Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reliable history in the Bible
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 56 of 300 (376324)
01-11-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Nimrod
01-11-2007 5:26 PM


Re: With all due respect to Mr Lowder....
No, but it sure does prove that shortly after Christ died (2 generations at most), people already had beliefs that seemed to indicate the events happened(though it isnt overwhelming evidence alone).Were 2 generations at most (and infact Josephus would have access to people who lived while Christ did)enough time for myths to be created over a man?
It just becomes more evidence that nay-saying people must make excuses about in-order to maintain thir ability to ignore.
.... I would be FAR more concerned with what L. Feldman has to say on the issue.
Brill has a commentary series on Josephus, and books 1-4 are commented on by from Feldman,and perhaps more(I dont know, I only have the paperback of the Book 1-4 commentary,all are under single cover).
Feldman is the top of his field.And he isnt a Christian(not that I would discriminate against a scholar for their views,its their skills that I appreciate).
Next issue....
Does it prove the NT Gospels?
No, but it sure does prove that shortly after Christ died (2 generations at most), people already had beliefs that seemed to indicate the events happened(though it isnt overwhelming evidence alone).Were 2 generations at most (and infact Josephus would have access to people who lived while Christ did)enough time for myths to be created over a man?
It just becomes more evidence that nay-saying people must make excuses about in-order to maintain thir ability to ignore.
This is essentially the point made by G. A. Wells.
Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Nimrod, posted 01-11-2007 5:26 PM Nimrod has not replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 66 of 300 (376941)
01-14-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by arachnophilia
01-13-2007 10:43 PM


Re: even less evidence for anyone else
arachnophilia writes:
wow. i like this argument. allow me to attempt to destroy it, just to see what it's worth.
let's suppose for a second that we're not talking about jesus, but one particular instance of jesus's renown. say, raising lazarus, or some other miracle. now, we have no evidence (outside of the gospel) that such a miracle ever happened. but we have even less that it did not happen. so, the simplest explanation (as per ockham) is that a successful miracle won sufficient renown to be recorded.
why does this argument not work? because "that jesus existed" is a reasonable assumption, but "that jesus performed miracles" is not? the evidence is exactly the same, however. we have only the gospel for "yes" and nothing for "no." if the reliability of the gospel is to be suspect, why only partially?
Because you've bastardized Ockham - otherwise "miracle" would always be the "simplest explanation", thereby rendering Occam's Razor worthless. Early history is grounded, not on some farcical application of some naive caricature of Occam's Razor, but on a reiterative process of abduction, i.e., Inference to Best Explanation.
We have zero evidence for the purposeful abrogation of natural law. We have abundant evidence of myth and legend creation. If we assume an historical core to the references to the Jerusalem sect, it seems to me that the least artificially recalcitrant position would be to allow for an early sect leader that served as the center of legend accretion. And this seems reinforced by what little is know about the Ebionites. Can we know this for sure? No, of course not; the historicist position is but tentatively accepted until such time as evidence warrants its rejection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 01-13-2007 10:43 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 01-14-2007 9:37 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 75 of 300 (377157)
01-15-2007 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by arachnophilia
01-14-2007 9:37 PM


Re: even less evidence for anyone else
arachnophilia writes:
ConsequentAtheist writes:
If we assume an historical core to the references to the Jerusalem sect, ...
why should we?
Because the alternative is to presume a complex Pauline/Lucan fabrication, it is to presume, contra Schnelle and others, a late date for the Sayings tradition, it is to presume an unevidenced causal link the Gospel of Thomas to the purported fabrications of Paul, it is to presume that the Ebionites are a complete fiction, and it is to presume that the total absence of any challenge to the historicity of Jesus in early Jewish tradition is somehow reasonable.
The mythicist likes to pretend that he or she is making no affirmative claim and therefore shares no burden of proof. Such a stance is as disingenuous as it is naive.
Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 01-14-2007 9:37 PM arachnophilia has not replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 82 of 300 (377268)
01-15-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ramoss
01-15-2007 9:12 AM


