Don’t really have much more to add to what Dio said!
Not true. As we have discussed here before, Sir William Ramsay was surprised to find that both Luke and Acts were corroborated to an extraordinary degree by his archaeological findings. Does this prove every detail of Luke’s accounts? Admittedly not. However, to claim that there is no external corroboration for the gospels is a grandiose and inaccurate claim.
The vast majority of history is not recorded by eyewitnesses. Josephus, for example, was not an eyewitness to most of what he reported. No serious historian would dismiss an account on that basis.
Again, a vast oversimplification. Nobody seriously denies that Luke wrote Luke’s Gospel or the Book of Acts, for example. Similarly, the authorship of most of the Pauline letters is uncontested. There is some question about who wrote the Gospel of John, but most accept that he was the author. I think that strong arguments can be made for the traditional authorship of Matthew and Mark, but even if we deny that, it is still incorrect to claim that there is no sourcing for the gospels.
Again, a debatable point… but even if we grant that, this would only call the secondary details into question. Eyewitnesses may differ greatly on the details of a mugging or a car theft, but this does not mean that the incidents did not happen. Such differences are typically secondary; the task of an historian is to uncover the core of historical truth beneath such seeming discrepancies.
In other words, even if we grant that there contradictions and factual errors, it still remains likely that Jesus himself existed.
Only if you first deny the existence of the supernatural. When investigating supernatural claims (e.g. healing miracles or the Resurrection), it is intellectually dishonest to first assert that such things never happen. That would be like investigating a murder while loudly proclaiming, “This murder never happened!”
William Ramsay corroborated nothing about Jesus but only found some of the geographical sites mentioned in Acts. This proves absolutely nothing about a single historical claim associated with Jesus. Ramsay was a turn of the century Christian topology expert who was working without the benefit of any knowledge of modern Biblical Criticism, The significance of his discoveries are greatly exaggerated and his own inferences about his conclusions even more so. Ramsay no more corrobtated the historical claims of the Bible than Schliemann’s discovery of Troy coroborrates Homer.
Josephus was an eyewitness to quite a bit of what he wrote. In Jewish Wars, gor instance, he was writing about a war he personally fought in. Even so, while it’s true that much classical history does not come from eyewitnesses, much of it can be coroborrated in other ways or by other historians. In cases where there is no corroboration and only a single, non-eyewitness account, no assumption is necessarily made in favor of historicity and no claim of supernatural events is EVER credited as being historical (and that includes Josephus).
If you’re talking about the 2nd Century fable of the author being a physician companion of Paul’s, you’re wrong. This is not a tradition taken seriously by most NT scholars.Moreover, we know at least some of Luke’s sources. They were Mark and Q. Neither of which were primary sources themselves (please don’t try to say that Luke claims to have interviewed witnesses. He says no such thing).
Only seven of Paul’s letters are belived to have been authentic, Paul never met Jesus and Paul doesn’t tell us anything about the Historical Jesus anyway. That is, he doesn’t tell us anything about what Jesus said or did when he was alive. He only talks about his own visions and beliefs about a “resurrected Christ.” That’s not very useful to those seeking info about HJ.
Again, this is wrong. Few if any contemporary scholars believe the authorship tradition of GJohn to be authentic.
Then you don’t know much about them.
You haven’t named any sources. All four of the authorship traditions arose from weak second century patristic tradition and all four traditions are now widely believed (with good reason) to be spurious. There is no legitimate evidence in favor of those traditions and quite a lot against them.
But we don’t have any eyewitness accounts of Jesus and the accounts we do have are not entirely independent. We know, for instance, that Matthew and Luke both copied extensively from Mark but that they diverge wildly in places (such as their nativities and appearance narratives) where Mark gives them no information. The fact that they fail to be consistent on anything for which they had no common source seriously compromises the credibility of both of them.
A point I haven’t tried to argue. I agree it doesn’t prove Jesus never existed but only makes it hard to know anything about him and the NT writings, in themselves, do not provide smoking gun evidence for HJ.
No. Assuming the impossible to be impossible until proven otherwise is a necessary component of empirical method. If you investigate a murder it isn’t necessary to consider vamires or werewolves as genuine suspects.
