Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[phelix]

Stop appealing to authority and start showing your sources and your evidence. If you don't know the texts and their provenance well enough to do so, don't try to, because you just start looking silly.

I have never appealed to authority in the way of "an expert believes this, thus it's true" but rather "all experts believe this, and that would need to be confronted". I have also said what the evidence is, and expanded on this for multiple points. Is there anything specific you would want evidence for?

This is Part 2 of the JREF Series, "Threads that will not die". All these posts have been split from an earlier thread that go too big for the servers to handle. If you have a spare week, and are under a psychologist's care, you can read the first part of this thread here. We now take you to Evidences Part 2: Attack of the Killer Evidences, already in progress.

Posted By: kmortis

 

[nvidiot]

I have never appealed to authority in the way of "an expert believes this, thus it's true" but rather "all experts believe this, and that would need to be confronted". I have also said what the evidence is, and expanded on this for multiple points. Is there anything specific you would want evidence for?

This IS an appeal to authority.

Can you back that appeal with actual, you know, evidence?

 

[amb]

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.

Edit: Also I like your use of Acharya S. I never thought I would see someone on a skeptic forum posting a conspiracy theorist who claims the freemasons covered up ancient history as an expert supporter of their position.

There's another Price mighty Pharaoh has left out who is extremely hard to debunk.
And that is R. G. Price and his better known book: Jesus A Very Jewish Myth. You may criticise, but cannot ignore some of these people who think Jesus was myth.

 

[ddt]

No. The test is applied after something is thought to be of some historical value. If there is reason to believe that a source is a work of fiction, then it will be discounted, and historical analysis won't be used. This is why analysis is not used on things like the book of genesis. The writing style, purpose of writing, story form, etc. make it clear that it is not the work of someone piecing together what they think has happened.

Can someone help me out here? I've been reading a bit of Luke in its original Greek and I get quite annoyed with his frequent "and it happened in those days".

What's the difference here between a story that begins with "And it happened in those days that the Emperor ordered everyone to be counted", versus a story that begins with "Once upon a time, a miller died and left his estate to his three sons. The oldest got the mill..." ?

 

[phelix]

1) Actualy, I didn't say that. You said that. I never promised to give you Biblical Scholars from Universities that you believe to be more credible than others.

"you believe to be more credible than others" because accreditation is a silly little thing that only I am interested in.
But anyway, you didn't promise to give me these scholars, but you claimed they exist. See page 498:

4) I have already mentioned that I'm fine with throwing Pythagoras under the bus. Why you keep trotting this ridiculous comparison as proof of Jesus' historicity is beyond me.

Because it is very, very odd. You are comfortable with saying pythagoras didn't exist. Possibly you are comfortable with saying almost no hellenistic philosophers existed. You would be fine with wiping a large number of characters from ancient history, and replacing the profession with a "we cannot be sure".
That is fine, because it leaves us at a very simple difference of opinion. I would find it impossible to prove the existence of any minor character from the period to you, and so it is useless. You are more comfortable saying "we cannot know" in that period (apart from, say, kings and politicians and so on) while I am more comfortable finding out what is likely to have happened.

5) Prove that "Luke" existed.

That one's easy. What we commonly call the Gospel of Luke needs an author. Whoever this author is, we shall refer to him as Luke. Thus Luke existed.
That is all I take from the name anyway.

 

[nvidiot]

Can someone help me out here? I've been reading a bit of Luke in its original Greek and I get quite annoyed with his frequent "and it happened in those days".

What's the difference here between a story that begins with "And it happened in those days that the Emperor ordered everyone to be counted", versus a story that begins with "Once upon a time, a miller died and left his estate to his three sons. The oldest got the mill..." ?

Several billion blind followers?

 

[Akhenaten]

Did I just hear a True Scotsman join the conversation?

Yeah, but is he a recognised True Scotsman from an accredited Scotland?

Perhaps the Historical Method™ can tell us!

 

[phelix]

Can someone help me out here? I've been reading a bit of Luke in its original Greek and I get quite annoyed with his frequent "and it happened in those days".

What's the difference here between a story that begins with "And it happened in those days that the Emperor ordered everyone to be counted", versus a story that begins with "Once upon a time, a miller died and left his estate to his three sons. The oldest got the mill..." ?

