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

[amb]

Using the bible to defend anything is like asking an inmate at a psychiatric ward if he/she has seen Napoleon Bonaparte lately.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by amb

Using the bible to defend anything is like asking an inmate at a psychiatric ward if he/she has seen Napoleon Bonaparte lately.

Not really. It's more like asking numerous inmates at psychiatric wards about the details concerning other inmates. You will get a lot of inaccuracy, alongside some likely truths.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by Agatha

We can't use other books of the NT to confirm the truth of the NT - that would be like looking at the scene of Harold's journey to Normandy in the Bayeaux Tapestry and using it to confirm the historicity of Harold rescuing soldiers from quicksand. What we can use are other sources of information about the events surrounding the Battle, for example the works of Orderic Vitalis or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. If we can get broad agreement, we can say that these events did happen. What we can't say is that if something is in the Tapestry and in no other source, that event (for example Alfgytha's appearance) is likely. It might have happened, it might be pure invention, or it might be something allegorical which has since lost meaning.

You're honestly losing me a bit with this Bayeaux Tapestry business, but I'll try to engage. You've said that multiple sources of information makes something more likely. Why does this rule not apply to the books of the NT? It has been claimed above that they all had an initial, common, single source of fiction, but there are no clues as to this being the case, and it does require quite a big leap of faith. If the one-faked-source model is to be given weight, then could it not be given weight for the Orderic Vitalis and Anglo-Saxon Chronicles?
Additionally, an issue in saying Alfgytha (horrible name) was likely there is that this brings about questions regarding his omission from the other sources does it not? This would not be a problem when deducing certain things from the bible, so long as those things are unimportant enough.
Finally, I have not solely used the books of the NT, but I am arguing that there are times when information solely contained in the NT is good enough. Otherwise what is the point at all? If we will only accept the points on which the books of the NT gives us information backed up by other historical sources, we may as well just say from the outset that we are going to disregard everything the authors of the NT have to say, without obvious reason for doing so.

Originally Posted by Agatha

Might have, likely and probable are not enough for evidence of truth.

Correct, they are conclusions, which similar historical evidence invariably leads us to.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by phelix

I've covered the parallels with fiction already. As for key points, it really depends what you consider to be "key". The claims you have brought up are theological ones, which can never be validated by history as historians are not permitted to draw on the supernatural. Thus it is paramount that a distinction is drawn between the historical importance and the theological one. It may well be that the NT gives us more accurate historical information concerning John the Baptist than it does concerning Jesus, even though he isn't the centre of attention at all..

The title of the thread is Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth. The central claims for the early books of the New Testament seem to be

• Child born of virgin birth
• Child is son of God
• Man performs miracles
• Man is very important indeed
• Man is executed and comes back to life

None of this appears to be supported by independent sources.

BTW, is there strong evidence for John the Baptist ?

Originally Posted by phelix

What are the key claims of our sources for Mohammed? Him being God's messenger? Him flying to Mecca on a winged horse? No. From a historical point of view it would more likely be the battles he fought in. They would (I'm guessing here) find some of the battle accounts to be likely, some to have been exaggerated, and some to be unlikely. But the theological baggage isn't what historians are concerned with.

You're right, trying to find historical accuracy in an account like the bible is like peeling an onion.

Certain aspects (such as the existence of a place called Jerusalem) can be easily verified.

Certain aspects (such as the literal truth of the flood myth) can be easily disproved (although not beyond dogmatic doubt)

It seems to be difficult to find any support for anything other than the most banal facts in the New Testament from unbiased external sources. This includes even the existence of Jesus, never mind the extraordinary parentage he claimed of the miracles he is supposed to have performed

[The Don]

Originally Posted by phelix

Finally, I have not solely used the books of the NT, but I am arguing that there are times when information solely contained in the NT is good enough. Otherwise what is the point at all?

All you are claiming in that case is that a work of fiction can be internally consistent. I don't think you'll find too many arguments there but I think there are cases where they aren't even consistent.

Originally Posted by phelix

If we will only accept the points on which the books of the NT gives us information backed up by other historical sources, we may as well just say from the outset that we are going to disregard everything the authors of the NT have to say, without obvious reason for doing so.

The purpose of the thread is to provide evidence that the New Testament is factually accurate. If it agrees with other sources then it is more likely (although not certain - they could both have come from the same inaccurate source) that they are correct. If they are further backed by archaeological evidence then so much the better.

The reason why the New Testament isn't a good source of historically accurate information is that it is a very partial account with a particular viewpoint to promote. It's like asking me about Middlesbrough Football Club.

The partiality of the New Testament gives ample reason to reject it as an accurate source without external verification.

[amb]

Originally Posted by phelix

Not really. It's more like asking numerous inmates at psychiatric wards about the details concerning other inmates. You will get a lot of inaccuracy, alongside some likely truths.

Watching a movie shot on location also has many truths about the location. But the movie, unless based on real life events would be pure fiction.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by The Don

The title of the thread is Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth. The central claims for the early books of the New Testament seem to be

• Child born of virgin birth
• Child is son of God
• Man performs miracles
• Man is very important indeed
• Man is executed and comes back to life

None of this appears to be supported by independent sources.

This seems a very odd thing to point out. It's like me saying my issue with the Roswell autopsy video is that it isn't timestamped. Even with independent sources for all of the claims you have listed, they would still all be almost definitely wrong, apart from "Man is very important indeed" which is a bit vague. He was important enough to lead a cult, but not important enough that non-christians bothered writing about him apart from, perhaps, the couple of less frequently disputed lines in Josephus.

Originally Posted by The Don

BTW, is there strong evidence for John the Baptist ?

Depends what you consider to be strong evidence really. He is covered in the four gospels, and a single paragraph by Josephus. I do not recall Paul mentioning him, but I might be wrong on that.

Originally Posted by The Don

You're right, trying to find historical accuracy in an account like the bible is like peeling an onion.

Certain aspects (such as the existence of a place called Jerusalem) can be easily verified.

