The written records as evidence

[Brian37]

Um no, there is no contemporary outside evidence during the alleged time of the character's existence. Your long winded crap in any case would not prove a man named Jesus was a god who gave birth to himself and then murdered himself so that people would kiss his ass.

IF you found a body and DNA of a man named Jesus,t he only thing it would mean is that a man started a cult and that cult went on to become a religion. But there is NO evidence whatsoever that such a man existed. After the fact does not count.

[Minimalist]

I'm still waiting for my list of "independent contemporary" writers. I at least expected to get back the typical Pliny/Josephus/Tacitus/Suetonius pile of shit.

Don't forget Mark / Luke / Matthew / John.

Neither independent nor contemporary.

[Vicki Q]

For arguments sake, even if we accept the historicity of Jesus, that would not offer a shred of evidence for any of the supernatural claims associated with him.

I'm currently reading J.P.Meier's second book, which raises this question. Now experience has taught me never to post before finishing a book, but I'm going into YOLO mode on this one.

JPM does a turgidly thorough job of analysing the various 'miracle' stories using the appropriate historical tools. Some are ruthlessly rejected as improbable, others as non liquet, but there is a solid core which is historically likely to have original roots to some sorts of incidents in Jesus ministry. This statement he believes can be made from the history independently of any religious POV. The earliest followers really did believe he did things.

What JPM stubbornly refuses to do, within the terms of reference set by him (a Protestant, a Catholic and an agnostic locked in a room and forced to produce an agreed statement), is to say whether these events were miracles or something else. He repeatedly reminds us that our worldview model will determine how we read the events- an atheist will interpret the reasons behind them differently to a believer. The beliefs of the earliest followers might be findable historically, but they may not be right.

Are there non-religious models that fit the evidence better than religious ones? There is a reason the earliest church thought Jesus did things that pointed to a particular religious model, and in brief, I would suggest that the hypothesis that is the most economical with the data is that the explanation given by the witnesses was the right one.

[Brian37]

For arguments sake, even if we accept the historicity of Jesus, that would not offer a shred of evidence for any of the supernatural claims associated with him.

I'm currently reading J.P.Meier's second book, which raises this question. Now experience has taught me never to post before finishing a book, but I'm going into YOLO mode on this one.

JPM does a turgidly thorough job of analysing the various 'miracle' stories using the appropriate historical tools. Some are ruthlessly rejected as improbable, others as non liquet, but there is a solid core which is historically likely to have original roots to some sorts of incidents in Jesus ministry. This statement he believes can be made from the history independently of any religious POV. The earliest followers really did believe he did things.

What JPM stubbornly refuses to do, within the terms of reference set by him (a Protestant, a Catholic and an agnostic locked in a room and forced to produce an agreed statement), is to say whether these events were miracles or something else. He repeatedly reminds us that our worldview model will determine how we read the events- an atheist will interpret the reasons behind them differently to a believer. The beliefs of the earliest followers might be findable historically, but they may not be right.

Are there non-religious models that fit the evidence better than religious ones? There is a reason the earliest church thought Jesus did things that pointed to a particular religious model, and in brief, I would suggest that the hypothesis that is the most economical with the data is that the explanation given by the witnesses was the right one.

The earliest followers really did believe he did things.

SO THE FUCK WHAT? If you really want to believe badly enough that the woman in the magic show was really sawed in half, you will stupidly believe it was real, instead of a trick.

Believing something doesn't make it true. Do you believe in Big Foot? Do you believe Ouija boards bought from Toys R Us work? Do you believe the sun is a god?

Now the stories in the book only convey stories in the book, the fantastic claims are NOT true regardless if the writers wanted those stories to be true.

Just like you'd be stupid to believe Superman was real because you saw him in a movie flying around the real city of New York.

Jesus did not do shit as far as walking on water, or bringing people back from the dead or curing blindness. He was not born of a virgin nor did his body magically survive rigor mortis.

The only provable reality about Christianity is that a religion was started and gullible people fell for it and it got successfully marketed. NOTHING MORE!

[Simon Moon]

JPM does a turgidly thorough job of analysing the various 'miracle' stories using the appropriate historical tools. Some are ruthlessly rejected as improbable, others as non liquet, but there is a solid core which is historically likely to have original roots to some sorts of incidents in Jesus ministry. This statement he believes can be made from the history independently of any religious POV. The earliest followers really did believe he did things.