A difference here would be your reaction to it. Luke's story is, for a good part of it, dull and irritating. A fictional narrative is unlikely to produce this.
Some parts of Luke are more artistic than others, but if you read actual Greek fiction afterwards, you will see much more artistic and effective literary writing. I actually am unsure that there was fiction at the time written in the style of modern fiction "once upon a time, a miller called Arthur died and left..." but given you know ancient Greek perhaps you can point me to some.
The bulk of Greek fiction is poems and plays, and they were all very stylized.

 

[phelix]

Yes, when someone claims to have actually met ET's, we tend to question their sanity, or their veracity.

I'm not sure I would. With the US abduction loonies, I would separate their implausible claims from their plausible ones. They can still hold down jobs and so on (actually, they account for about 2% of the US population don't they? Maybe that explains the economy...)
If one of the abduction folk told me they were probed by aliens, I would dismiss it. If the very next second they told me that they had gone to the cinema last week after not having gone for a while, I would take this as probably true. Would you not?

Is that why they are called the Pauline Epistles?
GB

Good one There's actually a small group of scholars who reckon Luke was female. Fun fact.

 

[Akhenaten]

A difference here would be your reaction to it. Luke's story is, for a good part of it, dull and irritating. A fictional narrative is unlikely to produce this.

You've obviously never read Tess of the d'Urbervilles.

Some parts of Luke are more artistic than others, but if you read actual Greek fiction afterwards, you will see much more artistic and effective literary writing. I actually am unsure that there was fiction at the time written in the style of modern fiction "once upon a time, a miller called Arthur died and left..." but given you know ancient Greek perhaps you can point me to some.
The bulk of Greek fiction is poems and plays, and they were all very stylized.

Does any of it contain evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth?

 

[phelix]

Phelix, your argument is circular.

We don't use Historical Analysis on fiction.
We use Historical Analysis on the NT.
Therefore, the NT is historical.

It's the same as saying the NT is true because the NT says it is true.

This isn't my argument. We use historical analysis on the various sources contained in the NT because some of them constitute historical sources. The NT is not historical because we use historical analysis on it. Parts of it are historical because their presentation would lead us to certain conclusions around their origin.
As mentioned, it is possible that a group of authors all decided to fake history, but this possibility isn't one that historians typically consider to have much import. For a start, it doesn't tell us anything. It's the end of the search. Saying "every source is faked" is to history what "god did it" is to the fossil search. Yes it's possible, but not likely, and not informative.

 

[nvidiot]

It's almost like we have Doc's elder and much more eloquent brother here.

Pity he seems to make the same mistakes as his younger sibling though. Apples falling far from trees and all that.

So because the stories in the NT are badly written, contains lies both subtle and brash, contains embarrassing details about characters, has bits that reference local big men, and is accepted by some as having that all important air of "truthiness", then we can know the New Testament Authors are Telling the Truth?

Is that about it?

 

[phelix]

The problem is, Phelix considers any Biblical Scholar who promotes some version of "the Jesus as Myth" theory must be immediately dismissed out of hand.**

I checked the Wikipedia article on the subject of Jesus as Myth to begin with, and a number of people on your list popped up. But I knew that Phelix would write them off as lacking credibility.**

ETA: ** Because by definition (Phelix's) they must be Conspiracy Theorists.

GB

Admittedly, I do dismiss them out of hand these days. I have quite a few of their books to hand. The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S, the Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty, Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy, and did at one point give them a reasonable amount of attention. But the arguments made frequently rely on incorrect, or non-present information, there are often claims that the early Catholic church or freemasons covered up the key parts that could prove the theory, and inevitably these people were booted from the academic circles, or never resided within.

Still, my dismissal of the list is being portrayed as me nitpicking at each point in turn, when actually none of them matched the clearly defined scope of the challenge, so posting them seems a bit dishonest.

 

[amb]

A difference here would be your reaction to it. Luke's story is, for a good part of it, dull and irritating. A fictional narrative is unlikely to produce this.
Some parts of Luke are more artistic than others, but if you read actual Greek fiction afterwards, you will see much more artistic and effective literary writing. I actually am unsure that there was fiction at the time written in the style of modern fiction "once upon a time, a miller called Arthur died and left..." but given you know ancient Greek perhaps you can point me to some.
The bulk of Greek fiction is poems and plays, and they were all very stylized.

Luke, or whoever wrote that gospel had Mark in front of him, and perhaps the hypothetical document called Q. Luke just added or subtracted what he thought was relevant to his version and to whomever he was writing the gospel for.

