Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   HELP, BRIAN OR NED....or someone
sfs
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 16 of 21 (104542)
05-01-2004 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brian
04-30-2004 11:45 AM


But it should be remembered that not a single contemporary historian noticed Jesus, any mention of Jesus by historians are written at least 30+ years after Jesus died. The ONLY thing these historians confirm is what Jesus’ followers believed , this does not prove that Jesus did anything, only that people believed that he did.
There's no reason to think that Josephus is dependent on Christian sources.
Most will quote Josephus as proof that Jesus lived, but Jesus died between 3 and 7 years before Josephus was born, so how can Josephus confirm anything other than what people believed happened?
That's pretty much what all ancient historians do. Did Tacitus observe most of the events he records? He's still a good historical source, however. Josephus is generally a reliable source about recent events, at least when he wasn't involved directly.
There is also the problem of the forging of Josephus’ works by Christians, there are no scholars, Christian or otherwise, that do not accept this.
As I'm sure you know, the situation is a bit muddled. There's a consensus that Josephus' statements about Jesus have been at least modified by Christians, but most scholars believe that there was at least some mention of Jesus by Josephus.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are all philosophers, the vast bulk of their work is related to the metaphysical, why would a historian believe everything they say?
This example is really bad. Plato purports to be reporting the words of Socrates in most of his writings, but almost nobody thinks that he's faithfully reporting actual history -- he puts his own words into Socrates' mouth. (And offering Sophocles was absurd, of course.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 04-30-2004 11:45 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 05-01-2004 2:20 PM sfs has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4949 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 17 of 21 (104562)
05-01-2004 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by sfs
05-01-2004 12:15 PM


Hi sfs,
There's no reason to think that Josephus is dependent on Christian sources.
But it wouldn’t matter which sources he used, if he did indeed mention Jesus, any source that Josephus used would only be a record of what Jesus’ followers believed. Whether the particulars of their beliefs actually happened or not can never be decided from written records, which is contrary to what the pastor thinks.
That's pretty much what all ancient historians do. Did Tacitus observe most of the events he records? He's still a good historical source, however.
The entire point of my post was to show that the pastor does not understand history writing, he misunderstands what historical records can do. Of course many ancient historians recorded events that happened before they were born, or they were not eyewitnesses to, but when a historian records an event this doesn’t automatically make everything associated with that event true. I am not saying that Jesus didn’t exist, all I am saying is that a written record of what his followers believed does not make their beliefs true.
I was a Christian for about 20 years and I had no doubts at all that everything written in the Bible about Jesus was true. However, when you can stand back from a source and critically analyse it, then you can see that things are a lot more complicated than just accepting the text at face value.
If I can ramble for a minute, if we look as objectively as we can at the Gospel accounts of the resurrection, the first thing that strikes me is that not a single person actually saw Jesus rising from the dead. They report seeing him being taken down dead from the cross, placed in the tomb, then three days later he was seen alive again. The critical historian would have to imagine as many different scenarios as he could to explain these reports, and I really do not think we have enough information to cover all the possibilities. The only reports we have of this wonderful miracle are from the very people who want us to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. We know that all historians are subjective to some degree, and the evangelists would be no different, we only have their version of events and they are obviously all going to be heavily in Jesus favour.
Josephus is generally a reliable source about recent events, at least when he wasn't involved directly.
Well, Josephus, like every historian, had his biases. I can happily concede that Josephus mentions Jesus, it really doesn't alter what the sources can actually tell us.
As I'm sure you know, the situation is a bit muddled. There's a consensus that Josephus' statements about Jesus have been at least modified by Christians, but most scholars believe that there was at least some mention of Jesus by Josephus.
I am unaware of any historian who thinks that Josephus’ work has not been altered in some way by Christian scribes, which does put a question mark about reliability over Josephus work. Even when all the possible interpolations have been removed, and what remains is still seen as a mention of Jesus, because of this tampering the historian will never know for sure if what remains is reliable or not.
The interesting thing for me here is why the Christians scribes felt compelled to alter it at all, what could they hope to gain by having Josephus claim that Jesus was the messiah, when it must have been fairly well known that Josephus was never a Christian?
I really do agree with everything you bring up here, but what I was pointing out was that, contrary to what the pastor thinks, written records do not prove anything, historians are all aware that anything they write might be proven incorrect at some time in the future. I would argue that, if all the wonderful things that Jesus was said to have done in the Gospel accounts actually did happen, I would expect to find a few more records in first century writings. I mean the dead walking the streets, a three hour eclipse, or even the slaughter of the innocents and not a single mention of these outside of the New Testament. I know these are all propagandist embellishments, but they do make me question how reliable the Gospels actually are.
I would like to say that I do not venture into the New testament that often nowadays, I much prefer the OT and find it far more interesting.
Regarding the philosophers and Sophocles, there was a time that I would have been surprised that a pastor would have presented such a ridiculous argument, but that was before I was aware that any one can call themselves a pastor. It does concern me that this man is preaching to a congregation, some of which are taking everything he says as being factual, perhaps it is because I believe that anyone who is teaching anything to others should have a fairly good background knowledge of what they are talking about, and if his knowledge of the Bible is on a par with his knowledge of history, I dread to think what he is preaching in Church.
Thanks for the reply.
Brian.
PS, to all the regulars, I am limiting myself to one post a day for the next week, then I should be back to something like full fitness again, thank you to everyone who is patiently waiting for replies, I appreciate your patience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by sfs, posted 05-01-2004 12:15 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by AdminAsgara, posted 05-01-2004 2:53 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 21 by sfs, posted 05-03-2004 5:24 PM Brian has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 18 of 21 (104570)
05-01-2004 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
05-01-2004 2:20 PM


