Bible is Accurate History (was Is God's Law Still Binding)
Frank Trebor
"Dirk Hartog" <thedir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acf48a55.04071...@posting.google.com...
> "Frank Trebor" <frank_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > The Bible is the most accurate history book we have
>
> Interesting theory. What is the evidence on which you base this claim?
Can You Prove the Bible Is True?
Belief in the Bible as the inspired and accurate Word of God is plunging.
Here are some simple proofs you can use to show that the Bible is indeed
what it claims to be-the very Word of God.
by Mario Seiglie
Have you ever wondered whether the Bible is the inspired Word of God and can
be taken literally-meaning in its plain and obvious sense?
Back in 1963, two out of three Americans asked by the Gallup polling
organization said they believed "the Bible is the actual word of God and is
to be taken literally, word for word." But now, Gallup polls show that only
one in three believe the same thing-an alarming drop! And the percentage of
people in other countries who believe the Bible is the Word of God is
generally much lower.
What's going on?
Associated Press religious writer Richard Ostling points out part of the
problem: "Liberal-minded university and seminary professors have laboured
long to lure Americans away from reading their Bible as strictly literal
history. They sometimes complain that few pay heed. But Gallup Poll data
suggest the professors have indeed had an impact" (Associated Press, March
27, 2000).
Also, most movies and TV programs about the Bible have quite a liberal slant
and could easily cast doubt on its validity.
If someone challenged you to prove that the Bible is true and that it should
be taken literally, could you do it? Could you give them several clear
proofs?
There is an easy way to do it if you read on.
Skeptics abound and the Bible itself tells us we should be ready to give an
answer to those who ask about our faith. As the apostle Peter said, "...
Always be ready to give a defence to everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15).
So what are some of the main proofs that the Bible is the inspired Word of
God and should be taken literally? Let's take a look at five of these
principal proofs.
The unity of the Bible
This first proof that the Bible is inspired was provided by Jesus Christ
Himself when He said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). This means
that what the Bible says is true and has a basic unity of thought and
principles that cannot be broken or contradicted.
Why is this significant?
According to the traditional chronology for the writing of all the biblical
books, it took around 1,500 years to complete the Bible-a very long time.
Imagine, for comparison's sake, that a collection of several dozen books
about the historical, cultural and religious heritage of a people began to
be written around the year A.D. 500, a few years after the collapse of the
Roman Empire. These books would then have been completed 1,500 years
later-in our day. Also, some 40 different authors would have been involved
over this long span and their language and thought would have reflected
their changing surroundings and conditions.
Could someone seriously believe that these authors would be able to maintain
an essential unity of thought and principles through all that time? If they
did, it certainly would be unprecedented in world history!
If there is something the history of this world's religious literature
shows, it's that values and principles change over time. Even within his own
lifetime, an author normally undergoes notable changes in his system of
values. His writings reflect his ideas and thoughts according to his stage
in life. It's interesting to note how different his ideas are as a young man
compared to when he grows old. This pattern is common and well-known.
Yet when the Bible is analysed in this way, we find it is strikingly
different. Although its books were written by about 40 authors spanning some
1,500 years, they all maintain an amazing consistency. From Genesis to
Revelation, the major themes never change. History progresses, but the
themes of love, faith, obedience, mercy and a loving and righteous God
intent on redeeming a disobedient mankind do not change. This unity of
thought and principles is unique in the world's literary history.
After a decades-long study of the religious books of the East, M.
Montier-Williams, a professor of Sanskrit, compared them with the Bible:
"Pile them, if you will, on the left side of your study table, but place
your own Bible on the right side ... [There is] a gulf between it and the
so-called sacred books of the East which severs the one from the other
utterly, hopelessly, and forever" (quoted by Sidney Collett, All About the
Bible, 1972, pp. 314-315).
Regarding the unity of the Bible, consider the first writer in the Bible,
Moses. Although a Hebrew by birth, he lived in the midst of a thriving
Egyptian culture. He was reared in Pharaoh's court and "was learned in all
the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds" (Acts 7:22).
It would be natural to imagine that his writings would be heavily influenced
by Egyptian thinking-yet they aren't. Instead they reflect thoughts and
principles that after more than 3,000 years still have an enormous impact on
most of the world's religious and social values.
Consider, for example, what Moses wrote about health and sickness. One
medical doctor writes: "From the record we discover that Moses had so much
faith in God's regulations that he did not incorporate a single current
[Egyptian] medical misconception into the inspired instructions ... The
divine instructions were not only devoid of harmful practices, but had many
detailed positive recommendations" (Dr. S.I. McMillen, None of These
Diseases, 1972, p. 10).
This fact is remarkable enough, but what makes the Bible unique is that all
the other authors that come later faithfully reflect the same values, in
spite of their different backgrounds, culture and language.
These writers would consist of people from the most diverse backgrounds.
Amos was a sheepbreeder and fruit caretaker. David was a shepherd who became
a mighty king. Others, such as Daniel and Nehemiah, held high positions in
foreign governments. In the New Testament, the writers consist of several
former fishermen (Peter and John), a tax collector (Matthew), a physician
(Luke) and several others of different professions.
What is the principal theme in the Bible? It's simple: God is love (1 John
4:8, 16).
From the beginning, the Bible reveals God as creating mankind not on a
capricious whim, but to be His own beloved children. God is reproducing
Himself through human beings and developing a family relationship as their
Father (see Genesis 1:26; 5:1-2; 2 Corinthians 6:18). He lovingly placed
them in a beautiful garden paradise, instructed them to populate the earth
and to exercise proper care and dominion over it (Genesis 1:28; 2:8).
Yet, as a loving parent, God also has to correct mankind when it veers too
far off course, and that also is shown throughout the Bible. Nevertheless,
the final chapters of Revelation show that God will ultimately triumph in
bringing many sons to glory and will wipe away the tears of His children,
promising there will be no more death, sorrow or crying (Revelation 21:4).
One of the foremost Bible scholars of the past century, F.F. Bruce, wrote:
"The Bible is not simply an anthology [a collection of books]; there is a
unity which binds the whole together ... Any part of the human body can only
be properly explained in reference to the whole body. And any part of the
Bible can only be properly explained in reference to the whole Bible" (The
Books and the Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible, 1984, pp. 88-89).
The apostle Paul sums up the underlying unity of the Bible when he says:
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2
Timothy 3:16).
The Bible is non-mythical
Another striking difference between the Bible and other religious works is
the absence of mythical stories and legends. While many will surely debate
this, we should consider the following.
Other creation accounts in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin
America include such mythological scenarios as gods feuding and cutting up
other gods to form the heavens and the earth. The religious works of the
Greeks described the earth being held up by the god Atlas, while in India,
the Hindu religion pictured the earth as supported on the backs of eight
huge elephants.
Yet the Bible describes God hanging the earth "on nothing" (Job 26:7). This
was written millennia before Isaac Newton discovered the invisible laws of
gravity that showed the earth truly is suspended "on nothing."
In contrast to every other ancient creation account, the Bible pictures the
creation of the earth in a very scientific manner. In Genesis 1, the
continents are lifted from the seas. Then vegetation is created and, later,
animal life-all reproducing "according to its kind"-recognizing fixed
genetic laws. Finally we have the creation of man and woman, all done in a
dignified and godly manner, without mythological adornments.
The rest of the Bible follows suit. The narratives are historical,
faithfully reflecting society and culture as history and archaeology would
discover them thousands of years later. And while there may be disputes
among archaeologists about certain details of the accounts, there is a
general consensus of the Bible's accuracy.
Norman Geisler, professor of theology, summarizes the findings of
archaeology: "In every period of Old Testament history, we find that there
is good evidence from archaeology that the Scriptures speak the truth. In
many instances, the Scriptures even reflect firsthand knowledge of the times
and customs it describes. While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible,
time and continued research have consistently demonstrated that the Word of
God is better informed than its critics" (Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian
Apologetics, 1998, p. 52).
Not only is the Bible historically accurate, but when it deals with
scientific subjects, it is also reliable. This is one of the reasons the
Bible can be accepted as a trustworthy document that should be taken
literally. Although it was not written as a textbook on history, science,
mathematics or medicine, when the writers of Scripture touch on these
subjects, they were inspired by God not to make mistakes, but to write what
was true-sometimes stating facts that scientific advancement would not
reveal or even consider for thousands of years.
Consider, for example, astronomy. Scientists today have discovered evidence
that the universe had a beginning, when space, matter and time suddenly
appeared from nowhere. This is reminiscent of what Genesis 1:1 says: "In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Robert Jastrow, a former NASA director, comments: "A sound explanation may
exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science
cannot find out what the explanation is.
The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation.
"This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the
theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: 'In the
beginning God created heaven and earth.' It is unexpected because science
has had such extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect
backward in time" (God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 116).
The Bible is intact
Of all the ancient works of substantial size, only the Bible comes to us
completely intact. This is against all odds and expectations. In comparison,
William Shakespeare's plays, written only about 400 years ago, and after the
invention of the printing press, are in much worse shape. Shakespeare's
original words have been lost in numerous sections, and scholars are left to
fill in the blanks as best as they can.
But when it comes to the Bible, its uncanny preservation has permitted it to
weather thousands of years of wars, persecutions, fires and invasions, and
still remain intact. As author Josh McDowell notes: "Compared with other
ancient writings, the Bible has more manuscript evidence to support it than
any ten pieces of classical literature combined" (The New Evidence That
Demands a Verdict, 1999, p. 9).
How was this amazing task accomplished? The Old Testament text was preserved
by Jewish scribes through the centuries. Scholars unanimously praise their
faithful copying and transmission of the text.
Professor Bernard Ramm explains: "Jews preserved it as no other manuscript
has ever been preserved. With their [scribes] they kept tabs on every
letter, syllable, word and paragraph. They had special classes of men within
their culture whose sole duty was to preserve and transmit these documents
with practically perfect fidelity. Who ever counted the letters and
syllables and words of Plato or Aristotle or Seneca?" (Protestant Christian
Evidences, 1953, pp. 230-231).
What about the New Testament? Here the actual number of preserved
manuscripts is so great that it becomes overwhelming.
McDowell writes: "There are more than 5,686 known Greek manuscripts of the
New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early
versions, and we have close to, if not more than, 25,000 manuscript copies
of portions of the New Testament in existence today. No other document of
antiquity even begins to approach such numbers ...
"In comparison, Homer's Iliad is second, with only 643 manuscripts that
still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the
thirteenth century" (p. 34, emphasis added).
Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means
pass away" (Matthew 24:35). His words have become a prophecy that is still
rock-solid in our day. With billions of Bibles in more than 2,000 languages
now distributed around the world, God's Word will by no means pass away.
The Bible tells events ahead of time
The fourth proof of the inspiration of the Bible is the way it deals with
time-by accurately foretelling what will happen ahead of time. This is also
a unique characteristic of the Bible: It boldly proclaims specific
historical events to come in the future. No other ancient sacred book dares
to deal with time in this way with unmatched results.
As the book A General Introduction to the Bible says: "No unconditional
prophecy of the Bible about events to the present day has gone unfulfilled
... Other books claim divine inspiration, such as the Koran, the Book of
Mormon, and parts of the [Hindu] Veda. But none of those books contains
predictive prophecy. As a result, fulfilled prophecy is a strong indication
of the unique, divine authority of the Bible" (Norman Geisler and William
Nix, 1986, p. 13).
One incredible example of prophecy is found in the book of Isaiah. The date
of the book is fixed by its first verse: "The vision of Isaiah the son of
Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah,
Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."
Through history and archaeology, the dates of these kings are well
known-from 767 to 686 B.C., a span of 81 years. Yet, in Isaiah 44, God
reveals to Isaiah a coming conqueror who would permit Jerusalem to be
rebuilt after its destruction-although in Isaiah's day Jerusalem was still
standing! So here is a prophecy so ahead of its time that only future
generations in Jerusalem would first witness the city's destruction and then
its rebuilding!
Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 B.C. by the Babylonians some 100 years after
Isaiah's day. And work was not begun to reconstruct it until 539 B.C., when
the prophesied king conquered Babylon and decreed that the captive Jews be
freed and allowed to go back to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and the
temple.
In Isaiah 44, God reveals to Isaiah the actual name of the coming
conqueror-Cyrus, known in history as Cyrus the Great: "Thus says the LORD,
your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: 'I am the LORD, who
makes all things, who stretches out the heavens all alone ... who frustrates
the signs of the babblers, and drives diviners mad ... who says to
Jerusalem, "you shall be inhabited," ... who says of Cyrus, "He is My
shepherd, and he shall perform all My pleasure, saying to Jerusalem, 'You
shall be built,' and to the temple, 'Your foundation shall be laid'"'"
(Isaiah 44:24-28).
This is only one of the hundreds of Bible prophecies that have been
confirmed. Dozens of specific prophecies deal with Jesus Christ and were
fulfilled in precise detail. No other ancient sacred book even dares to deal
with predictive prophecy-making the Bible unique.
Wilbur Smith, professor of the Bible, says about this book: "It is the only
volume ever produced by man, or a group of men, in which is to be found a
large body of prophecies relating to individual nations, to Israel, to all
the peoples of the earth, to certain cities, and to the coming of One who
was to be the Messiah.
"The ancient world had many different devices for determining the future,
known as divination, but not in the entire gamut of Greek and Latin
literature, even though they use the words prophet and prophecy, can we find
any real specific prophecy of a great historic event to come in the distant
future, nor any prophecy of a Savoir to arise in the human race ...
"Mohammedanism cannot point to any prophecies of the coming of Mohammed
uttered hundreds of years before his birth. Neither can the founders of any
cult in this country rightly identify any ancient text specifically
foretelling their appearance" (The Incomparable Book, 1961, pp. 9-10).
Fulfilled prophecy is proof of the Bible's divine inspiration.
The Bible yields results!
The final proof of the Bible's inspiration is very simple-apply it and it
will work for you.
The Bible has yielded fantastic results in the lives of so many, and it can
do the same for you. It is a practical book, explaining God's will in
virtually every facet of life and how to achieve true success. As U.S.
President Theodore Roosevelt remarked, "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is
worth more than a college education."
However, reaping its blessings takes faith-an active belief that God's Word
is true and that applying it will yield positive results. The Bible puts it
this way: "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who
comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who
diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).
Thanks to the Bible, we can enjoy so many benefits of Western civilization.
As Susan Gallagher and Roger Lundin note: "The Bible is one of the most
important documents in the history of civilization not only because of its
status as holy, inspired Scripture, but also because of its pervasive
influence on Western thought.
"As the predominant world view for at least fourteen centuries, Christianity
and its great central text played a major role in the formation of Western
culture. Consequently, many literary texts, even those in our post-Christian
era, frequently draw on the Bible and Christian tradition" (Literature
Through the Eyes of Faith, 1984, p. 120).
Modern science also owes much to the Bible. Philosopher Francis Schaeffer
explains: "The rise of modern science did not conflict with what the Bible
teaches; indeed, at a crucial point the Scientific Revolution rested upon
what the Bible teaches. Both Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert
Oppenheimer have stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian
world view ...
"As far as I know, neither of the two men were Christians or claimed to be
Christians, yet both were straightforward in acknowledging that modern
science was born out of the Christian world view ... In other words, because
the early scientists believed that the world was created by a reasonable
God, they were not surprised to discover that people could find out
something true about nature and the universe on the basis of reason" (How
Should We Then Live?, 1976, pp. 132-133).
God says in the Bible that every application of its principles will yield
beneficial results. It states: "For as the rain comes down, and the snow
from heaven, and do not return there, but water the earth, and make it bring
forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so
shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me
void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the
thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:10-11).
Moreover, the impact Jesus Christ has had in millions of lives continues
unabated. The French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte once said: "I know men and I
tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other
person in the world there is no possible terms of comparison. Alexander,
Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the
creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon
love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him" (quoted by Frank
Mead, The Encyclopaedia of Religious Quotations, 1965, p. 56).
Historian Philip Schaff adds: "This Jesus of Nazareth, without money and
arms, conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, and
Napoleon. Without science and learning, He shed more light on things human
and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined. Without the
eloquence of schools, He spoke such words of life as were never spoken
before or since and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or
poet.
"Without writing a single line, He set more pens in motion, and furnished
themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of
art, and songs of praise, than the whole army of great men of ancient and
modern times" (The Person of Christ, 1913, p. 33).
Yes, the bottom line of proving the Bible true and that it should be taken
at face value is simple-it works!
So, if any Bible skeptic comes asking for proofs that the Bible is the
inspired Word of God, here is a way to remember these five proofs. Just
remember the first key word of the first proof-UNITY-and then each of its
letters reveals the first letter of the key words of the rest of the proofs:
U = Unity
N = Non-mythical
I = Intact
T = Time
Y = Yield
With these five proofs in mind, it will be easier for you to believe that
the Bible is true and that you should take it in its literal and natural
sense.
bob young
Frank Trebor wrote:
> "Dirk Hartog" <thedir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:acf48a55.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Frank Trebor" <frank_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > The Bible is the most accurate history book we have
> >
> > Interesting theory. What is the evidence on which you base this claim?
>
> Can You Prove the Bible Is True?
>
> Belief in the Bible as the inspired and accurate Word of God is plunging.
> Here are some simple proofs you can use to show that the Bible is indeed
> what it claims to be-the very Word of God.
> by Mario Seiglie
>
> Have you ever wondered whether the Bible is the inspired Word of God and can
> be taken literally-meaning in its plain and obvious sense?
Yes and decided it certainly was not, being full of superstitious rubbish
>
>
> Back in 1963, two out of three Americans asked by the Gallup polling
> organization said they believed "the Bible is the actual word of God and is
> to be taken literally, word for word." But now, Gallup polls show that only
> one in three believe the same thing-an alarming drop! And the percentage of
> people in other countries who believe the Bible is the Word of God is
> generally much lower.
>
> What's going on?
People are beginning to throw off the yokes of primitive superstition
>
>
> Associated Press religious writer Richard Ostling points out part of the
> problem: "Liberal-minded university and seminary professors have laboured
> long to lure Americans away from reading their Bible as strictly literal
> history. They sometimes complain that few pay heed. But Gallup Poll data
> suggest the professors have indeed had an impact" (Associated Press, March
> 27, 2000).
>
> Also, most movies and TV programs about the Bible have quite a liberal slant
> and could easily cast doubt on its validity.
>
> If someone challenged you to prove that the Bible is true and that it should
> be taken literally, could you do it? Could you give them several clear
> proofs?
Absolutely not
>
>
> There is an easy way to do it if you read on.
> Skeptics abound and the Bible itself tells us we should be ready to give an
> answer to those who ask about our faith. As the apostle Peter said, "...
> Always be ready to give a defence to everyone who asks you a reason for the
> hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15).
>
> So what are some of the main proofs that the Bible is the inspired Word of
> God and should be taken literally? Let's take a look at five of these
> principal proofs.
>
> The unity of the Bible
>
> This first proof that the Bible is inspired was provided by Jesus Christ
> Himself when He said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). This means
> that what the Bible says is true and has a basic unity of thought and
> principles that cannot be broken or contradicted.
Fist one has to prove a man called JC. The first writings about him were 2.4
genrations after the time was supposed to have lived. also the first nineteen
years of his life have nothing written about them. first proof of serious
doubt about Jesus therefore about anything that JC was supposed to have said.
Quoting from the bible does NIT prove the bible
Chuck Stamford
"bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:40F9CD58...@netvigator.com...
>
>
> Frank Trebor wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
> > The unity of the Bible
> >
> > This first proof that the Bible is inspired was provided by Jesus Christ
> > Himself when He said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). This
means
> > that what the Bible says is true and has a basic unity of thought and
> > principles that cannot be broken or contradicted.
>
> Fist one has to prove a man called JC. The first writings about him were
2.4
> genrations after the time was supposed to have lived. also the first
nineteen
> years of his life have nothing written about them. first proof of serious
> doubt about Jesus therefore about anything that JC was supposed to have
said.
> Quoting from the bible does NIT prove the bible
Bob, you can believe whatever you want about the Bible, but you can't
reasonably make the argument you are making here.
First of all, it is simply untrue that "2.4 generations" (which would put
the time somewhere near the mid-second century!) passed between the time
that Jesus lived and anything was written about him. There is absolutely
*no* scholarly dispute that at least *some* of the Pauline corpus was
written by Paul, and among these undisputed epistles are 1 Corinthians. The
existence of this letter, and its *certain* dating to before 65 AD,
establish beyond doubt the fact that Jesus was written about *much* earlier
than you claim. The time frame here is realistically only a couple of
decades, which means, given how Paul speaks of Jesus in this epistle, that
Paul is either a liar, or Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who
lived during the first part of the first century. You can't find any more
reliable history than this for Napolean as a historical figure!
And it is not only the Pauline corpus that is significant here. While there
is still some scholarly dispute, it is now widely accepted that the entire
New Testament was completed *before* the turn of the first century. If this
dating is reliable, and there is little good evidence that it is not, and
plenty that it is, it means that *all* of the gospels were written by
contemporaries of Jesus, and much earlier than you allege above. This means
that in asserting that it is unreasonable to rely on the historicity of the
quotations of Jesus that are found in these comtemporaneous accounts of His
life, you are saying that it is unreasonable to rely on the historicity of
*any* quotations from *any* well attested, contemporaneous historical
accounts of *any* life. Most reasonable people are not willing to make that
absurd claim so as to challenge the basic historicity of the New Testament.
But you can if you want. However, such a view of the historicity of the New
Testament may well require that reasonable people class it with the
"primitive superstitions" you noted earlier most of us were leaving by the
wayside.
Chuck Stamford
walksalone
> "Dirk Hartog" <thedir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:acf48a55.04071...@posting.google.com...
>> "Frank Trebor" <frank_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> The Bible is the most accurate history book we have
>>
>> Interesting theory. What is the evidence on which you base this claim?
>
> Can You Prove the Bible Is True?
> Belief in the Bible as the inspired and accurate Word of God is plunging.
> Here are some simple proofs you can use to show that the Bible is indeed
> what it claims to be-the very Word of God.
> by Mario Seiglie
> Have you ever wondered whether the Bible is the inspired Word of God and can
> be taken literally-meaning in its plain and obvious sense?
snip
So, you can't provide any actual evidence for your claims, how mundane &
inane.
> If someone challenged you to prove that the Bible is true and that it should
> be taken literally, could you do it? Could you give them several clear
> proofs?
> There is an easy way to do it if you read on.
> Skeptics abound and the Bible itself tells us we should be ready to give an
> answer to those who ask about our faith. As the apostle Peter said, "...
> Always be ready to give a defence to everyone who asks you a reason for the
> hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15).
> So what are some of the main proofs that the Bible is the inspired Word of
> God and should be taken literally? Let's take a look at five of these
> principal proofs.
> The unity of the Bible
What unity, they can't even agree on who was where & when.
> This first proof that the Bible is inspired was provided by Jesus Christ
> Himself when He said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). This means
> that what the Bible says is true and has a basic unity of thought and
> principles that cannot be broken or contradicted.
Except where it has no unity. Such as placing the gospels in front of the
epistles. Care to guess why that is an error? Think about when they were
written.
> Why is this significant?
It is not, for the grimorie has conflicts in both testaments & is based on
the false assumption that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, as well as El & a
host of others, as claimed. Several reasons why we know that is not the
case, but it is your joke, I wouldn't want to spoil it.
> According to the traditional chronology for the writing of all the biblical
> books, it took around 1,500 years to complete the Bible-a very long time.
Really, then it did not start until after Abraham, it started around the
claimed Exodus. Amazing, do you think El knows. You know, the god of
Abraham.
> Imagine, for comparison's sake, that a collection of several dozen books
> about the historical, cultural and religious heritage of a people began to
> be written around the year A.D. 500, a few years after the collapse of the
> Roman Empire. These books would then have been completed 1,500 years
> later-in our day. Also, some 40 different authors would have been involved
> over this long span and their language and thought would have reflected
> their changing surroundings and conditions.
BFD, you can imagine anything. But rumor has it that one Yahweh, son of El,
opponent of Ba'al inspired the OT & prophets. That is one sorry piece of
ghost writing with lies & errors of fact that would be embarrassing to a
demon, 73rd class, imp division, latrine tender.
> Could someone seriously believe that these authors would be able to maintain
> an essential unity of thought and principles through all that time? If they
> did, it certainly would be unprecedented in world history!
Yes, if they were tell the truth they could. But that assumes that they all
would have access to accurate records, something a god would have, if it is
one of the xian pantheon's ones that is.
BTW, if one as to read it as a social history & the politics involved, then
there would be unity.
> If there is something the history of this world's religious literature
> shows, it's that values and principles change over time. Even within his own
> lifetime, an author normally undergoes notable changes in his system of
> values. His writings reflect his ideas and thoughts according to his stage
> in life. It's interesting to note how different his ideas are as a young man
> compared to when he grows old. This pattern is common and well-known.
Then your gods are not capable of enforcing their will or rules. After all
Yahweh is, IAW the xian grimorie, not one to change his mind. Even though
he did.