 

[phelix]

He's going to postulate the ease in which you could theoretically find one Bliblical Scholar from, "Accredited," Universities [which is a straw man, really, because it's a pretty vague statement, if I've used the term, "straw man," correctly] compared to the amount of work it would take him to sift through every single one.

So, phelix, you are also allowed to attempt to prove yourself wrong in the name of providing more circumstantial assertions.

I wasn't going to address it. It was clearly an unproductive request which doesn't warrant a response, like his "prove you're an atheist".
I don't know why you put "accredited" in inverted commas. Accreditation is a pretty unambiguous system, and is how we know Dr Ken Ham and Dr Gillian McKeith aren't really doctors. If you pick your local university, it will almost definitely be accredited. Write to the head of religious studies to ask if Jesus existed. If they write back no then I'll send you a fiver

Also I don't understand what you mean by providing more circumstantial assertions? I've merely laid out the historical methods that are typically used, and the conclusions that are commonly arrived at.

 

[amb]

Admittedly, I do dismiss them out of hand these days. I have quite a few of their books to hand. The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S, the Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty, Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy, and did at one point give them a reasonable amount of attention. But the arguments made frequently rely on incorrect, or non-present information, there are often claims that the early Catholic church or freemasons covered up the key parts that could prove the theory, and inevitably these people were booted from the academic circles, or never resided within.

Still, my dismissal of the list is being portrayed as me nitpicking at each point in turn, when actually none of them matched the clearly defined scope of the challenge, so posting them seems a bit dishonest.

Some admittedly are poorly researched. For example Freke and Gandy and Acharya. But then is everything written in the N/T , even just 20% accurate?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I have never appealed to authority in the way of "an expert believes this, thus it's true" but rather "all experts believe this, and that would need to be confronted".

In other words, you appealed to a lot of authorities, none of whom have any evidence. You REALLY need to learn that exegesis and "probably" and "likely" and "possibly" and "might be" etc, are not evidence.

I have also said what the evidence is, and expanded on this for multiple points. Is there anything specific you would want evidence for?

When you have real evidence, we will examine it.

GB

 

[phelix]

It's almost like we have Doc's elder and much more eloquent brother here.

Pity he seems to make the same mistakes as his younger sibling though. Apples falling far from trees and all that.

So because the stories in the NT are badly written, contains lies both subtle and brash, contains embarrassing details about characters, has bits that reference local big men, and is accepted by some as having that all important air of "truthiness", then we can know the New Testament Authors are Telling the Truth?

Is that about it?

No. Because some of the sources in the NT represent sources of potential historical value, we assess the various claims within, and find that there are some points at which the authors were likely to have been telling the truth.

 

[ddt]

A difference here would be your reaction to it. Luke's story is, for a good part of it, dull and irritating. A fictional narrative is unlikely to produce this.
Some parts of Luke are more artistic than others, but if you read actual Greek fiction afterwards, you will see much more artistic and effective literary writing. I actually am unsure that there was fiction at the time written in the style of modern fiction "once upon a time, a miller called Arthur died and left..." but given you know ancient Greek perhaps you can point me to some.
The bulk of Greek fiction is poems and plays, and they were all very stylized.

I haven't read much of the definite fiction, the poems and plays, I'm afraid. But to tap into my recollection: Xenophon was dull, the same repetitive pattern: "From there, we marched 17 parasangs to place X." Herodotos, OTOH, was lively.
Much comes down here to the individual talents of the writer, I'm afraid. The Anabasis reads like a captain's log (well, it is ), whereas Herodotos knows how to spice up a story.

My absolute favourite, however, starts with a similar pattern as "once upon a time", which places the tale in a distant past: "Muse, tell me of the man with many tricks who, after he destroyed the holy city of Troy, saw the towns of many people and learned their habits..."
Fact or fiction?

 

[Akhenaten]

It's almost like we have Doc's elder and much more eloquent brother here.

Pity he seems to make the same mistakes as his younger sibling though. Apples falling far from trees and all that.

So because the stories in the NT are badly written, contains lies both subtle and brash, contains embarrassing details about characters, has bits that reference local big men, and is accepted by some as having that all important air of "truthiness", then we can know the New Testament Authors are Telling the Truth?

Is that about it?

Yup.

I reckon we'll be doing the difficult sayings of Krishna and embarrassing details from the Bhagavad Gita next.