I agree with 'most everything Diogenes has said. (In point of fact, I didn’t notice anything with which I disagree, but was reading quickly and, so, may have missed something.) Posting only to give a link to a source with LOTS of material on this issue, the Historicity of Jesus page at The Secular Web. Includes links to Doherty’s website, for example. Consistent with D’s summary, I’d say Robert Price’s essay comes closest to describing the mainstream skeptical view, which is that there may have been a HJ (or not), but there’s no way at this distance to figure out which parts of the Gospels are historical.
I can’t believe the discussion has gone on this long and no one has referenced Cecil.
But if you start with the assumption that murders never happen, then it’s likely you won’t accept evidence of murder when you investigate particular cases, however strong the evidence may be. “Assuming the impossible to be impossible” is circular logic: “We know these things are impossible because we have no reliable evidence for them, and we know the evidence for them is not reliable because these things are impossible.”
Putting aside the issue of how quickly a myth can arise, this is a completely circular argument. If there was no Jesus then he didn’t have a date of death and the 40 years number doesn’t mean anything. If, hypothetically, Jesus was purely a myth, then there’s no limit on how long that myth could have taken to arise. The alleged date of the crucifixion can’t be used as a terminus a quo for the invention mythical Jesus because if Jesus was a myth, then there WAS no crucifixion. You can’t use part of a fiction to prove the rest is non-fiction.
Not that I’m arguing for mythicism, just showing why this particular argument for historicity is silly.
That misstates my analogy. In this case, the “murders” are the Jesus mythos and the “investigation” is the attempt to find an explanation for how the story arose. No one doubts that the “murder” exists the question is only about whether it requires a supernatural explanation. Obviously, it would be stupid to ever posit a magical explanation for something which can easily be explained without it.
No, we know some things to be impossible because they are, in fact, impossible. Natural and physical law does not allow them to occur. If we can’t make a default assumption that the laws of physics can’t be violated, then we can’t apply scientific method to anything. Nobody ever tries to argue that the supernatural claims of Greek or Hindu mythology should be entertained as historically credible events so to try to make that case for Biblical miracles is nothing but special pleading.
But in that case, you are appealing to metaphysics, not to science. I can’t see any purely logical reason that the laws of physics could not change slowly over time or simply stop working altogether. The assumption that there are never any exceptions to the laws of physics can never be a scientific fact, only a philosophical axiom or dogma.
Many early Christians, and some modern ones, accepted supernatural claims for pagan gods. They simply explained such things as the work of demons.
You would still have the burden to prove this and the working assumption is to assume that the laws of physics have not been violated (and there has never been a single demonstrated example of that ever happening). To assume that nothing is impossible makes empirical method itself impossible.
So what? What does that have to do with scientific method?
Uh, no. Even Einstein said that the physical laws we know could very well be a local phenomena. All I’m getting here is that it’s inconceivable to you that the laws of physics as we understand them might not always hold.
But I’m not assuming that “nothing is impossible.” I’m only assuming that human knowledge and understanding are finite.
You claimed that no one took seriously supernatural claims for pagan gods such as those of the Greeks and Hindus. I merely provided some examples of people who did.
You are understating both Ramsay’s discoveries and his abilities. Ramsay was one of the greatest archaeologists of all time and held multiple doctorates. He spent years in the Holy Land, trying to undermine the accuracy of Luke’s accounts. Instead, despite fervent attempts to disprove Luke’s accuracy, he was forced to acknowledge,
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense…in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.
Time and again, Diogenes has insisted that Luke only got a few geographical locations correct, and that Ramsay – a world-class archaeologist, historian and hostile expert on the Holy Land – was just “overly impressed.” This is simply incorrect. Contrary to his claim, Ramsay did not “only [find] some of the geographical sites mentioned in Acts.” In fact, part the text from several of his books, including The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament is available online. Ramsay’s claims went far beyong merely getting a few geographical locations correct; as a view of the outlines of his writings would show.
Besides, it defies common sense to say that a world-class archaeologist – one who dedicated years to disproving the accuracy of Luke’s accounts – would change his mind simply because Luke got a few geographical details correct. This attempt to explain away Ramsay’s dramatic conversion simply does not wash.