> Yet when the Bible is analysed in this way, we find it is strikingly
> different. Although its books were written by about 40 authors spanning some
> 1,500 years, they all maintain an amazing consistency. From Genesis to
Really, in what way. I realise these are not your words Frank, they are to
lucid & non-repetitive.
> Revelation, the major themes never change. History progresses, but the
> themes of love, faith, obedience, mercy and a loving and righteous God
Now there is a bizarre statement. A claim for love & yet, the theme of the
xian grimorie is buy or fry. Yet, xians gloss that over so fast it would
embarrass light in motion.
> intent on redeeming a disobedient mankind do not change. This unity of
> thought and principles is unique in the world's literary history.
A mankind it is claimed to have created, in its image no less.
> After a decades-long study of the religious books of the East, M.
> Montier-Williams, a professor of Sanskrit, compared them with the Bible:
> "Pile them, if you will, on the left side of your study table, but place
> your own Bible on the right side ... [There is] a gulf between it and the
> so-called sacred books of the East which severs the one from the other
> utterly, hopelessly, and forever" (quoted by Sidney Collett, All About the
> Bible, 1972, pp. 314-315).
Well yes, the Rig Veda, & other holy books have merit & explain the
theology of the Hindu pantheon so much better. Not to mention how much
older they are.
BTW, this is the logical authority known as appeal to authority. The
authority needs to be established as genuine & authoritative.
As in where doe this person work & what is his standing among scholars of
the same discipline.
Then one needs to establish that the work was unbiased.
Good luck, that has already been shown to be false.
> Regarding the unity of the Bible, consider the first writer in the Bible,
There was no first writer as claimed.
> Moses. Although a Hebrew by birth, he lived in the midst of a thriving
Really, & this son of [what the name means] is entirely missing from
Egyptian culture. Yet his claimed destiny & life are not unlike the legends
of Horus & Mirtha in the basic details. The story, typical of the OT
writing, is panegyric & testimonial. The only basic difference. But then,
the priests of Yahweh had a god to sell.
> Egyptian culture. He was reared in Pharaoh's court and "was learned in all
> the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds" (Acts 7:22).
Yet, there is no record of him, & the Pharaoh is not named. Not strange if
you consider it a work of fiction, very strange if you consider it history.
> It would be natural to imagine that his writings would be heavily influenced
> by Egyptian thinking-yet they aren't. Instead they reflect thoughts and
> principles that after more than 3,000 years still have an enormous impact on
> most of the world's religious and social values.
They have to be exposed to Egyptian thinking to be able to be influenced by
it. No oddity there. No exposure, no influence. People are odd that way.
> Consider, for example, what Moses wrote about health and sickness. One
> medical doctor writes: "From the record we discover that Moses had so much
> faith in God's regulations that he did not incorporate a single current
> [Egyptian] medical misconception into the inspired instructions ... The
> divine instructions were not only devoid of harmful practices, but had many
> detailed positive recommendations" (Dr. S.I. McMillen, None of These
> Diseases, 1972, p. 10).
Apologetics are based on appeals, appeals to authority being one of the
favorite.
> This fact is remarkable enough, but what makes the Bible unique is that all
> the other authors that come later faithfully reflect the same values, in
> spite of their different backgrounds, culture and language.
Say what?
> These writers would consist of people from the most diverse backgrounds.
> Amos was a sheepbreeder and fruit caretaker. David was a shepherd who became
> a mighty king. Others, such as Daniel and Nehemiah, held high positions in
> foreign governments. In the New Testament, the writers consist of several
> former fishermen (Peter and John), a tax collector (Matthew), a physician
> (Luke) and several others of different professions.
Ah, they all praise god & blind obedience to that god. That is the only
common theme.
> What is the principal theme in the Bible? It's simple: God is love (1 John
> 4:8, 16).
Except when he isn't, such as throughout the OT & especially when it came
to land *he wanted for his people*. Then it was back to the blood & guts
which is so typical of a war god.
snip authors continued appeals to authority & special pleading.
> The Bible is non-mythical
Since when? Even the NT is based on a myth that has yet to be fulfilled IAW
its parent myth.
> Another striking difference between the Bible and other religious works is
> the absence of mythical stories and legends. While many will surely debate
> this, we should consider the following.
The following is special pleading, & attempts to assert that the creation
myth is unique world wide. In its basic format, it is so common as to have
a classification number. But that requires more study than either the
author or Frank cares to do.
> Other creation accounts in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin
> America include such mythological scenarios as gods feuding and cutting up
> other gods to form the heavens and the earth. The religious works of the
> Greeks described the earth being held up by the god Atlas, while in India,
> the Hindu religion pictured the earth as supported on the backs of eight
> huge elephants.
And this is supposed to be any less impossible that claiming to create
something from nothing, which is a late addition to the Jewish myth? In
what way exactly?
> Yet the Bible describes God hanging the earth "on nothing" (Job 26:7). This
> was written millennia before Isaac Newton discovered the invisible laws of
> gravity that showed the earth truly is suspended "on nothing."
No, he showed the basics, it was later that the tension math was worked out
that states the Earth can be moved from it s orbit. It is not just the
force of gravity that does the job, but then, your source is only trying to
impress others & itself, so research is out of the question.
Hint, it is not gravity alone that keeps the earth in its orbit, & space is
not nothing for there is mass & energy in it.
> In contrast to every other ancient creation account, the Bible pictures the
> creation of the earth in a very scientific manner. In Genesis 1, the
Not really, but it is your joke.
> continents are lifted from the seas. Then vegetation is created and, later,
> animal life-all reproducing "according to its kind"-recognizing fixed
& both story's conflict. The author was saying about scientific?
> genetic laws. Finally we have the creation of man and woman, all done in a
> dignified and godly manner, without mythological adornments.
That can be claimed, now, where is the evidence. The creation sequences
are incorrect, & the universe is not created from noting according to the
myth. Not to mention that if something can not come from nothing, where
did El & his court come from?
> The rest of the Bible follows suit. The narratives are historical,
> faithfully reflecting society and culture as history and archaeology would
> discover them thousands of years later. And while there may be disputes
> among archaeologists about certain details of the accounts, there is a
> general consensus of the Bible's accuracy.
Actually there is not concurrence & the general consensus is that the
grimorie has more false information than accurate. But then, it is your
joke Frank, & I am waiting on the punch line.
> Norman Geisler, professor of theology, summarizes the findings of
snip remnant of claims, I have but one life to live & when the ICR was
involved, I knew that there is not enough time left to rebut all the
garbage.
Frank, if you want to be taken seriously, might I suggest you leave
apologetics of that sub caliber out of your claimed evidences. They have
been a laughing stock of the educational community for years. You might
want to read the statement you have to sign to work for them for a valid
reason why.
walksalone who in not surprised that Frank has to appeal to authority of
some kind to get his point across, he doesn't know enough himself, & so
appeals to authority that has been falsified. How typical & inane, how,
well bleaterish I suppose.
--
ABASEMENT, n. A decent and customary mental attitude in the
presence of wealth or power. Peculiarly appropriate in an
employee when addressing an employer.
Devils dictionary
Ammendum:
Or a slave its master.
walksalone
David Vestal
>
> "Dirk Hartog" <thedir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:acf48a55.04071...@posting.google.com...
>> "Frank Trebor" <frank_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > The Bible is the most accurate history book we have
>>
>> Interesting theory. What is the evidence on which you base this
>> claim?
>
> Can You Prove the Bible Is True?
>
> Belief in the Bible as the inspired and accurate Word of God is
> plunging. Here are some simple proofs you can use to show that the
> Bible is indeed what it claims to be-the very Word of God.
> by Mario Seiglie
>
> Have you ever wondered whether the Bible is the inspired Word of God
> and can be taken literally-meaning in its plain and obvious sense?
>
> Back in 1963, two out of three Americans asked by the Gallup polling
> organization said they believed "the Bible is the actual word of God
> and is to be taken literally, word for word." But now, Gallup polls
> show that only one in three believe the same thing-an alarming drop!
> And the percentage of people in other countries who believe the Bible
> is the Word of God is generally much lower.
>
> What's going on?
Education.
The bible contradicts itself continuously, and these contradictions have
been incredibly well documented. It is at best ignorant to assert the
bible to be free from contradiction. Furthermore, it errs in several
other ways, including prophetic unfulfillment and logical absurdity,
which quite refutes the idea that it is in any way perfect.
I'll snip the remainder of the lies and errors in the "Unity" section,
which you seem to have lifted wholly from a christian magazine article.
> The Bible is non-mythical
>
> Another striking difference between the Bible and other religious
> works is the absence of mythical stories and legends. While many will
> surely debate this, we should consider the following.
>
> Other creation accounts in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Africa and
> Latin America include such mythological scenarios as gods feuding and
> cutting up other gods to form the heavens and the earth. The religious
> works of the Greeks described the earth being held up by the god
> Atlas, while in India, the Hindu religion pictured the earth as
> supported on the backs of eight huge elephants.
And this differs from the bible's stories of god gaming with the devil,
with the devil assuming the form of a serpent and talking to the first
person, with the "where did rainbows come from?" story, with the "where
did languages come from?" story, with stories of giants, etc, etc, etc,
in what substantive way? If the bible is actually NOT chock-full of
myth, then it gives every appearance to the contrary.
>
> Yet the Bible describes God hanging the earth "on nothing" (Job 26:7).
> This was written millennia before Isaac Newton discovered the
> invisible laws of gravity that showed the earth truly is suspended "on
> nothing."
> In contrast to every other ancient creation account, the Bible
> pictures the creation of the earth in a very scientific manner. In
> Genesis 1, the continents are lifted from the seas. Then vegetation is
> created and, later, animal life-all reproducing "according to its
> kind"-recognizing fixed genetic laws.
To refer to these as recognitions of scientific principles far ahead of
their time is to apply the most generous interpretation possible to mere
metaphor. By such generous interpreting techniques, many epic poems are
equally fantastic predictors of scientific phenomena. Furthermore, the
bible reflects the primitive ideas of the day, including a flat earth,
and miscalculation of pi, etc. It also speaks of the earth being set on
"pillars," in contradiction with itself.
> Finally we have the creation of
> man and woman, all done in a dignified and godly manner, without
> mythological adornments.
A deity forming mud sculptures, then breathing vitality into them,
setting them naked in a perfect garden, containing an evil talking
serpent, and a tree the fruit of which bestows the knowledge of good and
evil, is a story "without mythological adornments?" The mind boggles.
> The rest of the Bible follows suit. The narratives are historical,
> faithfully reflecting society and culture as history and archaeology
> would discover them thousands of years later. And while there may be
> disputes among archaeologists about certain details of the accounts,
> there is a general consensus of the Bible's accuracy.
No, there is NOT a general consensus of the bible's accuracy. I rather
doubt anyone except an inerrantist would say otherwise.
>
> Norman Geisler, professor of theology, summarizes the findings of
> archaeology: "In every period of Old Testament history, we find that
> there is good evidence from archaeology that the Scriptures speak the
> truth. In many instances, the Scriptures even reflect firsthand
> knowledge of the times and customs it describes. While many have
> doubted the accuracy of the Bible, time and continued research have
> consistently demonstrated that the Word of God is better informed than
> its critics" (Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics, 1998, p.
> 52).
>
> Not only is the Bible historically accurate, but when it deals with
> scientific subjects, it is also reliable. This is one of the reasons
> the Bible can be accepted as a trustworthy document that should be
> taken literally. Although it was not written as a textbook on history,
> science, mathematics or medicine, when the writers of Scripture touch
> on these subjects, they were inspired by God not to make mistakes, but
> to write what was true-sometimes stating facts that scientific
> advancement would not reveal or even consider for thousands of years.
A quote from an apologist is hardly evidence of any sort of "general
consensus."
> Consider, for example, astronomy. Scientists today have discovered
> evidence that the universe had a beginning, when space, matter and
> time suddenly appeared from nowhere. This is reminiscent of what
> Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the
> earth."
Again, the mind boggles. In what way reminiscent? Reminiscent only when
the bible is willfully interpreted to mean what was once denied, but
which science will no longer allow to be denied: the big bang.
> Robert Jastrow, a former NASA director, comments: "A sound
> explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if
> it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is.
Not yet, at least. Science is a search for knowledge, in which theories
are continually refined and altered according to the available data.
Religion, in contrast, is a search for arguments to support an
unchangeable theory, in which data is used if usable, and ignored if not.
>
> The Bible is intact
>
> Of all the ancient works of substantial size, only the Bible comes to
> us completely intact.
This statement reflects a wondrous ignorance. The bible contains a good
deal of internal evidence to suggest that it is not in fact intact, and
there exists a great amount of external evidence suggesting, minimally,
that whether it is intact cannot be known. For instance, a comparison of
the end of II Chronicles with the first several verses of Ezra makes it
clear that the former book ends in the middle of a sentence! This is the
intact book? A good many other passages are viewed by a wide array of
scholars to have been later interpolations to the text, such as the end
of Mark, and the "three that bare record in heaven" passage (I forget the
reference). Lastly, it is not known which books actually compose the
"scripture." The Book of Enoch was viewed as scripture until the mid-
300s CE; by what evidence is it now viewed as not scripture? By what
right do we say that the apocrypha is not scripture? By what heights of
gall may the "oral tradition" be held up as though it were an accurate
preservation mechanism, when the New Testament so badly botches
quotations from the old? Manifestly, the bible can in no way be called
"intact."
I will snip the lies and folderol that round out the ridiculous "intact"
section.
> The Bible tells events ahead of time
This statement can only be made by a person unfamiliar with the matter.
I see that the author cites the "Cyrus" prophecy, apparently ignorant of
the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the writer of Isaiah
was not Cyrus's contemporary. But be that as it may; a good many of the
bible's prophecies have clearly, unambiguously failed. For instance,
Ezekial prophesied that Tyre would be destroyed and never rebuilt, and
that Egypt would be desolate and uninhabited for forty years. Tyre still
stands, and Egypt's history has been continuous since long before
Ezekiel's time. All such prophecies of the bible wilt upon examination.
I snip the lies of the remainder of this section.
>
> The final proof of the Bible's inspiration is very simple-apply it and
> it will work for you.
I am a person contradiction to this "proof." I have applied it,
fervently and devoutly, and it does not work. I snip the foolishness of
the remainder of this section.
> So, if any Bible skeptic comes asking for proofs that the Bible is the
> inspired Word of God, here is a way to remember these five proofs.
> Just remember the first key word of the first proof-UNITY-and then
> each of its letters reveals the first letter of the key words of the
> rest of the proofs:
>
> U = Unity
> N = Non-mythical
> I = Intact
> T = Time
> Y = Yield
>
> With these five proofs in mind, it will be easier for you to believe
> that the Bible is true and that you should take it in its literal and
> natural sense.
If you happen to be in conversation with any moderately knowledgeable
skeptic, and you proudly, naively present these five "proofs," I can
assure you that at best you will be tolerated as one tolerates the
simpleminded.
Dirk Hartog
OR . . . that Paul was speaking of a mythic Jesus, different from the
Galilean Jesus of the later gospel legends. After all Paul does not
mention facts about Jesus' life and ministry. Paul's Christ is a
mythic godman with no earthly history outside the crucifixion. Paul's
Jesus is not the Galilean Jesus -- so says the evidence.
------------------
"The Pauline letters have no virgin birth. No Mary. No Joseph. No
place of birth (never, for example, calling him, "of Nazareth"). No
miracles. No crucifixion in Jerusalem. No date of the death. No
trial before a Roman official. No John the Baptist. No Judas. No
denial by Peter.
"There is also no virgin birth story in Paul's letters, the earliest
written records of Christianity, dating from just fifteen or so years
after the crucifixion. While the letters are filled with passionate
devotion to the figure of Jesus Christ and point quite distinctly to
his death and resurrection as the centerpiece of faith. . . . they are
utterly silent of the subject of divine birth. This part of the story
had not yet been necessary."
[Shorto, Russell. Gospel Truth (1997), pg. 27 - 8]
amanon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573220566/paganoriginofthe
"[The genuine Pauline letters are] completely silent concerning the
events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that
these events were not know to Paul, who, however, could not have been
ignorant of them if they had really occurred....,
"The failure to mention Peter's denial of Christ is highly
significant. Paul's letter to the Galatians reveals that his position
as leader of the Christian community at Antioch was threatened by
Cephas, whom he also calls Peter (Gal. 2:7-8). He calls him a
hypocrite (Gal. 2:11-4), but does not allege against him anything as
discreditable as h is denial of his master (as recorded of Peter in
Mk. 14:30 and parallels). Paul's silence is rightly taken by Enslin
as decisive evidence that this gospel story is a fiction, and its
historicity has also been challenged on other grounds….
"These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to
have worked, ….. Paul indicates that miracles may be expected wherever
the Christian mission goes, for he includes the working of them among
the "gifts of the spirit" and says God has appointed "miracle workers"
within the community (1 Cor 12:10, 28). He claims to have himself won
converts "by the power of signs and wonders" (Rom. 15:19), and among
the "signs of the true apostle" he lists "signs and wonders and mighty
works" (2 Cor. 12:12), [23] which include miraculous cures effected by
casting out demons or unclean spirits. But he never suggests that
Jesus effected such practices or worked miracles of any kind….
"Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never
gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher. Paul is not
indifferent to ethical problems; on the contrary, his epistles abound
in ethical admonition. But on only one occasion does he appeal to the
authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels
also represent Jesus as having delivered; an in this instance is is
not necessary to suppose that Pal believed the doctrine in question to
have been taught by the historical (as opposed to the risen) Jesus…."
[Wells, GA. The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988), pg. 22 - 3]
amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087975429X/paganoriginofthe
> You can't find any more
> reliable history than this for Napolean as a historical figure!
What is your evidence for this claim?
> And it is not only the Pauline corpus that is significant here. While there
> is still some scholarly dispute, it is now widely accepted that the entire
> New Testament was completed *before* the turn of the first century. If this
> dating is reliable, and there is little good evidence that it is not, and
> plenty that it is, it means that *all* of the gospels were written by
> contemporaries of Jesus, and much earlier than you allege above.
The standard "scholarly" dating is driven by apologetics and relies on
silly circular logic: "The gospels are histories, therefore they must
have been written early." The precedent assumption being that they
_are_ histories. They may just as well be mythic theologies written
100 years after the "facts". And the fact is, there is no _evidence_
our modern chosen-by-Catholic-priests-in-the-fourth-century Gospels
existed before the middle of the 2d century.
> This means
> that in asserting that it is unreasonable to rely on the historicity of the
> quotations of Jesus that are found in these comtemporaneous accounts of His
> life, you are saying that it is unreasonable to rely on the historicity of
> *any* quotations from *any* well attested, contemporaneous historical
> accounts of *any* life. Most reasonable people are not willing to make that
> absurd claim so as to challenge the basic historicity of the New Testament.
#1 Crossan has a chapter in The Birth of Christianity dealing with
the ridiculous assumption that anyone can quote accurately decades
later. Of course they can't. But the apologetic impulse to save the
gospel myth demands the pretense that they can.
On what evidence do you believe "quotations" written down decades
after the fact?
#2 Ancient literature is full of "quoted" speeches that everyone knows
were created from thin air by the authors. That's how they did it
back then. Why do you imagine the gospelers were any different?
Dirk Hartog
---------------------
I don't care what you believe.
I care what the evidence is.
I care about the reasoning you use to justify your beliefs.
It is not morally acceptable to say ... our story is truth but yours
is myth; ours is history but yours is a lie. It is even less morally
acceptable to ... manufactur[e] defensive or protective strategies
that apply only to one's own story.
[John Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 1998, pg 28 - 29]
walksalone
Yet the Pauline corpus says nothing about Jesus the person, or his
miracles, or his history. It is strictly a spiritual Jesus that Saul
discusses & claims to know.
begging the question & special pleading assumptions snipped.
> lived during the first part of the first century. You can't find any more
> reliable history than this for Napolean as a historical figure!
We can, & do have that evidence for Napoleon, to include personal writings
of his & his temporal contemporary's. Neither can be claimed for the
missing Jesus of Nazareth as claimed by the xian myth.
> And it is not only the Pauline corpus that is significant here. While there
> is still some scholarly dispute, it is now widely accepted that the entire
> New Testament was completed *before* the turn of the first century. If this
Accepted by who, there are no scholars of standing claiming that to the
best of my knowledge. The gospels, the last books written, are all dated as
2nd. century for completion & circulation under the names you know. The
only possible candidate for inclusion as a possibly 1st. century work would
be Mark, & even there it is conjecture based.
> dating is reliable, and there is little good evidence that it is not, and
> plenty that it is, it means that *all* of the gospels were written by
assumptions without cites snipped
>
> Chuck Stamford
Dirk Hartog
> > > The Bible is the most accurate history book we have
> >
> > Interesting theory. What is the evidence on which you base this claim?
>
#1 Sorry Frank, I asked for the EVIDENCE you rely on to claim the bible is
the most accurate history book there is. I don't think the word "evidence"
means what you think it means. You seem to think it means, "say it again,
LOUDER" or in this case "paste a few thousand words of further extravagant
claims -- all unsupported by facts" Frank, what 'evidence' it really means
is, "quote some _facts_ confirming your assertion."
As to your reasoning, I'm not clear on some of it. Gallup polls, TV news
and them varmit liberals prove "The Bible is the most accurate history book
we have" exactly how?
Take us through the steps.
> The Bible is non-mythical
As to your claim that "The Bible is non-mythical", and that that proves it
is "the most accurate history book we have", can I ask you to expand on that
a bit please?
1a. What exactly is your definition of "mythical"?
1b. What exactly are the criteria you apply to tell if a story is
"mythical"?
1c. Jesus healed the sick, Is that mythical?
Pagan gods healed the sick. Is that mythical?
Jesus turned water into wine, Is that mythical?
Dionysus turned water into wine. Is that mythical?
Jesus raised the dead, Is that mythical?
Pagan gods raised the dead. Is that mythical?
Jesus ascended to heaven, Is that mythical?
Pagan gods ascended to heaven. Is that mythical?
2 Being non-mythical proves "The Bible is the most accurate history book we
have" exactly how? Take us through the steps.
Gallup polls, TV news and them varmit liberals are all non-mythical, aren't
they? By your reasoning then, they're also accurate? If not, why not?
> The Bible tells events ahead of time
Can I ask you to expand a bit on how your reasoning works here? Thanks.
Frank, the Delphic oracle repeatedly foretold events ahead of time. Does
that prove that Greek Pagan religion was true? If not, why not?
-------------
"The Pythagoreans are said to have predicted many things, and Pythagoras'
predictions always came true."
The Life of Pythagoras, 8 -- which you can find in: Gutherie, Kenneth. The
Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (1988), pg. 138]
amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415138930/paganoriginofthe
Does that prove that Greek Pagan religion was true? If not, why not?
--------
The Sibyls predicted events ahead of time. Does this prove Pagan religion
was true? If not, why not?
Silver Blaze
<frank_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This first proof that the Bible is inspired was provided by Jesus Christ
> Himself when He said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). This means
> that what the Bible says is true and has a basic unity of thought and
> principles that cannot be broken or contradicted.
I hope you NEVER sit on a jury _Your idea of what constitutes "proof" is
utter codswallop
Dear oh dear oh dear - what an idiot!
>
> Why is this significant?
>
> According to the traditional chronology for the writing of all the biblical
> books, it took around 1,500 years to complete the Bible-a very long time.
No in fact the Bible is believed to have been assembled in itse present
form some time around the Babylonian conquest - There are very few
fragments that indicate that it existed in part or as a whole in written
form much before that date
However if we accept that the Creation legends are based on Mesopotamian
originals your earlier date becomes more feasible ( e.g the epics)
>
> Imagine, for comparison's sake, that a collection of several dozen books
> about the historical, cultural and religious heritage of a people began to
> be written around the year A.D. 500, a few years after the collapse of the
> Roman Empire. These books would then have been completed 1,500 years
> later-in our day. Also, some 40 different authors would have been involved
> over this long span and their language and thought would have reflected
> their changing surroundings and conditions.
>
> Could someone seriously believe that these authors would be able to maintain
> an essential unity of thought and principles through all that time? If they
> did, it certainly would be unprecedented in world history!
Firstly (an argument in fact for the transmission of material in oral form
from an earlier date) the "unity" is very questionable. The underlying
similarity of course comes from the collection of the material in the
period of the Babylonian Conquest
>
> Yet when the Bible is analysed in this way, we find it is strikingly
> different. Although its books were written by about 40 authors spanning some
> 1,500 years, they all maintain an amazing consistency. From Genesis to
> Revelation, the major themes never change. History progresses, but the
> themes of love, faith, obedience, mercy and a loving and righteous God
> intent on redeeming a disobedient mankind do not change. This unity of
> thought and principles is unique in the world's literary history.
No - not correct - which is why the Jews - who should know about such
matters - reject the "New Testament". They find it totally inconsistent -
Yours is a rabid and unreasoned Fundamentalist "view" - more spin and
propaganda than fact.