Certain aspects (such as the literal truth of the flood myth) can be easily disproved (although not beyond dogmatic doubt)

It seems to be difficult to find any support for anything other than the most banal facts in the New Testament from unbiased external sources. This includes even the existence of Jesus, never mind the extraordinary parentage he claimed of the miracles he is supposed to have performed

It is impossible to find any support for anything from "unbiased" external sources. The historians at the time made up things like nobody's business, and frequently took sides. In the above mentioned paragraph on John the Baptist, Josephus clearly likes John a lot, and reckons that he could have provided salvation for Herod. With Josephus, as with Luke, there is a lot of bias towards certain people, so some degree of historical reasoning is needed to determine what is likely true and what is likely untrue. There is no such thing as an unbiased account.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by phelix

This seems a very odd thing to point out. It's like me saying my issue with the Roswell autopsy video is that it isn't timestamped. Even with independent sources for all of the claims you have listed, they would still all be almost definitely wrong, apart from "Man is very important indeed" which is a bit vague. He was important enough to lead a cult, but not important enough that non-christians bothered writing about him apart from, perhaps, the couple of less frequently disputed lines in Josephus.

If someone is executing miracles, he may appear in contemporary accounts (as opposed to pieces of a book whose sole intention is to promote a particular religion that was written 50-200 years later). Maybe something in contemporary Roman, Egyptian, Jewish or Syrian about some guy feeding 5000 people (which was probably a VERY large crowd at the time).

Originally Posted by phelix

Depends what you consider to be strong evidence really. He is covered in the four gospels, and a single paragraph by Josephus. I do not recall Paul mentioning him, but I might be wrong on that.

The gospels are not a reliable source because their purpose is to promote a particular viewpoint. There may be some truth in them, in the same way that there is some truth in an actor's self-penned biography. I would never trust an uncorroborated statement from Paris Hilton's website.

Originally Posted by phelix

It is impossible to find any support for anything from "unbiased" external sources. The historians at the time made up things like nobody's business, and frequently took sides. In the above mentioned paragraph on John the Baptist, Josephus clearly likes John a lot, and reckons that he could have provided salvation for Herod. With Josephus, as with Luke, there is a lot of bias towards certain people, so some degree of historical reasoning is needed to determine what is likely true and what is likely untrue. There is no such thing as an unbiased account.

If you can find contemporary administrative records from the Roman empire to corroborate the facts then at least you have an external source.

If you can find a range of accounts from different that corroborate then as you've pointed out they likely either are sourced from the same lie or from the truth. Analysing the sources may be able to determine which of these may be true.

Finding some archaeological evidence may be nice.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by The Don

All you are claiming in that case is that a work of fiction can be internally consistent. I don't think you'll find too many arguments there but I think there are cases where they aren't even consistent.

I wasn't claiming internal consistency, but rather the presence of likely historical truth which cannot be verified by non-NT sources. It is actually the lack of consistency which brings the most interest for historians, as a discrepancy or contradiction massively reduces the possible ways a certain story emerged. I was trying to build on the position that the NT contains a number of sources with potential historical value.

Originally Posted by The Don

The purpose of the thread is to provide evidence that the New Testament is factually accurate. If it agrees with other sources then it is more likely (although not certain - they could both have come from the same inaccurate source) that they are correct. If they are further backed by archaeological evidence then so much the better.

The reason why the New Testament isn't a good source of historically accurate information is that it is a very partial account with a particular viewpoint to promote. It's like asking me about Middlesbrough Football Club.

The partiality of the New Testament gives ample reason to reject it as an accurate source without external verification.

Yup, if I asked you to give an account of Middlesbrough Football Club, this would constitute a partial account with potentially accurate information. If I asked numerous Boro fans to give accounts we'd get more of this, and could perform some sort of historical analysis, sifting the implausible cross-source claims (Boro are a decent team) from the possible but hard to tell claims (many sources say they once finished 3rd but others leave that out) from the more likely claims (all sources agree the club was founded in the 19th century, even though some say God was involved, and others claim this to be the inspiration for Gandhi).

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by carlitos

You stated earlier that the historical method doesn't work for fiction. How did you determine that the gospels weren't fiction, so that you could start using the historical method? This is circular logic.

Originally Posted by phelix

I've covered the parallels with fiction already.

No, you haven't.

Originally Posted by phelix

As for key points, it really depends what you consider to be "key".

See the end of this posting.

Originally Posted by phelix

We can find numerous times when the various books in the NT are likely to have been correct, owing to other books in the NT, and sources from outside it.

Do tell.

Originally Posted by phelix

The thing is that isn't always especially productive, as only fairly unimportant bits can be verified (the existence of John, the status of Felix and Festus as procurators). I have talked about this to some extent, but it's mostly fruitless as the likely truths are already garnered from Roman governmental sources.

Yeah, I heard that the Romans wrote a lot of stuff down. Please elaborate. What did they say about this Jesus character?

Originally Posted by phelix

For Lord of the Rings, there is not cross-source agreement or a presentation of history. On the cross-source agreement bit, the counterargument has been that there are multiple LOTR fanfictions, and if the original was lost what we would be left with is something resembling the new testament. There is no real need to make this leap, and it does seem to require that the only remaining fanfictions are ones written pretending to be historical, or ones written by people who believed the original LOTR was correct.

Additionally, the composition of the different gospels suggests a number of sources (see the synoptic problem) with John and Paul completely separate. This would require quite a bit of intellectual gymnastics to fit the one source model being proposed.

Actually, there is "cross-source agreement" and a "presentation of history" in Lord of the Rings (and millions of other fictional works). You're just pretending that there isn't.

Quote:

I've said. I do not "rule them out". They are possible. It's just that they create unnecessary strains on reasonableness.

You don't rule out the possibility that the gospels are fiction, and you are lecturing me in a thread about "evidence?" Bizarre.

Originally Posted by phelix

I consider it special pleading because the possibility of every source being faked (or based on fakes) is not one that would be given so much mental airtime in other cases.

I gave you a link to a write-up on special pleading. Give it a read sometime. The phrase that has a specific, logical meaning, and you are not using it correctly.

