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

[phelix]

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.

Yup. I think that Luke probably had an extra source/sources as well, for some bits like the prodigal son, and this additional input was verbal.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Can we get down to some actual bloody cases here?

Start with the resurrection, phelix.


True story or not?

 

[nvidiot]

Yup. I think that Luke probably had an extra source/sources as well, for some bits like the prodigal son, and this additional input was verbal.

Oh you mean lies.

 

[phelix]

So, which references to John the Baptist do you regard as factual? Is it simply the ones which have no supernatural element?

No, it is much less than that. I think it is likely that John the Baptist worked in the river Jordan. I think it is likely that John the Baptist new Jesus. I also think that the reason stated for John's execution in the gospels (he had questioned the legitimacy of Herod's marriage) is more likely than the reason given by Josephus (he had many followers and was seen as a threat).

 

[amb]

Or more gossip with no factual truth whatsoever.

 

[phelix]

Oh you mean lies.

Possibly, yes. If it was verbal, then this verbal contact probably claimed to be a minor eye-witness. He recounts stories that Jesus told publicly, Luke mentions using an eyewitness, and the stories are actually pretty good. If it was a lie, then it is a shame the liar didn't write any more of his own stuff. A lot of scholars do doubt these stories though, and the evidence certainly isn't convincing either way.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yup. I think that Luke probably had an extra source/sources as well, for some bits like the prodigal son, and this additional input was verbal.

The importance of verbal traditions in those biblical days before paper rears its ugly head again.

 

[Garrette]

I resent that.

No need. I'm learning more factual things from you than from GMF's emphasis; it's merely that his approach mirrors the one I would have taken so I focused on it.

I think nearly everyone on this thread (except DOC) has tried numerous ways to make this clear to Phelix.

GB

No doubt. I'll go back to lurking now....

 

[Resume]

Can we get down to some actual bloody cases here?

Start with the resurrection, phelix.


True story or not?

And tombs emptying and all the saints walking around looking fly. That true as well phelix?

 

[phelix]

Can we get down to some actual bloody cases here?

Start with the resurrection, phelix.


True story or not?

We have done a few cases before. I have said what my position on most will be (sticking with the majority, but more towards the liberal/skeptical).

The accounts of the resurrection are likely all false. There is possibly something to be gained from the empty tomb claim though. The four sources available disagree on who, when and why, but all reckon that a woman/women discovered an empty tomb. The differences in the stories rules out collaboration, so it seems all the authors reckon that a female found an empty tomb.
I cannot argue that this is a claim with any probable basis in fact, because it fits the story so nicely. Maybe a woman found an empty tomb because she went to the wrong one? Maybe a woman found the tomb empty because the body had been stolen? Maybe a woman dreamt about the tomb being empty, told her husband, and the whole thing got wildly overblown. All possible, none beats the others for probability. Of course there is one possibility that can be ruled out, and that is the resurrection, because historians are not allowed to draw on supernatural explanations when natural ones are present.
But past that, we just cannot say with any confidence one way or the other.

 

[phelix]

And tombs emptying and all the saints walking around looking fly. That true as well phelix?

No. This fails pretty much every historical argument. The saints rising up (it doesn't actually say walking around, that's an interpretation really only believed by Christopher Hitchens) defies science, which is strike number 1, and also more than enough for us to dismiss it as a historically valuable claim. It also fits in with the theology of the work. Strike 2. It also seems unlikely that we would not have additional source material from anyone else affected. Strike 3. We would expect the other gospel writers to have included this fact. Strike 4.

The claim that the saints rose up is dead in the water as a historical claim.

 

[ddt]

The discussion has moved on quite a bit, but as I already prepared this response I might as well submit this.

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

As noted earlier, you've changed the game here. This is a DOC-thread, and for a recent taste, you might try reading this short one. DOC quotes Ramsay, Geisler and other apologists who uphold that the Resurrection was real. From your comments on John the Baptist, it's clear to me you start out with excising the supernatural stuff. That leaves, basically, the debate to: was there a Historical Jesus - as opposed to a Christ - an itinerant preacher from the Galilee who got into the crosshairs of the authorities, versus Jesus Myth.

