JThunder,
Please provide me with a list of the serious biblical scholars who believe that the gospels were written by the men whose names are attached to them, and the references where they back up this claim.
And, really, if you accept that Paul really met Jesus on the road to Damascus, then there is no point in having a rational discussion.
Once again though, that’s not what you said earlier. You specifically asked for “even a single shred of historical evidence” for Jesus. That is a far, far cry from merely stating that whatever we know about him is dubious.
Revision 2.0 of your claim was “I am saying that there is no historical evidence for his life and works, outside of the bible.” Even if we grant that, that’s hardly the same as saying that none of the evidence is historically reliable.
Nor can the same be said of Revision 3.0, which demanded evidence prior to 96 C.E. As emphasized earlier, a layman might consider that to be a fatal blow, but that’s not how historians operate.
If I do so, will you provide direct substantiation for your claim that Mark was a “fourth- or fifth-hand account”? (Remember, this is a far cry from stating that Mark was not the actual author.)
As for the biblical scholars in question, we’ve already mentioned William Lane Craig (who addresses this very point in his copious writings) and Sir William Ramsey. Then there’s William F. Albright, one of the world’s leading Biblical archaeologists. Others include the likes of Fyvie Bruce, Gary Habermas and Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum. Others authors are mentioned in various articles at http://www.tektonics.org. While this list is by no means comprehensive, it does demonstrate the folly of stating that NO serious scholars believe in the traditional authorship of the gospels.
BTW, I failed to mention the text, Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House reprint), which also presents Ramsey’s arguments for the reliability of Luke’s gospel.
It seems to me that you’re dismissing this account outright, which is not the mark of good scholarship.
Remember, we’re investigating the question of whether a miraculous event occured (e.g. the Resurrection). In that light, it is poor scholarship to dismiss Paul’s account outright, and betrays an obvious predisposition against weighing the evidence.
tektonics …uggh
When I say “serious biblical scholars” I mean serious biblical scholars, not fundy apologists. How about quoting some of the people on the Jesus Seminar, or somebody who actually has some credibility. William Lane Craig and his ilk are hardly credible scholars.
And, yes, I dismiss Paul’s account. Since even his fellow travellers did not see it, clearly there is no evidence whatsoever, the deluded fantasies of a vile man notwithstanding.
As a former-fundie-turned-freethinking-nontheist, I have seen this on both sides of the argument:
Definitions
Serious Biblical Scholar - One who agrees with my position
Heretic - Anyone who disagrees with my theology
It’s all a matter of perspective, you know?
You are stretching the facts here. Arrian’s famous biography of Alexander the Great, while written in the 2nd century AD, was based upon material from Ptolemy I and Aristobulus, generals who served directly under Alexander! OTOH, virtually no Christian works name any of their sources.
And elapsed time is not the only factor that must be considered. As I’ve stated earlier, many early Christian works are clearly fanciful, even ones written only a century after Jesus’ death. Or do you believe that Jesus killed his classmates as a child and frequently frenched Mary Magdalene?
I pointed out one flaw with the information that most of Jesus’ disciples died martyr’s deaths: elapsed time. Other flaws include contradictory material, lack of cited sources, and over all non-believability of the accounts. In fact, you haven’t even provided me the original sources for your claims; I’ve had to dig them up myself, and even then I’ve only been able to find secondary information (the Catholic encyclopedia) not the primary sources for these legends. If you could provide me with the originals, I’d be very interested in evaluating them. I’ll take a wild guess that they are held in low regard in the scholarly community, and are little more than hagiographies full of fanciful miracle tales.
First off, you dismiss famed archaeologists with a wave of the hand while elevating the Jesus Seminar. It would be nice to see on what basis you dismiss them.
In addition, in the Biblical account, the people with Paul did hear a voice. Paul, being the only one who saw the light, was the only one blinded.
Only the truly important get unauthorized biographies. Besides, there’s a reason that these fanciful stories at least the ones you quote are not in the Bible.
JThunder,
Would you please provide references where Sir William Ramsey, William F. Albright, Fyvie Bruce, Gary Habermas and Sir Frederic Kenyon believe that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, and why?
As for William Lane Craig, no need to bother. Everything he says is a lie. The same goes for the Tektonics website. There is hardly a truthful sentence in the entire site.
There’s also a reason that the stories of the martyrdom of all of Jesus’ family and disciples aren’t in the Bible. I wager that it’s the same reason.
