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

[phelix]

That has always puzzled me.

^ Jesus, courtesy of the Ethiopian church

 

[tsig]

There is a pretty big difference between religious apology and the historical mainstream.

Doesn't look like it so far.

 

[Lothian]

Are you sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus

That article is basically correct. Groups tend to model their graven images of Jesus on their own likeness.

As an example see this model found outside the Holy Church of Lecherous Adulterers in Miami.

 

[The Don]

It's a willingness to consider and engage that is rare, but appreciated.

No, it's just that almost everyone else is sharper than me. I have to restate the problem so I know what I'm attempting to consider.

This is the same thing surely? Something 99% likely to be true, is 1% likely to be untrue. Something 1% likely to be true, is 99% likely to be untrue.
Unless you are saying that our scale can only go between untrue and "don't know". That the evidence limits us to suggestions between 1% likely and 50% likely? In which case, I disagree.
The "almost definitely not true" limit never changes with respect to the evidence. If we have lots of evidence, we can conclude something to be "almost definitely not true" and if we have hardly any evidence, we can still conclude something to be "almost definitely not true".
With the top limit, we are dependent on the quality and quantity of sources. If we have every source there could possibly be, the top limit would be near as damnit 100% likely to be true. As our sources for claims become worse and worse, this limit approaches 50%, but doesn't get there until we have absolutely no sources at all. Even with only one source (say, Philemon) we can still draw from above 50% and say a claim is "more likely than not" (for instance, the claim that Paul believes in God).

Without corroborating evidence there is no way to tell whether something is true or not. Assigning a percentage to it is giving the illusion of accuracy when all you are doing is guessing.

In any case, "don't know" isn't the same as 50% likely to be true, it just means "don't know". Without corroborating evidence it's always going to be "don't know" unless you're going to make a guess.

For John, I've mentioned Josephus as an external validation. Josephus gives the same outline of John's life as that found in the synoptics, and they even differ on a key point for which there are reasonable arguments for Josephus being wrong and the synoptics being correct (this is the only time where, if I had to pick sides and bet my life on one or the other, I would side with the NT over the account of a contemporary historian.)
Of course, it is always possible that Josephus' writings were faked, and it is possible that Josephus didn't exist. Same deal with Paul. Possible he didn't exist. Possible absolutely nobody in history existed.

I'm pretty sure that someone in history must have existed unless we were created ex nihilo.

Why would you bet your life on the authenticity of one account of a possibly fictitious event over another account of a possibly fictitious event ? You're going on gut feel rather than evidence.

Josephus' writings may not necessarily have been faked, they may just have been based on the same collection of myths and rumours that formed the basis for the gospels. Likewise with Paul, we have a collection of writings whose provenance is difficult to determine.

 

[Akhenaten]

That article is basically correct. Groups tend to model their graven images of Jesus on their own likeness.

As an example see this model found outside the Holy Church of Lecherous Adulterers in Miami.

He gets around that bloke, but he's a bit of a wanker.

 

[Akhenaten]

Of course, it is always possible that Josephus' writings were faked, and it is possible that Josephus didn't exist. Same deal with Paul. Possible he didn't exist. Possible absolutely nobody in history existed.

They definitely did, but they all died while they were waiting for the evidence.

 

[Aepervius]

In other words, it's not going to be very useful on this thread.

It's a good thing we have Archaeology, Anthropology, a number of other "ologies," and multiple independent sources for a lot of ancient history.

(You REALLY should have read the post in which I laid out the REAL Historical Method).

GB

Actually Phelix might have a point here : it is called history, not historology. In other word
it is art, litterature, passion, feelings, but neither reason/logic nor science.

 

[Akhenaten]

There is a pretty big difference between religious apology and the historical mainstream.

Doesn't look like it so far.

I'm starting to think phelix has created a hybrid that more or less says "I haven't got any evidence but if I did, this is what it would look like."

 

[phelix]

No, it's just that almost everyone else is sharper than me. I have to restate the problem so I know what I'm attempting to consider.

Don't do yourself down, you're engaging on a good level so far. I certainly prefer it to "lying for the cause"

Without corroborating evidence there is no way to tell whether something is true or not. Assigning a percentage to it is giving the illusion of accuracy when all you are doing is guessing.

There is no way to tell, which much certainty, but you can still pick on probabilities can you not? In my example, can you not say the claim is "more likely than not" or are you required to say that we have been given no information?