> Regarding the unity of the Bible, consider the first writer in the Bible,
> Moses. Although a Hebrew by birth, he lived in the midst of a thriving
> Egyptian culture. He was reared in Pharaoh's court and "was learned in all
> the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds" (Acts 7:22).
Moses didn't write anything as proved by the fact that the supposed
writings of Moses record his death and burial. The "Books of Moses" are
ABOUT Moses - not BY Moses silly!
>
> It would be natural to imagine that his writings would be heavily influenced
> by Egyptian thinking-yet they aren't.
Hardly surprising since the Books were written a thousand years after the
supposed events - by then mythological in character - in accordance with
the Judaism of the time they were written
In fact there are traces of Egyptian thinking - strong parallels with the
Aton Cult of Ahkenaton.
The rest is too idiotic to analyse _ Nothing is gained by trying to
"prove" the Bible inerrant - In fact, in this manner, religion based on
the Bible is brought into disrepute. It is a bit like trying to base anb
English history on "The Lord of The Rings"
Without the Hobbits!
+++++++++++++++++
Frank Trebor
"Dirk Hartog" <Di...@nospam.com> wrote in
> "Frank Trebor" <frank_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > The Bible is the most accurate history book we have
> > > Interesting theory. What is the evidence on which you base this claim?
> #1 Sorry Frank, I asked for the EVIDENCE you rely on to claim the bible is
> the most accurate history book there is.
I do not need "evidence" as I have faith in the only TRUE God
Can you PROVE the Bible is not what it claims to be?
> ---------------------
> I don't care what you believe.
This line says it all.
You are satans advocate, and will be treated as a such.
Dirk Hartog
>
> "Dirk Hartog" <Di...@nospam.com> wrote in
> > "Frank Trebor" <frank_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > The Bible is the most accurate history book we have
>
> > > > Interesting theory. What is the evidence on which you base this
claim?
>
> > #1 Sorry Frank, I asked for the EVIDENCE you rely on to claim the bible
is
> > the most accurate history book there is.
>
> I do not need "evidence" as I have faith in the only TRUE God
So you _don't_ have any evidence to support your claim. Fine. Why didn't
you just say so earlier, and avoid all the bobbing and weaving? Would Jesus
lie Frank?
You, Frank, you _have faith_ that "the bible is the most accurate history
book we have." No evidence. Just your unsupported magical belief. Can you
think of any reason, Frank, why anyone should consider your magical guesses
in any way persuasive?
> Can you PROVE the Bible is not what it claims to be?
Well, your utter lack of evidence to support your gap-toothed, rolling in
the sawdust, tent revival, flat-earth magical nonsense comes to mind.
> > ---------------------
> > I don't care what you believe.
>
> This line says it all.
>
> You are satans advocate, and will be treated as a such.
Take it to Jesus in prayer Frank; he'll maybe have more shitty hateful
things you can say.
Dirk Hartog
---------------------
I don't care what you believe.
Chuck Stamford
Shorto is hardly a biblical scholar in any area of that discipline, let
alone specializing in the Pauline corpus. He is a popular author of
multiple genres, and as such could be adequately described as a jack of all
trades, master of none. You quoting him here doesn't even rise to the level
of "appeal to authority", but is *at best* a pretense of appeal to
authority. If Shorto is anything like most other authors of this ilk (I
don't know because I haven't read him), he probably stands on the shoulders
of those who have actually done the research to form opinions that go beyond
theirs in many respects. Such authors tend to state as "fact" what real
scholarship will only acknowledge as having a certain "probability" or
"plausibility".
David Wenham, however, is a bone fide Pauline scholar; currently lecturing
at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and author of several books on the New Testament.
The one I'm leaning on in this post is, "Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder
of Christianity". It is a meticulously, exhaustively researched, and well
argued treatment of the subject in every detail. I'd recommend that you
read it before posting any more quotes from the likes of Shorto.
If you were to do that, you'd find that there is extremely good evidence
from Paul's writing for his historical knowledge of much of the gospels
account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth (and this "evidence" derives from
the New Testament material that modern biblical scholarship is generally
willing to concede is probably authentic, and is thus of a very early date -
eg. the "Q", "M", and "L" traditions, dating to within a very few years of
the crucifixion, and certainly contemporaneous with Jesus Himself. However,
in stating this, I do not mean to imply that I accept the validity of these
traditions as unwritten "documents" upon which the gospel writer relied as
do the scholars I'm alluding to here. For reasons why, see
http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/index.htm, with additional material from Farrer,
Goulder, and Hobbs available), including His birth, Jewish life, style of
ministry, miracles, theology - including the "kingdom" preaching, the Last
Supper with its institution of the eucharistic ritual, the betrayal by
Judas, the insults heaped upon Him (either during His passion or ministry -
the allusion in Paul is not clear here), His execution by crucifixion at the
hands of the Romans (Paul, as a Roman citizen would have been acutely aware
[as is implied in Acts 23-27] that this must have involved some kind of
trial before the Roman governor at the time, Pontius Pilate), encouraged by
the Jewish religious leadership, His burial, His resurrection from the dead,
His post resurrection appearances, and His ascension to the right hand of
[God] the Father. In short, almost everything that Shorto notes above as
absent from the Pauline corpus, is actually there in some form or another,
as evidence that Paul was very familiar with the historical figure of Jesus
Christ, and in fact, based much of his writing on that knowledge.
The bibliography that Wenham calls upon in dealing with this very narrow
subject in New Testament studies runs to fifteen pages, every author cited a
legitimate New Testament scholar in their own right. The book is excellent
not only as a "stand alone" work on the subject, but as a "launching pad"
for further study should the reader desire it. In any case, it represents
at least the "bare minimum" one needs for an informed opinion on any
relationship that existed between Paul and Jesus, while Shorto is just
another popular opinion piece, useful to those who want an opinion and are
not too discriminating on where it comes from or what there is to support
it.
>
> "[The genuine Pauline letters are] completely silent concerning the
> events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that
> these events were not know to Paul, who, however, could not have been
> ignorant of them if they had really occurred....,
This is a remarkable line of reasoning, even if its foundational claim that
Paul is "completely silent concerning the events" was true! There is no
good reason to suppose that Paul had any motive to repeat historical
narratives that probably existed and were circulating in the Church at large
ca. 55-65 AD, the time when he wrote. When one actually *reads* the Pauline
body of work, one quickly comes to understand that Paul was interested in a)
expounding the meaning behind the life, ministry, mission, death, and
resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and b) answering his critics, who often
questioned his "credentials" of apostleship. We can, therefore, only
reasonably expect Paul to allude to the "facts" of Jesus' life as they
directly pertain to (a) and (b) above...not give us a whole separate and
redundant gospel narrative. And even if we were to accept that the
synoptics were not published until after the Pauline epistles, there is no
modern scholar that I know of willing to state that the Jesus traditions
that appeared in those gospels were not current with the Pauline corpus, and
generally well known to his readers.
To give any credit to the idea that these oral traditions ("Q", "M", and
"L"...and some that modern scholarship has not given names to!) were "myths"
when Paul makes use of them in his epistles, is to accept that a tradition
with no basis in fact was able to come to "full bloom" in the space of less
than a decade...and that this occurred in a culture where the accurate
transmission of oral information was absolutely *critical* to the
functioning of society!! The idea is simply absurd on its face, and if that
were not enough, flies in the face of virtually EVERYTHING known by
scholarly researchers in the area of mythology in general. This research
tells us with a reasonable degree of certainty that the generation living
during the time of the events depicted in a "myth" must be dead before any
such "myth" begins to form, and that it takes one or two *more* generations
for a "myth" to reach anything like the degree of sophistication and
internal consistency that we find in the New Testament, with its *abundant*
touchstones to well documented, hard, historical data, and its numerous
passages that are decidedly historical/biographical in its tone and context.
>
> "The failure to mention Peter's denial of Christ is highly
> significant. Paul's letter to the Galatians reveals that his position
> as leader of the Christian community at Antioch was threatened by
> Cephas, whom he also calls Peter (Gal. 2:7-8). He calls him a
> hypocrite (Gal. 2:11-4), but does not allege against him anything as
> discreditable as h is denial of his master (as recorded of Peter in
> Mk. 14:30 and parallels). Paul's silence is rightly taken by Enslin
> as decisive evidence that this gospel story is a fiction, and its
> historicity has also been challenged on other grounds..
Here Wells, another author with no personal claim as a biblical scholar,
leans upon Enslin's view that Paul *not* mentioning Peter's denial of Christ
during His passion is significant; so much so that it forms a reasonable
basis for rejecting the entire account of Jesus' passion as myth! Now I
don't know about you, but this argument from silence (on the part of Paul at
this juncture) seems particularly incoherent. First, there is the fact that
arguments from silence are without doubt the weakest kinds of arguments in
literary critical circles. Secondly, Paul has amply demonstrated Peter's
hypocrisy in the current situation (Gal. 2), and using the fact that he did
not tack on ancient sins to the already obvious as a foundation for making
the entire account of the Passion mythological, is like saying that because
Paul didn't beat a dead horse here, the horse never existed!
I am not familiar with Enslin. I do not know if he qualifies as a New
Testament scholar or not. But I *am* familiar with Wells; enough to know
that he will use *anything* he can find to argue his case against the Bible,
and it matters little to him whether or not that source is accepted in its
peer group as credible, or whether or not any particular theory is able to
stand up to reasonable criticism. It is enough for him to put it into the
public domain, whatever its inherent caliber of scholarship, just so long as
it supports his amazing antagonism toward the Bible. He has aptly been
described as "Wells without water".
>
> "These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to
> have worked, ... Paul indicates that miracles may be expected wherever
> the Christian mission goes, for he includes the working of them among
> the "gifts of the spirit" and says God has appointed "miracle workers"
> within the community (1 Cor 12:10, 28). He claims to have himself won
> converts "by the power of signs and wonders" (Rom. 15:19), and among
> the "signs of the true apostle" he lists "signs and wonders and mighty
> works" (2 Cor. 12:12), [23] which include miraculous cures effected by
> casting out demons or unclean spirits. But he never suggests that
> Jesus effected such practices or worked miracles of any kind..
This argument is yet another striking example of Wells bankruptcy of
informed opinion. Paul makes both direct and indirect reference to the
ministry, miracles, and lifestyles of both Jesus and the apostles (See
Wenham, ibid. pp. 350-372). And I'm resorting repeatedly to Wenham here
only because of my personal familiarity with his work. There are any number
and type of New Testament scholars that agree with him in this.
>
> "Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never
> gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher. Paul is not
> indifferent to ethical problems; on the contrary, his epistles abound
> in ethical admonition. But on only one occasion does he appeal to the
> authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels
> also represent Jesus as having delivered; an in this instance is is
> not necessary to suppose that Pal believed the doctrine in question to
> have been taught by the historical (as opposed to the risen) Jesus.."
> [Wells, GA. The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988), pg. 22 - 3]
> amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087975429X/paganoriginofthe
Since Wells does not deign to enlighten his reader in this quote on what
this "ethical" doctrine is, that fact alone precludes my addressing it
beyond repeating that Wells' "ethics" in scholarship are such as to call
into question his ability to recognize an ethical doctrine when he reads
one!
>
> > You can't find any more
> > reliable history than this for Napolean as a historical figure!
>
> What is your evidence for this claim?
The Gospel narratives exist. They are written as historical/biographical
documents (they meet all the recognized requirements for the Greek genre
"Bioi"). I don't need to prove they are reliable until someone actually
provides some compelling demonstration that they are not by using some
generalized argument, i.e., one that can be used on any other historical
document to ascertain "reliability" with a reasonable degree of certainty.
There is nothing about the history of Napoleon that makes it intrinsically
more reliable "history" than the New Testament gospels accounts of Jesus of
Nazareth. Any principle of historiography used to demonstrate the
unreliability of the New Testament will also demonstrate the unreliability
of Napoleon's history. Thus my claim above.
>
>
> > And it is not only the Pauline corpus that is significant here. While
there
> > is still some scholarly dispute, it is now widely accepted that the
entire
> > New Testament was completed *before* the turn of the first century. If
this
> > dating is reliable, and there is little good evidence that it is not,
and
> > plenty that it is, it means that *all* of the gospels were written by
> > contemporaries of Jesus, and much earlier than you allege above.
>
> The standard "scholarly" dating is driven by apologetics and relies on
> silly circular logic: "The gospels are histories, therefore they must
> have been written early."
That is simply untrue, but you are correct in that it is a "standard" line
adopted by propagandistic authors in their efforts to persuade the
uninformed. There is a whole panoply of evidence for the theory that the
New Testament was largely complete and widely in circulation within the
larger Church before the close of the 1st cent. AD, and what you've taken
note of above is perhaps the *weakest* bit of evidence in that long listing,
which includes:
1.) The Pauline corpus is reliably dated ca. mid 1st cent., and
demonstrates knowledge of Luke's gospel.
2.) The Gospel of Mark is most probably (from an extra-biblical source) the
work of John Mark, acting as secretary to Peter at Rome. It is in effect,
Peter's "gospel" preaching to the Romans, organized by Mark. Peter's death
in Rome, ca. 65 AD, is a matter of fairly well documented historical fact.
3.) The earliest manuscript fragment currently known exist (without
significant controversy attached) is a Greek miniscule of the Gospel of
John, designated P52 in the John Rylands collection, and dates ca. 100-125
AD. The Gospel of John is normally taken as one of the very last books of
the New Testament to have been published.
4.) See http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm. You will note
when you do the scores of names of true biblical scholars representing the
entire range of "conservative" to "liberal" perspectives. You will also
note that G.A. Wells' name appears on this long list, and is at once notable
for two things: he is the only one named without credentials that would
generally tend to lend his opinions some credibility on their face, and he
is the only one hypothesizing a post 1st cent. date for any book in the New
Testament! That fact alone should be sufficient to keep a reasonable and
honest person from quoting him in this context, let alone using him as an
"appeal to authority" for their own opinions!
The simple fact that you've resorted to the likes of Wells in this post
precludes any credible consideration of its message as anything more than a
biblically antagonistic propaganda piece; the usual tool of the uninformed
and opinionated.
The precedent assumption being that they
> _are_ histories. They may just as well be mythic theologies written
> 100 years after the "facts".
They may as well be pink elephants too if you're going to be basing your
opinion on such shoddy sources!
And the fact is, there is no _evidence_
> our modern chosen-by-Catholic-priests-in-the-fourth-century Gospels
> existed before the middle of the 2d century.
Tripe! And not even fresh tripe!!
>
> > This means
> > that in asserting that it is unreasonable to rely on the historicity of
the
> > quotations of Jesus that are found in these comtemporaneous accounts of
His
> > life, you are saying that it is unreasonable to rely on the historicity
of
> > *any* quotations from *any* well attested, contemporaneous historical
> > accounts of *any* life. Most reasonable people are not willing to make
that
> > absurd claim so as to challenge the basic historicity of the New
Testament.
>
> #1 Crossan has a chapter in The Birth of Christianity dealing with
> the ridiculous assumption that anyone can quote accurately decades
> later. Of course they can't. But the apologetic impulse to save the
> gospel myth demands the pretense that they can.
Crossan never met Ben Walker, a college classmate of mine who to this day
(almost forty years later!) can recite verbatim the entire dialogue for
EVERY part in the "Music Man". Now that feat of memorization is at least
twice the size of the quoted sayings of Jesus in some of the Gospels, and
old Ben has lived his entire life in a society that largely doubts the value
of oral tradition (not to mention the value of Broadway musicals in
general)! Besides, Ben isn't considering making any life decisions based on
what Professor Harold Hill had to say, and who could argue that perceived
personal importance in any remembered utterance doesn't significantly
increase the likelihood of remembering it verbatim? My ten year old knows
this principle...and has built an entire pre-teen attitude around it!!
Certainly no reasonable person would argue that the authors of the gospels
didn't perceive significant personal importance in the utterances of Jesus
that they recorded from memory.
In any case, we HAVE historical evidence that certain sects of ancient Jews
(or perhaps more accurately, certain individuals within those sects)
memorized the entire Pentateuch! A MUCH bigger body of words than if we
COMBINED all the sayings of Jesus...not only in the New Testament, but in
the non-canonical "gospels" (eg. Thomas, Barnabas, Mary, etc.) as well!!
When you have historical evidence that a given event has occurred, and
modern empirical evidence that it is still occurs, it makes little sense to
build a hypothesis around the impossibility of a similar, but simpler event
occurring in history.
And, of course, the above only deals with what is plausible by natural
means. At least one of the authors of the gospels obviously believed (since
he included it in his narrative) that Jesus promised to send the
"Comforter", God's Holy Spirit, to "bring [them] into remembrance of all the
things I have said to you" [ John 14:26]. Since there is no evidence
available to deny that this actually occurred, and supernaturally aided the
Evangelists in their accurate reproduction of the sayings of Jesus during
His life, there is nothing but prejudice to require that accuracy could only
occur by natural means, and therefore nothing to preclude these sayings
being accurate even if it COULDN'T be demonstrated that it is naturally
possible.
So, Crossan merely argues (falsely) against what is, in any case,
unnecessary to the acceptance of the gospel speeches of Jesus as accurate,
unless one starts the argument with a presuppositional bias against the
supernatural, when there is no sound philosophical argument or empirical
evidence to support such a presupposition as anything BUT personal bias.
This means his argument proceeds FROM bias, and is false even if it didn't!
I can't think of a weaker kind of argument in support of an opinion.
>
> On what evidence do you believe "quotations" written down decades
> after the fact?
>
> #2 Ancient literature is full of "quoted" speeches that everyone knows
> were created from thin air by the authors. That's how they did it
> back then. Why do you imagine the gospelers were any different?
I don't imagine they were, but your implication that ancient historians
weren't concerned about accuracy in recorded speeches and events is pure
fantasy:
"At this point I find myself compelled to express an opinion which I know
most people will object to; nevertheless, as I believe it is true, I will
not suppress it" (Herodotus - "The Histories" 7:138-139)
"The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from
its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an
exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future,
which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it,
I shall be content" (Thucydides - "The Peloponnesian Wars" 1.22)
"We consider most trustworthy those who give most detail about contemporary
events. But we believe that those who write in this fashion about ancient
events are completely unpersuasive. We postulate that it is not probable
that all of the deeds or the greater part of the speeches were kept in
[exact] memory for so great a span of time" (Ephorous)
"Who does not know history's first law to be that an author must not dare to
tell anything but the truth? And the second that he must make bold to tell
the whole truth?" (Cicero - De oratore 2.15.62)
To summarize, what does all this evidence imply?
1.) It is humanly possible to carry in memory exact speeches of great
length for an indefinitely long period of time.
2.) Contemporary with the Apostolic Era, the authors of historical
narratives were VERY concerned with the accurate reproduction of speeches
wherever possible, and actually criticized each other on this point as it
was adhered to in practice to a greater of lesser extent.
The fact that one can point to examples in ancient histories of obviously
made up speeches (perhaps due to the fact the speech recorded was spoken too
far beyond living memory) is no evidence against the fact that a
contemporary of the speech maker was able to reproduce the speech
accurately, and we have clear evidence that such accuracy was the general
aim of any historian in the 1st century AD. This leaves us with ample
evidence for the hypothesis that the gospel writers, all of whom reproduced
the speeches of Jesus within two or three decades of their being heard (and
this is using the *latest* datings of modern scholarship, and ignoring
Wells!!), were reasonably both desirous and able to do so.
And what serves here as the "evidence" against this possibility? The
hypothetical speculation of Crossan, based on exactly ZERO empirical data,
and the wild and uninformed speculations of popular authors with little
connection to biblical scholarship! It's really a "no brainer". Jesus was
indeed a historical figure, a Jewish itinerant rabbi who traversed Galilee,
Judea, and some of Samaria, preaching the kingdom of God had come down among
men in His own Person, miraculously healed and raised the dead, was
crucified on a Roman cross, raised Himself from the dead three days
later...and Paul knows all the major points to His history, and every detail
possible within the bounds of human finitude of what it all means.
You mentioned that "everyone is aware" that the ancient historians made up
speeches "out of thin air"? Well that's exactly where the "evidence" comes
from against the above conclusion.
Chuck Stamford
Frank Trebor
"Silver Blaze" <pintag...@yourlocal.com> wrote
> "Frank Trebor" <frank_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I hope you NEVER sit on a jury _Your idea of what constitutes "proof" is
> utter codswallop
I will never sit on any jury! - and
I see an omission in the article I posted - I forgot
to give the credit for the source of the article - It's from
July/Aug '04 issue of the Good News, written by Mario Seiglie
Oh dear - what an idiot you turned out to be!
> No in fact the Bible is believed to have been assembled in itse present
> form some time around the Babylonian conquest - There are very few
> fragments that indicate that it existed in part or as a whole in written
> form much before that date
That is your opinion - not the truth.
> However if we accept that the Creation legends are based on Mesopotamian
> originals your earlier date becomes more feasible ( e.g the epics)
Wrong again! All other writings (including Mesopotamian) are copies
of God's Holy Bible.
I could go on - but as you have been brain-washed by satan's agents
and incapable of freedom of thought - there is no point.
Good-bye.
Frank Trebor
"Dirk Hartog" <Di...@nospam.com> wrote
> "Frank Trebor" <frank_...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > I do not need "evidence" as I have faith in the only TRUE God
> So you _don't_ have any evidence to support your claim. Fine. Why didn't
> you just say so earlier, and avoid all the bobbing and weaving? Would
Jesus
> lie Frank?
You diatribe shows how little you really understand about FAITH
I am NOT "bobbing and weaving" as you try to make out.
Jesus was and is without sin
> You, Frank, you _have faith_ that "the bible is the most accurate history
> book we have." No evidence. Just your unsupported magical belief. Can
you
> think of any reason, Frank, why anyone should consider your magical
guesses
> in any way persuasive?
I do not expect anyone, least of all you (as satan's advocate)
to believe me - but you had better believe Jesus as your
future hangs in the balance.
John McComb
> Here Wells, another author with no personal claim as a biblical scholar,
> leans upon Enslin's view that Paul *not* mentioning Peter's denial of Christ
> during His passion is significant; so much so that it forms a reasonable
> basis for rejecting the entire account of Jesus' passion as myth! Now I
> don't know about you, but this argument from silence (on the part of Paul at
> this juncture) seems particularly incoherent. First, there is the fact that
> arguments from silence are without doubt the weakest kinds of arguments in
> literary critical circles. Secondly, Paul has amply demonstrated Peter's
> hypocrisy in the current situation (Gal. 2), and using the fact that he did
> not tack on ancient sins to the already obvious as a foundation for making
> the entire account of the Passion mythological, is like saying that because
> Paul didn't beat a dead horse here, the horse never existed!
I just did a search through the Pauline epistles and I
found that none of them contain the word 'emperor' nor
do they mention Nero, Claudius, or any of their
predecessors. When you consider the prominence of the
offices that these men are alleged to have held it seems
very unlikely that a man like Paul would have been unaware
of their existence. What possible motivation could Paul
have had for neglecting to mention these notable men.
I think we can safely conclude that the office itself and
the men who ostensibly held them are mere fabrications of
history.
For that matter, the epistles do not have any mention of
a person named 'Dirk Hartog' either. So who on earth are
you arguing with, Chuck?
Yours in Christ
John
Dirk Hartog
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
[snip extended discussion of which experts you like (the ones you agree
with, it turns out) and which you don't. Facts please -- if you have them.]
> Paul makes both direct and indirect reference to the
> ministry, miracles, and lifestyles of both Jesus and the apostles
#1
Cite quote please Paul mentioning Jesus' virgin birth.
Cite quote please Paul mentioning the location of Jesus' birth.
Cite quote please Paul mentioning Mary.
Cite quote please Paul mentioning Joseph.
Cite quote please Paul mentioning Jesus' miracles as related in the gospels.
Cite quote please Paul naming the 12 disciples.
Cite quote please Paul mentioning Jesus' death _in Jerusalem_.
Cite quote please Paul mentioning the date/ year of Jesus death.
Cite quote please Paul mentioning John the Baptist.
Cite quote please Paul mentioning Jesus' trial before Pilate.
Cite quote please Paul mentioning other facts about Jesus' Galilean life.
#2a You recite the standard apologist dodge for Paul's silence: "He knew but
'wasn't interested' etc. etc." Paul didn't mention details of the Galilean
legend because he wasn't interested in them. And we know he wasn't
interested because . . . because he didn't mention them. Entirely circular.
Do you have any non-circular reasons for supposing Paul wasn't interested in
the Galilean Jesus?
2b) And anyway the dodge is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether
there IS EVIDENCE that the gospels existed. Paul does not mention or quote
from the gospels. Paul IS NOT EVIDENCE that the gospel legends existed
then.
> > > You can't find any more
> > > reliable history than this for Napolean as a historical figure!
> >
> > What is your evidence for this claim?