I'm too modest to take a position in that debate, but I am interested in the HJ side to make their case why we can conclude he was real - and well, which parts of his life stories are real. There's no outside corroboration of his existence. There were plenty of Jewish preachers at the time, but so must there have been dozens of Rhetts coming back from the Civil War battlefield to reunite with their Scarletts, and likewise we knopw of at least one De Gaulle assassin hired by the OAS. That doesn't make "Gone with the Wind" nor "Day of the Jackal" a true story.

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.

Oh, I agree.

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.

The Empire-wide part can simply be a misinterpretation of his sources. However, skipping the entire 10 years reign of Herod Archelaus is too stark for even a 2-bit amateur historian. It seems there's an ulterior goal here, see my earlier reply to DOC.

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.

And what makes you think his dating is better? There are only two, widely divergent, accounts of Jesus' birth - Matthew and Luke.

 

[Lothian]

It is possible that:
1)The NT writers told the truth
2)The NT writers told what they believed was the truth but was actually false
3)The NT writers were lying with a straight face.

Number 3 seems incredibly unlikely, partly because they would all require similar sources and all be aware these sources are fabricated, but mostly because, when you come across multiple independent sources, the chance that "they're all lying" just isn't one historians bother with.

You are assuming that the ‘similar’ sources are independent. They are not. Originally there was one story. That story may have borrowed elements from other stories but someone first stuck Jesus’ name on the title page. One or two accounts of this oral tale were written down and these form the historical basis for the multitude of different versions we see today.

These versions differ through translation error, copying error and deliberate error. Certainly most deliberate changes would only appear in one ‘branch’ however deliberate fabrications included in the first versions would infect the whole tree.

Given the purpose of spreading the word was to gain converts in a competitive market the inclusion of a few exaggerations or outright lies does not seem implausible.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

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.

The main problem here, is that the "Accredited" Bible Scholars who disagree with your "Accredited" Bible Scholars, are more right than yours to point out that Jesus is a myth, even if they are wrong on the details.

And the "Accredited" Bible Scholars you agree with (some of whom I like too), are wrong to use the Bible as evidence of Jesus' historicity, or as evidence of the veracity of the NT.

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.

The only person being dishonest here is you.

Sorry, you don't get to set up the rules of debate on this thread. You asked for Biblical Scholars from "Accredited" Universities who don't believe in the Historicity of Jesus. And Akhenaten was nice enough to provide you a list.

I provided a list of several Philosophers of Religion, and a number of Biblical Scholars who started out as avid Christians who became Atheists and Agnostics; and who question whether Jesus actually existed.

Some of those had a hard time letting go, and still look for the elusive "Historical Jesus." But most of them know there really is no "Historical Jesus," so they are very careful not to stick their heads out too far (all those probablies, maybes, and most likelies). The Biblical Scholars you hold so dear, play similar word games.

And no, you are not being "nitpicky." You are being flat out dishonest.

Your "clearly defined scope" is nothing more than a sham to cover up the fact that you can't provide a Comprehensive list of Every Single Bible Scholar (in the world) from an "Accredited" University and poll their views. I know you can't do that, and YOU know you can't do that.

If you admitted that fact, you'd have to retract your unsupported and sweeping assertions. The fact that you continue to bluster and play the martyr card after we have called your bluff, demonstrates your dishonesty.

GB

 

[phelix]

And what makes you think his dating is better? There are only two, widely divergent, accounts of Jesus' birth - Matthew and Luke.

Seem to agree with you on everything above, so am just replying to this. Why is Matthew's dating better? It isn't to any significant degree, but the fact that Luke's account seems to place it during Herod's rein makes me think that both authors reckon that was about the time he was born. Even with the wildly divergent accounts, they both seem to think that Herod was around at the time.
Of course, this isn't "proof". It's not even a convincing argument, but Jesus had to be born at some time, and why suppose he was born 2AD and both authors somehow managed to get every detail wrong, rather suppose he was born 5BC and they got the basic timescale correct?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

This isn't my argument.