Well, I'm convinced... that there might have possibly been some mundane events in the life of Jesus, that might have been believed by some early Christians to be miracles. Then were written in texts decades later, by mostly unknown authors, later edited and loaded with copy errors.

is to say whether these events were miracles or something else.

What is more likely? That mundane events were misinterpreted as magic? Or they were actually magic?

If you say the latter, then that means you will be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance, having to believe in all sorts of mutually exclusive miracle claims from different religions.

Either that, or you are forced into the fallacy of special pleading for the miracle claims of the religion you decided to believe in.

He repeatedly reminds us that our worldview model will determine how we read the events- an atheist will interpret the reasons behind them differently to a believer. The beliefs of the earliest followers might be findable historically, but they may not be right.

Yes, if you have a gullible worldview that allows you to believe unsupported, unlikely, implausible miracle claims, then yes, you will believe the miracle claims.

You can interview 1000's of people that are still alive that honestly and sincerely believe they were abducted by aliens.

Do you give their claims any credibility? Why or why not?

Are there non-religious models that fit the evidence better than religious ones?[quote]

Of course there are.

[quote]There is a reason the earliest church thought Jesus did things that pointed to a particular religious model, and in brief, I would suggest that the hypothesis that is the most economical with the data is that the explanation given by the witnesses was the right one.

It doesn't matter what the early church believed. Even if their belief was sincere, there is no rational reason to justify accepting their claims just because they believed.

What witnesses?

[Jackalope]

Don't forget Mark / Luke / Matthew / John.

Neither independent nor contemporary.

Precisely. Note the smiley.

[Bob Kelso]

I'm going into YOLO mode on this one.

I think I'm going to add you to my ignore list. Why? Might have everything to do with the use of "YOLO".

[Vicki Q]

I think I'm going to add you to my ignore list. Why? Might have everything to do with the use of "YOLO".

Feel free. But whatever you decide, you might want to recalibrate your irony meter.

---

Simon Moon

What a wonderful username.

Well, I'm convinced... that there might have possibly been some mundane events in the life of Jesus, that might have been believed by some early Christians to be miracles. Then were written in texts decades later, by mostly unknown authors, later edited and loaded with copy errors.

Agreed, and that's the point. The history will take us back to some sorts of events in Jesus life for some of the stories in the NT. Neither myself nor JPM are naïve about what happened after that. In fact JPM's lack of naivety is a major strength.

I'm not sure why mundane events would be interpreted as miracles. They can't have appeared to be mundane. Making gullible claims about C1 villagers knowledge of science won't do it either. Joseph was worried about Mary's pregnancy not because he did not know where babies came from, but precisely because he did.

What is more likely? That mundane events were misinterpreted as magic? Or they were actually magic?

If you say the latter, then that means you will be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance, having to believe in all sorts of mutually exclusive miracle claims from different religions.

Either that, or you are forced into the fallacy of special pleading for the miracle claims of the religion you decided to believe in.

Or I'm comfortable with God acting through other religions. You seem to be making assumptions about my beliefs.

Yes, if you have a gullible worldview that allows you to believe unsupported, unlikely, implausible miracle claims, then yes, you will believe the miracle claims.

You can interview 1000's of people that are still alive that honestly and sincerely believe they were abducted by aliens.

Do you give their claims any credibility? Why or why not?

I try to keep an open mind in situations where I haven't examined the evidence and see no compelling argument either way.

It doesn't matter what the early church believed. Even if their belief was sincere, there is no rational reason to justify accepting their claims just because they believed.

What witnesses?

That was sort of the point I was making in the first half of the last post. A methodical use of critical historical techniques will take us as far as saying that: witnesses (friend and foe alike) believed with clarity that events happened in Jesus' life which can be described as unusual and not easily explainable within current scientific models.

To go beyond that takes us into a wide ranging debate, to which I summarise my view that the best and simplest explanation is that it is more or less true.

Are there non-religious models that fit the evidence better than religious ones?

Of course there are.