>
> The Gospel narratives exist. They are written as historical/biographical
> documents (they meet all the recognized requirements for the Greek genre
> "Bioi"). I don't need to prove they are reliable until someone actually
> provides some compelling demonstration that they are not by using some
> generalized argument, i.e., one that can be used on any other historical
> document to ascertain "reliability" with a reasonable degree of certainty.
> There is nothing about the history of Napoleon that makes it intrinsically
> more reliable "history" than the New Testament gospels accounts of Jesus
of
> Nazareth. Any principle of historiography used to demonstrate the
> unreliability of the New Testament will also demonstrate the unreliability
> of Napoleon's history. Thus my claim above.
I don't think the word "evidence" means what you think it means. You seem
to think it means, "say it again, LOUDER." What it really means is, "cite
your facts."
You claimed a fact about the reliability of Napoleonic evidence. I asked
you for the actual evidence -- I asked you for the evidence about Napoleon
on which you base this claim. You can't give the evidence. You don't have
any. You made it up.
> > > And it is not only the Pauline corpus that is significant here. While
> there
> > > is still some scholarly dispute, it is now widely accepted that the
> entire
> > > New Testament was completed *before* the turn of the first century.
If
> this
> > > dating is reliable, and there is little good evidence that it is not,
> and
> > > plenty that it is, it means that *all* of the gospels were written by
> > > contemporaries of Jesus, and much earlier than you allege above.
> >
> > The standard "scholarly" dating is driven by apologetics and relies on
> > silly circular logic: "The gospels are histories, therefore they must
> > have been written early."
>
> That is simply untrue, but you are correct in that it is a "standard" line
> adopted by propagandistic authors in their efforts to persuade the
> uninformed. There is a whole panoply of evidence for the theory that the
> New Testament was largely complete and widely in circulation within the
> larger Church before the close of the 1st cent. AD, and what you've taken
> note of above is perhaps the *weakest* bit of evidence in that long
listing,
> which includes:
>
> 1.) The Pauline corpus is reliably dated ca. mid 1st cent., and
> demonstrates knowledge of Luke's gospel.
Evidence please about "demonstrated knowledge of Luke's gospel."
> 2.) The Gospel of Mark is most probably (from an extra-biblical source)
the
> work of John Mark, acting as secretary to Peter at Rome. It is in effect,
> Peter's "gospel" preaching to the Romans, organized by Mark. Peter's
death
> in Rome, ca. 65 AD, is a matter of fairly well documented historical fact.
Legend. That later proto-orthodox Christians created the myth of apostolic
succession is evidence that apostolic succession was considered important
enough to forge.
Was the Gospel of Thomas written by Thomas, do you suppose?
Was the Gospel of Mary written by Mary?
Was the Gospel of Peter written by Peter?
Were the acts of John written by John?
Was Paul's epistle to Seneca written by Paul?
-- in other words, how do you decide whose legends of apostolic succession
to believe?
> 3.) The earliest manuscript fragment currently known exist (without
> significant controversy attached) is a Greek miniscule of the Gospel of
> John, designated P52 in the John Rylands collection, and dates ca. 100-125
> AD. The Gospel of John is normally taken as one of the very last books of
> the New Testament to have been published.
Apologist fantasy. A tiny scrap "dated" by handwriting style. Handwriting
style dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls turned out to, once carbon dating was
applied to them, to be hundreds of years wrong.
[snip more obsession with the experts you like and those you don't. FACTS
please, if you have them]
So your "evidence" that the Gospels existed in the first century is:
1. The unsupported fantasy that Paul 'demonstrated knowledge' of Luke.
2. Papias' legend about Mark. You'll tell us no doubt why you believe the
orthodox legends and not the other legends of apostolic succession.
3. P52, dated with a technique demonstrated to be inaccurate by hundreds of
years.
And Matthew?
And John?
I notice you fail to mention who first quotes from or mentions each of our
modern chosen-by-Catholic-priests-in-the-fourth-century Gospels. Do you know
those simple facts?
Do you think those facts are relevant to dating the gospels?
> The precedent assumption being that they
> > _are_ histories. They may just as well be mythic theologies written
> > 100 years after the "facts".
>
> They may as well be pink elephants too if you're going to be basing your
> opinion on such shoddy sources!
Are you being snide or are you denying that some ancient Christians wrote
mythic theologies? Have you heard of the gnostics?
> And the fact is, there is no _evidence_
> > our modern chosen-by-Catholic-priests-in-the-fourth-century Gospels
> > existed before the middle of the 2d century.
>
> Tripe! And not even fresh tripe!!
If there is evidence, give the evidence. Exclamation points, even cleverly
doubled up like this, are unpersuasive.
#1 No Chuck, I'm afraid your making it up again. What Crossan does is cite
the evidence of scientific studies of peoples' ability to recall remote
events. The scientific facts are: remote recall is wildly inaccurate.
#2 That people can memorize books and musical lyrics -- by reviewing the
hard copy over and over, over a period of days and months -- isn't really
evidence that folks can recall one-off conversations verbatim decades later.
In fact quite the opposite. The effort required demonstrates that without
the hard copy to go over and over and over, accurate recall is impossible.
#3 I agree the only possible way the gospel quotes are accurate is by magic.
Fine. You believe in magic. Can't argue with magic -- magic can solve any
logical or reasonable problem.
> > On what evidence do you believe "quotations" written down decades
> > after the fact?
> >
> > #2 Ancient literature is full of "quoted" speeches that everyone knows
> > were created from thin air by the authors. That's how they did it
> > back then. Why do you imagine the gospelers were any different?
>
> I don't imagine they were, but your implication that ancient historians
> weren't concerned about accuracy in recorded speeches and events is pure
> fantasy:
>
> "At this point I find myself compelled to express an opinion which I know
> most people will object to; nevertheless, as I believe it is true, I will
> not suppress it" (Herodotus - "The Histories" 7:138-139)
Herodotus here is loath to express the unpopular opinion that had the
Athenians submitted to the power of Xerxes, the Persians would have won the
war. Nothing there about Herodotus' devotion to quotation accuracy. You're
making it up again.
> "The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from
> its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an
> exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future,
> which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect
it,
> I shall be content" (Thucydides - "The Peloponnesian Wars" 1.22)
> "We consider most trustworthy those who give most detail about
contemporary
> events. But we believe that those who write in this fashion about ancient
> events are completely unpersuasive. We postulate that it is not probable
> that all of the deeds or the greater part of the speeches were kept in
> [exact] memory for so great a span of time" (Ephorous)
>
> "Who does not know history's first law to be that an author must not dare
to
> tell anything but the truth? And the second that he must make bold to tell
> the whole truth?" (Cicero - De oratore 2.15.62)
etc. etc.
> To summarize, what does all this evidence imply?
>
> 1.) It is humanly possible to carry in memory exact speeches of great
> length for an indefinitely long period of time.
And your evidence of this is . . . your college roommate recited musicals?
Unpersuasive.
The issue Chuck is not that people can, with diligent repetition and a hard
copy in front of them, memorize long works. The issue is whether people can
recall decades old one-off conversations -- verbatim. I've asked you for
evidence that they can. You have no evidence that they can. In fact, you
think if the gospelers did this, it was by magic. No doubt.
> 2.) Contemporary with the Apostolic Era, the authors of historical
> narratives were VERY concerned with the accurate reproduction of speeches
> wherever possible, and actually criticized each other on this point as it
> was adhered to in practice to a greater of lesser extent.
I don't understand. Go over the "evidence" again and point out the bit
about "accurate reproduction of speeches".
> The fact that one can point to examples in ancient histories of obviously
> made up speeches (perhaps due to the fact the speech recorded was spoken
too
> far beyond living memory) is no evidence against the fact that a
> contemporary of the speech maker was able to reproduce the speech
> accurately, and we have clear evidence that such accuracy was the general
> aim of any historian in the 1st century AD. This leaves us with ample
> evidence for the hypothesis that the gospel writers, all of whom
reproduced
> the speeches of Jesus within two or three decades of their being heard
(and
> this is using the *latest* datings of modern scholarship, and ignoring
> Wells!!), were reasonably both desirous and able to do so.
The ancients also thought they could read the stars and predict the future.
Is their belief that they could evidence, according to your theory, that
they _could_ read the stars and predict the future?
> And what serves here as the "evidence" against this possibility? The
> hypothetical speculation of Crossan, based on exactly ZERO empirical data,
No Chuck, you're making it up again. What Crossan does is cite and discuss
scientific studies of peoples' ability to recall remote events. The
scientific facts are: remote recall is wildly inaccurate. Unless done by
magic. Which is the only explanation you've come up with so far.
Dirk Hartog
"John McComb" <Gotta_lose@this_spam.com> wrote in message news:oHRKc.78209
> I just did a search through the Pauline epistles and I
> found that none of them contain the word 'emperor' nor
> do they mention Nero, Claudius, or any of their
> predecessors. When you consider the prominence of the
> offices that these men are alleged to have held it seems
> very unlikely that a man like Paul would have been unaware
> of their existence. What possible motivation could Paul
> have had for neglecting to mention these notable men.
Well, John, one motivation that comes to mind is that he was not writing
about them; he was writing about Jesus Christ. He cared deeply about Jesus
Christ. He devoted his life to Jesus Christ. Only -- oops -- there is no
evidence he knew details of the Galilean legend.
> I think we can safely conclude that the office itself and
> the men who ostensibly held them are mere fabrications of
> history.
>
> For that matter, the epistles do not have any mention of
> a person named 'Dirk Hartog' either. So who on earth are
> you arguing with, Chuck?
The point John -- assuming you're interested in the point, and not just
imagining snide is clever -- is not that Paul did not mention Jesus. Paul
does mention Jesus. He is obsessed with Jesus. The point is that although
devoted Jesus Paul didn't mention the Jesus of the Galilean legend.
> Yours in Christ
>
> John
neocelsus
> "Dirk Hartog" <thedir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:acf48a55.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Frank Trebor" <frank_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > The Bible is the most accurate history book we have
> >
> > Interesting theory. What is the evidence on which you base this claim?
>
> Can You Prove the Bible Is True?
>
> Belief in the Bible as the inspired and accurate Word of God is plunging.
> Here are some simple proofs you can use to show that the Bible is indeed
> what it claims to be-the very Word of God.
> by Mario Seiglie
>
> Have you ever wondered whether the Bible is the inspired Word of God and can
> be taken literally-meaning in its plain and obvious sense?
>
> Back in 1963, two out of three Americans asked by the Gallup polling
> organization said they believed "the Bible is the actual word of God and is
> to be taken literally, word for word." But now, Gallup polls show that only
> one in three believe the same thing-an alarming drop! And the percentage of
> people in other countries who believe the Bible is the Word of God is
> generally much lower.
>
> What's going on?
Alarming? Nay, very encouraging. What's going on is that the U.S.
population is finally, through education and increase in
sophistication, catching up with what intelligent people have known
for centuries -- that the Bible is indeed a product entirely of human
devising, partly (large part) myth and partly political propaganda,
and very little of history. Thank you for bringing the poll results to
our attention -- it's the best news I've heard in a long time.
Didymos
>
> "Dirk Hartog" <thedir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:acf48a55.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<NaqKc.2581$_K2.1731@lakeread02>...
> > > "bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> > > news:40F9CD58...@netvigator.com...
> > > You can't find any more
> > > reliable history than this for Napolean as a historical figure!
> >
Napoleon Bonaparte than Jesus. Among these fews bits of information
known about Bonaparte and not known about Jesus are: We know what date
Napoleon died. We know exactly where he died. We know specifically
what Napoleon did and said on various days in his life. We do not know
any of these about Jesus. There are substantial circumstantial evidence
and secondary sources for Jesus, but they reveal precious few
particulars. And "I believe" does not mean "I know," at least not in
any school of hisotrical method I have read of, but I will happily read
any such primer on historical method you believe makes that claim.
There are so many primary sources for Napoleon I doubt if anyone ever
bothered to count them. That Napoleon lived and died and said certain
words and did certain deeds is certain beyond any reasonable doubt. The
sources for Jesus do not even approach that standard of certainty.
Which is not to assert that Jesus did not live, die, utter certain
words, and do certain deeds. The preponderance of the evidence is that
Jesus did.
Considering the evidence and sources for Napoleon versus those for
Jesus, your assessment seems terribly flawed.
> > What is your evidence for this claim?
>
> The Gospel narratives exist.
So do Aesop's Fables. And the "Iliad." And the "Odyssey." And the
"Metamorphoses." And the Homeric "Hymns." And the tragedies of
Euripides. And the Gilgamesh epic. And Bugs Bunny cartoons. Does that
mean that because these works exist that they are history?
> They are written as historical/biographical
> documents (they meet all the recognized requirements for the Greek
genre
> "Bioi").
What might those "requiements" be? Do you refer to Plutarch's words on
the subject? Or those of Polybius? Thucydides? Precisely what school
of method do you refer to?
> I don't need to prove they are reliable until someone actually
> provides some compelling demonstration that they are not by using some
> generalized argument, i.e., one that can be used on any other
historical
> document to ascertain "reliability" with a reasonable degree of
certainty.
Would the fact that the description of Roman administration in Luke 2:
1-5 is totally mistaken count as a "compelling demonstration that they
are not [reliable]"? That is not historical. The Romans taxed where
the product was. Not where the producer was born. Luke got that one
wrong. Not to mention the name of the senatorial class governor of
Syria Luke named was not contemporary with Herod the great. Luke blew
that one too.
> There is nothing about the history of Napoleon that makes it
intrinsically
> more reliable "history" than the New Testament gospels accounts of
Jesus of
> Nazareth. Any principle of historiography used to demonstrate the
> unreliability of the New Testament will also demonstrate the
unreliability
> of Napoleon's history. Thus my claim above.
>
The large quantity of primary sources and physical evidence concerning
Napoleon is simply staggering there is so much. And that set of facts
alone makes the life and death of Napoleon Bonaparte "intrinsically
more reliable 'history' than the New Testament gospels accounts of Jesus
of Nazareth." The sources and evidence concerning Napoleon makes it
far, far more explicitly "more reliable 'history' than the New Testament
gospels accounts of Jesus of Nazareth." Surely you must understand
that, don't you?
> >
> >
> > > And it is not only the Pauline corpus that is significant here.
While
> there
> > > is still some scholarly dispute, it is now widely accepted that
the
> entire
> > > New Testament was completed *before* the turn of the first
century. If
> this
> > > dating is reliable, and there is little good evidence that it is
not,
> and
> > > plenty that it is, it means that *all* of the gospels were written
by
> > > contemporaries of Jesus, and much earlier than you allege above.
> >
Breathtaking . . . What specific evidence can you produce that 2
Peter -- for one example -- was written and in circulation by 100 A.D.?
What is the earliest fragment of 2 Peter? I kind of thought it was
Papyri Bodmer VII and VII, and these are dated to the late 3rd century,
aren't they? And these manuscripts also contain the "Nativity of Mary,"
the apocryphal correspondance of Paul to the Corinthians, the 11th Ode
of Solomon, and some other gnostic writings, don't they?
What is the earliest secondary reference to 2 Peter? I honestly do not
know, but I suspect it is third century. I suspect you may have bitten
off a bit more than you can chew with your claim "that the entire New
Testament was completed *before* the turn of the first century. [sic]"
> > The standard "scholarly" dating is driven by apologetics and relies
on
> > silly circular logic: "The gospels are histories, therefore they
must
> > have been written early."
>
> That is simply untrue, but you are correct in that it is a "standard"
line
> adopted by propagandistic authors in their efforts to persuade the
> uninformed. There is a whole panoply of evidence for the theory that
the
> New Testament was largely complete and widely in circulation within
the
> larger Church before the close of the 1st cent. AD, and what you've
taken
> note of above is perhaps the *weakest* bit of evidence in that long
listing,
> which includes:
>
> 1.) The Pauline corpus is reliably dated ca. mid 1st cent., and
> demonstrates knowledge of Luke's gospel.
>
Knowlege of Luke's Gospel? Care to explain that and mention specific
verses please?
> 2.) The Gospel of Mark is most probably (from an extra-biblical
source) the
> work of John Mark, acting as secretary to Peter at Rome. It is in
effect,
> Peter's "gospel" preaching to the Romans, organized by Mark. Peter's
death
> in Rome, ca. 65 AD, is a matter of fairly well documented historical
fact.
>
What are your "well documented" historical sources for Peter's death?
> 3.) The earliest manuscript fragment currently known exist (without
> significant controversy attached) is a Greek miniscule of the Gospel
of
> John, designated P52 in the John Rylands collection, and dates ca.
100-125
> AD. The Gospel of John is normally taken as one of the very last
books of
> the New Testament to have been published.
>
Actually the Egerton Fragment and P. 104 (P. Oxy. 4404) are probably
older by just a bit. Schubart dates the Roman uncial hand of P. 104
that is a decorated and well rounded script to not later than the end of
the first century A.D. There seems to be some concensus that the
Egerton Fragment may date to as early as 80, but Egerton did not make
the cut into the canon. But inclusion in the canon has nothing to do
with the value of a manuscript as an historical source. Or is
"significant controversy attached" to the Egerton Gospel or P. 104?
What might that be?
Published? What exactly do you mean by that?
<snip>
> > > This means
> > > that in asserting that it is unreasonable to rely on the
historicity of
> the
> > > quotations of Jesus that are found in these comtemporaneous
accounts of
> His
> > > life, you are saying that it is unreasonable to rely on the
historicity
> of
> > > *any* quotations from *any* well attested, contemporaneous
historical
> > > accounts of *any* life. Most reasonable people are not willing to
make
> that
> > > absurd claim so as to challenge the basic historicity of the New
> Testament.
What "well attested, contemporaneous historical accounts" exist of the
life of Jesus? You seem to be defining the canon gospels as primary
sources. Are you?
> >
> > #1 Crossan has a chapter in The Birth of Christianity dealing with
> > the ridiculous assumption that anyone can quote accurately decades
> > later. Of course they can't. But the apologetic impulse to save
the
> > gospel myth demands the pretense that they can.
>
What page did Crossan write that on?
So were the "Iliad" and "Odyssey" and many other ancient works
memorized. Someone living in a primarily illiterate culture memorizing
the words of Jesus in sayings traditions is not a phenomenal event.
Solzhenitsyn claimed the ability to memorize 10,000 lines of prose until
he could find writing materials during his stay at Ekibastuz. Rather
commonplace in the oral culture of classical antiquity, I would think.
> And, of course, the above only deals with what is plausible by natural
> means. At least one of the authors of the gospels obviously believed
(since
> he included it in his narrative) that Jesus promised to send the
> "Comforter", God's Holy Spirit, to "bring [them] into remembrance of
all the
> things I have said to you" [ John 14:26]. Since there is no evidence
> available to deny that this actually occurred, and supernaturally
aided the
> Evangelists in their accurate reproduction of the sayings of Jesus
during
> His life, there is nothing but prejudice to require that accuracy
could only
> occur by natural means, and therefore nothing to preclude these
sayings
> being accurate even if it COULDN'T be demonstrated that it is
naturally
> possible.
>
That is theology. When you bring in the supernatural, you depart the
discipline of history at that instant. Not a word in the above
paragraph has any bearing whatsoever on history.
> So, Crossan merely argues (falsely) against what is, in any case,
> unnecessary to the acceptance of the gospel speeches of Jesus as
accurate,
> unless one starts the argument with a presuppositional bias against
the
> supernatural, when there is no sound philosophical argument or
empirical
> evidence to support such a presupposition as anything BUT personal
bias.
> This means his argument proceeds FROM bias, and is false even if it
didn't!
> I can't think of a weaker kind of argument in support of an opinion.
>
Where exactly does Crossan argue this?
One always begins each and every philosophical, historical, and
scientific debate with not only a "presuppositional bias" but an extreme
prejudice against the supernatural. As in the supernatural is totally
irrelevant and therefore inadmissable. You harmed your argument through
recourse to the supernatural, which is by definition ahistorical and
unscientific.
> >
> > On what evidence do you believe "quotations" written down decades
> > after the fact?
> >
> > #2 Ancient literature is full of "quoted" speeches that everyone
knows
> > were created from thin air by the authors. That's how they did it
> > back then. Why do you imagine the gospelers were any different?
>
> I don't imagine they were, but your implication that ancient
historians
> weren't concerned about accuracy in recorded speeches and events is
pure
> fantasy:
>
If I quote one ancient historian will you withdraw your contention
above? Or will it take two? Three perhaps?
None of those you cite above were contemporary with the "Apostolic era"
by which I presume you to mean the time when the apostles lived and
worked.
What history is ever based upon "empirical data"? As far as I know,
precious little about historical sources is subject to scientific
method. Do you really believe they are?
> You mentioned that "everyone is aware" that the ancient historians
made up
> speeches "out of thin air"? Well that's exactly where the "evidence"
comes
> from against the above conclusion.
>
I doubt "everyone is aware" of much of anything at all concerning
ancient history, at least among Americans. History went through many
changes during classical antiquity, and each had different reasaons for
recording and summarizing the past, among these to show the noble
character of one's people, to provide parameters of moral action for
future generations, to preserve the glory of one's ancestors, among just
a few. And words were indeed placed in the mouths of heroes by
historians that the historians had no way of knowing the subject spoke.
>
> Chuck Stamford
>
>
Chuck Stamford
" Didymos" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:40fc6...@127.0.0.1...
>
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:aRLKc.23218$9I.6540@okepread02...
> >
> > "Dirk Hartog" <thedir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:acf48a55.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:<NaqKc.2581$_K2.1731@lakeread02>...
> > > > "bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:40F9CD58...@netvigator.com...
> <snip>
> > > > You can't find any more
> > > > reliable history than this for Napolean as a historical figure!
> > >
> That claim seems a bit overstated. Much, much more is known about
> Napoleon Bonaparte than Jesus.
My statement was to the historical RELIABILITY of the historical data, not
how much of it there is. The former is often, but not NECESSARILY a
function of the latter in historiography.
>
> > > What is your evidence for this claim?
> >
> > The Gospel narratives exist.
>
> So do Aesop's Fables. And the "Iliad." And the "Odyssey." And the
> "Metamorphoses." And the Homeric "Hymns." And the tragedies of
> Euripides. And the Gilgamesh epic. And Bugs Bunny cartoons. Does that
> mean that because these works exist that they are history?
Have the courtesy to let a person finish what they have to say before
interrupting, if you don't mind.
>
> > They are written as historical/biographical
> > documents (they meet all the recognized requirements for the Greek
> genre
> > "Bioi").
>
> What might those "requiements" be? Do you refer to Plutarch's words on
> the subject? Or those of Polybius? Thucydides? Precisely what school
> of method do you refer to?
I prefer Burridge, as he covers what there is.
>
> > I don't need to prove they are reliable until someone actually
> > provides some compelling demonstration that they are not by using some
> > generalized argument, i.e., one that can be used on any other
> historical
> > document to ascertain "reliability" with a reasonable degree of
> certainty.
>
> Would the fact that the description of Roman administration in Luke 2:
> 1-5 is totally mistaken count as a "compelling demonstration that they
> are not [reliable]"? That is not historical. The Romans taxed where
> the product was. Not where the producer was born. Luke got that one
> wrong. Not to mention the name of the senatorial class governor of
> Syria Luke named was not contemporary with Herod the great. Luke blew
> that one too.
First of all, let's correct your rhetoric above concerning Quirinius. What
you meant to say, I'm sure, was that he was not governor of Syria
contemporary with Herod, not that he was not a contemporary of Herod. He
was obviously *alive* during the lifetime of Herod.
Secondly, all the arguments I've seen put forward to support your claim
above, are singularly uncompelling. They are arguments from silence, or
that distain hard historical data for mere speculation, or that read the
Greek "apographo" as a tax, rather than a registration.
>
> > There is nothing about the history of Napoleon that makes it
> intrinsically
> > more reliable "history" than the New Testament gospels accounts of
> Jesus of
> > Nazareth. Any principle of historiography used to demonstrate the
> > unreliability of the New Testament will also demonstrate the
> unreliability
> > of Napoleon's history. Thus my claim above.
> >
> The large quantity of primary sources and physical evidence concerning
> Napoleon is simply staggering there is so much. And that set of facts
> alone makes the life and death of Napoleon Bonaparte "intrinsically
> more reliable 'history' than the New Testament gospels accounts of Jesus
> of Nazareth." The sources and evidence concerning Napoleon makes it
> far, far more explicitly "more reliable 'history' than the New Testament
> gospels accounts of Jesus of Nazareth." Surely you must understand
> that, don't you?
I readily accept that there are a greater number of
"primary sources" testifying to the basic historical nature of Napoleon, and
although I'm not sure what your ambiguous "physical evidence" means in
reality, I'm willing to concede that whatever it is, there's more of it than
there is supporting the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Now the question
becomes, why does this difference in the amount of these types of historical
data tell us anything at all about the relative reliability of these two
remarkably different historical accounts?
