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

[Larechar]

In that particular line of the conversation, none of this was requested or even warranted. We don't know the authorship. I think the evidence actually rules against the eyewitness. The stories from the alleged eyewitness I don't think there is much sway one way or the other as to their truth.


Hey, people started grilling me on the sources for Luke, so I've replied with what much of critical history has to say about the matter. As I've said, the evidence for truth in the gospel accounts simply comes from critical historical analysis of the sources.

That's evidence for probability of truth in some points, not evidence for truth. This is pointless. You keep saying the SAME THING over and over and over and over and over, and we keep telling you that isn't proof based on your system over and over and over and over and over. I'm out 'til DOC comes back with some more assertions.

 

[Larechar]

Much like our friend DOC, you seem to respond to questions, but not answer them.

And here's where I start looking for "how." And not finding an answer.

So the cross-source agreement, and presentation of history, of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, should convince you that Gandolf is real. Great. Super logic there. You don't seem to get the Gone with the Wind or other examples. I wonder why? Again, how did you determine that these books were non-fiction so that you could apply (your interpretation of) the historical method?


And HOW did you rule those things out please? How? My question was how, in case you missed it. How?
You do not understand the fallacy of special pleading, I'm afraid. Here's a good summary. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

Yes.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

.

So the cross-source agreement, and presentation of history, of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, should convince you that Gandolf is real.

What??? My presence isn't enough!!???



GB

 

[Larechar]

What??? My presence isn't enough!!???



GB

Literally lmao.

eta
You're just the beard talking. There's no evidence you're actually Gandalf's Beard, unless you're phelix, anyway.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

That's evidence for probability of truth in some points, not evidence for truth. This is pointless. You keep saying the SAME THING over and over and over and over and over, and we keep telling you that isn't proof based on your system over and over and over and over and over. I'm out 'til DOC comes back with some more assertions.

Yes! The same ones he keeps asserting over and over and over and over and over...

What a relief it will be to have DOC back! At least he's not pretending to be an Atheist.


GB

 

[ddt]

Or there simply could have been a Palestine census at exactly the time Luke reported and Quirinius could have been an official at that time. Rulers and politicians do hold more than one office in their lifetime. This census was around 4 BC. Josephus wasn't even born then and he didn't write about this time period until about 91 AD. Also Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD so its not like there would be a lot of census records laying around (for Joshephus to read) of something that happened 95 years ago.

First of all, the text does not support that. You have brought in Heichelheim and Geisler claiming that, but you have not given any argumentation why their claims are valid. Let's go over that 9-word sentence of Luke 2:2 again:

αὑτη ἡ ἀπογραφη πρωτη ἐγενετο ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου

Now, let's break down that sentence.

It's subject is αὑτη ἡ ἀπογραφη - "that census". The word αὑτη is a demonstrative pronoun ("that"), and refers back to the previous verse where it said that Augustus ordered a census. The word ἡ is the definite article (which is usual in Greek in this construct but obviously not translated in English). Lastly, ἀπογραφη means census; it's a feminine word; as it's the subject, it's in the nominative; and it's singular;. The words αὑτη and ἡ are inflected to agree with that.

The verb is ἐγενετο. It's the aorist indicative, 3rd person singular of γιγνομαι - to become, to be, to happen (cf. the English word Genesis). It acts here as a copula.

Then the word we've skipped: πρωτη. That is a superlative of an adjective that has no positive grade, and means "first" or "earliest". A Greek superlative may also be translated as "very ...", so "very early" would also be possible. It's inflected in the nominative singular feminine, and so it's the predicate of the copula.

Then the last four words: ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου. They are a genitive absolute construction. The word ἡγεμονευοντος is the genitive singular masculine of the present participle of ἡγεμονευω, "to rule", "to govern", so literally it means "ruling". This verb happens to have its direct object in the genitive case too; that object is της Συριας, i.e., Syria (της is the genitive singular feminine of the definite article "the"). The last word, Κυρηνιου, is the genitive singular of Κυρηνιος, the Greek transcription of the name Quirinius. So the whole construct means "Quirinius ruling over Syria". A genitive absolute construct is called "absolute" because it stands "loose", it is independent grammatically, of the rest of the sentence. It is typically translated as a subordinate clause, with simply a temporal relation ("while", "when") or a causal relation ("because") or a concessive relation ("although") or whatever the translator deems appropriate. The fact that the participle employed here is a present participle means that the action in the genitive absolute construction is contemporaneous with the action in the main clause.