Yes it is.

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.

Hence your circular argument. Adding some woolly phrasing and extra words don't give much cover to your circular reasoning.

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.

Your continuation of this False Dichotomy and the Straw Man after it has been called out, either displays dishonesty on your part, or your inability to follow logic.


GB

 

[Akhenaten]

We have done a few cases before. I have said what my position on most will be (sticking with the majority, but more towards the liberal/skeptical).

No, we haven't, and your position is irrelevant. We'll let the evidence speak.

The accounts of the resurrection are likely all false.

Likely???

What evidence do you have that there's even a shred of truth to any of the accounts?

There is possibly something to be gained from the empty tomb claim though. The four sources available disagree on who, when and why, but all reckon that a woman/women discovered an empty tomb.

We know. The story even has its own pizza.

The differences in the stories rules out collaboration, so it seems all the authors reckon that a female found an empty tomb.

What the differences in the story rule out is eye-witnessy goodness, and more importantly, veracity. Those stories don't just vary in minor details, they're wildly at odds with each other (and reality).

I cannot argue that this is a claim with any probable basis in fact, because it fits the story so nicely. Maybe a woman found an empty tomb because she went to the wrong one? Maybe a woman found the tomb empty because the body had been stolen? Maybe a woman dreamt about the tomb being empty, told her husband, and the whole thing got wildly overblown. All possible, none beats the others for probability. Of course there is one possibility that can be ruled out, and that is the resurrection, because historians are not allowed to draw on supernatural explanations when natural ones are present.
But past that, we just cannot say with any confidence one way or the other.

Despite all of your maybe this and maybe that, there is no evidence is there - either for the resurrection or the empty tomb?

I draw you attention to the topic of the thread.


Moving along . . .


Walking on water. True story?

 

[Akhenaten]

<whatever>

The claim that the saints rose up is dead in the water as a historical claim.

Cool, I'll add it to the list.


In all the waffle of your responses to myself and Resume I missed your clear, unequivocal statement of what evidence we have of the empty tomb.

Please provide that now.

 

[phelix]

You are assuming that the ‘similar’ sources are independent. They are not. Originally there was one story. That story may have borrowed elements from other stories but someone first stuck Jesus’ name on the title page. One or two accounts of this oral tale were written down and these form the historical basis for the multitude of different versions we see today.

These versions differ through translation error, copying error and deliberate error. Certainly most deliberate changes would only appear in one ‘branch’ however deliberate fabrications included in the first versions would infect the whole tree.

Given the purpose of spreading the word was to gain converts in a competitive market the inclusion of a few exaggerations or outright lies does not seem implausible.

Agree with everything but for the bizarre first paragraph. Do you actually believe that or are you just proposing it as a possibility which undermines the claim that the sources were independent?
There isn't really any historical need to get the stories to fit a one-source model, and it would be very difficult to do given the distribution of material over the gospels. How come there is material of which Matthew and Luke are aware, without copying each other, which Mark doesn't know about?
The synoptic problem has been evaluated for a long time now, and there are multiple theories around. Coincidentally, the model which most appeals to me, and other more critical scholars, actually uses 4 sources. More than the two source model Christian apologists use.

I would also wonder what your reckoning is on Paul. Did he and Timothy exist? Did they visit James?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

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".

Actually it is an extremely productive request. The fact that you can't back up your assertion with a poll of ALL "Accredited" Biblical Scholars demonstrates that your bluff has been successfully called.

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

It's in inverted commas to demonstrate that your bogus attempt to so narrowly define Biblical Scholarship is a fallacy, designed to allow you to discount any Biblical Scholars which don't agree with you.

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.

None of which counts as evidence for the veracity of the NT and the Historicity of Jesus.


GB