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

[carlitos]

I assume you don't believe in the importance of historical evidence.

Wrong.

Sorry, but there was no video of the resurrection or the miracles.

Fixed.

 

[Lothian]

I assume you don't believe in the importance of historical evidence.

Sorry, but there was no video of the resurrection or the miracles.

and according to Sir William Ramsay no historical evidence of the resurrection or the miracles. Can we trust Sir William on historical evidence?

 

[phelix]

I think that I like my apologia straight, without the non-apologia apologia chaser.

I suspected this was the inference. Of course, that there are times where the NT writers told the truth says nothing about the absence or presence of God. The supernatural is simply not something which historians are allowed to draw on.

 

[carlitos]

That there are times when Robert Ludlum told the truth says nothing about the absence or presence of Jason Bourne.

I'm giving up, unless there is some point that phelix wishes to make clearly and concisely, preferably relating to the thread topic.

 

[phelix]

You said related to the thread topic, but your first line seems to have suggested you concede the fact there are times when the NT writers told the truth, but still believe that Jesus has ultimate origins in fiction. That is steering the thread off-topic.

 

[John Jones]

I wish we were back in the other thread.

 

[DOC]

DOC, you haven't answered my questions yet!

Sorry, but after 2500 posts in this thread Part 1, and other personal activities, I can' t get to everyone. If you must know, private message me with the question and I'll respond as time permits.

 

[DOC]

and according to Sir William Ramsay no historical evidence of the resurrection or the miracles. Can we trust Sir William on historical evidence?

What kind of historical evidence do you want for a resurrection or miracles, a notarized statement from Julius Caesar. That would be difficult though, since we do not even possess one of his signatures.

We've got over 5000 manuscripts of the NT compared to 7 manuscripts for Plato's work and 20 manuscripts for Tacitus' work.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Hm?

Juicy bits of the New Testament. I think this is perfectly understandable, and that there is absolutely no need for you to play dumb.

 

[ddt]

Sorry, but after 2500 posts in this thread Part 1, and other personal activities, I can' t get to everyone. If you must know, private message me with the question and I'll respond as time permits.

You haven't answered my question either. What about that translation of Luke 2:2?

See here.

 

[DOC]

You haven't answered my question either. What about that translation of Luke 2:2?

See here.

I don't have time right now for your long Greek language analysis post and "your" personal translation. And I assume your saying Luke got it wrong because of what Josephus wrote 90 years after the fact. Let me ask you this, do you believe Josephus was right when he said Moses lived in Egypt and was a general there. If you believe he got it wrong then you are basing your belief that Luke got it wrong based on Josephus, whom you believe got some other history wrong.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Sorry, but after 2500 posts in this thread Part 1, and other personal activities, I can' t get to everyone. If you must know, private message me with the question and I'll respond as time permits.

...and if that doesn't work, contact doc's social secretary who will call his personal assistant to see if he will take a meeting with you.

Or have your people call his people.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Are you sure about that?

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

My only problem with that article is the conjunction of "textual" with "evidence."

Otherwise it was very good.


GB

 

[Akhenaten]

And that addition would be quite valuable considering Luke was a traveling companion of Paul.

O rly?

Was this on their famous Heidelberg trip?

You know the drill, DOC. Evidence please.

And we know Paul had a 14 day meeting with Peter and other apostles as reported in Acts by Luke.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, DOC.

Which bit of "You can't use the NT as evidence that the NT is a true story" is giving you the most trouble?

Is it just the word 'evidence'? Maybe we could get phelix to explain it to you. Never mind.

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.

Let's pretend for the sake of your hypothetical that Margaret Mitchell, in the course of doing the research for her book had indeed had such a companion. It's hardly a stretch of the imagination, given that only 60-odd years separate the actual war and the writing of the book. Does this mean we should view Gone With The Wind as a true story, or are you going to remind us again that it's a whole 'nother thing because there was no fiction in biblical times?

Do you think that author might have picked up some useful information from his traveling companion.

Maybe. Maybe not.

What does the (extra-biblical) evidence say?

 

[Akhenaten]

which bit in the new testament?

I don't recall seeing your response to this:

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.

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.

And I could quite easily reference any number of sources to confirm that King's Cross station in London is a very real place and that the Ford Anglia is a very real car.

Would this add weight to the 'Harry Potter is a true story and magic is real' argument?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

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


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).


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.

1) Trying to assign percentages of "truth" to historical evidence is a useless task. We either have no evidence, some evidence or really strong evidence.

2) Given that the oldest copy of Antiquities is an 11th century manuscript copied by Christian monks, anything that validates the Christian story is suspect.

Josephus, if he existed, is nearly always referred to by Christians as being Jewish, and therefore a neutral historian. Yet this passage in Antiquities is a refutation of this notion:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

If this passage was actually written by Josephus, then he was not a neutral historian, he was a CHRISTIAN historian. If this passage was added after the fact by Christian Copyists, then this section is forged.

In either case, the passages referring to John the Baptist are equally suspect.

3) Claiming it is possible that no-one in history existed is simply a continuation of your fallacies regarding the Historical Method. It appears that I must post the following again:

The Historical Method:

-Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

-Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

-The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

-A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.

-If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

-The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

-If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

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.

I don't think Phelix had a point. But you do!

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I assume you don't believe in the importance of historical evidence.

Sorry, but there was no video of the resurrection or the miracles.

We do! It's a shame you never come up with any.


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

You said related to the thread topic, but your first line seems to have suggested you concede the fact there are times when the NT writers told the truth, but still believe that Jesus has ultimate origins in fiction. That is steering the thread off-topic.

I'm actually willing to give you a pass on this one. One cannot examine the NT and its veracity without also discussing its relationship to, and the veracity of, the whole Bible.

But again, presenting evidence of historicity is the only criteria that directly relates to the OP.


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

What kind of historical evidence do you want for a resurrection or miracles, a notarized statement from Julius Caesar. That would be difficult though, since we do not even possess one of his signatures.

We've got over 5000 manuscripts of the NT compared to 7 manuscripts for Plato's work and 20 manuscripts for Tacitus' work.

5000 manuscripts x Zero Evidence = Zero Evidence.


GB