If I'm understanding your line of reasoning here, it is the amazingly
simplistic, A gross tallying of the historical evidence for the two that
generates "more" for Napoleon should prompt the conclusion "more
historically reliability" for Napoleon. That's simply not true. In fact,
it has absolutely nothing to do with the comparative reliability between the
two accounts for the following reasons:
Napoleon lived in an age when all types of literature were more common than
in the time of Jesus, implying that any famous person's life would leave in
its wake a larger historical record than in the 1st cent. He enjoyed a
formal education (which leaves a historical record) that Jesus did not. He
was an "emperor" for crying out loud (LOTS of records here!), while Jesus
was an itinerant rabbi sprung from common people. He was the leader of an
army (TONS of records!) that conquered Europe, while Jesus was the leader of
a very small group of non-combatants, which had no organization of any kind
(no "chain of command", promotions, medals, or anything akin to them during
Jesus' life), and this "army" covered an area about the size of Le du
France! Napoleon amassed fabulous wealth, Jesus lived and died a pauper.
The list just goes on and on of the relevant discrepancies between the lives
of Napoleon and Jesus; all of them DEMANDING that Napoleon leave in his wake
a more prolific historical record than Jesus by the simple fact of their
very different lives.
The argument that the Nepoleonic historical record is larger, then, is no
argument at all for its greater reliability than that of Jesus. The fact is
that if it were NOT substantially larger than that of Jesus, that would be
good grounds for questioning Napoleon as a historical figure at all!! You
can't use a fact that needs to be part of the historical record to keep
Napoleon from being a myth to say that Jesus is one, i.e., that the gospel
accounts of His life are less "reliable" than are those for Napoleon's life.
Maybe so, as I have not done any first hand research here myself. However,
the earlier claim to which I was responding was to the fact that "there is
NO evidence" to support dating the GOSPELS any earlier than mid-2nd cent,
and the poster "supported" this claim with a quote from G. A. Wells, a
famous (notorious?), biblically antagonistic, "popular" author without
further
credentials to lend his opinions credence on the subject.
You have simply snipped out the reference to the website I provided in my
earlier post below, which clearly shows the many biblical scholars of all
different "stripes" agreeing that all the books of the NT were complete
before the close of the 1st cent.
What I find "breathtaking" is the personal dishonesty you've demonstrated
here by your HIGHLY selective editing of my post below (carefully editing
out the cited link with only a "snip" to show it ever existed!), just so
that you wouldn't have to make this argument juxtaposed to the opposing
views
of so many doctorates in biblical studies.
And since you have seemed so anxious to add to what I've actually said in
this thread (and then argue against YOUR additions!), let me clarify here
that "widely accepted" is not, for me, a synonym for "consensus". I freely
admit the fact there is currently no "consensus" of scholarship in New
Testament dating, and that this is largely due to the methods and
presuppositions of the scholars doing the dating. But this fact does not
just leave us with the "ennie-mennie-minnie-moe" option either, and it
certainly doesn't lend support to an unqualified assertion that the New
Testament was completed ca. 250 AD (Wells view, and apparently the view
of the poster who used him for an "authority"...which is the biggest joke
going so far!!), anymore than it would have lent support to the unqualified
assertion (had I actually made such an unqualified assertion!) that the New
Testament was completed prior to the close of the 1st cent.
>
> > > The standard "scholarly" dating is driven by apologetics and relies
> on
> > > silly circular logic: "The gospels are histories, therefore they
> must
> > > have been written early."
> >
> > That is simply untrue, but you are correct in that it is a "standard"
> line
> > adopted by propagandistic authors in their efforts to persuade the
> > uninformed. There is a whole panoply of evidence for the theory that
> the
> > New Testament was largely complete and widely in circulation within
> the
> > larger Church before the close of the 1st cent. AD, and what you've
> taken
> > note of above is perhaps the *weakest* bit of evidence in that long
> listing,
> > which includes:
> >
> > 1.) The Pauline corpus is reliably dated ca. mid 1st cent., and
> > demonstrates knowledge of Luke's gospel.
> >
> Knowlege of Luke's Gospel? Care to explain that and mention specific
> verses please?
Compare Luke 10:7/ 1 Timothy 5:18. Now Luke contains both this "sending
out", and the one in Matthew (10:5ff at Luke 9:2ff). But it is Luke's
phrasing ("the workman is worthy of his wages") at Luke 10:7 that Paul uses
in advising Timothy on a closely related matter. Therefore, either Paul was
aware of Luke's usage of the phrase, Luke was aware of Paul's, or they were
both aware of the same Jesus tradition. 1 Timothy is generally dated to
within a year or two of Paul's death (65-66AD), and practically no one
disputes its authentic Pauline nature. Luke's "Acts" was written shortly
(?) after the gospel that bears his name, and it is significant that this
record of the ministry of Paul ends before his death (there is also a
credible argument that it was written during his lifetime, and that of
Peter, based on the idea that its primary aim is to establish the authority
of these two men, and the greatest need for this recommendation, at least in
Paul's case, was *while* he was preaching; as witnessed by the several
controversies in various churches [notably Corinth!] over Paul's
"apostleship" evident in his epistles). If this chronology is anywhere near
correct, it means that 1 Timothy was written a few years after Luke's
gospel, and this would imply that Paul, in his use of Luke's phrasing, was
familiar with Luke's gospel, OR they were both familiar with the same Jesus
tradition. It would be difficult to make a cogent argument that Luke and
Paul made use of the same Jesus tradition here, were close colleagues for
several years, perhaps decades, that Luke wrote his gospel prior to Paul
writing 1 Tim., and yet Paul did not have any knowledge of Luke's gospel in
using this phrase.
It is also true that most of the Pauline corpus that incorporates themes
from the Synoptics, does so predominately from Luke's gospel.
>
> > 2.) The Gospel of Mark is most probably (from an extra-biblical
> source) the
> > work of John Mark, acting as secretary to Peter at Rome. It is in
> effect,
> > Peter's "gospel" preaching to the Romans, organized by Mark. Peter's
> death
> > in Rome, ca. 65 AD, is a matter of fairly well documented historical
> fact.
> >
> What are your "well documented" historical sources for Peter's death?
See the survey at http://www.hope-of-israel.org/petrome.htm. It is uneven
to be sure, but it's main point remains: Peter had to die and be buried
somewhere, and ALL the historical evidence there is relating to his death
and burial has this happening in Rome, some of it dating the time to late in
Nero's reign, perhaps sometime in 68AD (note here especially section on
"Epistle of Clement to James").
>
> > 3.) The earliest manuscript fragment currently known exist (without
> > significant controversy attached) is a Greek miniscule of the Gospel
> of
> > John, designated P52 in the John Rylands collection, and dates ca.
> 100-125
> > AD. The Gospel of John is normally taken as one of the very last
> books of
> > the New Testament to have been published.
> >
> Actually the Egerton Fragment and P. 104 (P. Oxy. 4404) are probably
> older by just a bit.
Fine, I stand corrected by "just a bit" that has exactly nothing to do with
the point. Sheesh!
>
> Published? What exactly do you mean by that?
You find the term "published" confusing?
>
> <snip>
And, of course, the above "snip" is the "headstone" that marks the spot
where you buried my referenced webpage giving the names of *scores* of
biblical scholars all dating the NT to before the close of the 1st cent. I
have to wonder why you did this *and* challenge the fact that this agreement
among scholars exists. It seems, on its face, to be a blatantly dishonest
bit of trickery! Maybe you'd care to explain yourself at this juncture.
> > > > This means
> > > > that in asserting that it is unreasonable to rely on the
> historicity of
> > the
> > > > quotations of Jesus that are found in these comtemporaneous
> accounts of
> > His
> > > > life, you are saying that it is unreasonable to rely on the
> historicity
> > of
> > > > *any* quotations from *any* well attested, contemporaneous
> historical
> > > > accounts of *any* life. Most reasonable people are not willing to
> make
> > that
> > > > absurd claim so as to challenge the basic historicity of the New
> > Testament.
>
> What "well attested, contemporaneous historical accounts" exist of the
> life of Jesus? You seem to be defining the canon gospels as primary
> sources. Are you?
I'm saying that the dating of the gospels by modern scholarship, using form
and literary critical methods, arrives at whatever date is concluded (and
there is a wide range!) largely by how much any particular scholar sees in
them a reliance upon the infamous "Q" sayings source. The later the date
concluded, the greater the resort to this source (and at the "extreme" end
of this range, more than just "Q" is hypothesized!); the earlier the date,
the generally lesser resort to "Q". But in all cases, "Q" is seen as a
contemporaneous sayings source for the gospels. Therefore, no matter what
the date concluded for any given gospel, it contains roughly the same amount
of contemporaneous material. Since "Q" must also be seen as just as "well
attested" as is any gospel in which it appears, and since the gospels are
beyond dispute "well attested" documents, my statement that the gospels
represent "well attested, contemporaneous, historical accounts" is generally
true no matter what their dating, so long as we kick out the extremes in
the dating "range" of modern scholarship.
Now, having shown you how I justify what I said using modern methods of
biblical criticism, let me add that I don't personally agree with the
methodology used. I think that form criticism has a very limited
usefulness, and that modern biblical scholarship has generally taken it WAY
beyond its inherent limits.
> > >
> > > #1 Crossan has a chapter in The Birth of Christianity dealing with
> > > the ridiculous assumption that anyone can quote accurately decades
> > > later. Of course they can't. But the apologetic impulse to save
> the
> > > gospel myth demands the pretense that they can.
> >
> What page did Crossan write that on?
Ask Dirk. "The Birth of Christianity" was his reference to support the idea
that the gospel speeches couldn't possibly be accurate, historical records
of what Jesus said.
Thank you for supporting my rebuttal to Dirk's conjecture to the contrary.
>
> > And, of course, the above only deals with what is plausible by natural
> > means. At least one of the authors of the gospels obviously believed
> (since
> > he included it in his narrative) that Jesus promised to send the
> > "Comforter", God's Holy Spirit, to "bring [them] into remembrance of
> all the
> > things I have said to you" [ John 14:26]. Since there is no evidence
> > available to deny that this actually occurred, and supernaturally
> aided the
> > Evangelists in their accurate reproduction of the sayings of Jesus
> during
> > His life, there is nothing but prejudice to require that accuracy
> could only
> > occur by natural means, and therefore nothing to preclude these
> sayings
> > being accurate even if it COULDN'T be demonstrated that it is
> naturally
> > possible.
> >
> That is theology. When you bring in the supernatural, you depart the
> discipline of history at that instant. Not a word in the above
> paragraph has any bearing whatsoever on history.
And that is bias, pure and simple. There is no sound or compelling
philosophical argument against the possibility of supernatural events
occurring in physical, temporal reality. There are some rather decent
arguments that they can. If something is possible, and a historical account
includes it, rejecting it as "historical" on the personal conclusion that
the event is "highly unlikely" or "impossible" is simply not a principle of
historiography, but clearly is an excellent example of arguing in a circle!
To wit:
1.) I don't believe miracles are possible.
2.) This history contains miraculous accounts.
3.) Therefore, this history is not historical.
4.) Because...see #1
>
> > So, Crossan merely argues (falsely) against what is, in any case,
> > unnecessary to the acceptance of the gospel speeches of Jesus as
> accurate,
> > unless one starts the argument with a presuppositional bias against
> the
> > supernatural, when there is no sound philosophical argument or
> empirical
> > evidence to support such a presupposition as anything BUT personal
> bias.
> > This means his argument proceeds FROM bias, and is false even if it
> didn't!
> > I can't think of a weaker kind of argument in support of an opinion.
> >
> Where exactly does Crossan argue this?
You're confused. Ask Dirk.
>
> One always begins each and every philosophical, historical, and
> scientific debate with not only a "presuppositional bias" but an extreme
> prejudice against the supernatural.
Listen, I don't know who you think you are, but you're speaking here as
though you were some kind of authority on what is and is not "allowed" in
rational human thought. Pretty arrogant, even if you were right about how
to handle the supernatural in history!
But you're not right, at least not if finding objective truth (i.e.,
reality) is the goal. Of course, I suppose one could classify a desire for
truth as a "presuppositional bias" toward the idea that objective "truth"
exists, but call me naive...I still think that most people believe it does.
And I KNOW there's no logical argument that demonstrates it doesn't!
<snip rest of a truly remarkable diatribe>
> > > #2 Ancient literature is full of "quoted" speeches that everyone
> knows
> > > were created from thin air by the authors. That's how they did it
> > > back then. Why do you imagine the gospelers were any different?
> >
> > I don't imagine they were, but your implication that ancient
> historians
> > weren't concerned about accuracy in recorded speeches and events is
> pure
> > fantasy:
> >
> If I quote one ancient historian will you withdraw your contention
> above? Or will it take two? Three perhaps?
You can whistle "Dixie" while your head spins around while you try it if you
like. Or you could simply have read the several quotations I provided below
demonstrating why I will never have to withdraw my contention that Dirk's
characterization of the attitude of ancient historians toward accuracy in
reproducing speeches is pure tripe.
That's not true (Cicero, and Strabo, whom I DIDN'T mention), and irrelevant
in any case. If there is good evidence that accuracy in recorded speeches
was a principle of ancient historiography beginning ca. 460 AD, and this
evidence is continuous (but not contiguous) up to and beyond the "apostolic
era", AND there is no sound historical evidence that this historiographical
principle had been abandoned by this time, or ANY time, where is the
relevance in your observation even if it were accurate....which it isn't?!
I'm sure historians will be glad to here you've just cut down the number of
sources they need to consult in their search for accuracy. The
archeologists
and papyrologists will be glad to hear they're now not even supplemental to
the process.
And just out of curiosity, how do you get from my use of "empirical data" in
relation to Crossan's speculation that memorizing large blocks of verbiage
for
long periods of time is impossible, to the "scientific method"? On your
planet is the scientific method the only thing that results in empirical
data?
Eyes, ears, and noses don't count?
>
> > You mentioned that "everyone is aware" that the ancient historians
> made up
> > speeches "out of thin air"? Well that's exactly where the "evidence"
> comes
> > from against the above conclusion.
> >
> I doubt "everyone is aware" of much of anything at all concerning
> ancient history, at least among Americans.
Another demonstration of a personal "presupposition", or do you have some
evidence for this observation?
History went through many
> changes during classical antiquity, and each had different reasons for
> recording and summarizing the past, among these to show the noble
> character of one's people, to provide parameters of moral action for
> future generations, to preserve the glory of one's ancestors, among just
> a few. And words were indeed placed in the mouths of heroes by
> historians that the historians had no way of knowing the subject spoke.
So much for the lecture on the obvious, and irrelevant. The point is that
historians contemporary with the apostolic period held to the principle (not
always the practice!) of accuracy. The idea here is that there was no sense
in which it was "okay" just to make up speeches and put them in the mouths
of your historical characters if there was any possible way to avoid doing
so, and even if there was not, that there were limits to what a historian
could "make up". It had to suit the general known character of the figure
making the speech, the situation in which the speech was made, and conform
as closely as possible to what was "likely" for the recorded occasion.
But all this is only by way of background in any case. The sayings of Jesus
WERE available to the gospel authors in VERY reliable form. Once we accept
the very reasonable hypothesis that oral tradition in the 1st cent. was a
way of life, as natural for them then as picking up a ball point pen is for
us today, and probably just as accurate, ANY dating of the gospels prior to
the end of the 1st cent. is probably good enough to assure their accuracy
in recording in writing the sayings of Jesus, and the events of His life.
And so long as this "first generation" of living historical recordings
remained alive (which plausibly extended to just PAST the close of the 1st
cent., given the preserved history of the early Church), what is known of
the formation of myths by modern scholarship suggests STRONGLY that the
gospels are not mythological in ANY sense. And while there is considerable
debate on this score among biblical scholars, I don't know of too many
modern historians willing to classify the gospel accounts as anything BUT
"history".
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
Thanks for the chuckle, John
God bless
Chuck Stamford
John McComb
> Thanks for the chuckle, John
Your welcome. Cheers.
Yours in Christ
Cynical John
Dirk Hartog
"John McComb" <Gotta_lose@this_spam.com> wrote in message news:TlyLc.81628
<circle jerk>
> > Thanks for the chuckle, John
>
> Your welcome. Cheers.
>
> Yours in Christ
>
> Cynical John
</circle jerk>
Dirk Hartog
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message news:72pLc.27839
<circle jerk>
> Thanks for the chuckle, John
>
> God bless
>
> Chuck Stamford
</circle jerk>
John
"Dirk Hartog" <Di...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:UEyLc.8359$f4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
WOW! You sure got him there.
Dirk Hartog
> > <circle jerk>
> >
> > > > Thanks for the chuckle, John
> > >
> > > Your welcome. Cheers.
> > >
> > > Yours in Christ
> > >
> > > Cynical John
> >
> > </circle jerk>
> >
> >
>
> WOW! You sure got him there.
Cite and quote please Paul mentioning Jesus' virgin birth.
Cite and quote please Paul mentioning the location of Jesus' birth.
Cite and quote please Paul mentioning Mary.
Cite and quote please Paul mentioning Joseph.
Cite and quote please Paul mentioning Jesus' miracles as related in
the gospels.
Cite and quote please Paul naming the 12 disciples.
Cite and quote please Paul mentioning Jesus' death _in Jerusalem_.
Cite and quote please Paul mentioning the date/ year of Jesus death.
Cite and quote please Paul mentioning John the Baptist.
Cite and quote please Paul mentioning Jesus' trial before Pilate.
Cite and quote please Paul mentioning other facts about Jesus'
Galilean life.
John
> "John" <Jo...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<DKKdnewX-o9OSWPdRVn-
>
> > > <circle jerk>
> > >
> > > > > Thanks for the chuckle, John
> > > >
> > > > Your welcome. Cheers.
> > > >
> > > > Yours in Christ
> > > >
> > > > Cynical John
> > >
> > > </circle jerk>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > WOW! You sure got him there.
>
> Cite and quote please Paul mentioning Jesus' virgin birth.
> Cite and quote please Paul mentioning the location of Jesus' birth.
> Cite and quote please Paul mentioning Mary.
> Cite and quote please Paul mentioning Joseph.
> Cite and quote please Paul mentioning Jesus' miracles as related in
> the gospels.
> Cite and quote please Paul naming the 12 disciples.
> Cite and quote please Paul mentioning Jesus' death _in Jerusalem_.
> Cite and quote please Paul mentioning the date/ year of Jesus death.
> Cite and quote please Paul mentioning John the Baptist.
> Cite and quote please Paul mentioning Jesus' trial before Pilate.
> Cite and quote please Paul mentioning other facts about Jesus'
> Galilean life.
>
>
> Dirk Hartog
And this proves what?
Didymos
>
> " Didymos" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:40fc6...@127.0.0.1...
> >
> > "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:aRLKc.23218$9I.6540@okepread02...
> > >
> > > "Dirk Hartog" <thedir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:acf48a55.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<NaqKc.2581$_K2.1731@lakeread02>...
> > > > > "bob young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:40F9CD58...@netvigator.com...
> > <snip>
> > > > > You can't find any more
> > > > > reliable history than this for Napolean as a historical
figure!
> > > >
> > That claim seems a bit overstated. Much, much more is known about
> > Napoleon Bonaparte than Jesus.
>
> My statement was to the historical RELIABILITY of the historical data,
not
> how much of it there is. The former is often, but not NECESSARILY a
> function of the latter in historiography.
>
don't you?
The historical sources for Napoleon are more reliable. There are far
more contemporaneous, eyewitness accounts; there are documents in the
hand of Napoleon, his corpse is in a known place, certain artifacts
known
to have been in his possession are extant, and the list goes on. All
that survives of Jesus are secondary acccounts compiled from sayings
sources and deeds recalled some years after his death. The historical
theory that Napoleon Bonaparte lived at certain times in certain places,
wrote or spoke certain words, and did certain deeds is far more reliable
than the historical theory that Jesus lived at certain times in certain
places, wrote or spoke certain words, and did certain deeds.
How are the gospel and apocryphal accounts of Jesus more reliable than
the primary sources and physical artifacts of Napolean? In my opinion,
the best historical theory of Jesus is that he indeed did live, do,
speak, and die within the general parameters circumscribed by the
gospels. But that can all be changed by the discovery of a single
manuscript or clay tablet. What can a single discovery change
concerning Napoleon?
> >
> > > > What is your evidence for this claim?
> > >
> > > The Gospel narratives exist.
> >
> > So do Aesop's Fables. And the "Iliad." And the "Odyssey." And the
> > "Metamorphoses." And the Homeric "Hymns." And the tragedies of
> > Euripides. And the Gilgamesh epic. And Bugs Bunny cartoons. Does
that
> > mean that because these works exist that they are history?
>
> Have the courtesy to let a person finish what they have to say before
> interrupting, if you don't mind.
>
Pardon me. But you still failed to reply to the question. I will try
again: Does the mere existence of a work make it history?
> >
> > > They are written as historical/biographical
> > > documents (they meet all the recognized requirements for the Greek
> > genre
> > > "Bioi").
> >
> > What might those "requiements" be? Do you refer to Plutarch's words
on
> > the subject? Or those of Polybius? Thucydides? Precisely what
school
> > of method do you refer to?
>
> I prefer Burridge, as he covers what there is.
>
I prefer primary sources. So do historians. Burridge is a modern
compiler and commentator, is he not? I prefer to deal with primary
sources until they are exhausted. What did the historians and
biographers of classical antiquity have to say about the art they
practiced? They are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. Why
not quote them? As opposed to, say, modern reconstructions?
I stand corrected. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was not the governor of
Syria during the lifetime of Herod the Great. But the gospel of Luke is
still mistaken.
> Secondly, all the arguments I've seen put forward to support your
claim
> above, are singularly uncompelling. They are arguments from silence,
or
> that distain hard historical data for mere speculation, or that read
the
> Greek "apographo" as a tax, rather than a registration.
>
Precisely what "hard historical data" am I disdaining? The Roman system
of taxation and census is known. And at no point did Rome ever insist
that all men return to their places of birth to be counted and/or taxed.
Wealth was taxed where it was produced just as it is today, and since
the peasants on the
lands were the source of this wealth, they would not be returned to and
counted at their place of birth. That is an administrative absurdity.
Just as much 2,000 years ago when travel was much more difficult and
time consuming, as it is now.
The difference is analogous to the difference between a standard of
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal proceeding and guilt based
upon the preponderance of the evidence in a tort procedure. Napoleon
Bonaparte lived, conquered most of Europe and died. That is certain
beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus, the early first century preacher,
healer, and exorcist probably lived and died within the parameters of
possibility framed by the gospels and a few other secondary sources.
That is probable and not at all certain beyond a reasonable doubt.
> If I'm understanding your line of reasoning here,
You are not.
> it is the amazingly
> simplistic, A gross tallying of the historical evidence for the two
that
> generates "more" for Napoleon should prompt the conclusion "more
> historically reliability" for Napoleon. That's simply not true. In
fact,
> it has absolutely nothing to do with the comparative reliability
between the
> two accounts for the following reasons:
>
> Napoleon lived in an age when all types of literature were more common
than
> in the time of Jesus, implying that any famous person's life would
leave in
> its wake a larger historical record than in the 1st cent. He enjoyed
a
> formal education (which leaves a historical record) that Jesus did
not.
What "formal education" of Napoleon is there a record of? Was there
such a thing as a "formal education" during the first century? And did
anyone's "formal education" during antiquity leave an "historical
record"? Where might I examine these records?
> He
> was an "emperor" for crying out loud (LOTS of records here!), while
Jesus
> was an itinerant rabbi sprung from common people. He was the leader
of an
> army (TONS of records!) that conquered Europe, while Jesus was the
leader of
> a very small group of non-combatants, which had no organization of any
kind
> (no "chain of command", promotions, medals, or anything akin to them
during
> Jesus' life), and this "army" covered an area about the size of Le du
> France! Napoleon amassed fabulous wealth, Jesus lived and died a
pauper.
> The list just goes on and on of the relevant discrepancies between the
lives
> of Napoleon and Jesus; all of them DEMANDING that Napoleon leave in
his wake
> a more prolific historical record than Jesus by the simple fact of
their
> very different lives.
>
So what is your point here? That a comparison of the historiocity of
Jesus and Napoleon is tantamount to comparing kumquats and dinosaurs? I
agree. You subjects of comparison were ill-chosen. Who would argue
with that?
> The argument that the Nepoleonic historical record is larger, then, is
no
> argument at all for its greater reliability than that of Jesus. The
fact is
> that if it were NOT substantially larger than that of Jesus, that
would be
> good grounds for questioning Napoleon as a historical figure at all!!
You
> can't use a fact that needs to be part of the historical record to
keep
> Napoleon from being a myth to say that Jesus is one, i.e., that the
gospel
> accounts of His life are less "reliable" than are those for Napoleon's
life.
>
I believe it was you who introduced Napoleon into this discussion.
Napoleon Bonparte is a singularly inappropriate figure to compare with
Jesus. The reasons should be obvious to you. Why did you do that? As
for your reliability issue, I offer this example: I can provide a
relatively coherent account of the life of Harry S. Truman. We were
both alive in the same part of the same country for a period of years.
He was the president of my country. I have read a couple biographies of
his life, and read primary and secondary accounts of his life, and I was
even a very small cog in his state funeral in Independence, Missouri.