Originally Posted by phelix

Originally Posted by The Don

• Child born of virgin birth
• Child is son of God
• Man performs miracles
• Man is very important indeed
• Man is executed and comes back to life

This seems a very odd thing to point out. <snip>

In a thread about the truth of the New Testament, it seems odd to point out the central plot points? Again, I feel compelled to ask you - are you doing some type of performance art here?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by phelix

I wasn't claiming internal consistency, but rather the presence of likely historical truth which cannot be verified by non-NT sources. It is actually the lack of consistency which brings the most interest for historians, as a discrepancy or contradiction massively reduces the possible ways a certain story emerged. I was trying to build on the position that the NT contains a number of sources with potential historical value.

The position is not necessarily a strong one though, especially when the purpose (and history of editing) of the New Testament is taken into account. The New Testament is a propaganda exercise for a religious cult.

A factual truth would only be allowed to persist if it didn't contradict the message being pushed.

Originally Posted by phelix

Yup, if I asked you to give an account of Middlesbrough Football Club, this would constitute a partial account with potentially accurate information. If I asked numerous Boro fans to give accounts we'd get more of this, and could perform some sort of historical analysis, sifting the implausible cross-source claims (Boro are a decent team) from the possible but hard to tell claims (many sources say they once finished 3rd but others leave that out) from the more likely claims (all sources agree the club was founded in the 19th century, even though some say God was involved, and others claim this to be the inspiration for Gandhi).

And that's where my analogy breaks down. Part of the schtick for a religious cult is to have a core message into which initiates are indoctrinated. There isn't a similar process to create the myth of Boro's great victory in the 1932 FA Cup final but if there were then Boro fans would all insist that it did happen and you may find differing accounts due to different embellishments in the storytelling.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by The Don

If someone is executing miracles, he may appear in contemporary accounts (as opposed to pieces of a book whose sole intention is to promote a particular religion that was written 50-200 years later). Maybe something in contemporary Roman, Egyptian, Jewish or Syrian about some guy feeding 5000 people (which was probably a VERY large crowd at the time).

Yes, this is a good reason to believe that the miracle accounts are incorrect. A better reason, of course, is that they contradict the laws of physics. But any reason is good

Originally Posted by The Don

The gospels are not a reliable source because their purpose is to promote a particular viewpoint. There may be some truth in them, in the same way that there is some truth in an actor's self-penned biography. I would never trust an uncorroborated statement from Paris Hilton's website.

Yup. That's a pretty good parallel. It would depend what the statement was though. If I go on Paris Hilton's website and see "Just back from Spain, got a nice tan" I think it's fair to conclude that she has been on holiday. There is a possibility she didn't get tanned at all but just said that for PR. There is a small but still not unbelievable possibility that she wasn't in Spain, but rather a Spanish speaking country. It seems unlikely that she just made the whole thing up.

Originally Posted by The Don

If you can find contemporary administrative records from the Roman empire to corroborate the facts then at least you have an external source.

If you can find a range of accounts from different that corroborate then as you've pointed out they likely either are sourced from the same lie or from the truth. Analysing the sources may be able to determine which of these may be true.

Finding some archaeological evidence may be nice.

Archaeological evidence is a tough request, especially given the level of poverty. You'd also need a namestamp, so the only thing I could think of that we have even the slightest chance of finding would be a tomb etching. And when I say slightest chance I really mean no chance at all. I bet you there's been a good few "forging for Jesus" versions though.

As for analysing the sources, we have done this probably more than anything else in history with the bible. Most scholars say there's Mark,Q,L,M,John and Paul, and that all these are independent. There are quibbles over Q. I don't find it at all likely, or even feasible, that these sources all developed from 1 fake. There doesn't seem to be a good argument for it, and it requires a greater leap of faith than is really warranted.

[phelix]

Yargh! email inbox flooded with 72 emails. Did everyone else manage to stay afloat?

Anyhow...

Originally Posted by carlitos

No, you haven't.

(in relation to dealing with the NT-as-fiction implications)
I have. The suggested method of getting around having to invoke conspiracy (as a couple of christ myth authors do) is to have all the independent sources (I don't mean the books here) sharing a single faked source themselves. There is not really any good argument for believing this. The single-faked-source model is an unwarranted leap of faith, and opens up more problems than the mainstream historical models.

Originally Posted by carlitos

Do tell.

(in relation to use of sources outside the NT)
Sources from outside the NT I have used in reference to John the Baptist's life outline (Josephus) and particulars concerning the early church's relation to authority as described in Acts (Roman official records)

Originally Posted by carlitos

Yeah, I heard that the Romans wrote a lot of stuff down. Please elaborate. What did they say about this Jesus character?

They wrote nothing about Jesus, as far as we currently know. They wrote nothing about John the Baptist either, even though Herod ordered his death. They weren't especially concerned with minor Jewish cult leaders.

Originally Posted by carlitos

Actually, there is "cross-source agreement" and a "presentation of history" in Lord of the Rings (and millions of other fictional works). You're just pretending that there isn't.

There is not a presentation of history in LOTR. The first line is "When Mr Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton". The book is a narrative, but this doesn't qualify as a presentation of history.
As for cross-source agreement, what exactly are you referring to? Is it the idea someone else has proposed that there are numerous LOTR fanfics, some of which written with a more fake-history bent, and if we just take those and ignore the original we would have something resembling the NT? Or is it that LOTR is written in three sections, and has a prequel as well?

Originally Posted by carlitos

You don't rule out the possibility that the gospels are fiction, and you are lecturing me in a thread about "evidence?" Bizarre.

What is your point there? I do not rule out the possibility. Neither do you. This has nothing to do with evidence, but rather the fact that any evidence presented will always have the chance of being wrong.

Originally Posted by carlitos

In a thread about the truth of the New Testament, it seems odd to point out the central plot points? Again, I feel compelled to ask you - are you doing some type of performance art here?