In any case, "don't know" isn't the same as 50% likely to be true, it just means "don't know". Without corroborating evidence it's always going to be "don't know" unless you're going to make a guess.

This really depends on your standards for knowledge, and whether or not probability counts. I don't think weighting possibilities over others is the same as guesswork. If someone tells you they live at house number 72, and you head along with your wife and she asks what number house it is, do you have to respond "don't know"? You have no corroborating evidence. In order to justify your belief that they live at 72, you have to make claims regarding plausibility and so on, and then give the belief probabilities. Very probable that he does live at number 72, possible but unlikely that he got it wrong, extremely unlikely that he full on lied to you.

I'm pretty sure that someone in history must have existed unless we were created ex nihilo.

True, but no specific person needed to have.

Why would you bet your life on the authenticity of one account of a possibly fictitious event over another account of a possibly fictitious event ? You're going on gut feel rather than evidence.

I wouldn't bet my life on it. I meant if I had to make a decision. If I was on a particularly odd Japanese gameshow in which I had to give one answer or the other, and a wrong answer means I get killed, and not answering or saying don't know means I get killed, then I would go with the NT over Josephus in that particular instance. The "evidence" is the argument over which account, if true, best explains the existence of the other. If John the Baptist was really killed for being way too moral, and getting people to be moral, and spreading morality, then why would the Gospel authors choose instead to say he questioned the legality of Herod's marriage? If, on the other hand, John the Baptist questioned the legality of Herod's marriage, it is clear why Josephus would prefer a narrative in which John is something of a martyr.

Josephus' writings may not necessarily have been faked, they may just have been based on the same collection of myths and rumours that formed the basis for the gospels. Likewise with Paul, we have a collection of writings whose provenance is difficult to determine.

True. But of course we do run into a problem about what is considered an independent corroborative source. If we declare something fake, then no corroborative sources are now good enough. They are now all based on the same, ultimate falsehood.

 

[The Don]

Don't do yourself down, you're engaging on a good level so far. I certainly prefer it to "lying for the cause"

Awwww bless, thank you

There is no way to tell, which much certainty, but you can still pick on probabilities can you not? In my example, can you not say the claim is "more likely than not" or are you required to say that we have been given no information?

Not really if those probabilities are based on guesswork. There is an awful lot of documented "evidence" for vampires but I wouldn't conduct a meta-analysis on it to say that it's 83% (or some other arbitrary figure) true because the same themes keep cropping up.

This really depends on your standards for knowledge, and whether or not probability counts. I don't think weighting possibilities over others is the same as guesswork. If someone tells you they live at house number 72, and you head along with your wife and she asks what number house it is, do you have to respond "don't know"? You have no corroborating evidence. In order to justify your belief that they live at 72, you have to make claims regarding plausibility and so on, and then give the belief probabilities. Very probable that he does live at number 72, possible but unlikely that he got it wrong, extremely unlikely that he full on lied to you.

I suppose it comes down to what claim is being made.

If I claim that there's a banjo-playing pink unicorn at number 72 then I'm going to require more evidence.

In the case of the New Testament we have a set of core claims that run counter to out current understanding of the universe and which can be explained by more mundane means:

• Immaculate conception - or what she just knocked up
• Performing miracles - or was stuff just exagerated and/or made up
• Son of God - or just (one of man, many people) claiming to be the Messiah
• Rising from the dead - or just a made up story

Against this background of dubious claims we are then asked to consider this to be a reliable source on other (more mundane, less contentious) uncorroborated matters. The typical MO would then be to claim that this makes the dubious claims true too.

Typical exchange:

Believer : Skeptics claim everything in the Bible is false
Skeptic : No, there is some true stuff in there by accident
Believer : Aha ! so everything in the bible is true
Skeptic : I never said that

.....and repeat ad-nauseam

I wouldn't bet my life on it. I meant if I had to make a decision. If I was on a particularly odd Japanese gameshow in which I had to give one answer or the other, and a wrong answer means I get killed, and not answering or saying don't know means I get killed, then I would go with the NT over Josephus in that particular instance. The "evidence" is the argument over which account, if true, best explains the existence of the other. If John the Baptist was really killed for being way too moral, and getting people to be moral, and spreading morality, then why would the Gospel authors choose instead to say he questioned the legality of Herod's marriage? If, on the other hand, John the Baptist questioned the legality of Herod's marriage, it is clear why Josephus would prefer a narrative in which John is something of a martyr.