As Pat Zukeran stated in Archaeology and the New Testament, Luke also used the correct (and often obscure) government titles in various geographical areas, including the politarchs of Thessalonica, the temple wardens of Ephesus, the procouncil of Cyprus, and the “first man of the island” in Malta. In Luke’s announcement of Jesus’ public ministry, he mentions, “Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene”. Scholars used to question Luke’s credibility, since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a leader of Chalcis who ruled from 40-36 BC. However, an inscription dated to the time of Tiberius (14-37 AD) was found, which records a temple dedication naming Lysanius as the “tetrarch of Abila” (Abilene near Damascus). This matched Luke’s account and absolutely *stunned * the liberal scholarship of the day.
Archaeology likewise confirmed Luke’s claim that Lucius Junios Gallio was appointed as the proconsul of Achaea. At Delphi, an inscription from Emperor Claudius was discovered that says, “Lucius Junios Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia . . .” Historians date the inscription to 52 AD, which supports the time of Paul’s visit there in 51 AD. This corroborates both the timing of Luke’s account, the geographical location and one of the key players – a person whose name is most obscure. Is this airtight proof? No, but critical details are indeed corroborated. (Pat Zukeran, Archaeology and the New Testament)
Luke attested that Erastus, a coworker of Paul, was appointed treasurer of Corinth. In 1928, archaeologists excavated a Corinthian theatre and discovered an inscription that reads, “Erastus in return for his aedilship laid the pavement at his own expense.” The pavement was laid in 50 AD, and the term “aedile” refers to the designation of treasurer.
Elsewhere in Acts, Luke likewise gives Plubius, the chief man on the island of Malta, the strange title, “first man of the island.” Liberal scholars deemed such a bizarre title and to be unhistorical. Inscriptions that were later discovered on the island attested that Plubius did indeed have the title of “first man.”
Elsewhere, Luke uses the Greek term “politarchs” (“rulers of the city”) to refer to the leaders in Thessalonica. For centuries, skeptical scholars railed against Luke for this, deeming it to be another hit against Luke’s credibility for centuries. However, approximately 20 inscriptions have now been discovered that bear the term “politarch,” including five finds that specifically refer to the ancient leadership in Thessalonica.
As a final example, Saint Luke calls Iconium a city in Phyrigia. For centuries, this provided further ammunition for those railed against the credibility of Luke. Skeptical scholars maintained that Iconium was in Lycaonia, not Phyrigia, and they therefore declared that the entire Book of Acts was unreliable. Guess what? In 1910, Ramsay was looking for the evidence to support this long-held claim against Luke and he uncovered a stone monument declaring that Iconium was indeed a city in Phyrigia. This corroborated the another critical detail of Luke’s account, silencing those who used this “fact” to undermine his accuracy.
You say that none of this corroborates the Gospel accounts. Nonsense. Attention to such detail is precisely what corroboration amounts to. Corroboration means that the secondary details are attested to using other sources. None of this proves the Lukan accounts, but that’s precisely why this is called corroboration and not proof.
As historian A.N. Sherwin-White declared,
In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error.
For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd.
**Those who espouse the “Jesus=myth” theory would have us believe that Luke was accurate in all of these details – including obscure minutiae – and yet failed to discover that Jesus never really existed! ** This truly boggles the mind.
Why should it be otherwise? What would be the basis for ever preferring an explanation that physical laws have been violated over explanation which conforms to natural laws? What I’m getting at here is that, in order to apply scientific method, you have to start with certain default assumptions about what is or is not possible. Those assumptions can be theoretically proven wrong but unless and until they are proven wrong they have to be followed.
Which is no excuse not to follow empirical method.
I was talking about people who practice historical scholarship. Obviously you can never say with certainty that there is anything which at least one person somewhere doesn’t believe.
JTHunder, I’m not going to do a point-by-point to that whole post. Suffice it to say it contains a lot of noise, empty arguments from authority (his status as "Greatest. Arcaheologist. Ever. is typically exaggerated by apologists. He wasn’t THAT important) and little substance. At most, Ramsay proved that Luke had some accurate knowledge of the geography and political makeup of Asia Minor during his own lifetime (and why wouldn’the?). That proves absolutely nothing about Jesus.