You have misquoted there, possibly deliberately. Bad show. You snipped out the line "None of this appears to be supported by independent sources." which is what I was responding to.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by phelix

Yes, this is a good reason to believe that the miracle accounts are incorrect. A better reason, of course, is that they contradict the laws of physics. But any reason is good

So there are many occasions where we know the NT isn't reliable and yet you're asking us to consider it reliable in other cases. Given some of the whackiness that's in there, I'd consider it unreliable unless proven otherwise.

A gathering of 5,000 would have been a big deal back then (catering provisions notwithstanding). Maybe there's some kind of account in the administrative record of a significant number of people attending a meeting of a charismatic person claiming to be the messiah.

Originally Posted by phelix

Yup. That's a pretty good parallel. It would depend what the statement was though. If I go on Paris Hilton's website and see "Just back from Spain, got a nice tan" I think it's fair to conclude that she has been on holiday. There is a possibility she didn't get tanned at all but just said that for PR. There is a small but still not unbelievable possibility that she wasn't in Spain, but rather a Spanish speaking country. It seems unlikely that she just made the whole thing up.

The primary purpose of the Paris Hilton website is to big up Paris Hilton. The primary purpose of the New Testament is to big up the (then) new cult of Christianity. The only truth that survives is that which is on message.

Originally Posted by phelix

Archaeological evidence is a tough request, especially given the level of poverty. You'd also need a namestamp, so the only thing I could think of that we have even the slightest chance of finding would be a tomb etching. And when I say slightest chance I really mean no chance at all. I bet you there's been a good few "forging for Jesus" versions though.

Yes, I suppose the only chance would be to unearth some new administrative records from Rome, Egypt, Syria or wherever.

The fact that corroborating sources aren't available doesn't make the current sources any more reliable.

Originally Posted by phelix

As for analysing the sources, we have done this probably more than anything else in history with the bible. Most scholars say there's Mark,Q,L,M,John and Paul, and that all these are independent. There are quibbles over Q. I don't find it at all likely, or even feasible, that these sources all developed from 1 fake. There doesn't seem to be a good argument for it, and it requires a greater leap of faith than is really warranted.

The gospels were written 50-200 years after the event by cult members. Prior to that, presumably the stories were passed on orally. Mrs Don and I cannot agree on the details of an episode of Spiral (Engrenages) we watched last night. The fact that we have two accounts which are somewhat similar but different in key details doesn't mean that:

a) they didn't have the same source
b) that source is factually true

[GrandMasterFox]

Originally Posted by phelix

Not really. It's more like asking numerous inmates at psychiatric wards about the details concerning other inmates. You will get a lot of inaccuracy, alongside some likely truths.

And what you have been asked for dozens of times is how do you tell them apart?

Originally Posted by phelix

Yes, this is a good reason to believe that the miracle accounts are incorrect. A better reason, of course, is that they contradict the laws of physics. But any reason is good

Actually that's BS as well. Audri Santos is considered a modern day saint who cured people and made statues of jesus cry. Sure, we know it's a fake, but your method exclude her entirely from history.

Just because someone reported a miracle doesn't mean the event never happened. It quite possibly happened with mundane explanations.

Originally Posted by phelix

Yup. That's a pretty good parallel. It would depend what the statement was though. If I go on Paris Hilton's website and see "Just back from Spain, got a nice tan" I think it's fair to conclude that she has been on holiday. There is a possibility she didn't get tanned at all but just said that for PR. There is a small but still not unbelievable possibility that she wasn't in Spain, but rather a Spanish speaking country. It seems unlikely that she just made the whole thing up.

If you think Paris Hilton may have forged something on her website, how on earth can you possibly take anything in a religious text into acccount?

Do you think stuff are "likely" to be true in the Book of Mormon? Dyanetics? What the Bleep do we know?

Every known religious text has been filled with lies, falsehoods and delusions that are not based on reality. Therefore, the likely even is that they should NOT be taken into account.

If you wish to claim that something is "likely" you do realize that it too requires evidence, right?

Originally Posted by phelix

As for analysing the sources, we have done this probably more than anything else in history with the bible. Most scholars say there's Mark,Q,L,M,John and Paul, and that all these are independent. There are quibbles over Q. I don't find it at all likely, or even feasible, that these sources all developed from 1 fake. There doesn't seem to be a good argument for it, and it requires a greater leap of faith than is really warranted.

Again, this statement requires evidence. Do you have any?

What you randomly say that sounds better or worst to you is completely irelavent and is the very definition of faith.

[carlitos]

phelix, I apologize for the mis-quote there, where I mis-read your comment. I'll just leave the rest, rather than repeat it. I agree with the following sentiment (sans typos). You're still cherry-picking.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

What you randomly say that sounds better or worse to you is completely irrelevant and is the very definition of faith.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by The Don

So there are many occasions where we know the NT isn't reliable and yet you're asking us to consider it reliable in other cases. Given some of the whackiness that's in there, I'd consider it unreliable unless proven otherwise.

A gathering of 5,000 would have been a big deal back then (catering provisions notwithstanding). Maybe there's some kind of account in the administrative record of a significant number of people attending a meeting of a charismatic person claiming to be the messiah.

I don't think we can gather any truth from that story at all. As you said, a meeting of 5,000 people would have been impressive in itself, so the number is exaggerated. Naturally there wasn't a food miracle, but even a non-miracle seems implausible.
I'm not asking you to consider the NT "reliable" for anything. There isn't a single story that I would point to and say "that probably happened. The NT says it". What I am saying is that certain truth can be extracted from the sources found in the NT, just as it could from the sources for any other lore.

Originally Posted by The Don

The primary purpose of the Paris Hilton website is to big up Paris Hilton. The primary purpose of the New Testament is to big up the (then) new cult of Christianity. The only truth that survives is that which is on message.

And that which is unimportant surely? Also, on-message truth can still be truth, it's just harder to find good arguments for the pro-jesus stuff because there is a clear motive for exaggeration and fabrication.

Originally Posted by The Don

Yes, I suppose the only chance would be to unearth some new administrative records from Rome, Egypt, Syria or wherever.