Brian, we all know how much time and effort you generally put into your posts and we understand fully wanting to limit yourself at this time.
Hope things are going well with your recovery and PLEASE, do not overtax yourself on our account.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 05-01-2004 2:20 PM Brian has not replied

Brad
Member (Idle past 4778 days)
Posts: 143
From: Portland OR, USA
Joined: 01-26-2004


Message 19 of 21 (104573)
05-01-2004 3:03 PM


What happened to Brian? I've been reading lots of posts, but I must have missed it. Get well Brian!
Brad

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Brian, posted 05-03-2004 3:57 AM Brad has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4949 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 20 of 21 (104881)
05-03-2004 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Brad
05-01-2004 3:03 PM


Hi Shadow,
Just some knee surgery, nothing major, I should be fine by this weekend.
Thanks for your concern.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Brad, posted 05-01-2004 3:03 PM Brad has not replied

sfs
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 21 of 21 (105019)
05-03-2004 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
05-01-2004 2:20 PM


But it wouldn’t matter which sources he used, if he did indeed mention Jesus, any source that Josephus used would only be a record of what Jesus’ followers believed.
I don't know of any reason to think that, any more than that Josephus only knew of John the Baptist from John's followers. If Jesus was anything, he was a public religious figure of some sort, which would mean that there would have been a variety of views and sources of information about him floating about. In particular, Pharisees (some of them, at least) pretty clearly had an antagonistic relationship with either Jesus or with early Christians; in either case, they quite likely had their own view of Jesus (even if it was just, "That whacko Pilate killed.") Since we know that Josephus had some Pharisaical training, and since we have no record of him having any contact with Christian sources, I don't see why Christian sources for his material about Jesus (whatever it might have been originally) should be assumed.
The entire point of my post was to show that the pastor does not understand history writing, he misunderstands what historical records can do. Of course many ancient historians recorded events that happened before they were born, or they were not eyewitnesses to, but when a historian records an event this doesn’t automatically make everything associated with that event true. I am not saying that Jesus didn’t exist, all I am saying is that a written record of what his followers believed does not make their beliefs true.
No disagreement with anything here. (I don't think this means the pastor necessarily just decided to start calling himself one, by the way. It is quite possible that he went to an appropriate school for ordination in his branch of Christianity and heard from professors and read in textbooks exactly the kind of stuff he now preaches. The isolation of much of American evangelicalism from mainstream scholarship is remarkable.)
I was a Christian for about 20 years and I had no doubts at all that everything written in the Bible about Jesus was true.
I'm a Christian now, and I think it extremely improbable that everything written in the Bible about Jesus is true. Or historically accurate, at any rate -- what constitutes "truth" is beyond me.
I am unaware of any historian who thinks that Josephus’ work has not been altered in some way by Christian scribes, which does put a question mark about reliability over Josephus work. Even when all the possible interpolations have been removed, and what remains is still seen as a mention of Jesus, because of this tampering the historian will never know for sure if what remains is reliable or not.
Sure. There wasn't that much there to start with (assuming there was anything), and the interpolation buggered things up thoroughly. Probably the majority of scholars would agree that Josephus gives evidence that Jesus existed, was known to some as the (or a) messiah, and had a brother named James. A bit thin for a biography.
The interesting thing for me here is why the Christians scribes felt compelled to alter it at all, what could they hope to gain by having Josephus claim that Jesus was the messiah, when it must have been fairly well known that Josephus was never a Christian?
I think you're imputing too much critical distance to the scribes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 05-01-2004 2:20 PM Brian 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