David McCulloch spent years studying Truman, read virtually everything
Truman wrote, listened to and/or watched every film clip and recording
of Truman, interviewed Truman's family and friends and professional
associates, and then wrote an exhaustive account of Truman's life.
Whose account is more "reliable"? Mine or McCulloch's?
The appropriate comparison for Jesus is another man from the lower
social and economic classes in the Hellenic part of the Roman Empire
during the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Then, and only then, does one
compare like subjects. When Christian apologists try to compare Jesus
to Julius Caesar or Augustus or Alexander, much less Napoleon, the
exercise is not terribly sensible and ultimately futile. As you just
demonstrated above, I might add.
I know that Christians sincerely believe that Jesus was the human form
of their God and believe he was the only perfect man to ever live, but
those are not historical assertions. Those are dogmatic assertions
based solely in theology. And you attempt to graft dogma onto history
and apply theological principles to historical events. The results are
absurd to all but believers of your same stripe. In effect, theological
dogma blinds you to the possibilities and parameters of historical
method, and heartfelt sincerity and strong faith have no bearing on
historical veracity.
Fernand Braudel evaluated the importance of past events by the change
that flowed from the event over a long period of time. The "event" we
call the life of Jesus is of utmost importance by that standard. Jesus
and the movement that flowed from him is at the center of Euro-American
history from then until now. And an odd aspect of that fact (and it
assuredly is fact) is that it really does not matter whether or not
Jesus ever indeed did live, whether or not Jesus was divine, regardless
of whether Jesus is the saviour of humanity, or the foretold anointed
one. Jesus and his movement had a cataclysmic impact and determined the
course of events from the first century through now, and will for a very
long time to come.
Do you really not detect a small problem using a web site that uses
"Hyper-skeptic" to describe one of the cited authors? How about a tiny
bit of a problem using "Believer's Study Bible" as an historical source?
Some of the names on this list are of course recognizable. Others are
not so recognizable, and a dozen or so of those names ran through google
fails to produce a vita. In fact, for a few, the only result in google
is the web page you quote. Why do you think that is? The curriculum
vita of faculty at reputable institutions of higher education, even
emeritus faculty, are readily accesible through the internet and
searchable through google. By the way, can you please identify the
"liberal scholars listed" on that web page? None of those I have read
or could identify through searching the internet are liberal. If one is
going to publish a list of experts, the CV of each and every "expert"
should be readily available. Why is that not the case on the web site
you apealed to as some type of authority?
Did you notice that the list of "biblical scholars" gets real, real
short for those who support a first century date for 2 Peter? And
several other books of the New Testament. I also happened to notice
that certain members of this list, whose dates for the gospels and
Pauline corpus fit your theory of first century completion for the New
Testament, become notably absent when dates are offered for the catholic
epistles, the Johannine corpus, and the Revelation of John. Do you know
why that is? Care to tell us?
I will save you the trouble. It is because these five men ( Bauckham,
Black, Fiensy, Mills, & Robinson, whose vitae are difficult to find) and
the "Believer's Study Bible" are virtually the only "scholars" who
believe 2 Peter can be dated to the first century. The only arguments
that place 2 Peter in the first century are dogmatic, i.e., since the
Bible never lies, 2 Peter must have been written by Peter the Apostle
according to the Bible, 2 Peter had to have been written before Peter
died in 66 or 68 or whatever "traditional" date faith demands for
Peter's death. Which date is assigned to 2 Peter by Metzger, Brown,
Tyson, Young, Tinsley, and Sanders? Why don't you do a bit of research
and post those? Their vitae are readily available.
By the way, what did Kurt Aland have to say about the dates of the
catholic epistles? Or aren't his credentials sufficient? How about
Philip Comfort? Bob Funk? Tom Wright? J.D. Crossan? Burton Mack?
Richmond Lattimore? How about Michael Grant? These guys all have
legitimate academic credentials, and really do represent a variety of
locations on the theological spectrum. See? I can provide a list of
"biblical scholars" too.
I have never heard of this Wells you refer to. Why do you take him so
seriously? Is he in the same category of "scholar" as Josh McDowell?
The middle of the second century is a very solid date for most of the
New
Testament books because there is reasonable manuscript evidence and
secondary sources that make that date highly probable. P. 52, P. 104,
and Egerton are reasonably conclusive sources that back the date of John
and Matthew back to 100 or perhaps a few years earlier, and Egerton is
reasonable proof that narratives of the words and deeds of Jesus were
written down before the end of the first century.
But P 104 only proves that a manuscript of Matthew's gospel was present
at Oxyrhynchus late in the first century. The Egerton manuscript proves
only that a narrative of the words and deeds of Jesus had been written
before the close of the first century and this narrative was not
included in the canon some 250 years later. P. 52 proves only that
John's gospel had been written and was in the Fayum before the close of
the first century. None of these early manuscripts demonstrate anything
about the New Testament as a whole, or any part of the New Testament
other than Matthew and John.
> You have simply snipped out the reference to the website I provided in
my
> earlier post below, which clearly shows the many biblical scholars of
all
> different "stripes" agreeing that all the books of the NT were
complete
> before the close of the 1st cent.
>
Fine, here is the url: http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm.
Now what? Oh, actually, only a handful survive as supporting the
completion of all books of the New Testament by the end of the first
century. Why do you think that is? How come google searches and a run
through a couple academic indices doesn't return a vita on this handful?
I am much less interested in what "Bible scholars" say than what
classicists, historians, and archaeologists have to say. Sometimes
those overlap, but "Bible scholars" tend to fall back on the
supernatural to push their points. And I am far less interested with
what
the historians, classicists, and archaeologists say than what the
evidence itself says to me. The historical record for Jesus is just
fine and capable of standing on its own. It does not require
embellishment or a kick from the supernatural.
By the way, your lists of "biblical scholars of all different 'stripes'"
cannot be correct unless every single intracanonical book was complete
by 100 A.D. and historical sources and/or archaeological artifacts exist
to support that contention. The issue here is not what cohort exists
among the population of "biblical scholars" that are "agreeing"
something about the New Testament canon. The issue here is what the
manuscript record, secondary sources, and archaeological artifacts can
provide us so a reasonable historical theory can be constructed and
defended successfully. And those tell us that 2 Peter is probably a
middle second century product. Please, if you are going to argue from
an historical basis, kindly stick to arguments within the purview of
history. Lists of "biblical scholars" are not within that purview. If
you want to debate history, produce the sources, in this case the
individual manuscripts, and lets talk.
> What I find "breathtaking" is the personal dishonesty you've
demonstrated
> here by your HIGHLY selective editing of my post below (carefully
editing
> out the cited link with only a "snip" to show it ever existed!), just
so
> that you wouldn't have to make this argument juxtaposed to the
opposing
> views
> of so many doctorates in biblical studies.
>
See above. I am not at all interested in doctrinal polemics or the
dogma of this sect or religion or faith as opposed to the other. The
manuscripts and artifacts speak for themselves as historical and
archaeological sources regardless of their support for or opposition to
or silence concerning the religion "de jour."
> And since you have seemed so anxious to add to what I've actually said
in
> this thread (and then argue against YOUR additions!), let me clarify
here
> that "widely accepted" is not, for me, a synonym for "consensus".
Noted. So what?
> I freely
> admit the fact there is currently no "consensus" of scholarship in New
> Testament dating, and that this is largely due to the methods and
> presuppositions of the scholars doing the dating. But this fact does
not
> just leave us with the "ennie-mennie-minnie-moe" option either, and it
> certainly doesn't lend support to an unqualified assertion that the
New
> Testament was completed ca. 250 AD (Wells view, and apparently the
view
> of the poster who used him for an "authority"...which is the biggest
joke
> going so far!!), anymore than it would have lent support to the
unqualified
> assertion (had I actually made such an unqualified assertion!) that
the New
> Testament was completed prior to the close of the 1st cent.
>
Where did I assert that "the New Testament was completed ca. 250 AD"? I
merely questioned your statement that the New Testament was complete by
100 A.D., and provided an example. If you do research 2 Peter, you will
find that there is virtually no likelihood that it was complete by the
end of the first century. 1 Peter, Jude, and the Johannine epistles are
not good bets either. You might note that the Peshitta does not contain
certain of the catholic epistles or the Apocolypse of John. While not
conclusive, the absence of these books from the Peshitta mitigates
against their early composition.
The fact that your estimate seems off by a quarter century or more does
not make the other date of 250 A.D. correct. Again, I don't care what
this Wells character believes. Never heard of him.
May I suggest that the preferred method of demonstrating the fallacy of
Wells' position is to produce the manuscripts of the New Testament
securely dated to 250 A.D. or before. Or even better, do not make
hstorical claims you cannot demonstrate with sources using historical
method without resort to the supernatural as a loaded x factor.
Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Acts are found in P.Chester Beatty I dated
securely to the early 3rd century. John's gospel is in P. 52, P. Bodmer
II dated to the middle of the 2nd century, and P. Oxy 1780 dated to the
first half of the 3rd century. Romans, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Corinthians,
Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Collossians, and 1 Thessalonians are
in P. Chester Beatty II dated soldily to the 2nd century. II
Thessalonians is in P. Oxyrhynchus 1598 dated to the first half of the
3rd century. Titus is in P. Rylands 5 dated to the 2nd half of the 2nd
century. Philemon is in Inv. Nr. 12 securely dated to the middle of the
2nd century. James is in P. Oxyrhynchus 1229 dated to the late 2nd or
early 3rd centuries. The Revelation of John is in P. IFAO Inv. 237b
dated soldily to the 2nd century.
You do have a problem for 1 & 2 Timothy, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude, and 1, 2, &
3 John. The earliest manuscripts are dated to the later half of the 3rd
century, 1 & 2 Peter and Jude in P. Bodmer VII and VIII dated to the
late third century, and 1 John in P. Oxyrhynchus 402, dated to the
middle of the 3rd century. Those dates are more in line with the date
of this Wells fellow, isn't it?
I believe the earliest manuscript source for 1 & 2 Timothy and 2 & 3
John is codex Sinaiticus, but please correct me if I am mistaken. Am I?
That means you are stuck with sources other than manuscript to
demonstrate the proof of your proposition that the New Testament was
complete by the end of the first century. That seems to have limited
your sources. A lot. Like to the very early Apostolic Fathers. Does
Clement specifically mention 1 & 2 Timothy, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude, or 1, 2,
or 3 John? How about Ignatius? Polycarp? Can you even show show
anyone else specifically mentioning these epistles before 250?
Tertullian perhaps? Ireneus? How does Eusebius account for these
epistles? But even Eusebius is a stretch, isn't he?
It seems that your theory of a complete New Testament by the close of
the first century is not quite tenable, is it? And the opinion of your
listed "biblical scholars" is far less imporant that the evidence
itself. Got some? Or is Mr Wells date of 250 A.D. better aligned with
the evidence?
How do you know that the author of Luke's gospel didn't borrow the
phrase from Paul's letter to Timothy?
Luke 10:7 is very early "sayings source" or Q material -- and the
earliest Q material according to Mack and others -- and is also found at
Mark 6:10, not to mention Gospel of Thomas 14. And only Luke addresses
the matter of the worker worthy of pay. Why do you think the oral
tradition of Q, Mark, Thomas and later Matthew left these words out?
One very good reason would be that Luke borrowed them from Paul and
inserted them into his gospel in some kind of effort to identifiy Paul
as uniquely familiar with the sayings of Jesus. And since the weight of
the evidence indicates that Paul's letters were earlier than Luke's
gospel, your case seems without merit.
It seems a real stretch to conclude that a single phrase in Timothy
indicates Paul's familiarity with Luke's gospel. It makes rather more
sense to conclude from the nearly identical Greek prose in Luke 7:10 and
I Timothy 5:18 that Luke flowed from Timothy rather than Timothy flowed
from Luke.
> >
> > > 2.) The Gospel of Mark is most probably (from an extra-biblical
> > source) the
> > > work of John Mark, acting as secretary to Peter at Rome. It is in
> > effect,
> > > Peter's "gospel" preaching to the Romans, organized by Mark.
Peter's
> > death
> > > in Rome, ca. 65 AD, is a matter of fairly well documented
historical
> > fact.
> > >
> > What are your "well documented" historical sources for Peter's
death?
>
> See the survey at http://www.hope-of-israel.org/petrome.htm. It is
uneven
> to be sure, but it's main point remains: Peter had to die and be
buried
> somewhere, and ALL the historical evidence there is relating to his
death
> and burial has this happening in Rome, some of it dating the time to
late in
> Nero's reign, perhaps sometime in 68AD (note here especially section
on
> "Epistle of Clement to James").
>
What is the oldest manuscript of "Epistle of Clement to James"?
You are kidding, right? You trust a web site that contains gems such as
the "science of Biblical criticism and exegesis." Pray, tell us, Sir,
exactly where we may find the scientific principles and assay procedures
underlying the "science of Biblical criticism and exegesis," can you
please? Geez, the "science of Bibilical criticism and exegesis . . . "
Now that's a knee slapper!
And "that UNIVERSAL TRADITION declared, [sic]" and "a FACT UNIVERSALLY
KNOWN"[sic]? That oft-repeated "universal" or its adverbial form isn't
much of an exaggeration, is it? Can you identify the sources of these
univresally known traditions? Or are we to take your word for it?
And Venerable Bede is listed under "Ancient Evidence." Historians often
don't agree on much, but they pretty much have settled the demarcation
points between the ancient and Medieval periods. And Bede is solidly
Medieval. Why does this web site obfuscate that fact?
Did you happen to notice that the earliest source cited was a very
outlandish interpretation of a rather strange prophecy contained in a
most apocryphal text that could just as well apply to a couple Russian
Czars and Chinese emperors? Was Nero the only Roman emperor who killed
his mother? Did Nero kill his mother? Or was that Caligula? I can
never seem to keep the thugs of history straight without looking it up,
and I can't recall just now. Do you know?
For those reasons and many others, your web site fails utterly as "well
documented" historical sources. Historical sources are not entries in
encylopediae, Bible dictionaries, or modern histories, or even comments
by 19th and 20th century apologists. Sources means the recorded words
of the ancients, unadorned by interpretation, commentary, and
explanation of what the words really mean. Can you produce those?
> >
> > > 3.) The earliest manuscript fragment currently known exist
(without
> > > significant controversy attached) is a Greek miniscule of the
Gospel
> > of
> > > John, designated P52 in the John Rylands collection, and dates ca.
> > 100-125
> > > AD. The Gospel of John is normally taken as one of the very last
> > books of
> > > the New Testament to have been published.
> > >
> > Actually the Egerton Fragment and P. 104 (P. Oxy. 4404) are probably
> > older by just a bit.
>
> Fine, I stand corrected by "just a bit" that has exactly nothing to do
with
> the point. Sheesh!
>
P. 52 had a good run and materially impacted the dating of the canon,
but there is new evidence since the 1930's that actually strengthens the
historical case for a probable completion and some dissemination of the
4 intracanonical gospels before the end of the first century. And since
the case is by no means closed, I merely offered a couple of planks to
buttress your claim.
> >
> > Published? What exactly do you mean by that?
>
> You find the term "published" confusing?
>
When applied to classical antiquity, certainly, yes. The modern word
"published" has little -- maybe no -- meaning in an ancient context.That
is why I asked for clarification. It is not like folks went down to
Brentano's or Border's to pick up their reading material, now, is it?
And movable type and printing presses hadn't yet appeared, not even in
China.
> >
> > <snip>
>
> And, of course, the above "snip" is the "headstone" that marks the
spot
> where you buried my referenced webpage giving the names of *scores* of
> biblical scholars all dating the NT to before the close of the 1st
cent.
Restored url: http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm Happy
now? Where exactly do you see " the names of *scores* of biblical
scholars all dating the NT to before the close of the 1st cent."? I
only count 24 for Mark, and that includes Wells and your "Believer's
Study Bible." Only 22 are listed for Matthew, and these are the same 22
of 24 listed for Mark. And 27 for Luke. By the way, why do you think
the "Believer's Study Bible" isn't listed for Matthew? Do the editors
not believe Matthew was complete before the close of the first century?
But only 14 names show up for Romans. Why do you think that is?
And only 12 names for 2 Corinthians. What is happening? Why are the
numbers shrinking?
And only 9 names of "biblical scholars" apparently believe I Timothy was
first century. Hmmmm. Only 8 for Titus. And for the Petrine and
Johannine epistles we are down to only 6 names of "biblical scholars."
What's the deal here? And Jude only has 5!
How many total "biblical scholars" are listed on this page? Are you
sure there are "scores"? As in more than 40? Are you sure?
I ignored your web site because it is so obviously a low quality and not
very well researched fundamentalist apologetic. The data presented does
not in any way support the conclusions drawn, no specific information is
given concerning the supporters of the view that the entire canon was
complete by the first century. When it lists "biblical scholars" who
support the completion of specific books of the New Testament at the top
of the page, it lists genuine scholars of earnede academic repute, such
as Metzger and Fitzmeyer. But those guys do not support your contention
that every book of the New Testament was complete by 100 A.D.. I knew
that. The only "biblical scholars" left from 1 Peter to Jude are
untracable. Who are these 5 guys? This web page is tripe, and you
embarrassed yourself by relying upon it.
> I
> have to wonder why you did this *and* challenge the fact that this
agreement
> among scholars exists. It seems, on its face, to be a blatantly
dishonest
> bit of trickery! Maybe you'd care to explain yourself at this
juncture.
>
Well, since 2 Peter was probably not written before the end of the first
century, that can only mean the New Testament was indeed not complete by
the end of the first century. Unless, that is, one wishes to exclude 2
Peter from the canon. The Peshitta does. Do you? Do they? For these
reasons I am not concerned with lists of Biblical scholars on your
favorite web page. Nor am I terribly concerned about the totality of
your arguments. I merely responded to certain points and snipped large
swaths of text to save space. I am not at all interested in theological
dispute. If that makes you unhappy or distressed, please, do not
respond to my posts. I would never want anyone to feel obliged to spend
their time and effort on a silly old man such as myself.
Where did you read the information leading to your conclusions above?
What specific scholars do you refer to? Mark, widely acknowledged as
the earliest canon gospel, contains virtually no Q material, and is
generally considered one source of Luke and Matthew, and even certain
episodes in John by some critics.
Do you realize that you have again slipped the surly bonds of history
and entered the field of literary criticism?
> Now, having shown you how I justify what I said using modern methods
of
> biblical criticism, let me add that I don't personally agree with the
> methodology used. I think that form criticism has a very limited
> usefulness, and that modern biblical scholarship has generally taken
it WAY
> beyond its inherent limits.
>
Those are methods of literary criticism whose use is not restricted to
Bible study by any means. Extant historical sources and archaeological
artifacts are far more reliable. The problem is that none are known to
exist from the first century concerning any aspect of Christianity or
Jesus..
> > > >
> > > > #1 Crossan has a chapter in The Birth of Christianity dealing
with
> > > > the ridiculous assumption that anyone can quote accurately
decades
> > > > later. Of course they can't. But the apologetic impulse to
save
> > the
> > > > gospel myth demands the pretense that they can.
> > >
> > What page did Crossan write that on?
>
> Ask Dirk. "The Birth of Christianity" was his reference to support
the idea
> that the gospel speeches couldn't possibly be accurate, historical
records
> of what Jesus said.
>
Yes, I have read it. I do not recall Crossan making such a claim.
See? I really am not taking sides. That assertion that memorization
did not occur in huge quantities of words is laughable. But it has
nothing to do with you or your personal position. The sources confirm
that Dirk is mistaken, and that is true whether you and I ever lived or
not. You and I and our opinions matter not even a teeny tiny bit.
No, that is not bias. That is the application of historical method to
historical problems. Kindly identify a work on historiography and
historical method that allows for the supernatural as historical
evidence, can you? I own several and have read many more, including
those by Louis Gottschalk, Lucien Febvre, Fernand Braudel, Allan Nevins,
Marc Bloch, Ernst Breisach, Barzun & Graff, as well as the historians of
antiquity. Can you cite a single one by any historian that supports the
notion that history can somehow offer proof for or against supernatural
events? How exactly does history prove a supernatural event?
> There is no sound or compelling
> philosophical argument against the possibility of supernatural events
> occurring in physical, temporal reality.
How does history sort the frauds and charlatans from the mistakes of
ignorance and misinterpretations of natural events? Do you really
believe that little green humanoids with real big eyes and bulging
skulls land on earth in flying saucers, kidnap human beings and insert
rectal probes in their victims? "There is no sound or compelling
philosophical argument against the possibility." And there are people
who claim that precisely that happened to them. But how likely is it?
> There are some rather decent
> arguments that they can. If something is possible, and a historical
account
> includes it, rejecting it as "historical" on the personal conclusion
that
> the event is "highly unlikely" or "impossible" is simply not a
principle of
> historiography, but clearly is an excellent example of arguing in a
circle!
> To wit:
>
> 1.) I don't believe miracles are possible.
>
Belief and faith have nothing to do with it. Nor does you opinion
concerning miracles. Miracles can be neither confirmed nor disproved by
historical method. Since you assert that miracles and supernatural
events are within the provenance of historical method, can you kindly
describe the method you apply to determine the veracity of these
situations?
> 2.) This history contains miraculous accounts.
>
The "account" of a miracle is not the same as the miracle itself. It
quite likely is historical that people believed offerings to Ascepolis
cured their physical ailments and the Delphic oracle and Roman priests
predicted the future through patterns in bird guts. History can offer
evidence that people believed in fortune tellers, miracles, and
supernatural events. History cannot prove that supernatural events
occurred. Or that people interpreted natural events as miracles.
> 3.) Therefore, this history is not historical.
>
How can history not be historical?
> 4.) Because...see #1
>
You addressed philosophy above, and that is not the issue under
discussion here, now, is it? The issue is history, and not philosophy.
Nor
historiography. This is properly a question of historical method, not
historiography, and historical method has its own rules. May I suggest
you read the first couple books of "Ab Urbe Condita" and Machiavelli's
"Discoursi"? And one, any, or even better, all of the primers on
historical method by the authors I listed above?
> >
> > > So, Crossan merely argues (falsely) against what is, in any case,
> > > unnecessary to the acceptance of the gospel speeches of Jesus as
> > accurate,
> > > unless one starts the argument with a presuppositional bias
against
> > the
> > > supernatural, when there is no sound philosophical argument or
> > empirical
> > > evidence to support such a presupposition as anything BUT personal
> > bias.
> > > This means his argument proceeds FROM bias, and is false even if
it
> > didn't!
> > > I can't think of a weaker kind of argument in support of an
opinion.
> > >
> > Where exactly does Crossan argue this?
>
> You're confused. Ask Dirk.
>
No, not at all confused. My question is for anyone.
> >
> > One always begins each and every philosophical, historical, and
> > scientific debate with not only a "presuppositional bias" but an
extreme
> > prejudice against the supernatural.
>
> Listen, I don't know who you think you are, but you're speaking here
as
> though you were some kind of authority on what is and is not "allowed"
in
> rational human thought. Pretty arrogant, even if you were right about
how
> to handle the supernatural in history!
>
Did I mention "rational human thought"? Where?
Whatever makes you happy, you should believe. If, however, you believe
that scientific or historical method allows for supernatural evidence,
may I suggest a nice course in the history and philosophy of science and
another in historical method at the accredited college of your choice?
> But you're not right, at least not if finding objective truth (i.e.,
> reality) is the goal. Of course, I suppose one could classify a
desire for
> truth as a "presuppositional bias" toward the idea that objective "tru
th"
> exists, but call me naive...I still think that most people believe it
does.
>
If you study history, especially the method of history, you will find
that "objective truth" is not much used, especially in ancient history.
What "most people believe" is not a reliable indicator of "objective
truth," is it?
> And I KNOW there's no logical argument that demonstrates it doesn't!
You do, huh? How certain are you of that bit of your knowledge?
> <snip rest of a truly remarkable diatribe>
>
> > > > #2 Ancient literature is full of "quoted" speeches that everyone
> > knows
> > > > were created from thin air by the authors. That's how they did
it
> > > > back then. Why do you imagine the gospelers were any different?
> > >
> > > I don't imagine they were, but your implication that ancient
> > historians
> > > weren't concerned about accuracy in recorded speeches and events
is
> > pure
> > > fantasy:
> > >
> > If I quote one ancient historian will you withdraw your contention
> > above? Or will it take two? Three perhaps?
>
By the way, I quoted Thucydides elsewhere in this post. His words
contradict your position.
> You can whistle "Dixie" while your head spins around while you try it
if you
> like. Or you could simply have read the several quotations I provided
below
> demonstrating why I will never have to withdraw my contention that
Dirk's
> characterization of the attitude of ancient historians toward accuracy
in
> reproducing speeches is pure tripe.
>
Perhaps so, but my whistling and spinning on my head will neither prove
nor disprove the issue in question. I did read your quotations. They
do not say what you believe they do. Nevertheless, if anyone cites a
single source contradicting your assertion,
your assertion is, in fact, falsified. In fact, I quote Thucydides
himself concerning the accuracy of the speeches he puts in the mouths of
his characters. Strange, but you didn't bother to quote that. One
cannot help but wonder why . . .