The fact that corroborating sources aren't available doesn't make the current sources any more reliable.

Correct. It just means that's all we have to work with a lot of the time.

Originally Posted by The Don

The gospels were written 50-200 years after the event by cult members. Prior to that, presumably the stories were passed on orally.

Correct apart from your latter dating. The absolute latest dating for the gospels is early second century, when they start getting cited by the church fathers. Nobody actually argues for that dating either, as the gospels would have needed to have become circulated to a degree, we need a decent amount of time between Mark and Luke, and the development of theology within the books can be compared with the other sources to give us a better dating. The gospels would have been written 30-80 years after the death of Jesus. This is very very good compared to most sources from ancient history.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

And what you have been asked for dozens of times is how do you tell them apart?

As I have said. You see what comes up a lot. Check whether it's plausible. Ask what the reason might be for it having been said. The large number of factors involved mean that arguments would often be made on a case by case basis.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

Actually that's BS as well. Audri Santos is considered a modern day saint who cured people and made statues of jesus cry. Sure, we know it's a fake, but your method exclude her entirely from history.
Just because someone reported a miracle doesn't mean the event never happened. It quite possibly happened with mundane explanations.

It does mean that the miracle never happened. The historical method wouldn't exclude her from history... I mean I've been defending the non-exclusion of Jesus from history so this doesn't square very well. In this particular case, it is indeed possible that there's a mundane explanation. This is also possible for the numerous miracle accounts of Jesus. This, and the fact that the account supports the narrative and author's theology, means that we cannot say with any real confidence how the accounts started out.
I'm sure you'd be happy to just say "the miracles didn't happen" and leave it there?

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

If you think Paris Hilton may have forged something on her website, how on earth can you possibly take anything in a religious text into acccount?

Because history is not a case of definitively ruling out possibilities, but rather seeing which the evidence supports, and giving it more weight than the others.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

Do you think stuff are "likely" to be true in the Book of Mormon? Dyanetics? What the Bleep do we know?

I've not read any of these books. It depends on how they were written, what their intent was, etc. There is stuff likely to be true in the Koran or Hadith though, or in a devout Mormon's biography of Joseph Smith.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

Every known religious text has been filled with lies, falsehoods and delusions that are not based on reality. Therefore, the likely even is that they should NOT be taken into account.

You could extend that to every narrative text full stop.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

Again, this statement requires evidence. Do you have any?

What you randomly say that sounds better or worst to you is completely irelavent and is the very definition of faith.

Which claim was it that you want evidence for? Do you not consider it a leap of faith to believe that the 5/6 sources listed originate from one single fake historical text, when there is no good reason to believe this?

[phelix]

Originally Posted by carlitos

phelix, I apologize for the mis-quote there, where I mis-read your comment. I'll just leave the rest, rather than repeat it. I agree with the following sentiment (sans typos). You're still cherry-picking.

Howso am I cherry-picking? I have acknowledged everything from the likely historical info on John the Baptist to the likely incorrect accounts of the resurrection, and I have given my reasons why I, along with much of modern academia, have come to these sorts of conclusions, and I have noted when some scholarship disagrees with my position...
Edit: no hard feelings on the misquote

[carlitos]

deleted.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by phelix

I don't think we can gather any truth from that story at all. As you said, a meeting of 5,000 people would have been impressive in itself, so the number is exaggerated. Naturally there wasn't a food miracle, but even a non-miracle seems implausible.
I'm not asking you to consider the NT "reliable" for anything. There isn't a single story that I would point to and say "that probably happened. The NT says it". What I am saying is that certain truth can be extracted from the sources found in the NT, just as it could from the sources for any other lore.

So because it contains words, we should consider the New Testament a source of "certain truth". The only problems are:

• We don't know which bits may be reliable - apart from the bits which are independently verifiable
• We don't know how true the "certain truth" bits are, all we can say is that they're somewhere between 0% and 100% true (inclusive)

That makes it pretty useless as a source of the truth, no ?

So in terms of the original thread title:

Quote:

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth

There is none.

Originally Posted by phelix

And that which is unimportant surely? Also, on-message truth can still be truth, it's just harder to find good arguments for the pro-jesus stuff because there is a clear motive for exaggeration and fabrication.

So are we left with

The New Testament may be a source of information (apart from the bits about Jesus or Christianity) but that information is of doubtful provenance and accuracy

Which makes it pretty useless as a source. It can only be used as a potential corroborating source for other information. Given what a "great" source it seems to be (see above) I'm not even sure whether it's any good in that role

Originally Posted by phelix

Correct. It just means that's all we have to work with a lot of the time.

And yet you insist that the New Testament somehow provides some kind of reliable source at some level.

Originally Posted by phelix

Correct apart from your latter dating. The absolute latest dating for the gospels is early second century, when they start getting cited by the church fathers. Nobody actually argues for that dating either, as the gospels would have needed to have become circulated to a degree, we need a decent amount of time between Mark and Luke, and the development of theology within the books can be compared with the other sources to give us a better dating. The gospels would have been written 30-80 years after the death of Jesus. This is very very good compared to most sources from ancient history.

You're right, I was going for hyperbole but....

..... the initial drafts may have been made at that time but the earliest extant gospels are c400AD, who knows what may have happened in the interim.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by The Don

So because it contains words, we should consider the New Testament a source of "certain truth". The only problems are:

• We don't know which bits may be reliable - apart from the bits which are independently verifiable
• We don't know how true the "certain truth" bits are, all we can say is that they're somewhere between 0% and 100% true (inclusive)

That makes it pretty useless as a source of the truth, no ?

We don't know from the outset which bits are reliable, but we can make cases for certain bits being more likely true than not. Also "independently verifiable" is still not enough, because any historical source will have the possibility of being faked or otherwise wrong. It is a game of assessing the probabilities.

Originally Posted by The Don

So in terms of the original thread title:

There is none.

Well there is. I've mentioned a few times Luke's information regarding the authorities and the early church, which is in many places verified by non-Christian sources. Was Luke not telling the truth at this point?
I've mentioned a few times the claim from the NT that John the Baptist worked in the river Jordan. Where the gospel authors not telling the truth here?