Sorry. Now you are forsaking credibility.
The Tektonics site certainly has a perspective from which I would not conclude that it was an “objetive” site. However, I wandered over to read it and found that they do, indeed, present both the pro and con positions to theirs in a generally respectful tone. Since it presented in the tradition of popularizing, not pure scholarship, they are not held to exactly the same rigor and they make their biases pretty evident, so they are not trying to sneak their interpretation past a careful reader.
I disagree with many of their conclusions (and several of their arguments) but they have a great many "truthful sentence"s and your hyperbole reflects more poorly on you than them.
The point is that the mere lapse of time does not disqualify an historical source – a point which you yourself later conceded. Remember, the specific posting to which I responded dismissed Schumacher’s account by saying "The fourth century! That’s three hundred years after the events. " Clearly, this is an insufficient objection. Historians consider a wealth of other factors as well, e.g. the historian’s general credibility, the attentiveness to detail, the style of writing, its corroboration with other sources, the relative lack of any conflicting accounts, and so forth. Historians do not dismiss an account simply because it was written significantly after the event.
That’s not a valid objection. None of those fanciful accounts are comparable to saying “Jesus killed his classmates as a child” or that he “frequently frenched Mary Magdalene.” Rather, they took the form of miraculous events – and if we’re to investigate the validity of Christ’s life, it’s obviously circular reasoning to dismiss all the miraculous accounts.
Moreover, if an historical record did exist which claimed that Jesus killed his classmates, an honest historian would not dismiss this simply because it’s fanciful. Rather, an honest historian would only dismiss this after considering the balance of evidence at hand.
JubilationTCornpone wrote:
Um, at least one of those fanciful accounts was of the young Jesus commanding some of his peers to die, and of them subsequently dropping dead.
And as far as the second account goes, well, we all know that French-kissing wasn’t invented until the 20th century, right? 
If he does, will you document your claim that NO serious Biblical scholars believe that any of the Gospels were written by their traditional authors? From what I’ve read, the authorship of Luke is seldom contested – and while uncertainty is expressed on the other gospels, the critics don’t always say that they WEREN’T written by the traditional authors. (Mere room for doubt is not the same as denying their traditional authorship.)
William F. Albright, for the record, was initially convinced that the Bible was merely legendary. Like Ramsey, Morison and Greenleaf though, this eminent archaeologist was forced to change his stance, and now says “Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.”
http://www.princeton.edu/~ccc/outline.html
http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Riss/ev1.html
Albright is also recorded as saying, “Only modern scholars who lack both historical method and perspective can spin such a web of speculation as that which critics have surrounded the Gospel tradition.” (From Stone Age to Christianity. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1946, pp. 297-298).
Gary Habermas is certainly well-known for his conservative belief regarding the Bible in general (check out http://www.str.org and http://www.strradio.org for examples).
As for Sir Frederic Kenyon, a simple web search reveals the following. It contains excerpts from his book, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1912), p. 5).
http://www.bible-history.com/quotes/frederick_g_kenyon_1.html
Whoa. Sounds to me like you’re not willing to support your assertions against Craig. Care to prove me wrong?
Interesting. At the start of this post, you demanded specific references documenting the views of Albright, F. F. Bruce, et al… yet now, you’re dismissing both Bill Craig and the Tektonics organization without any substantiation whatsoever. Talk about a double standard!
Also, as tomndebb pointed out, it’s clearly a gross exaggeration to say that there is hardly any truth in the Tektonics website. I often disagree with tomndebb’s views on Biblical reliability, but we clearly agree on this point.
Finally, need I remind you that a credible debater does not dismiss his opponents by merely saying “He’s a liar!” That’s as good as saying, “I won’t address his points, but I ask you to ignore everything he says.” Clearly a poor debating tactic.
Just so we’re clear on this, which specific account are you referring to?
Moreover, that certainly falls under the category of miraculous claims. Also, as I explicitly pointed out, a true historian would not automatically dismiss such an account. In fact, if we’re to investigate the claim that Jesus was the divine judge, it would be intellectual dishonesty to dimiss accounts where he actually EXERCISED divine judgment!
I should also emphasize that (a) “peers” is not the same as “classmates,” and (b) the term “peers” is exceedingly vague, and needs qualified here. Are you suggesting that he killed his traveling companions, the Apostles? Or are you saying that he voiced judgment on some people who were of roughly the same age or social standing as he was?
