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

[tsig]

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

Could you name some of these Biblical Scholars? Of course they have to be at an accredited university.

 

[zooterkin]

Sorry I'm late, is there any pizza left?

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.

Apologies if I've missed where you established this, but what's the extra-biblical evidence that John the Baptist existed?

 

[welshdean]

<snipped blather>

Ok, let's get down to the nitty gritty.

Pick a part of the NT and explain why it is (ahem) 'historical'.

We can then take it from there.

 

[tsig]

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.


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


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

Just like everyone who reads the Book of Mormon with the right mind will believe that J. Smith Jr. was a prophet.

 

[ddt]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/PizzaMenu.jpg[/qimg]​

Sounds yummy. What are the delivery costs in the Rhine delta?

And while we're on the topic of John the Baptist, do you also make Pizza Salome: a layer of head of anchovy covered with seven layers of ultra-thin carpaccio?

 

[phelix]

Apologies if I've missed where you established this, but what's the extra-biblical evidence that John the Baptist existed?

This is quite ridiculous. Scrap needing qualified experts. I doubt you will find anyone who has even published a book saying that John the Baptist didn't exist.

 

[phelix]

Ok, let's get down to the nitty gritty.

Pick a part of the NT and explain why it is (ahem) 'historical'.

We can then take it from there.

This is a bit of a silly game, but ok.
Luke 22:7 he says the day of unleavened bread was when the passover must be killed. This is historically accurate.

 

[phelix]

Just like everyone who reads the Book of Mormon with the right mind will believe that J. Smith Jr. was a prophet.

I think you've used the term "right mind" dishonestly here in order to imply that my choice to only permit qualified critical history is akin to pandering to a religion. It is not.
Anyone who applies the critical historical method to the book of mormon is unlikely to find much historical value, and would definitely not be able to conclude that Smith was a prophet, as historians cannot appeals to the supernatural.

 

[zooterkin]

This is quite ridiculous. Scrap needing qualified experts. I doubt you will find anyone who has even published a book saying that John the Baptist didn't exist.

So do we take it that the only evidence for the existence of John the Baptist is what's written in the New Testament? And you class that as the next most secure fact in the NT after the existence of Jesus. Well, I don't think I can disagree that there's as much independent corroboration. How would you rate the historicity of those two items against other more solid facts, such as Augustus being Caesar, or Pontius Pilate being the governor?

 

[phelix]

Could you name some of these Biblical Scholars? Of course they have to be at an accredited university.

Name the biblical scholars who have done what?

 

[ddt]

This is a bit of a silly game, but ok.
Luke 22:7 he says the day of unleavened bread was when the passover must be killed. This is historically accurate.

Boohoo. Luke knew Jewish customs. How does this passage add to what we know about Passover from other sources?

Let's start with the nativity story. Who is right, Luke or Matthew or neither? Luke claims in Luke 1 that John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin. Was he right? Why (not)?

 

[Hokulele]

So do we take it that the only evidence for the existence of John the Baptist is what's written in the New Testament? And you class that as the next most secure fact in the NT after the existence of Jesus. Well, I don't think I can disagree that there's as much independent corroboration. How would you rate the historicity of those two items against other more solid facts, such as Augustus being Caesar, or Pontius Pilate being the governor?

I missed a big chunk of this thread, due to being away for work, so in case this has any relevance to anything, John the Baptist is discussed in Jewish Antiquities by Josephus. Of course, there is the possibility that this is simply another Christian interpolation, but it seems to have more legitimacy than the Jesus passages. Many biblical scholars do consider the passage to be genuine to Josephus.

 

[phelix]

So do we take it that the only evidence for the existence of John the Baptist is what's written in the New Testament? And you class that as the next most secure fact in the NT after the existence of Jesus. Well, I don't think I can disagree that there's as much independent corroboration. How would you rate the historicity of those two items against other more solid facts, such as Augustus being Caesar, or Pontius Pilate being the governor?

No. John the Baptist was also covered by Josephus, but I didn't want to say that because the New Testament is more than enough to say that he existed.