>
> > > "At this point I find myself compelled to express an opinion which
I
> > know
> > > most people will object to; nevertheless, as I believe it is true,
I
> > will
> > > not suppress it" (Herodotus - "The Histories" 7:138-139)
> > >
> > > "The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract
somewhat
> > from
> > > its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who
desire
> > an
> > > exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the
> > future,
> > > which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not
> > reflect it,
> > > I shall be content" (Thucydides - "The Peloponnesian Wars" 1.22)
> > >
Have you ever read Thucydides? Or are you quoting from some Christian
apologist web site? How do you explain the Melian Dialogue in the
context of the statement you reproduced above? How, then, do you
explain the following lines: "In this history I have made use of set
speeches some of which were delivered just before and others during the
war. I have found it difficult to remember the precise words used in
the speeches which I listened to myself and my various informants have
experienced the same difficulty; so my method has been , while keeping
as closely as possible to the general sense of the words that were
actually used, to make the speakers say what, in my opinion, was called
for by each situation." (Thucydides, "Peloponnisian War," I:22, trans.
Rex Warner, Penguin edition, 1954, p. 47.) By the way, the lines I
quote above are the beginning of the section you quote. How could you
not know that? How can you make the claim you make in view of these
words by Thucydides? Yet you call me dishonest . . .
> > > "We consider most trustworthy those who give most detail about
> > contemporary
> > > events. But we believe that those who write in this fashion about
> > ancient
> > > events are completely unpersuasive. We postulate that it is not
> > probable
> > > that all of the deeds or the greater part of the speeches were
kept in
> > > [exact] memory for so great a span of time" (Ephorous)
Got a more complete citation for this? You wouldn't want us to believe
you made it up, do you?
> > >
> > > "Who does not know history's first law to be that an author must
not
> > dare to
> > > tell anything but the truth? And the second that he must make bold
to
> > tell
> > > the whole truth?" (Cicero - De oratore 2.15.62)
Cicero was not an historian. "Concerning Rhetoric" is not a history. I
kind of thought "de Oratore" was mostly a ficticious argument between
two characters ( probably historical) named Antonius and Crassus
debating the perfect form of rhetoric. Where did you get the diea that
Cicero was an historian? Am I wrong? Have you ever actually read
Cicero? What do you think of his use and placement of verbs? I find
Cicero most difficult to read, how about you?
> > >
> > > To summarize, what does all this evidence imply?
> > >
> > > 1.) It is humanly possible to carry in memory exact speeches of
great
> > > length for an indefinitely long period of time.
> > >
> > > 2.) Contemporary with the Apostolic Era, the authors of
historical
> > > narratives were VERY concerned with the accurate reproduction of
> > speeches
> > > wherever possible, and actually criticized each other on this
point as
> > it
> > > was adhered to in practice to a greater of lesser extent.
> > >
> > None of those you cite above were contemporary with the "Apostolic
era"
> > by which I presume you to mean the time when the apostles lived and
> > worked.
>
> That's not true (Cicero, and Strabo, whom I DIDN'T mention), and
irrelevant
> in any case.
No need to mention Strabo. I have read him. Including his comments
concerning the preference of Alexander's historians for the "marvelous
over the true." But then Strabo was a geographer, not a historian,
wasn't he? What are Strabo the Geographer's dates? I kind of thought
they were something like born 64 or 63 B.C. and died about 23 A.D. How
does that make him contemporary with the Apostolic era? Stretching a
bit to try to make a point, are you not?
Cicero's dates are 106 to 43 B.C.. How the hell does that make him
contemporary to the "Apostlic" era?
> If there is good evidence that accuracy in recorded
speeches
> was a principle of ancient historiography beginning ca. 460 AD, and
this
> evidence is continuous (but not contiguous) up to and beyond the
"apostolic
> era", AND there is no sound historical evidence that this
historiographical
> principle had been abandoned by this time, or ANY time, where is the
> relevance in your observation even if it were accurate....which it
isn't?!
>
You keep making these sweeping generalizations. What prinicple began in
460 A.D.? And what has that to do with Cicero? Or the authors of the
New Testament Canon? Cicero had been dead for nearly 500 years and the
canon had been complete for 100 or so. Do you mean 460 B.C.? Do you
actually contend that Thucydides began such a practice and it continued
uninterrupted throughout antiquity until the close of the Apostolic age?
When do you think Cicero lived and died? Hint: He died during the
Civil Wars. His head and hands were nailed to a board as a display in
the Forum.
Are you familiar with the manuscript record of any ancient texts other
than the New Testament? Silly question, obviously not. The
non-Christian texts vary wildly, including the speeches. The Homeric
epics and theatrical works were oral literature. So were speeches.
Look at the differences in Cicero's speeches, or even the histories of
Eusebius.
> >
> > > The fact that one can point to examples in ancient histories of
> > obviously
> > > made up speeches (perhaps due to the fact the speech recorded was
> > spoken too
> > > far beyond living memory) is no evidence against the fact that a
> > > contemporary of the speech maker was able to reproduce the speech
> > > accurately, and we have clear evidence that such accuracy was the
> > general
> > > aim of any historian in the 1st century AD.
Can you provide some bibliographic citations of the works containing
this "clear evidence that such accuracy was the general aim of any
historian in the 1st century AD" we supposedly have? Thank you.
No, the historians already knew this. Can you kindly describe
circumstances wherein "empirical data" leads to historical theory? How
can you prove or disprove that Polybius lived and wrote? How do you
analyze that in a laboratory? Examine it through a microscope? A
telescope? Jam it into a gas chromatograph?
> The
> archeologists
> and papyrologists will be glad to hear they're now not even
supplemental to
> the process.
>
Archaeologists and papyrologists are not historians. You do not seem to
understand the division of skills and labor. Besides, all papyrology
can do is provide parameters of possibility, and the same is true of
mass radio spectometry. The totality of circumstances and all
contributing factors from every source lead to tenable historical
theory. And the best current theory is only the
best until new evidence is found or the old evidence is reinterpreted.
There is very little objective, final truth in ancient history. And
that is most disturbing to evangelical, literal Bible, Christians who
depend on history as a source and confirmation of their faith. While
the religious faith and the God of that faith may be unchangable and
eternal, history is assuredly not. And I think the trust in an
unchangable, eternal history upon which faith is based is folly. But
you should believe whatever makes you happy. But if you are going to
try to justify and prove your faith using history, you probably ought to
learn a bit -- no, a lot -- more about history.
> And just out of curiosity, how do you get from my use of "empirical
data" in
> relation to Crossan's speculation that memorizing large blocks of
verbiage
> for
> long periods of time is impossible, to the "scientific method"? On
your
> planet is the scientific method the only thing that results in
empirical
> data?
How do you define "empirical data"? How do you define scientific
method?
> Eyes, ears, and noses don't count?
>
Can you see quarks? Smell gravity? Can you now hear the Roman Legions
marching through the Tutewald?
> >
> > > You mentioned that "everyone is aware" that the ancient historians
> > made up
> > > speeches "out of thin air"? Well that's exactly where the
"evidence"
> > comes
> > > from against the above conclusion.
> > >
> > I doubt "everyone is aware" of much of anything at all concerning
> > ancient history, at least among Americans.
>
> Another demonstration of a personal "presupposition", or do you have
some
> evidence for this observation?
>
Well, you could telephone the nearest college and ask a few members of
the history faculty. Or you could go get a grad degree and teach it for
a term or two. Or you could read the of the compilations of real
answers from university history examinations sloshing about the internet
or pick up a copy of "Non Compos Mentis." Many participants in usenet
know not much of anything concerning history, as is screamingly obvious
from the weird Christian notion that the entire Bible is literal history
and the equally absurd conclusion by certain atheist correspondants that
no historical Jesus ever existed and the Bible contains no history.
Both are extremist and ahistorical positions, and neither is
demonstrable using historical method. You yourself consistently and
incorrectly use the word historiography when you are attempting to
describe historical method. And that, Sir, is a fundamental error by
someone attempting to argue a subject as complex as culture during
classical antiquity in the Mediterranean basin. Louis Gottschalk's
"Understanding History" has a rather good essay on the differences,
which are significant.
> History went through many
> > changes during classical antiquity, and each had different reasons
for
> > recording and summarizing the past, among these to show the noble
> > character of one's people, to provide parameters of moral action for
> > future generations, to preserve the glory of one's ancestors, among
just
> > a few. And words were indeed placed in the mouths of heroes by
> > historians that the historians had no way of knowing the subject
spoke.
>
> So much for the lecture on the obvious, and irrelevant.
Actually, it is exactly on point. And your reaction is yet another
proof of my assertion above that you have obviously never studied
history at any advanced level, and particularly the history of classical
antiquity. Greek and Roman historians were usually quite direct in
their purpose statements, albeit they sometimes buried them in the work
somewhere other thn the beginning. Gosh, look where Polybius placed his
speeches on Fortune. Do you really believe Livy actually had records or
a perfect oral tradition of the words he put in the mouths of the consul
Quinctius purportedly spoken in 446 B.C.? If historians were so honest
and never put words in the mouths of the men of which they wrote, why
did Livy place this in the first lines of his history? "I am aware that
for historians to make extravagant claims is, and always has been, all
too common: every writer on history tends to look down his nose at his
less cultivated predecessors . . ." Do you really believe that
Thucydides' claim to lack "romance" in his history caused some permanent
change or set some type of precedent? If so, what do you make of
Xenophon's history of a generation later? How about "Sicelica" and
"Olympianicae" of Timeus of Tauromenium somewhat later? Do the accounts
of Callisthenes of Olynth contain only unvernished truth, or did he
depict Alexander as the heroic figure, favored by the gods? Did not
Strabo criticize the historians of Alexander as those who "preferred to
accept the marvelous rather than the true."
> The point is that
> historians contemporary with the apostolic period held to the
principle (not
> always the practice!) of accuracy. The idea here is that there was no
sense
> in which it was "okay" just to make up speeches and put them in the
mouths
> of your historical characters if there was any possible way to avoid
doing
> so, and even if there was not, that there were limits to what a
historian
> could "make up". It had to suit the general known character of the
figure
> making the speech, the situation in which the speech was made, and
conform
> as closely as possible to what was "likely" for the recorded occasion.
>
Prove your point. Cite specific cases in specific histories by specific
historians. Sweeping generalizations are
not evidence.
By the way, Cicero was neither an historian nor was he contemporary with
the apostolic era. He lived and died before Jesus was born. Before
Augustus defeated Anthony. Do you have him confused with Suetonius or
Tactius? Even Livy lived into the reign of Augustus past the birth of
Jesus.
More sweeping generalizations. No proof. What sources can you produce
in support of your assumptions concerning first century sources? Can
you name the authors of the books and journal articles responsible for
this "modern scholarship" you refer to? How about three bibliographic
citations of books supporting your assertion concerning modern
historians and the historiocity of the gospels, can you provide them?
Get specific. That is the way history is supposed to be argued. Go
find and any book by Marc Bloch or Fernand Braudel and read it. That
book is the way history is properly done. My personal opinion, informed
by a couple years of study at the graduate level including translating
the entire gospel from various Greek manuscripts, is that the gospel of
John contains very little information that is reliable history. And I
had to articulate my reasons in a couple major seminar papers. But then
John's gospel was not written as narrative history, was it? Nor were
Luke, Matthew, or Mark.
> Chuck Stamford
>
>
>
Roger Pearse
doubtless full of good things, but pardon me if I skip almost all of
it.
In general, I don't see the problem with treating the gospels as a
good historical account (in the eyes of their writers) of what went
on. That they would be different if written by a Victorian is obvious.
That they would be different again if written by a dull graduate of
some minor US university is likewise obvious. That they would be yet
different further if written in 2088 by a product of a
yet-to-be-invented school of historiography is doubtless true also. I
confess I was quite unsure why we should care about such things,
unless we hold the anachronistic view that only the events of today
can really be known. This point, made repeatedly, seems to be the
heat and burden of this email.
" Didymos" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<41008...@127.0.0.1>...
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:dLoLc.27791$9I.12922@okepread02...
> The historical sources for Napoleon are more reliable. There are far
> more contemporaneous, eyewitness accounts; there are documents in the
> hand of Napoleon, his corpse is in a known place, certain artifacts
> known to have been in his possession are extant, and the list goes on.
Of course, but this seems to me chalk and cheese.
> All that survives of Jesus are secondary acccounts compiled from sayings
> sources and deeds recalled some years after his death.
If you say so, but I wonder which ancient writers say this. Those
known to me say otherwise. That writers reused each other is
interesting, but doesn't seem to require the theory offered.
> > > > > What is your evidence for this claim?
> > > >
> > > > The Gospel narratives exist.
> > >
> > > So do Aesop's Fables. And the "Iliad." And the "Odyssey." And the
> > > "Metamorphoses." And the Homeric "Hymns." And the tragedies of
> > > Euripides. And the Gilgamesh epic. And Bugs Bunny cartoons. Does
> that
> > > mean that because these works exist that they are history?
> >
> > Have the courtesy to let a person finish what they have to say before
> > interrupting, if you don't mind.
> >
> Pardon me. But you still failed to reply to the question. I will try
> again: Does the mere existence of a work make it history?
I don't think chopping logic on whether a work is, or is not, called
'history' adds much to the sum of human knowledge. The list of
literary fiction doesn't seem to me to be relevant.
> I prefer primary sources. So do historians. Burridge is a modern
> compiler and commentator, is he not? I prefer to deal with primary
> sources until they are exhausted. What did the historians and
> biographers of classical antiquity have to say about the art they
> practiced?
An interesting question. The answer is...?
> They are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. Why
> not quote them? As opposed to, say, modern reconstructions?
Agree entirely.
You don't give your evidence for the statements you make about Roman
taxation in Judaea, and prescriptive arguments of that sort make me
wary. I do not think that an inference of the sort given can well be
used to dismiss the plain statement of a text written within living
memory of the events.
> The appropriate comparison for Jesus is another man from the lower
> social and economic classes in the Hellenic part of the Roman Empire
> during the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Then, and only then, does one
> compare like subjects.
I agree.
[...]
> None of those I have read
> or could identify through searching the internet are liberal.
So there is some chance of them being objective, then. :-)
> I will save you the trouble. It is because these five men ( Bauckham,
> Black, Fiensy, Mills, & Robinson, whose vitae are difficult to find) and
> the "Believer's Study Bible" are virtually the only "scholars" who
> believe 2 Peter can be dated to the first century.
All this seems to be a long argument from authority of people working
in a revisionist discipline. Pardon me, but I really don't care for
this approach at all. I'm aware that for a century NT scholars have
attempted to date the NT as late as possible, and apocrypha as early
as possible. This had the absurd consequence that they dated John to
170, in the absence of the slightest evidence. That they had done
this was shown by the papyrus P52 which proved it had to be much
earlier.
I know of no evidence requiring a second century date for any item in
the NT, including 2 Peter.
> By the way, what did Kurt Aland have to say about the dates of the
> catholic epistles? Or aren't his credentials sufficient? How about
> Philip Comfort? Bob Funk? Tom Wright? J.D. Crossan? Burton Mack?
Burton Mack??? Isn't this guy a crank? Robert X. Funk, the Jesus
Seminar guy???
> Richmond Lattimore? How about Michael Grant?
Grant is really a classical populariser, surely?
> The middle of the second century is a very solid date for most of the
> New Testament books
????? Where did you get this from?
> because there is reasonable manuscript evidence and
> secondary sources that make that date highly probable. P. 52, P. 104,
> and Egerton are reasonably conclusive sources that back the date of John
> and Matthew back to 100 or perhaps a few years earlier, and Egerton is
> reasonable proof that narratives of the words and deeds of Jesus were
> written down before the end of the first century.
This is right. But we must be wary of the tendency in older NT
studies to date as late as possible. P52 showed this must be wrong.
Our Mss are not likely to be the originals or close to them, and so
time to copy and spread must be allowed. Dating from first Ms witness
or first reference doesn't work, as a rule, anyway. Usually these are
much later than composition of any ancient work.
> But P 104 only proves that a manuscript of Matthew's gospel was present
> at Oxyrhynchus late in the first century. The Egerton manuscript proves
> only that a narrative of the words and deeds of Jesus had been written
> before the close of the first century and this narrative was not
> included in the canon some 250 years later. P. 52 proves only that
> John's gospel had been written and was in the Fayum before the close of
> the first century. None of these early manuscripts demonstrate anything
> about the New Testament as a whole, or any part of the New Testament
> other than Matthew and John.
True, but unless we suppose Paul's letters written after the gospels,
or Luke-Acts after John, these data do tell us certain things about
the rest of the NT.
> > You have simply snipped out the reference to the website I provided in
> > my earlier post below, which clearly shows the many biblical scholars of
> > all different "stripes" agreeing that all the books of the NT were
> > complete before the close of the 1st cent.
> >
> Fine, here is the url: http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm.
Actually I believe that this point -- that the majority of the books
of the NT must be dated to the first century -- is more or less the
consensus of NT scholars at the moment. It followed the embarassment
of P52. But of course I could be wrong. If I had more time I might
read Metzger and see.
> I am much less interested in what "Bible scholars" say than what
> classicists, historians, and archaeologists have to say.
Me too!
> And I am far less interested with
> what
> the historians, classicists, and archaeologists say than what the
> evidence itself says to me.
Very much so. Fashions come and go.
> May I suggest that the preferred method of demonstrating the fallacy of
> Wells' position is to produce the manuscripts of the New Testament
> securely dated to 250 A.D. or before.
Argh! NO! Such an argument would compel us to date Velleius
Paterculus to the 16th century....
> That means you are stuck with sources other than manuscript to
> demonstrate the proof of your proposition that the New Testament was
> complete by the end of the first century. That seems to have limited
> your sources. A lot. Like to the very early Apostolic Fathers. Does
> Clement specifically mention 1 & 2 Timothy, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude, or 1, 2,
> or 3 John? How about Ignatius? Polycarp? Can you even show show
> anyone else specifically mentioning these epistles before 250?
> Tertullian perhaps?
Tertullian mentions or cites every book of the NT (and invents the
word) apart from 2 and 3 John.
Hermias is not mentioned in any surviving writer of antiquity, so I
think the method dubious.
Pardon me, but I'm out of time here.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse
> "Chuck Stamford" <shell-s...@cox.net> wrote in message
Bother! Forgot something.
Somewhere in all of this, someone asked how we know that ancient
multi-volume historians like Livy etc composed the speeches of their
generals. I happen to know this one: Pompeius Trogus says so. His
work is lost, but the epitome of Justinus survives. Trogus thought
Livy took the convention to absurd lengths.
Justinus online at <http://www.tertullian.org/fathers> at the bottom.
Pardon me if I don't recall precisely where.
It would be very hard to imagine the gospels doing the same, of
course.
Didymos
"Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.04072...@posting.google.com...
Thanks
Didymos
of Jesus . . . You have devoted years to the topic generally and to
Tertullian in particular.
My assertion above is merely a statement of the current state of the
evidence. And that evidence is more than sufficient to demonstrate
within reasonable parameters the fact that there was an historical
Jesus.
> > > > > > What is your evidence for this claim?
> > > > >
> > > > > The Gospel narratives exist.
> > > >
> > > > So do Aesop's Fables. And the "Iliad." And the "Odyssey." And
the
> > > > "Metamorphoses." And the Homeric "Hymns." And the tragedies of
> > > > Euripides. And the Gilgamesh epic. And Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Does
> > that
> > > > mean that because these works exist that they are history?
> > >
> > > Have the courtesy to let a person finish what they have to say
before
> > > interrupting, if you don't mind.
> > >
> > Pardon me. But you still failed to reply to the question. I will
try
> > again: Does the mere existence of a work make it history?
>
> I don't think chopping logic on whether a work is, or is not, called
> 'history' adds much to the sum of human knowledge. The list of
> literary fiction doesn't seem to me to be relevant.
>
I agree. I did not make the assertion that the mere existence of a text
makes it true or historical. Mr Stamford did.
> > I prefer primary sources. So do historians. Burridge is a modern
> > compiler and commentator, is he not? I prefer to deal with primary
> > sources until they are exhausted. What did the historians and
> > biographers of classical antiquity have to say about the art they
> > practiced?
>
> An interesting question. The answer is...?
>
That, as I believe you are aware, depends upon the particular time and
historian under consideration. Polybius wrote: " . . . the study of
history is at once an education in the truest sense and a training for a
political career, and that the most infallible, indeed the only method
of learning to bear with dignity the vicissitudes of Fortune is to be
reminded of the disasters suffered by others." Livy aimed to put on
record " . . . the story of the greatest nation in the world." Tacitus
believed: "the regins of Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, and Nero were
described during their lifetimes in ficticious terms, for fear of the
consequences; whereas the accounts written after their deaths were
influenced by still raging animosities. . . I shall write without
indignation or partisanship: in my case the customary incentives to
these are lacking." Herodotus set his objective as: " . . . his
"Researches" are here set down to preserve the memory of the past by
putting on record the astonishing achievements both of our own and of
other peoples; and more particuarly, to show how these came into
conflict." Thucydides averred he was motivated thus: " . . .
[Thucydides] wrote the history of the war fought between Athens and
Sparta . . . in the belief that is was going to be a great war and more
worth writing about than any of those which had taken place in the
past." Josephus ("Wars of theJews") claims to write because: "while
some who were not concerned in the affairs themselves, have got together
vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down is
after a sophistical manner, and while those who were present have given
false account of things . . .but nowhere the accurate truth of the
facts. . . . but I will prosecute the actions of both parties with
accuracy." ("Wars": 1: 2,3,9) Josephus also later states his intention
was " . . . to deter others who may be tempted to revolt." ("Wars": 3.
108) Luke asserts his purpose as: "Since so many have undertaken to
compile an orderly narrative of the events that have run ther course
among us, just as the original eyewitnesses and ministers of the world
transmitted them to us, it seemed good that I, too, after thoroughly
researching everything from the beginning, should set them
systematically in writing for you, Theophilus . . ." Eusebius of
Caesarea wrote: "I have proposed to record in writing the successions
of the sacred apostles, covering the period stretching from our Saviour
to ourselves . . . We have therefore collected from their scattered
memoirs all that we think will be useful for the present subject, and
have brought together the utterances of the ancient writers themselves
that are appropriate to it, culling, as it were, the flowers of the
intellectual fields. We shall endeavour to give them unity by
historical treatment . . ."
There was never a unified and structured discipline of historiography or
historical method in the ancient world, despite the assertions of Mr
Stamford, and that is the point.
We disagree. Herre is part of the evidence, some affirmative and some
negative. Rather detailed records of census and taxation were unearthed
at Oxyrhynchus. The records there, although spotty, cover about 700
years. There is no mention of any type of process described by Luke in
those primary sources. The census and taxation procedures discoverable
in the Oxyrhynchus papyri do demonstrate that censuses were taken in
place. Taxation occurred in place.
There were large numbers of foreigners in Rome from the 1 century B.C.
until after the fall of the Empire. There is no record of these people
being sent to their place of birth, much less their fathers' places of
birth for taxation of census.
Tacitus reports that the governor of Syria in after the death of Herod
the Great was Quin[c]tilius Varus. ("Histories:" 5: 9-10) Tactitus
and Luke were roughly contemporary, albeit Tacitus was a bit younger,
but neither were alive at the turn of the century. Luke claims the
governor was "Quirinius." Tacitus claims the governor of Syria was
Quintilius Varus. Both cannot be correct.
Josephus names Varus as the governor of Syria. He names "Cyrenius, a
Roman Senator . . . came at this time into Syria, with a few others,
being sent by Caesar to be a juge of that nation, and to take account of
their substance." ("Antiquities" 18:1) After the banishment of
Archelaus, and that is the key. Herod was dead when this "account of
their substance" took place.
Josephus also wrote in "The Wars of the Jews: (2:2-5) that Varus,
governor of Syria, put down the Judean revolt while Archalaus was in
Rome following the death of Herod.
I do not believe Luke was an eyewitness, but rather he was recording
what others told him, as he said in the first chapter of his gospel.
And I think the memories were corrupted by time, and someone or a few
someones misremembered who took the census for tax purposes after the
revolt early in the first century, and also confused who was governer of
Syria exactly when. The preponderance of the evidence is that at no
time was Augustus emperor, Herod King, and Quirinius or Cyrenius
senatorial or consular class governor of Syria simultaneously.
> > The appropriate comparison for Jesus is another man from the lower
> > social and economic classes in the Hellenic part of the Roman Empire
> > during the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Then, and only then, does one
> > compare like subjects.
>
> I agree.
>
> [...]
>
> > None of those I have read
> > or could identify through searching the internet are liberal.
>
> So there is some chance of them being objective, then. :-)
>
> > I will save you the trouble. It is because these five men (
Bauckham,
> > Black, Fiensy, Mills, & Robinson, whose vitae are difficult to find)
and
> > the "Believer's Study Bible" are virtually the only "scholars" who
> > believe 2 Peter can be dated to the first century.