Re: even less evidence for anyone else
Some of which seems to be from the Essenes, others from the Hillel school of pharisaic thought.
What "seems to be from the Essenes", and on what evidence do you claim the historicity of Hillel?
There are so many contradictory beliefs about Jesus, and then there was the 'filter' of convention that the writings went through (via the Council of Nicea.
what writing was filtered "via the Council of Nicea"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ramoss, posted 01-15-2007 9:12 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ramoss, posted 01-15-2007 9:17 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 84 of 300 (377302)
01-15-2007 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ramoss
01-15-2007 9:17 PM


Re: even less evidence for anyone else
ramoss writes:
Hillel was recored in not only the talmud, but was extensively quoted in the Pirqe Avot. He is the founder of the 'house of hillel' Josephus talks about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel I being Hillel's great grandson.
Outstanding evidence, no doubt.
By the way, what might be the date of the Talmud and the Pirqe Aboth, how much of its content would you claim as historically accurate, and on what grounds would you assert these texts serve as better evidence for the historicity of Hillel than do the writings of the early Christians serve as evidence for the historicity of Yeshua? And why is Josephus to be taken at face value when talking about Gamliel's relationship to Hillel but not when talking about James' relationship to Jesus?
Parenthetically, you might wish to read up on the Council of Nicea ...
Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.
Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ramoss, posted 01-15-2007 9:17 PM ramoss has not replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 92 of 300 (377976)
01-19-2007 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Nimrod
01-18-2007 11:50 PM


Re: Brians 1550 destruction discussion.
MightyPlaceNimrod writes:
The Israelites Nomads were a major (maybe even the majority?) entity in the highland regions of Palestine around the time the cities were destroyed (1550).
Circa 1550 "Israelites Nomads" is little more than symantic sleight-of-hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Nimrod, posted 01-18-2007 11:50 PM Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Nimrod, posted 01-19-2007 8:55 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 102 of 300 (378571)
01-21-2007 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Nimrod
01-19-2007 8:55 AM


Re: Brians 1550 destruction discussion.
MightyPlaceNimrod writes:
Ill try and grab the book and give a fuller quote later. Silberman clearly described Finkelsteins views that the pastoralist peoples that emerged 1550 were what would later be Israelites.
Then Silberman either misunderstands Finkelstein or renders his views poorly or - far more likely - is being read through a distorted lens and rendered with self-serving sloppiness. To say that the Israelites emerged from the hill country populations is a far cry from pretending a coherent culture that could reasonably be labeled "Israelite Nomads". And to use this pretense as the foundation for asserting that
    the Bible isnt 100% clear ..."
is just silly ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Nimrod, posted 01-19-2007 8:55 AM Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Nimrod, posted 01-22-2007 12:07 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 104 of 300 (378873)
01-22-2007 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Nimrod
01-22-2007 12:07 AM


Re: Then why.....
MightyPlaceNimrod writes:
My interpretation isnt silly.
Finkelstein DOES view the Israelites as emerging much later.
But you dished out this nonsense, not as your "interpretation", but as Finkelstein's position. That isn't "silly" - it's dishonest, and it typifies the word salad of cherry-picked references, baseless assertions, and equally vapid inference that you pawn off as archaeological argument.
So, you abused Finkelstein. The best thay one can say for you is that you were equally disingenuous when dealing with his oft time opponent, Dever. And what does Dever say about all this:
    quote:
    Let me begin by clarifying which books of the Hebrew Bible I think can be utilized by the would-be historian, whether textual scholar or archaeologist. With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch, specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. These materials obviously constitute a sort of "pre-history" that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors. All this may be distilled from long oral tradition, and I suspect that some of the stories -- such as parts of the Patriarchal narratives -- may once have had a historical setting. These traditions, however, are overlaid with legendary and even fantastic materials that the modern reader may enjoy as "story," but which can scarcely be taken seriously as history.
    - What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? (pg. 97)
    After a century of exhausive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible historical figures. Virtually the last archaeological word was written by me more than 20 years ago for a basic handbook of biblical studies, Israelite and Judean History. And, as we have seen, archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. Indeed, the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the middle 13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite religion. As for Leviticus and Numbers, these are clearly additions to the "pre-history" by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the "promised land," and othe literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying, much less historical.
    - ibid (pg. 99)
    Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look at the biblical texts describing the origins of Israel, we see at once that the traditional account contained in Genesis through Joshua simple cannot be reconciled with the picture derived above from archaeological investigation. The whole "Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term "myth": perhaps "historical fiction" ...
    - ibid (pg. 121)
The "historical fiction" that informs the Torah deserves far more respect than does the pedagogical farce you offer up for consideration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Nimrod, posted 01-22-2007 12:07 AM Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Nimrod, posted 01-22-2007 12:47 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 115 of 300 (379064)
01-22-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Nimrod
01-22-2007 12:07 AM