Historical facts about Caesar and Pilate are generally far better than historical facts about unimportant Jewish cult figures. Compared to other unimportant figures though, our sources for Jesus are brilliant. Keep in mind that "the only evidence is the new testament" doesn't accurately reflect the sources. It would be more accurate to say "the only evidence is the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul?" A lot of the time, yes. And it's good enough evidence to warrant belief, just as you would believe in Apollonius of Tyana even though the only evidence is from Philostratus and Damis.

 

[phelix]

Boohoo. Luke knew Jewish customs. How does this passage add to what we know about Passover from other sources?

Let's start with the nativity story. Who is right, Luke or Matthew or neither? Luke claims in Luke 1 that John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin. Was he right? Why (not)?

You see, when there are other sources to back up a statement, you say that it is meaningless because it does not add to the sources, and when there are not other sources to back up a statement, you say it cannot be believed because there are not other sources, so how did you expect me to win that challenge?

With the nativity story, neither is right for a lot of it. Regarding Luke's claim that John the Baptist was Jesus' (second) cousin, it is difficult to say one way or the other. There aren't enough sources to say it's probably true, and it does bring up problems with regards to the fact that it doesn't get mentioned again. I would say John probably wasn't Jesus' cousin, but I would definitely not stand firmly by that view.

 

[zooterkin]

I missed a big chunk of this thread, due to being away for work, so in case this has any relevance to anything, John the Baptist is discussed in Jewish Antiquities by Josephus. Of course, there is the possibility that this is simply another Christian interpolation, but it seems to have more legitimacy than the Jesus passages. Many biblical scholars do consider the passage to be genuine to Josephus.

Thanks, Hokulele! I'm also slightly in catch-up mode, I've just had a week's holiday, and have been mostly following this on my phone.

No. John the Baptist was also covered by Josephus, but I didn't want to say that because the New Testament is more than enough to say that he existed.

And why would you say that? What makes the account of John the Baptist in the New Testament so clearly factual to you?

 

[ddt]

You see, when there are other sources to back up a statement, you say that it is meaningless because it does not add to the sources, and when there are not other sources to back up a statement, you say it cannot be believed because there are not other sources, so how did you expect me to win that challenge?

The challenge for you was to argue the historicity of not-corroborated, or doubtfully corroborated historic claims. Not to pick the analogue of "and then they decorated the Christmas tree", which you'd encounter in a work of fiction of today. We do not doubt the gospel writers were acquainted with Jewish customs.

With the nativity story, neither is right for a lot of it. Regarding Luke's claim that John the Baptist was Jesus' (second) cousin, it is difficult to say one way or the other. There aren't enough sources to say it's probably true, and it does bring up problems with regards to the fact that it doesn't get mentioned again. I would say John probably wasn't Jesus' cousin, but I would definitely not stand firmly by that view.

Can you at least argue which one has Jesus' DOB right? Matthew (during Herod the Great's reign) or Luke (during Quirinius' governorship)? You do realize you sort-of picked up DOC's mantle here, and he claimed - with Sir William Ramsay - that Luke was a great historian. He also argued (sort-of) for a warped translation of Luke 2:2 which would bring this in line with Matthew's account. There is, after all, a 10+ year gap between the two.

 

[phelix]

Thanks, Hokulele! I'm also slightly in catch-up mode, I've just had a week's holiday, and have been mostly following this on my phone.


And why would you say that? What makes the account of John the Baptist in the New Testament so clearly factual to you?

The accounts of John the Baptist are not all clearly factual. For instance, the synoptics state that at John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus, a dove came from the sky and the voice of God boomed out. This is not factual.

 

[phelix]

The challenge for you was to argue the historicity of not-corroborated, or doubtfully corroborated historic claims. Not to pick the analogue of "and then they decorated the Christmas tree", which you'd encounter in a work of fiction of today. We do not doubt the gospel writers were acquainted with Jewish customs.