Originally Posted by The Don

The New Testament may be a source of information (apart from the bits about Jesus or Christianity) but that information is of doubtful provenance and accuracy

Change doubtful to "varying" and you have yourself a deal.

Originally Posted by The Don

Which makes it pretty useless as a source. It can only be used as a potential corroborating source for other information. Given what a "great" source it seems to be (see above) I'm not even sure whether it's any good in that role

It is not only of use as a corroborating source. It gives us much info on the likely travels of Paul, which would otherwise be unknown to us.

Originally Posted by The Don

And yet you insist that the New Testament somehow provides some kind of reliable source at some level.

I don't think the NT provides a "reliable" source at any level, because I would feel uncomfortable "relying" on it should other sources be available. It does, nevertheless, contain documents of historical interest, yes.

Originally Posted by The Don

..... the initial drafts may have been made at that time but the earliest extant gospels are c400AD, who knows what may have happened in the interim.

Luckily, we know this to a very large degree of accuracy owing to the abundance of copies that were made. The most famous modern textual critic Bruce Metzger wrote that we have a high degree of certainty for the accuracy of 99.5% of today's new testament. You can get a good overview of the 0.5% disputed bits in Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus". A book which is good but for the tendency to imply the disputed bits present a problem.
The earliest fragments date from mid to late 2nd century. I'm not sure when we get our first complete documents, but you could well be right with 5th century.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by phelix

I'm not sure when we get our first complete documents, but you could well be right with 5th century.

Try 1611.

[GrandMasterFox]

Originally Posted by phelix

As I have said. You see what comes up a lot.

That depends on where it comes up a lot. I'm sure Xenu comes up a lot in scientology circles.

Originally Posted by phelix

Check whether it's plausible.

Again, even this means nothing. Supernatural elements could have a mundane explanation or they could be completely made up. How do you tell them apart?

Originally Posted by phelix

Ask what the reason might be for it having been said.

And this is one of the major pitfalls. Most of the times people of your ilk say "X wouldn't lie about Y" they actually don't know anything about why someone would lie.

You just don't know enough about fiction to tell someone's motives. The emberassing details are a great example for that.

When it comes to the paritcular issue of the NT, or any religious text for that matter, the clear motivation was to get people to buy the story.

Therefore, if you say for any reason what so ever, that you believe the story to be true because of something they wrote, then obviously they accomplished their motives. End of story.
Their motives accomplished so even if they lie, they got the work done.

Originally Posted by phelix

The large number of factors involved mean that arguments would often be made on a case by case basis.

When a doctor diagnoses a patient there could be a number of factors. The methodology remains the same though.
You have X sub criterias, if you score Y on at least Z of them then you have condition this or that.

Even a case by case analysis can still be objective and most important of all be given with evidence.

Originally Posted by phelix

It does mean that the miracle never happened. The historical method wouldn't exclude her from history...

You have changed your mind every 30 seconds about what this "historical method" of yours is. Funny how earlier you said clearly that anything in greek mythology about the gods is false, huh?

Originally Posted by phelix

I mean I've been defending the non-exclusion of Jesus from history so this doesn't square very well. In this particular case, it is indeed possible that there's a mundane explanation. This is also possible for the numerous miracle accounts of Jesus.

But only for Jesus? Not the greek gods?

Originally Posted by phelix

This, and the fact that the account supports the narrative and author's theology, means that we cannot say with any real confidence how the accounts started out.

Great. And when we don't know one way or the other, what do we do?
Guess to whatever makes us comfurtable? Or say "we don't know"?

Originally Posted by phelix

I'm sure you'd be happy to just say "the miracles didn't happen" and leave it there?

Nope, I'm more than happy to say "I don't believe any of this crap until I see some actual evidence it happened".

Originally Posted by phelix

Because history is not a case of definitively ruling out possibilities, but rather seeing which the evidence supports, and giving it more weight than the others.

What evidence? You have been asked this dozens of times and presented nothing. Also I will repeat again, "more weight" is also something that requires evidence.

Originally Posted by phelix

I've not read any of these books. It depends on how they were written, what their intent was, etc. There is stuff likely to be true in the Koran or Hadith though, or in a devout Mormon's biography of Joseph Smith.

Dynetics = Religous text of Scientology
What the bleep do we know = Religous text (movie actually) of the Ramtha cult.

Their intent is identical to the NT. Spread a religion.

Again, obviously not every single word in the NT is a lie. We don't doubt the existence of Jerusalem. The question is which parts are lies and which parts are true?

What is the default position when there is a lack of evidence?

Originally Posted by phelix

You could extend that to every narrative text full stop.

That's BS.
The problem is you take into account as if all people on earth have an equal probability of lying which is absurd.

Let's take an early example of yours. If we find a note from some random dirt farmer saying he paid X amount of taxes today, then we have a random joe schmoe talking about mundane stuff and it is not unreasonable to accept it.

But Paul isn't a random guy. He is a man who was part of a religious cult. Almost* all known people who started a cult from Hubbard to JZ Knight to whomever are known to be lying or deluded.
(*Not even sure if the word "almost" is needed)

These people are known to be of no base in reality whether intentional or otherwise. Therefore, religous texts are less likely to contain truth.

Originally Posted by phelix

Which claim was it that you want evidence for?

Everytime you use the word "likely" you need to support the extra probability with evidence. You don't get to just blurt it out whenever you feel like it.
Saying X is a fact requires as much evidence as X is more likely to be true.

Originally Posted by phelix

Do you not consider it a leap of faith to believe that the 5/6 sources listed originate from one single fake historical text, when there is no good reason to believe this?

Again, do you understand how burden of proof works?
You are the one making a positive claim you support it with evidence.

And quite frankly, you were already given plenty of real life examples of stories that expanded religious texts in the form of fan fiction.

