Reliable history in the Bible

Why not go more authentic and call him Yeshua ?The question is why assume that he is a literary device. The name is not uncommon at the time (Josephus lists several others). While some aspects of the story could be taken from other people that would hardly change my point. Someone had to start the Ebionite church. Why not accept the likely possibility that there was a Galilean cult leader and would-be Messiah named Yeshua, who got himself crucified by the Romans before he could cause any real trouble ? I'd go further and suggest that other aspects are based on fact - for an example I consider it likely this Yeshua was a follower of John the Baptist who broke away to form his own following.The evidence is not good by thee standards of science. Perhaps not especially good even by the standards of ancient history - in some respects worse than that for Socrates (and the historical Socrates is a rather obscure figure). But I have yet to see a convincing case that the Gospels are pure fiction with no historical basis at all.

I'd have to agree with you, of course, regarding the other possibilites you mention; especially any which include exaggeration and/or fictionalization: something American president's find useful when they need to play God.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I agree. The people who say Yeshua never existed are in the same position as people who say Shakespeare never did. They still have to explain the words and ideas that have reached us. This material exists. It comes from somewhere. On what plausible basis would the true originator of such enduring material be denied recognition by his contemporaries? Why would he deny himself?One can wish more evidence existed for Yeshua apart from the Gospels. But anyone who denies his existence is stuck with two realities:1. The teachings are here. Someone came up with this theology, these parables, and this Sermon on the Mount.2. If you attribute these creations to anyone other than Yeshua, you have far less evidence supporting your attribution than you do for the one you find implausible.I find it credible that the originator of such teachings would win sufficient renown for his name to be recorded. Occam's razor. Keep it simple.__

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

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? we are told in gospels that jesus existed. but are told by the existance of the gospels that an author or authors and editors exist. we know someone wrote the words, that much is certain. with shakespeare, we call that person "shakespeare." but jesus was not the author of the gospels. so the analogy isn't perfect, is it?all we really know is that "matthew" and "mark" and "luke" and "john" existed, even if those were not really their names. isn't matthew, mark, luke and john a simpler explanation than matthew, mark, luke, john and jesus? shouldn't sir william of ockham shave jesus out of the picture?

---

I'll disagree with you one one significant point. We have strogn circumstantial evidence that miracles do not happen. WHile there's nothing surprising about there being a (mildly) popular Galilean cult-leader named Yeshua, raising someone form the dead is vastly improbable. So in this case the circumstantial evidence outweighs the Gospel reports. Just as it does for non-Christian miracles.So, while the direct evidence is the same, the circumstantial evidence is vastly different. We have circumstantial evidence indicating that the name Yeshua was not improbable (it was a common name) and circumstantial evidence that raising a man from the dead is vastly improbable. By considering this factor we can accept that there was a person behind the Gospel stories, while rejecting the more improbable and unlikely elements.

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.

Aiya. (Mandarin for 'oy veh'.)OK, do your worst. I'll defend.Response forthcoming.__

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

*i* didn't bastardize occam's razor. this colloquial missuse of it is the bastardization. sir william of ockham wrote:

quote:

---

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

---

neccessity is the key. he phrased in terms of scientific and mathematic problems -- coefficents and variables that bear almost no impact on the outcome of the equation should be discarded. to apply it to mean "simplest explanation" is simply misunderstanding what the rule means. the correct spelling of "ockham" was a clue to go look it up.applied to jesus, the question of whether or not he exists certainly does have some relation to outcome of the question of whether or not the bible is reliable. jesus's existance is not an extraneous variable that can be removed. we have zero evidence for jesus's existance. why should we?Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

please provide such evidence. they do it at hospitals all the time. if we are basing the argument on the reasonableness of the assumption implicit in accepting the text, isn't "lazarus wasn't totally dead" every bit as reasonable an assumption as "jesus existed, but not exactly as the bible says?" in neither instance we are totally trusting the text to be entirely perfectly accurate, and making reasonable inferences.