>
> All this seems to be a long argument from authority of people working
> in a revisionist discipline. Pardon me, but I really don't care for
> this approach at all. I'm aware that for a century NT scholars have
> attempted to date the NT as late as possible, and apocrypha as early
> as possible. This had the absurd consequence that they dated John to
> 170, in the absence of the slightest evidence. That they had done
> this was shown by the papyrus P52 which proved it had to be much
> earlier.
I think that trend has reversed, a process begun by the dating of P. 52,
and extended back in time by the publication of the evidence of the
Egerton gospel and P. 104. Are you familiar with the work of Phillip
Comfort?
One of the great benefits of the Oxyrhynchus papyri is the progession of
writing styles and the materials throughout the Roman period evident in
the large number of exemplars. Many largely theoretical
reconstructions and conjectures of the past can now be confirmed or
discarded. These include backing up the dates of certain Christian
manuscripts, such as P. 66 and P. 46.
>
> I know of no evidence requiring a second century date for any item in
> the NT, including 2 Peter.
>
Neither do I. I merely point up the paucity, or even total lack, of
evidence for a first century date.
> > By the way, what did Kurt Aland have to say about the dates of the
> > catholic epistles? Or aren't his credentials sufficient? How about
> > Philip Comfort? Bob Funk? Tom Wright? J.D. Crossan? Burton Mack?
>
> Burton Mack??? Isn't this guy a crank?
Why do you say that? I think his work on the common, non-Markan sources
for Matthew and Luke is solid. His conclusion that no historical Jesus
lived is a bit over the top, but then Albert Schweitzer came to the same
conclusion.
> Robert X. Funk, the Jesus
> Seminar guy???
>
Robert W. Funk, actually. Yes, the co-chair of the Jesus Seminar. Ever
read any of his books?
> > Richmond Lattimore? How about Michael Grant?
>
> Grant is really a classical populariser, surely?
>
Of course he is. Aren't you glad of it? If it were not for the
popularizers such as Grant, who would know anything about the ancient
world? How many people have the academic preparation and patience to
grasp even the fundamentals of such a highly nuanced field such as
history of classical antiquity? One needs only a cursory inspection of
the idiocy bandied about on usenet that passes for history. In this
very thread we have people referring to "historical fact" and "objective
historical truth" concerning ancient history. Geez . . .
Are you aware of gross historiographical errors in Grant's work?
I mentioned him because his work is readily available and quite
accessible, and his bibliographies are thorough.. I can quote the big
guns and mighty famous bigshots in ancient history, but only those with
access to very, very large public libraries or academic libraries could
readily access these works.
> > The middle of the second century is a very solid date for most of
the
> > New Testament books
>
> ????? Where did you get this from?
>
My study of the manuscripts and the secondary sources. That date is
nearly impossible to falsify. It is the latest possible date, almost
assuredly too late by a century or so. However, the assertion: "Every
book now contained in the New Testament in the 21st century had been
composed before 250 A.D." is so highly probable that any dispute is
implausible -- laughably so.
Personally, I believe that the latest plausible date for the completion
of every book of the New Testament is 150 A.D. based upon the extant
evidence. My presonal estimation is that that date will be moved back
in time as the manuscript record is added to or better dating methods
are developed.
> > because there is reasonable manuscript evidence and
> > secondary sources that make that date highly probable. P. 52, P.
104,
> > and Egerton are reasonably conclusive sources that back the date of
John
> > and Matthew back to 100 or perhaps a few years earlier, and Egerton
is
> > reasonable proof that narratives of the words and deeds of Jesus
were
> > written down before the end of the first century.
>
> This is right. But we must be wary of the tendency in older NT
> studies to date as late as possible. P52 showed this must be wrong.
> Our Mss are not likely to be the originals or close to them, and so
> time to copy and spread must be allowed. Dating from first Ms witness
> or first reference doesn't work, as a rule, anyway. Usually these are
> much later than composition of any ancient work.
>
I honestly believe that trend has reversed, especially in the last 20
years or so. I agree that the date of composition is always well before
the earliest date of the oldest manuscript. There is more than ample
evidence of that in the non-Christian manuscript record.
> > But P 104 only proves that a manuscript of Matthew's gospel was
present
> > at Oxyrhynchus late in the first century. The Egerton manuscript
proves
> > only that a narrative of the words and deeds of Jesus had been
written
> > before the close of the first century and this narrative was not
> > included in the canon some 250 years later. P. 52 proves only that
> > John's gospel had been written and was in the Fayum before the close
of
> > the first century. None of these early manuscripts demonstrate
anything
> > about the New Testament as a whole, or any part of the New Testament
> > other than Matthew and John.
>
> True, but unless we suppose Paul's letters written after the gospels,
> or Luke-Acts after John, these data do tell us certain things about
> the rest of the NT.
>
Yes, they certainly do. I am leary of discussing literary criticism
here because it is a field of endeavour that is highly nuanced and the
conclusions are not hard and fast eternal, objective "truths." On the
one hand, the rabid atheists interrupt with their ceaseless nattering
for "scientific evidence" and "empirical data" (in ancient history and
literary criticism, no less . . . geez, did they not pay any attention
in their secondary school literature and history classes?) and the
fanatical Christians attack me for my alleged blasphemy and cheerfully
consign me to their eternal lake of fire.
> > > You have simply snipped out the reference to the website I
provided in
> > > my earlier post below, which clearly shows the many biblical
scholars of
> > > all different "stripes" agreeing that all the books of the NT were
> > > complete before the close of the 1st cent.
> > >
> > Fine, here is the url:
http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm.
>
> Actually I believe that this point -- that the majority of the books
> of the NT must be dated to the first century -- is more or less the
> consensus of NT scholars at the moment. It followed the embarassment
> of P52. But of course I could be wrong. If I had more time I might
> read Metzger and see.
>
Kurt Aland, I think, is a bit more lucid than Metzger. And Phillip
Comfort is even better. But those are just my opinions. After some
years studying this, my personal opinion just now is that the gospels,
Acts, the Pauline corpus, and James are solidly first century. The
other epistles and the Apocolypse may -- may -- belong to the first half
of the second century. But the Apocolypse may be exceedingly early in
the 2nd century.
> > I am much less interested in what "Bible scholars" say than what
> > classicists, historians, and archaeologists have to say.
>
> Me too!
>
> > And I am far less interested with
> > what
> > the historians, classicists, and archaeologists say than what the
> > evidence itself says to me.
>
> Very much so. Fashions come and go.
>
So they do . . .
> > May I suggest that the preferred method of demonstrating the fallacy
of
> > Wells' position is to produce the manuscripts of the New Testament
> > securely dated to 250 A.D. or before.
>
> Argh! NO! Such an argument would compel us to date Velleius
> Paterculus to the 16th century....
>
Yes, I know. And Tactitus to the 9th and so on. I said the preferred
method, not the sole method. Wasn't P. 52 the perfect rebuttal to the
notion that John's gospel could not possibly have been composed until
150? Isn't P-98 the perfect rebuke to those proclaiming the odd notion
that Revelation could not possibly have been composed until late in the
2nd or early 3rd centuries?
> > That means you are stuck with sources other than manuscript to
> > demonstrate the proof of your proposition that the New Testament was
> > complete by the end of the first century. That seems to have
limited
> > your sources. A lot. Like to the very early Apostolic Fathers.
Does
> > Clement specifically mention 1 & 2 Timothy, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude, or 1,
2,
> > or 3 John? How about Ignatius? Polycarp? Can you even show show
> > anyone else specifically mentioning these epistles before 250?
> > Tertullian perhaps?
>
> Tertullian mentions or cites every book of the NT (and invents the
> word) apart from 2 and 3 John.
>
And that is confirmation that every book in the New Testament except 2
and 3 John had been written and were in circulation by 200 A.D. at the
latest.
> Hermias is not mentioned in any surviving writer of antiquity, so I
> think the method dubious.
>
How about as merely one method of constructing the best possible
historical theory based upon the totality of circumstances and all
evidence from every source?
> Pardon me, but I'm out of time here.
>
Thanks for the time.
Roger Pearse
> "Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3a88eeea.04072...@posting.google.com...
A very interesting collection of testimonia -- thank you. From where
did you get it?
One day I must read Quintilian on ancient rhetoric. I have an idea
that it will be full of good stuff on the *genre* of much ancient
writing.
> There was never a unified and structured discipline of historiography or
> historical method in the ancient world
I think I agree. Although schools did exist: think of those Greek
histories in multiples of 10 books.
> > > > First of all, let's correct your rhetoric above concerning
> Quirinius.
> What
> > > > you meant to say, I'm sure, was that he was not governor of Syria
> > > > contemporary with Herod, not that he was not a contemporary of
> Herod.
> He
> > > > was obviously *alive* during the lifetime of Herod.
> > > >
> > > I stand corrected. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was not the governor
> of
> > > Syria during the lifetime of Herod the Great. But the gospel of
> Luke is
> > > still mistaken.
> >
> > You don't give your evidence for the statements you make about Roman
> > taxation in Judaea, and prescriptive arguments of that sort make me
> > wary. I do not think that an inference of the sort given can well be
> > used to dismiss the plain statement of a text written within living
> > memory of the events.
> >
> We disagree. Herre is part of the evidence, some affirmative and some
> negative. Rather detailed records of census and taxation were unearthed
> at Oxyrhynchus.
Interesting indeed these are. But of course one wouldn't use Egypt as
a good thumbnail for what went on in other provinces, considering its
peculiar administration.
> Tacitus reports that the governor of Syria in after the death of Herod
> the Great was Quin[c]tilius Varus. ("Histories:" 5: 9-10) Tactitus
> and Luke were roughly contemporary, albeit Tacitus was a bit younger,
> but neither were alive at the turn of the century. Luke claims the
> governor was "Quirinius." Tacitus claims the governor of Syria was
> Quintilius Varus. Both cannot be correct.
[etc]
Unfortunately our records are quite spotty, and I have been told that
similar arguments were used to show that Gallio could not have been
proconsul of Achaia. However an inscription was then discovered which
showed he had indeed been there.
> I do not believe Luke was an eyewitness, but rather he was recording
> what others told him, as he said in the first chapter of his gospel.
I agree. As Tertullian put it, he was an apostolic man, in contact
with those who were eye-witnesses.
> > > I will save you the trouble. It is because these five men (
> Bauckham,
> > > Black, Fiensy, Mills, & Robinson, whose vitae are difficult to find)
> and
> > > the "Believer's Study Bible" are virtually the only "scholars" who
> > > believe 2 Peter can be dated to the first century.
> >
> > All this seems to be a long argument from authority of people working
> > in a revisionist discipline. Pardon me, but I really don't care for
> > this approach at all. I'm aware that for a century NT scholars have
> > attempted to date the NT as late as possible, and apocrypha as early
> > as possible. This had the absurd consequence that they dated John to
> > 170, in the absence of the slightest evidence. That they had done
> > this was shown by the papyrus P52 which proved it had to be much
> > earlier.
>
> I think that trend has reversed, a process begun by the dating of P. 52,
> and extended back in time by the publication of the evidence of the
> Egerton gospel and P. 104. Are you familiar with the work of Phillip
> Comfort?
I'm afraid not -- who is he?
> > > By the way, what did Kurt Aland have to say about the dates of the
> > > catholic epistles? Or aren't his credentials sufficient? How about
> > > Philip Comfort? Bob Funk? Tom Wright? J.D. Crossan? Burton Mack?
> >
> > Burton Mack??? Isn't this guy a crank?
>
> Why do you say that? I think his work on the common, non-Markan sources
> for Matthew and Luke is solid. His conclusion that no historical Jesus
> lived is a bit over the top, but then Albert Schweitzer came to the same
> conclusion.
I'll have to look again, but I was under the impression he belonged to
the lunatic fringe. I could be wrong...
> > Robert X. Funk, the Jesus
> > Seminar guy???
> >
> Robert W. Funk, actually. Yes, the co-chair of the Jesus Seminar. Ever
> read any of his books?
No, I'm afraid I don't feel the need.
> > > Richmond Lattimore? How about Michael Grant?
> >
> > Grant is really a classical populariser, surely?
> >
> Of course he is. Aren't you glad of it?
Very much so. Indeed I have quite a number of his books, and think
highly of them. My point was merely that he couldn't be counted in
this list, as not part of that discipline.
> > > The middle of the second century is a very solid date for most of
> the
> > > New Testament books
> >
> > ????? Where did you get this from?
> >
> My study of the manuscripts and the secondary sources. That date is
> nearly impossible to falsify. It is the latest possible date, almost
> assuredly too late by a century or so.
I agree with the last sentence, so suspect we are at cross-purposes.
> > This is right. But we must be wary of the tendency in older NT
> > studies to date as late as possible. P52 showed this must be wrong.
> > Our Mss are not likely to be the originals or close to them, and so
> > time to copy and spread must be allowed. Dating from first Ms witness
> > or first reference doesn't work, as a rule, anyway. Usually these are
> > much later than composition of any ancient work.
> >
> I honestly believe that trend has reversed, especially in the last 20
> years or so. I agree that the date of composition is always well before
> the earliest date of the oldest manuscript. There is more than ample
> evidence of that in the non-Christian manuscript record.
I am getting a definite whiff, mostly from the US, of a resumption of
the movement. Didn't Ehrman praise the Tubingen movement?
But I really don't take any notice of NT studies, since I can't read
much from that source without intense irritation at the irrational
presumptions on display. Looking at these from time to time kept me
out of the humanities for years. It was only when I encountered
T.D.Barnes on Tertullian that I realised that it was merely bad
scholarship.
> > True, but unless we suppose Paul's letters written after the gospels,
> > or Luke-Acts after John, these data do tell us certain things about
> > the rest of the NT.
> >
> Yes, they certainly do. I am leary of discussing literary criticism
> here because it is a field of endeavour that is highly nuanced and the
> conclusions are not hard and fast eternal, objective "truths."
Strongly agree.
> > > May I suggest that the preferred method of demonstrating the fallacy
> of
> > > Wells' position is to produce the manuscripts of the New Testament
> > > securely dated to 250 A.D. or before.
> >
> > Argh! NO! Such an argument would compel us to date Velleius
> > Paterculus to the 16th century....
> >
> Yes, I know. And Tactitus to the 9th and so on. I said the preferred
> method, not the sole method. Wasn't P. 52 the perfect rebuttal to the
> notion that John's gospel could not possibly have been composed until
> 150? Isn't P-98 the perfect rebuke to those proclaiming the odd notion
> that Revelation could not possibly have been composed until late in the
> 2nd or early 3rd centuries?
True, but it's only a terminus ante quem.
Time gone again, but thank you for your comments, and particularly the
ancients on history -- most interesting.
ALl the best,
Roger Pearse
Didymos
Polybius, "Rise of the Roman Empire," trans. Ian Scott-Kilvert, Penguin,
1979, p. 41.
> > Livy aimed to put on record " . . . the story of the greatest nation
in the world."
Livy, "Early History of Rome," trans. A. de Selincourt, Penguin, 1960,
p.33.
> > Tacitus
> > believed: "the regins of Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, and Nero were
> > described during their lifetimes in ficticious terms, for fear of
the
> > consequences; whereas the accounts written after their deaths were
> > influenced by still raging animosities. . . I shall write without
> > indignation or partisanship: in my case the customary incentives to
> > these are lacking."
Tacitus, "Annals," rev. ed., trans. Michael Grant, Penguin, 1971, p.
32-33.
> > Herodotus set his objective as: " . . . his
> > "Researches" are here set down to preserve the memory of the past by
> > putting on record the astonishing achievements both of our own and
of
> > other peoples; and more particuarly, to show how these came into
> > conflict."
Herodotus, "Histories," trans. de Selincourt, Penguin, 1965, p. 42
> > Thucydides averred he was motivated thus: " . . .
> > [Thucydides] wrote the history of the war fought between Athens and
> > Sparta . . . in the belief that is was going to be a great war and
more
> > worth writing about than any of those which had taken place in the
> > past."
(Thucydides, "History of the Peloponnesian War," trans. Rex Warner,
Penguin, 1972, p. 35)
> > Josephus ("Wars of theJews") claims to write because: "while
> > some who were not concerned in the affairs themselves, have got
together
> > vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them
down is
> > after a sophistical manner, and while those who were present have
given
> > false account of things . . .but nowhere the accurate truth of the
> > facts. . . . but I will prosecute the actions of both parties with
> > accuracy." ("Wars": 1: 2,3,9) Josephus also later states his
intention
> > was " . . . to deter others who may be tempted to revolt." ("Wars":
3.
> > 108)
Both of the Josephus quotes are from "The Complete Works," trans.
William Whitson, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998.
> > Luke asserts his purpose as: "Since so many have undertaken to
> > compile an orderly narrative of the events that have run ther course
> > among us, just as the original eyewitnesses and ministers of the
world
> > transmitted them to us, it seemed good that I, too, after thoroughly
> > researching everything from the beginning, should set them
> > systematically in writing for you, Theophilus . . ."
> > Eusebius of
> > Caesarea wrote: "I have proposed to record in writing the
successions
> > of the sacred apostles, covering the period stretching from our
Saviour
> > to ourselves . . . We have therefore collected from their scattered
> > memoirs all that we think will be useful for the present subject,
and
> > have brought together the utterances of the ancient writers
themselves
> > that are appropriate to it, culling, as it were, the flowers of the
> > intellectual fields. We shall endeavour to give them unity by
> > historical treatment . . ."
Eusebius, "Ecclesiastical History I," trans. K. Lake, Loeb, 2001, p. 7.
>
> A very interesting collection of testimonia -- thank you. From where
> did you get it?
>
Actually from reading the books, mostly in English translations, but I
have read bits and pieces of all in Greek or Latin at least enough to
discern the style characteristics.
> One day I must read Quintilian on ancient rhetoric. I have an idea
> that it will be full of good stuff on the *genre* of much ancient
> writing.
>
I honestly do not recall ever reading him, with the exception of a
couple extracts from "Ideal Education" in a first or second year
compendium of Latin authors. But I think it interesting that history
seems to be recovering from the 20th century efforts to pigeon hole
history as a "social science" or even more silly, a "science," and
returning to its rightful place among the humanities, or as a
specialised branch of rhetoric, as it was during classical antiquity.
> > There was never a unified and structured discipline of
historiography or
> > historical method in the ancient world
>
> I think I agree. Although schools did exist: think of those Greek
> histories in multiples of 10 books.
>
Yes, assuredly schools existed, but the objective and method varied
widely, I think.
I would suggest that the administration of Judea and Galilee were every
bit as peculiar as that of Egypt. Roman administration, I think, was
flexible as long as the taxes rolled in and the peace was maintained. I
understand there are some tax records from Britain or perhaps Libya . .
. memory just decided to shut down.
> > Tacitus reports that the governor of Syria in after the death of
Herod
> > the Great was Quin[c]tilius Varus. ("Histories:" 5: 9-10)
Tactitus
> > and Luke were roughly contemporary, albeit Tacitus was a bit
younger,
> > but neither were alive at the turn of the century. Luke claims
the
> > governor was "Quirinius." Tacitus claims the governor of Syria was
> > Quintilius Varus. Both cannot be correct.
> [etc]
>
> Unfortunately our records are quite spotty, and I have been told that
> similar arguments were used to show that Gallio could not have been
> proconsul of Achaia. However an inscription was then discovered which
> showed he had indeed been there.
>
Yes, of course, nearly every "fact" concerning the ancient world is
dependent on the next manuscript or artifact discovery.
> > I do not believe Luke was an eyewitness, but rather he was recording
> > what others told him, as he said in the first chapter of his gospel.
>
> I agree. As Tertullian put it, he was an apostolic man, in contact
> with those who were eye-witnesses.
>
I fail to see why that is so much of an issue. Surely Luke is no
further separated from Jesus than anyone from their grandparents. Is
the memory of anyone's grandparents so suspect that it has no historical
value? Most historians are not contemporary to their subject, and
Polybius wrote an interesting critique concerning the vagaries and
shallowness of eyewitness accounts. I equate the problem to a soldier
in combat. He is an expert concerning the events in his hole or his
vehicle, but very nearly absolutely ignorant of events beyond rifle and
grenade range. The adage concerning knowing more and more about less
and less comes to mind.
He holds a Ph.D. from Fairfax University and D.Ltt. et Phil. from the
University of South Africa, and is professor of Greek and New Testament
at Trinity Episopal Seminary. He has done some rather interestng work
with the early papyri. He has written a slew of books and has been
editor for a newish Greek/English interlinear New Testament.
> > > > By the way, what did Kurt Aland have to say about the dates of
the
> > > > catholic epistles? Or aren't his credentials sufficient? How
about
> > > > Philip Comfort? Bob Funk? Tom Wright? J.D. Crossan? Burton
Mack?
> > >
> > > Burton Mack??? Isn't this guy a crank?
> >
> > Why do you say that? I think his work on the common, non-Markan
sources
> > for Matthew and Luke is solid. His conclusion that no historical
Jesus
> > lived is a bit over the top, but then Albert Schweitzer came to the
same
> > conclusion.
>
> I'll have to look again, but I was under the impression he belonged to
> the lunatic fringe. I could be wrong...
>
I by no means support his conclusions concerning the historical Jesus,
but then neither do the majority of the mighty famous big shots in the
field from all over the spectrum. But I do think his work on the layers
of Q is very, very good.
> > > Robert X. Funk, the Jesus
> > > Seminar guy???
> > >
> > Robert W. Funk, actually. Yes, the co-chair of the Jesus Seminar.
Ever
> > read any of his books?
>
> No, I'm afraid I don't feel the need.
>
He probably isn't the best, but some of his work is interesting, and the
Jesus Seminar was a bold step, that if nothing else shook up the field
and caused all viewpoints to re-examine their premises.
> > > > Richmond Lattimore? How about Michael Grant?
> > >
> > > Grant is really a classical populariser, surely?
> > >
> > Of course he is. Aren't you glad of it?
>
> Very much so. Indeed I have quite a number of his books, and think
> highly of them. My point was merely that he couldn't be counted in
> this list, as not part of that discipline.
>
He was a classics scholar of some note before he became an administrator
and popularizer, was he not?
> > > > The middle of the second century is a very solid date for most
of
> > the
> > > > New Testament books
> > >
> > > ????? Where did you get this from?
> > >
> > My study of the manuscripts and the secondary sources. That date is
> > nearly impossible to falsify. It is the latest possible date,
almost
> > assuredly too late by a century or so.
>
> I agree with the last sentence, so suspect we are at cross-purposes.
>
That would figure, wouldn't it?
> > > This is right. But we must be wary of the tendency in older NT
> > > studies to date as late as possible. P52 showed this must be
wrong.
> > > Our Mss are not likely to be the originals or close to them, and
so
> > > time to copy and spread must be allowed. Dating from first Ms
witness
> > > or first reference doesn't work, as a rule, anyway. Usually these
are
> > > much later than composition of any ancient work.
> > >
> > I honestly believe that trend has reversed, especially in the last
20
> > years or so. I agree that the date of composition is always well
before
> > the earliest date of the oldest manuscript. There is more than
ample
> > evidence of that in the non-Christian manuscript record.
>
> I am getting a definite whiff, mostly from the US, of a resumption of
> the movement. Didn't Ehrman praise the Tubingen movement?
>
I couldn't tell you. I tend to dive in and out of Biblical exegesis,
and prefer to spend my time trying to riddle out uncial script.
> But I really don't take any notice of NT studies, since I can't read
> much from that source without intense irritation at the irrational
> presumptions on display. Looking at these from time to time kept me
> out of the humanities for years. It was only when I encountered
> T.D.Barnes on Tertullian that I realised that it was merely bad
> scholarship.
>
I have a difficult time with the injection of theology into history.
Jesus is an historical problem no more nor less than any other human
being purported to have lived during antiquity and historical method is
the sole means of solving the historical issues. Christ is a dogmatic
problem which can be resolved only through theology. At some point
these two aspects tend to collide, and things get messy, and sometimes
absurd. I am trying to work through some way to separate the two,
mostly by trying to strip the earliest historical sources of their
doctrinal overlays. As historical sources, the earliest Egyptian papyri
are of no more and no less value than the non-Christian or non-canonical
manuscripts, regardless of their dogmatic content. For example, how
does the absence of the pericope of the adulterous woman in the earliest
manuscripts of John increase or decrease the historiocity of the
manuscripts?
Of course it is, and the Revelation was almost assuredly composed
earlier. But our atheist correspondants have this odd notion that some
vague notion of "scientific method" plays some sort of determinant role
in the interpretation of ancient history and require a close
approximation of certitude. So the terminus ante quem in this case is
very difficult to argue with, even by someone who expects "empirical
data," "objective evidence," or "hard evidence."
> Time gone again, but thank you for your comments, and particularly the
> ancients on history -- most interesting.
>
Thanks for your time, Roger. Even when we vehemently disagree the
conversation is interesting.