Re: Then why.....
MightyPlaceNimrod writes:
....were many of the most important Conquest cities destroyed in a single year (1550)archaeologically and why did the population drop 95% in the EXACT place where the Israelites conquered?
This type of argument by rhetorical innuendo is pathetic garbage and deserves zero respect. Far better that you focus on why. "in a single year (1550)archaeologically" an unevidenced God would lead an unevidenced Exodus on a route that avoided an unevidenced Philistine threat.
Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Nimrod, posted 01-22-2007 12:07 AM Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Nimrod, posted 01-23-2007 4:31 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 117 of 300 (379163)
01-23-2007 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Nimrod
01-23-2007 4:31 AM


Re: Good direction.
MightyPlaceNimrod writes:
ConsequentAtheist writes:
MightyPlaceNimrod writes:
....were many of the most important Conquest cities destroyed in a single year (1550)archaeologically and why did the population drop 95% in the EXACT place where the Israelites conquered?
This type of argument by rhetorical innuendo is pathetic garbage and deserves zero respect.
I can assure you that the major Conquest cities named (in the Bible) [were] destroyed (in the archaeological record), ...
Anyone who believes that they can "assure" an audience that "the most important Conquest cities [were] destroyed in a single year (1550)" is delusional.
More impotantly, note the difference between:
  • "many of the most important Conquest cities destroyed in a single year (1550)", and
  • "I can assure you that the major Conquest cities named (in the Bible) were destroyed"
Your argumentation is greasy, pretentious, and verbose, nothing more - much like that of someone who cherry-picks evidence of tornadic activity in the Plains, asserts en passant that it can be traced to his reverse-engineered 'precise' date for Dorothy's fantastic sojourn, and then claims to have established the historicity of the Munchkins. It's a pathetic joke rendered all the more so by the probability that you no doubt believe your own babble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Nimrod, posted 01-23-2007 4:31 AM Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Nimrod, posted 01-23-2007 7:33 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 119 of 300 (379351)
01-23-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Nimrod
01-23-2007 7:33 AM


Re: Im only going by the mainstream...
the most important Conquest cities destroyed in a single year ...
The Bible may not be describing a sigle year but ...
What a pathetic fraud ...
Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Nimrod, posted 01-23-2007 7:33 AM Nimrod has not replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 196 of 300 (385677)
02-16-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Nimrod
02-16-2007 3:50 PM


Re: Egyptian "conquest" in Crisis continued.
Biblical-Conquest critics?
Are you there?
Listening?
Yes. You babble incessantly and verbosely and seem inordinantly fond of your arguments - yet you've proved absolutely nothing. It's becoming tiresome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Nimrod, posted 02-16-2007 3:50 PM Nimrod has not replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6267 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 208 of 300 (386651)
02-22-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by 8upwidit2
02-20-2007 1:03 PM


Re: even less evidence for anyone else
Did Josephus mention any of the apostles whom he could have known? Seems to me that if Josephus were really wanting to write about Jesus, he would have sought these guys out and asked them...unless, of course, there were no such men.
That was a remarkably inane sentence ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by 8upwidit2, posted 02-20-2007 1:03 PM 8upwidit2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by 8upwidit2, posted 02-23-2007 8:06 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024