I have no idea, maybe the stories got crossed, maybe people were making up a bunch of stuff and attributing meaning to it (look in the Conspiracy Theory sub-forum to see how people do that).

True. But of course we do run into a problem about what is considered an independent corroborative source. If we declare something fake, then no corroborative sources are now good enough. They are now all based on the same, ultimate falsehood.

Which takes me back to an earlier point. The New Testament makes some pretty remarkable claims about a variety of things and provides a narrative to the early years of the Christian church. There is no supporting evidence for the wildest claims and there is precedent for groups of people to massage or indeed invent stuff so that they appear in the best light.

In light of this, can the New Testament be reliable about the facts of Jesus's life (up to, and including the existence of such an individual) ? Is it a reliable source about the early history of Christianity (when we know that people embellish and we certainly know that the Bible has been extensively edited over time) ?

I would say that in light of the above, it should be treated as suspect at best.

 

[Akhenaten]

Don't do yourself down, you're engaging on a good level so far. I certainly prefer it to "lying for the cause"

It's not in the same league as your very own "withholding evidence" though, is it?

 

[carlitos]

I'm starting to think phelix has created a hybrid that more or less says "I haven't got any evidence but if I did, this is what it would look like."

It does seem that way.

phelix,

If you have a point, could you please make it concisely? Do you have evidence for the truth of the New Testament? If not, perhaps you could contribute your thoughts to another topic here?

 

[DOC]

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.

And that addition would be quite valuable considering Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. And we know Paul had a 14 day meeting with Peter and other apostles as reported in Acts by Luke. That would be like an author who was writing about the Civil War being the traveliing companion of someone who had a two week meeting with Robert E. Lee. Do you think that author might have picked up some useful information from his traveling companion.

 

[carlitos]

Here DOC - I have a couple of extras.

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 

[phelix]

It does seem that way.

phelix,

If you have a point, could you please make it concisely? Do you have evidence for the truth of the New Testament? If not, perhaps you could contribute your thoughts to another topic here?

which bit in the new testament? I've referenced Josephus for some of the truths in the gospels, referenced roman official sources and tacitus for some of the truths in Acts, and given arguments for some of the truths we can get from Paul's letters.

 

[carlitos]

 

[phelix]

And that addition would be quite valuable considering Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. And we know Paul had a 14 day meeting with Peter and other apostles as reported in Acts by Luke. That would be like an author who was writing about the Civil War being the traveliing companion of someone who had a two week meeting with Robert E. Lee. Do you think that author might have picked up some useful information from his traveling companion.

What convinces you that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul? The two often contradict in theology, and when Luke gives descriptions of what Paul is doing, this often contradicts Paul's own views.
For instance, Paul thinks that circumcision is pointless, maybe even that it is bad (Galatians) while Luke tells us that Paul circumcised Timothy.
As for the meeting with the apostles, why didn't Paul mention this? He speaks only of a brief stay at Peter's house, and a quick chat with James (which he reports nothing from). Why would Paul play down an alleged meeting, in a letter to people who questioned his status as an apostle anyway?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

which bit in the new testament?

The juicy bits.

 

[carlitos]

Paul circumcised Timothy.

So creepy. "Hey, I'd like to take you with me on my adventures, but first we have to mutilate your schlong in case people check."

 

[phelix]

The juicy bits.

I've had a think, but nothing seems to fit the bill, sorry

If you're interested in a bit of non-factual juiciness that not many people know - Eve wasn't made out of Adam's rib, but his penis bone. The original word that's used is best translated as "side branch" but that doesn't help, and totally could mean rib, so the argument is instead one of aim.
The whole story of the garden of eden is aiming to explain why things are the way they are. Why are there animals? Why is it ok for us to treat them so badly? Why do snakes crawl? How come women are so blatently inferior to men? and other questions relevant at the time.
So why would they have put rib? They could see dead human and animal skeletons, and knew that we had the same number of ribs. Also why does it say that god covered up his handiwork with a flesh seam? There's no seam around one of our ribs.
For the positive argument, humans are lacking a penis bone, unlike the other animal skeletons. If the reason for this was God removing it, then it does look like he covered it up with a flesh seam (on the underside).
This would also explain why the author used such a horrible euphemistic term for the body part. Overall, it seems most likely that Eve was made from Adam's penis bone.