Heck, I'll even make it easier for you. How many drawings\stories of aliens from people who claim to be abductees do you know? How many of them are similar? Does that mean aliens are real? Or is it more likely that there was a single story that got expanded? And most liekly that this original story was fiction?

Considering that it is far more common for people to expand and have inspiration or repeat other sources, the idea of a common origination is actually the higher probability.

This is actually something that is learned on first year in anything to do with writing. Perhaps if you actually bothered learning more about fiction, you'll understand it a bit better.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Try 1611.

I laughed, but then I felt incredibly geeky for getting it.

[HansMustermann]

For my own 2c, asking oneself if something is plausible, is the most piss-poor criterion for historicity I've ever heard.

Equally, it's entirely plausible that the story of Harry Potter is based on a real boy, but we actually know from the author that it ain't. And it's entirely plausible to billions of people across time and space that the stars would influence your destiny somehow, but that doesn't make it true. And it's entirely plausible to a lot of people that a Nigerian widow actually does have eighty millions to get out of the country, but it ain't so. Etc.

Frankly, it's like the retarded little brother of the argumentum ad populum, except this one is about what one single person finds believable. Not that I even need to call it that, because it actually has a name: wishful thinking. As in, seriously, at that point you're left with something being true just because you wish to believe that something is true, but not for any real evidence supporting it.

And in another aspect, it's like a sieve version of the argument from ignorance. You take a text, eliminate 90% for being blatant lies, but still believe that the rest must be true because it's not provably false.

But doing it like that isn't making it better. It's not some mark of skepticism if out of an email from Max I hold event E as true until proven false, although in the same email I know he lied to me about events A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I and J. It just means being more gullible, if I still take his word for E just because that sounds plausible.

I mean, seriously, it's like reading an email from a Nigerian widow, and being aware that whoever wrote that lied to me about his location (e.g., the email headers show it coming from the Ukraine not Nigeria), and lied to me about a recently deceased king of Nigeria (the last king there was in 1911), and lied to me about the bank those money are in, and so on, but deciding to still believe that they have eighty million they need transferred, because that sounds plausible.

No, it doesn't. Things coming from a source that told a metric butt-load of lies (about two thirds of an imperial arse-load) and is provably not an impartial source anyway, should be assigned a lower probability to be true unless supported by independent and more impartial data, not taken as probably true just because I wish to think about them as true.

[phelix]

On what level does "Harry Potter was based on a real boy" or "A Nigerian stranger needs you to help with the transfer of eighty million" sound plausible?
You are correct in that plausibility can be quite subjective. For instance, someone might consider the faith healing explanation for a recovery at Lourdes to be plausible, while someone else might not.
If we take plausibility to mean the ease with which you can hold a belief, then the number of questions that arise uniquely to that belief would be something of a benchmark as to how plausible it is. With the example of Harry Potter or the Nigerian 8million, there are quite a lot of pertinent questions associated with the beliefs, so I cannot believe you seriously consider them to be plausible.
This is still something of a subjective matter, but we at least are not totally in the dark.

[kmortis]

Originally Posted by phelix

On what level does "Harry Potter was based on a real boy" or "A Nigerian stranger needs you to help with the transfer of eighty million" sound plausible?
You are correct in that plausibility can be quite subjective. For instance, someone might consider the faith healing explanation for a recovery at Lourdes to be plausible, while someone else might not.
If we take plausibility to mean the ease with which you can hold a belief, then the number of questions that arise uniquely to that belief would be something of a benchmark as to how plausible it is. With the example of Harry Potter or the Nigerian 8million, there are quite a lot of pertinent questions associated with the beliefs, so I cannot believe you seriously consider them to be plausible.
This is still something of a subjective matter, but we at least are not totally in the dark.

I can't speak to the plausibility of Harry Potter, but apparently the plausibility of the 419 scams is about 1.5/1000. The only reason most people find the story of Jesus as told in the gospels to be plauible is that they're raised on it. If I were to come to you and tell you the story of John Frumm, you'd laugh in my face. Yet, there are some Pacific Islanders who would be mighty put out by that attitude. And the story of John Frumm is just about as old for us, as the Gospels would have been when they were set to paper.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by kmortis

I can't speak to the plausibility of Harry Potter, but apparently the plausibility of the 419 scams is about 1.5/1000.

Brilliant! See, we can put a figure on plausibility Now how to put the synoptic four source model into scam form so I can test that one out...

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by phelix

Well there is. I've mentioned a few times Luke's information regarding the authorities and the early church, which is in many places verified by non-Christian sources. Was Luke not telling the truth at this point?
I've mentioned a few times the claim from the NT that John the Baptist worked in the river Jordan. Where the gospel authors not telling the truth here?

We've gone over this.
We're waiting for those non-bibical sources, phelix.
And in any case, I think you've gone on about John the Baptist quite long enough. It's one reference and as other posters have indicated, it's like the mention of Charles de Gaulle in The Day of the Jackal
phelix, you know very well this simply not in the subject matter of the thread.

Originally Posted by phelix

It is not only of use as a corroborating source. It gives us much info on the likely travels of Paul, which would otherwise be unknown to us.

Likely travels sums it up, doesn't it.

Originally Posted by phelix

I don't think the NT provides a "reliable" source at any level, because I would feel uncomfortable "relying" on it should other sources be available. It does, nevertheless, contain documents of historical interest, yes.

You mean details about likely travels?

Originally Posted by phelix

Luckily, we know this to a very large degree of accuracy owing to the abundance of copies that were made. The most famous modern textual critic Bruce Metzger wrote that we have a high degree of certainty for the accuracy of 99.5% of today's new testament. You can get a good overview of the 0.5% disputed bits in Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus". A book which is good but for the tendency to imply the disputed bits present a problem.
The earliest fragments date from mid to late 2nd century. I'm not sure when we get our first complete documents, but you could well be right with 5th century.

And this is relevent for some reason?

Originally Posted by kmortis

...The only reason most people find the story of Jesus as told in the gospels to be plauible is that they're raised on it. If I were to come to you and tell you the story of John Frumm, you'd laugh in my face. Yet, there are some Pacific Islanders who would be mighty put out by that attitude. And the story of John Frumm is just about as old for us, as the Gospels would have been when they were set to paper.