So, all in all, my translation is: "This census was the first, while Quirinius ruled over Syria".

Now, I don't see any mention in this sentence of two censuses as your favourite apologists contend, but I'll give you some rope to hang yourself with. Some scholars claim that the NT writers now and then employed a superlative (here: πρωτη, "earliest") when they actually meant a comparative (which would be προτερη, "earlier"). In case of a comparative there has to be a thing you compare it with, say: "Peter is taller than Paul". You can't just say "Peter is taller". That (the italicized part) can be expressed in two ways in Greek: (1) the word ἠ stands for "than" and the actual thing is in the same case as the thing we compare it with, or (2) the thing we compare it with is put in the genitive case.

Now, obviously the word ἠ is absent; and the genitive construction doesn't work either IMHO: firstly, the verb ἐγενετο is placed in between which makes this unlikely to have been the idea (Greek word order is not that free); and secondly, the genitives are there for a genitive absolute, not for a comparative.

And even if you were able to convince me of such a translation, there are also historical reasons why this doesn't work.

A census in Judea around 4 BC is right out, for several reasons. Herod reigned over Judea, and the finances of Judea was not the Romans' worry. They had an agreement with Herod how much tax he had to turn over and it was his business how to get that. There was no need for the Romans to mandate he conduct a census, and still, then it would have been Herod's census and not Quirinius' c.q. Augustus' census.

Varus was the governor over Syria in the last years of Herod's reign. Even in your fantastic scenario of a Roman census in that time, Quirinius would have been a subordinate. The Greek text of Luke 2:2 however is very clear:

ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου

which means "while Quirinius reigned over Syria". The use of the verb ἡγεμονεω leaves open a subordinate position, however, της Συριας is a direct object (in the genitive) and precludes anything but him being the boss - otherwise, Luke would have written ἐν τῃ Συριᾳ ("in Syria"). But we're here already in the realm of fantasy, as noted above.

But to put your last fantastical delusions to an end: if you're going to argue Quirinius may have been governor of Syria after Varus, then this is the first instance we know that the same man had been governor twice of the same Roman province. Surely Josephus, Tacitus or any other Roman historian would have told us.

Also if Luke wanted to make up a story of how Joseph and Mary got to Bethlehem why make up a story that can be challenged by all the people of that time (that doesn't make sense). Why not just make up a story that can't be challenged. He could say something like the dead Joseph wanted to visit his hometown, or he wanted to have the child in the place he was born. Why go through all the trouble of bringing in historical people and events into made up story where it can be challenged, that doesn't make sense to do that.

Your posts here are a testament to the gullibility of the general populace to take any story they're told at face value. Skeptics who critically engage a story were in the minority then as well as now. Most of Luke's readers were not in the position to challenge the story. They didn't have Wikipedia to look up that there's actually a gap of 10 years between Herod's death and Quirinius' tenure. They couldn't check the claim that Joseph had to travel for a census. However, there's a definite advantage to Luke's story - from a Christian perspective. After the Jewish Revolt, Jews were looked upon with suspicion by Romans. The early Christians had to disambiguate their cult from the Jews. There also was the story (per Josephus) of the revolt of Judas the Galilee as a reaction to Quirinius' census. Having Joseph be an obedient Roman subject, willing to make an arduous journey with his highly pregnant wife paints Christians as law-abiding Roman subjects from the outset.

Bump. DOC, any reaction forthcoming?

 

[pakeha]

The problem with focusing on the life and acts of Jesus is that we cannot establish very much at all. The thread will have lingered on this point because apologists will defend it, and atheists will have fun swiping at the low-hanging fruit. The thread though is about whether the New Testament writers told the truth. Sometimes they did, and the letters of Paul play a big part of that.


Do you think the references provided to support the claim that Paul had a disciple called Timothy do not constitute evidence? It's speculation because the conclusion is not definite, but we still have two pieces of evidence that lead to the conclusion that Paul probably had a disciple called Timothy.


Howso useless? It is from the NT writers alone that we know John the Baptist worked in the river Jordan. The NT writers were probably telling the truth here.