Perhaps JPM should finish: “the shifts in C20 physics simply serve to remind us that...not only the arguments in defense of miracles but also the arguments rejecting them depend in part on the particular view of the physical universe that prevails in a given period of civilization. Once that prevailing vision of the cosmos changes, not only arguments in defense of miracles but also the arguments against them require reformulation”.

[Minimalist]

witnesses (friend and foe alike) believed with clarity that events happened in Jesus' life which can be described as unusual and not easily explainable within current scientific models.

What witnesses are those.... particularly the foes?

[Aractus]

This time, the authorship of Luke-Acts.

Perhaps because "Luke" (or whoever) was writing a Gospel about the life of Jesus, not a siege of Jerusalem that would happen four decades later. The "martyrdom" of Peter and Paul are also separate topics and might not yet have been fabricated (this is part of what I regard as Christian folklore). And my contention is that a different author wrote the ridiculously fanciful and woo-drenched (even by the Bible's standards) tale of Acts.

Of no consequence since a different author wrote Acts.

I have asked back in the other thread DP to tell me why he believes two different authors wrote Luke-Acts, he didn't respond, so we'll press on with the evidence.

On his first point, about the siege of Jerusalem, I would remind you of this passage:

• John 21:18-19: Truly, truly, I say to [St. Peter], when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

It is clear from the internal evidence in this verse that Peter has already died (at the time the Gospel is written), and his death was that of a martyr. Now I've mentioned this account is at odds with the 2nd century church fathers, who said St Peter was crucified upside down because if someone is lead to their cross they are stripped naked and lead to where they "do not want to go", when someone is beheaded they are clothed and then lead to where they "do not want to go"

In the synoptic Gospels, the prediction of the siege of Jerusalem is never accompanied by a remark that "this he said to show that he had foreknowledge of the upcoming siege on the city" or anything of the sort. There are only four possibilities: 1. It's a genuine prophecy. 2. It's inserted into the text later than the text was originally written, 3. The texts were written after AD 70 or 4. It isn't really a prophecy and doesn't really predict the siege of Jerusalem. The biggest problem for the arguments 2. and 4. is that it appears multiple times, for instance:

• Luke 19:41-44: And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
  
  Luke 21:5-6: And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

So it's not just in there once, but twice in the one Gospel, and neither time does it have anything to say about what would actually befall.

So can we have confidence that Luke-Acts is indeed written by the same author? Let's consider the evidence.

Firstly, we do not know 100% that it was written by "Luke", and I'm happy to concede that point. We do not have Luke/Acts attributed to any other author by early church fathers though, and for that reason it is easiest to reaffirm Luke as the author, even if it may have been written by somebody else. Most scholars do agree that Luke did write both Luke-Acts. Virtually all serious scholars - including secular/liberal/sceptics agree that both works are written by the same author.

Evidence.

The external evidence is clear and unanimous that Luke is the author. This includes the Muratorian Canon, the anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome. Being that Luke was not a disciple, this would make Pseudepigrapha unlikely.

The internal evidence is the strongest evidence of single-person authorship. Luke and Acts together total more than all the epistles of Pauls, even including Hebrews! The two books together make up more than 1/4 of the New Testament.

Both books are written to the same gentleman, Theophilus:

• Luke 1:1-4: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
  
  Acts 1:1-3: In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

Theophilus is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, and nor is anyone with the same name for that matter. As is also obvious from the above passages, Acts refers to the Gospel According to Luke as the "first book", making it the "second".

The author was a companion of Peter and of Paul. He focuses on these two more than any others in the book of Acts.

According to church fathers, Peter is the main source for "Mark"'s Gospel. If we were to assume that this is true, then it makes sense for Luke to expand upon Mark's accounts more than Matthew would have, assuming that Luke is a companion of Peter and that Matthew isn't. And this could be why we find almost all of Mark in Matthew, but not in Luke, it could well be that Luke preferred the passages in Mark that he had also heard from Matthew. Most significantly, it means we have a reason why Luke is able to expand on the stories present in Mark without being an eye-witness himself.

There are numerous passages where Luke uses "we" when describing events with Paul, and then there's of course the Pauline epistles which mention Luke.

Finally, and I mention this only in passing, by the mid 2nd century the four gospels had been bound together, however there is also good evidence to support the theory that Luke-Acts had been bound together sometime early-mid 2nd century.