Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion

[bhsmte]

Do you apply this same level of scrutiny to other historical figures?

Why would you expect a contemporary historian to mention some Galilean preacher in a Roman backwater who got executed? And why would you expect a contemporary historian to write a detailed account of this preacher's life to the same level of detail as the Gospels?

If the Gospels were devoid of anything miraculous, they would be considered amazing historical records. Some of the most phenomenal historical records ever found containing amazing amounts of detail. But simply because they contain a few miracles, mythologizations, and exaggerations, you'll throw the baby out with the bath water and assume none of it is true?

The historical method, is the historical method. It is what historians utilize, to make a call, on whether it is considered reliable history.

The method doesnt change.

 

[bhsmte]

We have discussed this matter quite a few times. Which independent contemporary accounts from antiquity confirmed the historical accounts of Alexander's generals and camp followers? If you could also point us to the manuscript evidence for these independent contemporary sources and if they too were eyewitnesses would help as well.

I have never studied historical work behind alexander and have no plans to.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The biggest issue with the gospels, are no contempory external sources to corroborate the stories, amongst other things.

Historians, who apply the historical method properly, rely heavily on independent contemporary accounts.

There are multiple independant accounts. The Gospels.
We have John, Mark and the hypothetical Q gospel. They are all within 50 years of the event and have verifiable historical data like the titulature of Governors, the High Priests etc. If we have that data in a normal account of the period, no historian would bat an eyelid to accepting it.
Apply the Historical-Critical method to gospels that are without miracles and they would pass with flying colours. It is merely bias against the miraculous that makes them "unbelievable" as historical texts.

However there is a double standard. A lot of recognised history is based on single accounts. Muwatalli III's coup, some battles in Thucydides and the Gallic Wars of Caesar come to mind, where no evidence has ever been found. They are accepted based solely on probability and a single text. So don't spin garbage of historians relying on 'independent contemporary accounts' etc. for much of history does not have such a thing. We would have to reject almost all our history before the middle if the Nineteenth Century based on this criteria. For winners write the history and often we only have epitomised accounts of events written a hundred or more years later (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Bede, Tacitus, Arrian etc.) which are all seen as good sources.
On these criteria, the Gospels are exceptionally close to the events they describe.

 

[bhsmte]

There are multiple independant accounts. The Gospels.
We have John, Mark and the hypothetical Q gospel. They are all within 50 years of the event and have verifiable historical data like the titulature of Governors, the High Priests etc. If we have that data in a normal account of the period, no historian would bat an eyelid to accepting it.
Apply the Historical-Critical method to gospels that are without miracles and they would pass with flying colours. It is merely bias against the miraculous that makes them "unbelievable" as historical texts.

However there is a double standard. A lot of recognised history is based on single accounts. Muwatalli III's coup, some battles in Thucydides and the Gallic Wars of Caesar come to mind, where no evidence has ever been found. They are accepted based solely on probability and a single text. So don't spin garbage of historians relying on 'independent contemporary accounts' etc. for much of history does not have such a thing. We would have to reject almost all our history before the middle if the Nineteenth Century based on this criteria. For winners write the history and often we only have epitomised accounts of events written a hundred or more years later (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Bede, Tacitus, Arrian etc.) which are all seen as good sources.
On these criteria, the Gospels are exceptionally close to the events they describe.

Gospels are not considered independent contempory accounts, for the gospels themselves.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Gospels are not considered independent contempory accounts, for the gospels themselves.

No, but for a historical event, ie Jesus.
That statement makes no sense, for we judge if something is a contemporary account of the event not the book on the event.
So an Autobiography isn't a reliable account for a that Autobiography. Yes, but perhaps for the writer's life it is.

 

[bhsmte]

No, but for a historical event, ie Jesus.
That statement makes no sense, for we judge if something is a contemporary account of the event not the book on the event.
So an Autobiography isn't a reliable account for a that Autobiography. Yes, but perhaps for the writer's life it is.

Good credible auto biographys, typicall list their sources of information and the author talks to the sources directly.

We dont even know who the authors of the gospels were and the fact they were penned 40-70 years after jesus died, makes talking to direct sources a tad difficult.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Good credible auto biographys, typicall list their sources of information and the author talks to the sources directly.

We dont even know who the authors of the gospels were and the fact they were penned 40-70 years after jesus died, makes talking to direct sources a tad difficult.

An autobiography is written by the person who is the subject of the book. You are thinking of a biography.

That criteria does not apply to any history before recent times as no one listed sources and much of it wasn't contemporaneous. You would have to reject almost all history if you hold that. We judge sources by the standards of their time. On that, the gospels are closer in time to Jesus than Suetonius to Caesar or Arrian to Alexander.
Also much of history is penned anonymously, for instance Chronicles and Annals where much historical meat lies. Anonymity has never been a detriment to veracity.
Also, the Gospel of Luke claims to have talked to eyewitnesses etc. so that at least fits your self-created criteria for first century texts (Better than any accepted historian of the epoch anyway).

 

[bhsmte]

An autobiography is written by the person who is the subject of the book. You are thinking of a biography.

That criteria does not apply to any history before recent times as no one listed sources and much of it wasn't contemporaneous. You would have to reject almost all history if you hold that. We judge sources by the standards of their time. On that, the gospels are closer in time to Jesus than Suetonius to Caesar or Arrian to Alexander.
Also much of history is penned anonymously, for instance Chronicles and Annals where much historical meat lies. Anonymity has never been a detriment to veracity.
Also, the Gospel of Luke claims to have talked to eyewitnesses etc. so that at least fits your self-created criteria for first century texts (Better than any accepted historian of the epoch anyway).