This is now interesting, and I wonder if you will send Pythagoras to touch like two other people in this thread have. Would you be willing to say that all our sources for Pythagoras do not meet the required standard?

Come, come, phelix.
Read the thread.
See what it's about.
None of what you've written has anything to do with it.
Be honest.

 

[Akhenaten]

I want to underscore carlitos' question. My understanding - which pales compared to the more erudite posting in this thread - is that the BEST that the gospel writers had was third hand stories. NO eyewitnesses.

Please address this point, phelix.

Oh goodness I hope people didn't take too much from that.

Trust me, there was little enough risk of that to start with and your contributions have done absolutely nothing to increase it.

It is my view that Luke thought he knew an eyewitness, not necessarily that he did know one.

The Historical Method™ appears to consist of of your opinions about the possiblity that someone who may or may not have existed possibly thought he was recording hearsay.

And because we don't lap it all up we're being dogmatic?


Geeze, Louise.

 

[Akhenaten]

Which of the things I said are you doubting?

Everything after this:

I'm guessing

 

[Akhenaten]

Again, I'm really starting to wonder if this is an act.

I'm still not sure that Phelix is an Atheist!



GB

+1

 

[DOC]

...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.

Also, if the history was faked by several authors they could have smoothed over their accounts so their wouldn't "appear" to be some inconsistencies or difficult passages. But as I've said, I've never seen an alleged inconsistency in the Gospel accounts that can't be rationally explained.

 

[Larechar]

Also, if the history was faked by several authors they could have smoothed over their accounts so their wouldn't "appear" to be some inconsistencies. But as I've said, I've never seen an alleged inconsistency in the Gospel accounts that can't be rationally explained.

Please do so, now. At this moment. I expect you to walk us through your, "rational," explanation, as well.

 

[John Jones]

Hai! No problem. I'd say I'm curious to know your thoughts about the comment you quoted of him with what I told you in mind, but it would be moot, anyway, because he'd just dismiss your point anyway.

What?

Ask a straight question, or be considered foolish.

 

[John Jones]

Also, if the history was faked by several authors they could have smoothed over their accounts so their wouldn't "appear" to be some inconsistencies or difficult passages. [...].

Maybe they have, but in the final analysis, presented their arguments as poorly as you have done, DOC.

 

[Akhenaten]

With regard to probably, I am a-ok with that word. All historical evidence ever tells us is what probably happened.

Did this probably happened?

Matthew 14:25

And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea​

Or will I add it to the list with the resurrection and the saints rising up?

Any sign of that evidence for the empty tomb yet?

I think there was an enquiry about the loaves and fishes story too.​

No pizza for you until all your chores are done.

 

[Akhenaten]

Also, if the history was faked by several authors they could have smoothed over their accounts so their wouldn't "appear" to be some inconsistencies or difficult passages.

Just because your new little friend is fond of referring to your fairytale as history doesn't make it so, DOC, despite your fervent wishes.

And smoothing over inconsistencies for the sake of appearances? How does that fall within the definition of "telling the truth"?

But as I've said, I've never seen an alleged inconsistency in the Gospel accounts that can't be rationally explained.

And we've never seen you produce a rational explanation for anything, so there's little enough reason to suspect that you'd recognise one if it bit you.

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't get it. I don't think Luke knew an eyewitness so how is this so important.

For anyone trying to claim that the gospels are historically accurate, the idea that the alleged author was writing glossed-over, third-hand hearsay from someone who probably wasn't an eyewitness is a bit of a setback, to say the least.

Pointing out that you don't get this is completely redundant.

 

[Larechar]

What?

Ask a straight question, or be considered foolish.

It was pretty straightforward. Would you like to rescind your comment? If not, you'll be considered foolish.

Here's a hint, if you're needing guidance: Backtrack through the quotes.

 

[Akhenaten]

Correct. Can we refer to him (or her) as Luke though, for the sake of ease?

The correct appellation is "a great historian (Luke) regarding non-supernatural events (at least according to Sir William M. Mitchell.)"

Please try to pay more attention.

 

[dropzone]

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?

Don't know. Don't care. Making popcorn. Please, do go on!

And skip the prequel, which was too interested in who was whom.