Thanks for pointing that out.
THe cargo cults have taught us a lot about how cults start up.

Originally Posted by phelix

Brilliant! See, we can put a figure on plausibility Now how to put the synoptic four source model into scam form so I can test that one out...

It's already been done, phelix.
How do you think the tele-preachers and the Vatican amassed their fortunes?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by phelix

On what level does "Harry Potter was based on a real boy" or "A Nigerian stranger needs you to help with the transfer of eighty million" sound plausible?

As compared with someone being the son of God, walking on water, raising the dead and coming back to life himself? Hmmm, let me think about that...

[kmortis]

Originally Posted by phelix

Brilliant! See, we can put a figure on plausibility Now how to put the synoptic four source model into scam form so I can test that one out...

Yeah, that might be tough. My rather flippant example is recording the number of people who respond to a 419 scammer's initial email out of 1000 emails sent. There's no break down of those who respond because they found it plausible and those who are scambusters. I would hope that it's more of the latter and an ever shrinking number of the former.

Christianity, or any religion of comparable age, would be more problematic. Since they get to beat the core of peoples' lives. The example I gave of the cargo cults (John Frumm being the most prolific and popular version) shows that any nonsense can be handed down once the initial generation has bought in. Let's face it, virgin birth, zombies, unnoticed earthquakes...all a bit unbelievable unless you were raised on it. And even some of us who were raised on it found it wanting later on.

[Gandalfs Beard]

This really sucks. A whole entertaining and informative segment of the thread has been split off.


GB

ETA: Oh, I get it now. We have to start anew every 500 pages. I cant wait for the 1000th page party.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

"Likely" isn't a conclusion. "Likely" is a weasel word people use when they don't have evidence.

You need a better dictionary.


GB

I prefer the term, coined I believe by Terry Pratchett, "wallpaper word", i.e. a word or phrase used to cover over and conceal a gaping hole in the users argument.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

I prefer the term, coined I believe by Terry Pratchett, "wallpaper word", i.e. a word or phrase used to cover over and conceal a gaping hole in the users argument.

Yes! My apologies to all the Weasels I insulted.


GB

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by ddt

I think you're all tearing a bit too harsh on phelix. He's no DOC. I mean, there are three basic positions on Jesus you have to distinguish.

1) The NT is the inerrant, infallible word on Jesus Christ. Mind the Christ bit. Everything in the NT is true, especially the supernatural stuff like the Resurrection. This is DOC's position, and Geisler's, and William Ramsay's and of all those other liars for Jeebus. "Liar" here is appropriate, as they willfully lie and twist and mince words to turn the contradictions in the gospels into confirming each other.

Actually Ramsay didn't believe in the resurrection or other supernatural elements of the NT; this fact is irritating to the fundamn breed of xian so they ignore, deny, obfuscate or just lie about it. For example he said of Luke, that it stood up to scrutiny "provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice".
DOC's been busy ignoring this gaping hole in his (mis)use of Ramsay for a long time now.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Yes! My apologies to all the Weasels I insulted.


GB

There aren't any in Ireland (at least the four-legged variety) but I'll pass your apology on to the next stoat I encounter.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

There aren't any in Ireland (at least the four-legged variety) but I'll pass your apology on to the next stoat I encounter.

My apologies to stoats. Clearly I've been in the US far too long.

GB

[phelix]

Originally Posted by pakeha

We've gone over this.
We're waiting for those non-bibical sources, phelix.

I've said what the non-biblical sources for those claims are - Josephus on John the baptist, and there are a fair few sources for a number of the claims made in Acts, such as Roman official sources and Tacitus.

Originally Posted by pakeha

And in any case, I think you've gone on about John the Baptist quite long enough. It's one reference and as other posters have indicated, it's like the mention of Charles de Gaulle in The Day of the Jackal
phelix, you know very well this simply not in the subject matter of the thread.

I don't think it is not the subject matter. There are times at which the NT writers are telling the truth, and external sources help to demonstrate this.
It is not like Charles De Gaulle in The Day of the Jackal, as much of the NT represents lore and not fiction.

Originally Posted by pakeha

Likely travels sums it up, doesn't it.

Yup. You cannot say definite travels, because "what if all the sources are fakes". History discovers the likely. With regards to Pauls travels, this is a case in which the NT writer is likely telling the truth. After all, he writes in his letter to the Corinthians that he visited them and was unhappy, so is hoping to address that. The possibility of the Corinthians standing around saying "whut. He never visited... and he thinks we're sexually deviant, what the heck is this?" is a comical one.

Originally Posted by pakeha

You mean details about likely travels?

Yes, among other things. The doings of Paul are some of the better historical sources, even though he gives us very little to work with.

Originally Posted by pakeha

And this is relevent for some reason?

I was responding to the implication that we might not know what the original versions of some of these sources said. We do know, pretty confidently.

Originally Posted by pakeha

It's already been done, phelix.
How do you think the tele-preachers and the Vatican amassed their fortunes?

Hm, I'm guessing that was light hearted, but my mention of the two-source hypothesis is very detached from religious belief. The traditional view is just Matthew to Mark and Luke, Mark to Luke. Ironically this is still defended by apologists (see Bernard Orchard if interested), and it plays into the claim of single-source-fake model much better than the critical historical mainstream view. Anyway, I was making a bit of a dig at how much modern scholarship relies on very subtle differences in what is considered "plausible". Was there a proto-mark document? Scholars arguments rest completely on whether or not they consider such a document to be plausible, and as such, academia is divided, with no hope of ever resolving such a dispute.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by phelix

I've said what the non-biblical sources for those claims are - Josephus on John the baptist, and there are a fair few sources for a number of the claims made in Acts, such as Roman official sources and Tacitus.

It has already been explained why tattered 11th century manuscripts are unreliable evidence for events 1000 years prior.

Tacitus reports are only evidence that Christians existed, not evidence that Jesus existed.


GB