Then i guess you would need to show, that jesus wrote his own autobigraphy, decades after he died.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Then i guess you would need to show, that jesus wrote his own autobigraphy, decades after he died.

? What?
You are making less and less sense. I was saying a book is not a source on itself but on an event. The gospels are reliable as they are three independant accounts at least of one event. You have clearly failed to follow the conversation at all, but I already saw this in the previous post when you didn't even understand what autobiography means.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

The gospels are reliable as they are three independant accounts at least of one event.

The authors are anonymous, the accounts are not contemporary, they don't name their sources and there are several contradictions. I wouldn't consider this to be reliable.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The authors are anonymous, the accounts are not contemporary, they don't name their sources and there are several contradictions. I wouldn't consider this to be reliable.

Please see my above posts. I have explained on this matter.

 

[anonymous person]

I dont generally buy stories of people rising from the dead, no.

I know.

Add in the general historical issues with the gospels and that makes it even more unbelievable.

Ok, then I was right.

I would venture to say that if these other issues did not exist, you still would not believe Jesus rose from the dead.

You want believe it on faith though, knock yourself out.

We are talking about you, not me though.

The historicity of Jesus is not really the issue for you is it?

 

[anonymous person]

Yup. I'm using the recently devised definition of @durangodawood in another thread when he said:

"An extraordinary claim is one that, if true, requires one to reframe your whole outlook on life. Or one that demands a revolution of the common understanding of how the world works."

So, for a non-believer, the resurrection is an extraordinary claim because it would require them to change their whole outlook on life. Extraordinary claims require a greater body of evidence because you want to be certain that the claim is correct before you change your world view.



Because the claim is not extraordinary, little evidence is necessary to reasonably believe it could have happened.

For example, if someone tells you that they fart butterflies in the morning and show you a picture of it, I'm pretty sure you're going to seriously scrutinize that photo for photo-shopping.

If someone tells you that they eat Cheerios in the morning and show you a picture of it, you probably won't scrutinize the picture for more than an instant, nor would you be suspicious that it is photo-shopping and he really was eating Shreddies.

Why? Because, if someone can fart butterflies, then that changes many things that you know and understand about human anatomy, butterflies, etc. However, someone eating Shreddies instead of Cheerios is pretty irrelevant to your worldview and so doesn't require more than a simple photo (or even just word of mouth) to be believed.



Because it is extraordinary. People don't wake up and start walking around 3 days after they had died. If such a thing happened, it is extraordinary and would require a re-working of my worldview. Because of this, I treat the claim with more scrutiny than I would other claims. For example, the claim that Jesus was crucified does not require a re-working of my worldview; crucifixion was a common form of execution in the Roman empire and would not be out of the ordinary at all.



I would like to answer these questions, but I believe they belong in a different thread. This thread is talking about whether or not the historical Jesus existed, not whether he was divine/God/saviour/zombie.

Have you always held the worldview you hold now?

 

[bhsmte]

I know.



Ok, then I was right.

I would venture to say that if these other issues did not exist, you still would not believe Jesus rose from the dead.



We are talking about you, not me though.

The historicity of Jesus is not really the issue for you is it?

Extrordinary claims, require the same level of evidence.

As i have stated, i am about 75% confident, that jesus was a real person.

 

[anonymous person]

Extrordinary claims, require the same level of evidence.

As i have stated, i am about 75% confident, that jesus was a real person.

Athée stated that he/she wanted their unbelief validated. Another here said that affirming the gospel accounts would require a complete reframing of their worldview.

Both reject the accounts of the miraculous because affirming them would mess their worldview up significantly.

Is the same true for you?

 

[bhsmte]

Athée stated that he/she wanted their unbelief validated. Another here said that affirming the gospel accounts would require a complete reframing of their worldview.

Both reject the accounts of the miraculous because affirming them would mess their worldview up significantly.

Is the same true for you?

Considering i was a christian for 40 years and decided to study the gospels to simply understand them better, that would be a resounding; NO

 

[anonymous person]

Considering i was a christian for 40 years and decided to study the gospels to simply understand them better, that would be a resounding; NO

So affirming Jesus rose from the dead would not affect your worldview?

Is that what you are telling me?

Are you telling me that having your worldview completely turned upside-down has no part in you rejecting the accounts of Jesus rising from the dead?

 

[bhsmte]

So affirming Jesus rose from the dead and that would not affect your worldview?

How did you come up with this from what i said?

Of course if i believed jesus rose from the dead, it would change my world view. I used to believe he did, before i investigated the gospels and this changed my position.

I have demonstrated leaving christianity after 40 years, that i am willing to keep learning and will accept new knowledge.

Would you accept new knowledge that led you to doubt jesus was god?

 

[anonymous person]

How did you come up with this from what i said?

Of course if i believed jesus rose from the dead, it would change my world view. I used to believe he did, before i investigated the gospels and this changed my position.

I have demonstrated leaving christianity after 40 years, that i am willing to keep learning and will accept new knowledge.

Would you accept new knowledge that led you to doubt jesus was god?

You're telling me that the knowledge that your current worldview would be destroyed if the gospels were true plays no part in you rejecting the accounts of Jesus and Him being raised from the dead?

That the fact that your worldview would be completely turned upside down and shown to be false has nothing at all to do with you rejecting the gospels?

Is that what you want me to believe?

 

[civilwarbuff]

How did you come up with this from what i said?

Of course if i believed jesus rose from the dead, it would change my world view. I used to believe he did, before i investigated the gospels and this changed my position.

I have demonstrated leaving christianity after 40 years, that i am willing to keep learning and will accept new knowledge.

Would you accept new knowledge that led you to doubt jesus was god?

What "new" knowledge would that be? I mean the NT has been around in a completed form for about 1600+ years so could you explain what this "new" knowledge might be?