have any yes or no?

Yes. I have said. The application of the historical method to the sources we have available. Everyone who does this finds that Jesus existed.