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

[phelix]

Originally Posted by nvidiot

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

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:

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

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.

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

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]

Originally Posted by ddt

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]

Originally Posted by SezMe

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]

Originally Posted by ddt

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]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

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?

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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.

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by Garrette

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]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by Larechar

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

Yup.

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

[phelix]

Originally Posted by amb

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

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]

Originally Posted by nvidiot

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

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.

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

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]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

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]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

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]

Originally Posted by Resume

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.

Originally Posted by phelix

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.

Originally Posted by phelix

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.

Originally Posted by phelix

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.

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

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.

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by ddt

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

This isn't my argument.

Yes it is.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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.

Originally Posted by phelix

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?

Originally Posted by phelix

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.

Originally Posted by phelix

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).

Originally Posted by phelix

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

<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]

Originally Posted by Lothian

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]

Originally Posted by phelix

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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