It’s also something of a myth that Ramsay was trying to disprove the Bible. He was always a Christian but not always an inerrantist. He had originally assumed that he would find some mistakes in Luke’s geographical details of Asia Minor. When he found that they were reasonably (and unremarkably) accurate he made some absurd leaps of logic that everything else Luke said must be true. The fact is that Ramsay’s conclusions were specious, ill informed, lack the benefit of modern critical scholarship and are a century out of date. Luke did indeed make mistakes of both geography and history and he relied on sources which made even more. Ramsay did not confirm anything Luke said about Jesus (or really even about Paul). Getting the names of some towns or public officials right was not exactly a trick for someome who was. you know, alive at the time. Accurate geography and real life characters are common components of fiction. Ever seen Forrest Gump?
Or, to state what Diogenes said a little differently, no one I’ve ever read doubts that the Gospels were written by real people living in the late 1st or early 2nd century. That “Luke” got right place names, title offices, etc. surprises me none at all. To the extent skeptics-of-old hitched their wagons to that star, you’re right that they were wrong. Doesn’t make the rest of the story true.
BTW, if you’re aware of a good reconcilliation of the dating of the Nativity in Matthew and Luke, I’d be much obliged if you would share.
Note: As I have mentioned in prior threads, though to my recollection none in which both of us participated, my personal belief is very conventional skepticism, viz, that there was a Joshua who taught something like what appears in the Gospels, but I don’t accept that he was the Son of God, nor that he rose from the dead. Explaining why I believe this would take more time than I have at the moment. Just mentioning to place my comments in context.
The content of the story (e.g. the references to Herod and Pilate) give it an approximate date. It seems unlikely at best that an ancient myth would suddenly pick up elements pinning it to recent events – it would be rather like the Romans of that era not merely proclaiming their emperors to be deified, but inserting particular emperors into the plotlines of particular myths.
Pilate doesn’t appear in Christian literature until Mark’s Gospel. There’s no reason Mark couldn’t have retroactively selected that period as the time to set his story. It wasn’t like anyone was going to be able to prove him wrong.
Another thing. Defenders of the historicity of the Gospels often overlook the fact that there were multiple versions of the story. (Even assuming, as I do, that there’s a kernel of historical fact behind them.) So, yes, the canonical version is placed consistently during Pilate’s time, but that doesn’t mean all versions did. Rather, it demonstrates merely that only those which did were admitted to the canon.
BTW, the suspicious thing here is that the Gospels were written in a specific context, i.e., a debate with the Gnostics over the nature of Christ, his death and his resurrection. Gnostics said he was a transcendental being who only appeared to die. To the proto-orthodox, this was a dangerous heresy. They believed Christ had to be a real man, die a real man’s death and have a corporeal resurrection. IOW, the wonderfully detailed Gospels had a doctrinal context which does not inspire confidence in the details. Especially when the Gospels differ on so many of them.
Wait, now you’re arguing not for a historical Jesus, but for Jesus, at the very least, the psychic. But unfortunately Jesus’s predictions even in the gospels are too vague and about an event too common to ANY apocalypitc pronouncement to be taken as a confirmed prediction, and that’s even bfore we get to the very real possibility that the Gospel itself was written in response to this event (certainly, you can read Mark very consistently with the idea in mind that the author is attempting to explain to believers why such a terrible event would happen to the Jews).
My god man, are you questioning the accuracy of that historical documentary? I used to doubt the full authenticity of it until I watched some old newreels and discovered that there really was this Richard Nixon character.
Also, I AM THE GREATEST NEWSREEL WATCHER OF ALL TIME.
QED
I don’t know how I missed this before, but all this says is that the author of Mark knew about the destruction of Temple, not that Jesus actually prophesied it. Just because an author claims that somebody said something doesn’t mean they really said it. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, Jesus probably never said half the stuff he said (the Jesus Seminar would credit maybe a quarter of what’s attributed to him in the Gospels as being authentic).
What’s more likely, that someone made a supernatural prophecy or that an author made up a quote?