What sort of thing would suffice though? The existence of John the Baptist has masses of evidence from the new testament, and a sliver of evidence from Josephus.
Edit: I am to argue that some truth can be gained from the NT, that is only contained within the NT? If that is the case, then sorry for misunderstanding. That is a hard task to do considering you dismiss the NT as a source, but very well. The Jesus story seems to have been bogged down with dismissal, so I will instead turn to Paul.
Claim: Paul had a disciple called Timothy. He signs 1 Phillipians from Paul and Timothy, and it seems highly unlikely that someone would add in a character as a co-writer if they could get all the fame themselves. In Acts, Paul is mentioned as travelling with his disciple Timothy, and the two authors cannot have conspired as the author of Acts seems ignorant of all Paul's major beliefs.

Can you at least argue which one has Jesus' DOB right? Matthew (during Herod the Great's reign) or Luke (during Quirinius' governorship)? You do realize you sort-of picked up DOC's mantle here, and he claimed - with Sir William Ramsay - that Luke was a great historian. He also argued (sort-of) for a warped translation of Luke 2:2 which would bring this in line with Matthew's account. There is, after all, a 10+ year gap between the two.

I don't think a sound argument can be made for either DOB being right. Luke actually contradicts himself in his dating and includes Herod in the time frame. It's not the best evidence but it would seem most likely that both authors thought Jesus was born before Herod died, and that Luke placed the date for the census incorrectly. That being said, I have an issue siding with Matthew, because Matthew tends to fudge things in order to make prophesies work. With regards to the DOB, I would say neither gospel is correct, and Jesus was probably born around 6/5/4BC.

 

[ddt]

What sort of thing would suffice though? The existence of John the Baptist has masses of evidence from the new testament, and a sliver of evidence from Josephus.

To make an analogue with "Gone with the Wind": we know the Civil War occurred, and Atlanta was burned down, but we're interested in the historicity of Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara.

I don't think a sound argument can be made for either DOB being right. Luke actually contradicts himself in his dating and includes Herod in the time frame. It's not the best evidence but it would seem most likely that both authors thought Jesus was born before Herod died, and that Luke placed the date for the census incorrectly. That being said, I have an issue siding with Matthew, because Matthew tends to fudge things in order to make prophesies work. With regards to the DOB, I would say neither gospel is correct, and Jesus was probably born around 6/5/4BC.

Luke has Herod in the time frame of John the Baptist's birth. The Annunciation is in the same time frame. Then Jesus is born during Quirinius' governorship. You might argue for time compaction. I don't see why Luke placed the date for the census incorrectly. Josephus also recounts a census by Quirinius, and it absolutely makes sense: Judea was just incorporated into the Syrian province, so a census was in order for tax purposes. Luke's error is in claiming the census is Empire-wide.

You say neither gospel is correct, but by placing it at the end of Herod's reign you do come down on the side of Matthew.

 

[phelix]

To make an analogue with "Gone with the Wind": we know the Civil War occurred, and Atlanta was burned down, but we're interested in the historicity of Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara.

Ok. Was my John The Baptist example wrong? Or my new one? (see above, I edited in.)

Luke has Herod in the time frame of John the Baptist's birth. The Annunciation is in the same time frame. Then Jesus is born during Quirinius' governorship. You might argue for time compaction. I don't see why Luke placed the date for the census incorrectly. Josephus also recounts a census by Quirinius, and it absolutely makes sense: Judea was just incorporated into the Syrian province, so a census was in order for tax purposes. Luke's error is in claiming the census is Empire-wide.

You say neither gospel is correct, but by placing it at the end of Herod's reign you do come down on the side of Matthew.

It is possible that Luke leaves the 10 years out, yes, but reading the text, it doesn't seem all that likely. It is much less strain on rationality to just say Luke got it wrong. Luke's error in claiming the census is Empire-wide would be in order to get the family where they needed to be for the birth, while keeping Jesus a Nazarene. It's not much of a stretch to say this is also the reason why he misdated the census.
I was wrong when I said "neither gospel is correct". I was trying to convey how Matthew's account cannot be trusted, even though I think his dating is more likely to be true.