---

Its clear that you havnt.The Jericho evidence shows that the people had pretty much already died in a famine (or left) at least slightly before the Conquest.Infact the entire Canaanite population was already down significantly in all of the "promised land" sites that the Israelites took at the end of the Middle Bronze Age(90% of sites were abandoned and what was left was much reduced from the MBA-LBA transition).The Jericho evidence leads me to believe that is was actually slightly before (the 95% population reduction)the Conquest, though it is possible that the Israelites did slaughter some civilians.Amazing sight here (looking in Dr. Bill's direction).We have VERY precise archaeology to inform us of the Jericho Conquest details (every last detail fits except the precise way the Canaanites vanished), and it shows the bombastic reporting of the battle report (perhaps their was a command to wipe-out Canaanites, but maybe it was a metaphor), yet he takes the Bible's words literally.Then, with the very foggy Jesus archaeological details(nearly non-existent, except the minor Josephus details...which ARE much of what one might expect based on the "Bible" btw), he reconstructs away.Interesting though(honestly).Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

You want strong circumstantial evidence against miracles ? How about the fact that there are no well documented and confirmed examples. You think we would have at least a few by now if they happened.Reuscitation procedures at hospitals are not equivalent to the supposed miracle. There are examples in the Bible where a primitive resuscitation procedure might be described, but shouting out "Lazarus, come forth!" doesn't qualify. Nor do hospital procedures work on someone who has been dead for four days.

quote:

---

if we are basing the argument on the reasonableness of the assumption implicit in accepting the text, isn't "lazarus wasn't totally dead" every bit as reasonable an assumption as "jesus existed, but not exactly as the bible says?"

---

Well you're now changing the argument by eliminating the miraculous element. However you are still making a different comparison. The basics are less likely to be fiction than any particular incident. Moeover this incident appears in only one Gospel, John and is therefore less likely to refer to a real incident than events reported in all four Gospels.

the argument above is, essentially, that the bible is based on kernals of truth which have been greatly exagerated. the questions, "why not the miracles, also?" no more so than "jesus existed" eliminates the miraculous events. the jesus supposed by archer's argument is obviously not the same jesus as the bible -- who walked around performing miracles, and rose from the dead. if that didn't happen, can we really say that jesus is based on a real person? those are fairly integral parts of the story. inductively, if all the particulars are irrelevent, isn't the whole argument? ok, pick something that is -- say jesus's own resurrection.

---

quote:

---

the argument above is, essentially, that the bible is based on kernals of truth which have been greatly exagerated.

---

No it isn't. The conclusion is that the central character of Jesus is based on a kernel of truth - surrounded by fictions and exaggerations (and maybe events that happened to others). So it's a conclusion - not an argument - and you've not fully understood even that.

quote:

---

the questions, "why not the miracles, also?"

---

They may or may not be. But to decide that we need to look at the evidence and not try to generalise from a conclusion based on a wider collection of evidence.

quote:

---

no more so than "jesus existed" eliminates the miraculous events. t

---

As I read it your initial point included the miraculous. Eliminating that aspect therefore changed your argument - significantly.

quote:

---

inductively, if all the particulars are irrelevent, isn't the whole argument?

---

That's like saying "an individual die is unlikely to come up 6, so if I roll twenty dice, none of them should come up 6". Saying that individual incidents are less likely to be historical than the core elements of the story doesn't imply that none of them are.

quote:

---

ok, pick something that is -- say jesus's own resurrection.

---

I think you need to be more explicit. The resurrection itself is "off-camera" in all four. Do you mean the Empty Tomb story ? The post-resurrection appearances ? Or what ?

the way i look at it, we have other examples of the samethings, both with or without super impossible miracles
lots of people that did the same things jesus did with equal amounts of evidence for them and people with lots of evidence that did exagerated things
george washington threw a coin over the patomic, which is impossible since its a few miles wide isn't it? its hard to seperate the possiblity of there being a real person from the stuff the book says he did, like i have argued, just because theres a book about him doesn't make him real. people like to bring up how illogical it seems for men to make up a fake person to foster a religion, the problem is that people have shown over 6 thousand years that it is possible.this is for everyone really, as we know huck fin isn't a real person, but lets say people start fostering the idea that he was real, to say push an ideal. and after the people who started it died and they told people how he was a real person and he did a bunch of stuff, would you be able to tell the difference?the fact is people can start to believe thier own ideas, they arn't lies, but ideals to say progress i agree, how do you seperate the basics? he was born? he lived? uh he died? thats part of jesus, i've often wondered why it matters so much if he really did exist as a living person, but i suppose it henges so much on it because of messiahship

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.