Either way, since Jesus is clearly not alleged to have killed his “classmates” or his disciples, such a claim is still not comparable to Opus1’s hypothetical fanciful account – and even if it were, such a claim should be explored in its context, rather than being summarily dismissed.
Oh, good grief. I think you’re really stretching here.
First of all, we’ve already seen that your understanding of the “appeal to authority” fallacy is incorrect. Saying “This authority says X” is not an example of such a fallacy. Rather, this fallacy only holds if the person cited is not an authority in that field. (Granted, these authorities aren’t always right; however, it is entirely fair to accept their judgment unless an extremely compelling case can be built against them.)
Second, expert witnesses don’t merely present evidence. They present evidence AND their judgment of that evidence. The judge and jury may choose to disagree with that judgment, but they should not dismiss such judgments as a mere “appeal to authority.”
Third, Ramsey and Greenleaf present plenty of evidence for their claims. If you want to examine their evidence, that’s fine. That’s a legitimate decision to make, and we’ve already told you where you can find their works. However, the point remains – citing their works is not itself fallacious.
And fourth, did you not claim that “no serious scholars” believe in the traditional authorship of the gospels? It seems to me that you’re appealing to their authority. (As Even if we grant that claim (which is clearly erroneous), would this not be a statement where you yourself invoking their judgment as authorities?
Finally, remember that we were addressing your various claim that there is no reliable historical evidence for Christ. Even if you thoroughly disagree with Ramsey’s conclusions, the fact remains that such a conclusion (arrived at despite many years of objection) strongly suggests that the lack of evidence is not as clear as you claim. One might contest its degree of reliability; however, if its enough to convince several eminent skeptics, then it’s fair to conclude that the evidence is not as utterly unreliable as you claim.
JubilationTCornpone wrote:
The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ (sometimes abbreviated “I. Infancy”). First translated into English in 1697. Portions of this Gospel were cited by the Gnostics, Eusebius, Athanasius, et al… My source for this text is The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, World Bible Publishers, 1962 (ISBN 0-529-02061-0).
In Chapter XIX of I. Infancy, the young (age 11) Jesus had made a little tidal-pool to keep fish in. One of the mean boys from the neighborhood wanted to tear it down. The account of what happened next is described in verses 20-24:
“20. At length the son of Hanani coming to the fish-pool of Jesus to destroy it, the water vanished away, and the Lord Jesus said to him,
21. ‘In like manner as this water has vanished, so shall thy life vanish’; and presently the boy died.
22. Another time, when the Lord Jesus was coming home in the evening with Joseph, he met a boy, who ran so hard against him, that he threw him down;
23. To whom the Lord Jesus said, ‘As thou hast thrown me down, so shalt thou fall, nor ever rise.’
24. At that moment the boy fell down and died.”
And if that ain’t enough to convince you, consider this little exchange from Chapter XX, verse 16 of the same book, in which Jesus’s parents discuss Jesus as a “problem child”:
“16. Then said Joseph to St. Mary, ‘Henceforth we will not allow him to go out of the house; for every one who displeases him is killed.’”
Oh, Tracer. Calling that a “book of the Bible” — lost or otherwise — is like calling The Genesis Flood a text on hydrology.
The stories of Jesus killing associates as a child comes from the “other” Gospel of Thomas, in which Jesus is portrayed as not much more than an all-powerful, capricious guttersnipe with a wide streak of meanness. We have a few references condeming it that are actually older than the oldest quote we can find from it. It is definitely an apocryphal work. Although known by quotations taken from it, the first copy of the complete work was discovered, I believe, only in the 20th century.
For some reason, people who discuss the more familiar (purportedly Gnostic) “sayings” Gospel of Thomas and the people who discuss the “childhood” or Infancy Gospel of Thomas never spend any energy to delineate the work they are discussing from the work of the same name that they are not. (The first of the two sites to which I have linked does make the distinction, although you have to look for it.)
Libertarian wrote:
You can blame World Bible Publishers, Inc., for calling that anthology “The Lost Books of the Bible.” (Although I suppose calling it “The Books of the Gnostics et al. Which Are Kinda-Sorta Written Like New Testament Books but Weren’t Actually Incorporated Into the New Testament” just wouldn’t sing as a catchy book title. )