Reliable history in the Bible

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.

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

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

There are two simpler explanations one could make, per Ockham.1. Some event won sufficient renown to be recorded. It is not necessary to invoke a miracle. It is only necessary to allow that some people viewed it as such.2. (Specific to the Lazarus story) 'Sufficient renown to be recorded' does not appear to be a factor here as John is the only one who mentions this miracle. Matthew, Mark and Luke, along with contemporaries such as Paul of Tarsus, take no note of it. These other writers had every reason to call attention to such a stupendous event if they knew of it. The simplest explanation is that John made up the story. This argument has already been advanced by others, but here's my version.Evidence for existence and evidence for miracles is not the same on balance. As a result, any new evidence has to pass a different standard for acceptance.Existence is an everyday thing. We know people can exist because we watch them do it all the time. We do it ourselves.If artifacts from the period tell us a person existed and we have no evidence to the contrary, we may reasonably accept it, however provisionally.Miracles are not everyday. By definition they represent happenings that are, in the common experience of human beings worldwide, impossible.If artifacts from the period tell us a miracle happened, we may reasonably withhold assent because overwhelming evidence to the contrary already exists. Reason requires more concrete evidence than hearsay to overturn the combined weight of universal human experience.The quality of the evidence is substantially different.The existence of a story is prima facie evidence for a storyteller. The story could not be here without one. Likewise, the existence of a teaching is prima facie evidence for a teacher. The teaching could not be here without one. The rest is attribution.The existence of a story is hearsay evidence for a miracle. A story about a miracle can easily exist without the miracle.This is not to say attributions are made of the same solid stuff as simple knowledge that a storyteller or teacher existed. But we do know in this case that an attribution is in order. When it comes to quality of evidence, we are already way ahead of the miracle scenario. I agree the analogy is not perfect. But it's a little better than that.Shakespeare's plays do exist in different versions. All purport to represent Shakespeare's words. In spite of the discrepancies, the common material makes it reasonable to accept, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the attribution given in all the versions: a single source known as 'Shakepeare' lies behind this common material.Yeshua's teachings exist in different versions (Matthew, Mark, Luke). All purport to represent Yeshua's sayings. In spite of the discrepancies, the unity of vision still makes it reasonable to accept, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the attribution given in all the versions: a single source known as 'Yeshua' lies behind the common material.Scholars generally believe the three Synoptic writers drew from one document containing the collected sayings of Yeshua. If so, we may say their goal resembled that of Elizabethan editors publishing annotated editions of Shakespeare's plays. You would see expect to see less variation in the text of the plays but much more variety in the content of the annotations. This is pretty much the kind of situation we encounter in the Synoptics. Much common material appears in the Synoptics' portrait of Yeshua.We have multiple writers (the three Synoptic authors) whose portraits show clear consistencies. The simplest explanation for the consistency is shared material--a common source.If a common source existed, that source could be an influential teacher whose ideas were recorded--OR--an influential teacher who credited a (perhaps fictional) person named Yeshua as the source of his ideas--OR--an influential teacher who had his ideas credited by others to a (perhaps fictional) person named Yeshua.If no common source existed, the authors, or a group they relied upon, colluded to produce the common material.One then has to decide which is more plausible: that a single source existed, or that the common material is the result of committee work.If one decides a common source is more likely, one is left with Yeshua the Teacher or 'Yeshua the Teacher.' Either you get Yeshua or someone who might as well be for all practical purposes Yeshua.If one decides committee work is more likely, one is obligated to show how the evidence for collusion better outweighs the evidence for a single source as an explanation of the common material.We know more than simply that the authors themselves existed.Here is your statement again with one name changed.

quote:

---

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 pontius pilate? shouldn't sir william of ockham shave pontius pilate out of the picture?

---

For many years this argument was made by those who dismissed the idea that Pilate ever existed. He is a prominent figure in all four Gospels but outside the Gospels he was unknown to history. On this basis many people suggested he was a fiction.Since 1961 we know not only that 'Matthew' Mark' 'Luke' and 'John' existed, we also know Pontius Pilate existed. That's the year that a limestone block was discovered in Caesarea Palaestina with Pilate's name inscribed on it. Archaelogists believe it to be genuine, the remnant of a building erected during his prefecture of Judea.Today we have concrete evidence (limestone, actually) that the Gospels in combination are perfectly capable of supplying evidence for the existence of a real person whose name is otherwise lost to history.It has thus been established that dismissing a prominent Gospel figure as a fiction--on the basis of lack of outside evidence alone--is not the safest way to shave.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Point taken.Many sources do allude to a debate about the historicity of Pilate, including the main Wiki article which says the 1961 discovery 'settled' it.
Pontius Pilate - WikipediaBut even though mention of a 'debate' about Pilate's existence abound, none I have found provide the details you have asked for, either. It is a vexing exercise to try to find mention of this debate in a source one can trust not to be biased.Speaking of which: while the article on Pilate at Wiki is really pretty good, the entry for Pilate Stone is a disaster after the opening paragraph.The much-reported 'debate' over Pilate's existence may be an urban legend. Apologists do love to perpetuate them. Or it may refer to a minority view that really did exist. It could be that people remember a debate about Pilate's historicity that took place mainly among interested non-specialists hanging out in the pre-1961 equivalent of message boards. Their thoughts on the subject would be less likely to be preserved than that of scholars in the field. (Example: Scholars today generally accept that a 'historical Jesus' existed. The general view is that his teachings were recorded in a source document that was used by the Synoptic authors. But you'd never know this consensus existed by reading discussions at EvC.) Mention of a 'debate' about Pilate may also be in part a misrepresentation of the real and ongoing debate about how much to trust the episodes involving Pilate in the Gospel narratives.As for the references you cite: neither Tacitus nor Joephus (I knew of both) are contemporary figures. They wrote some decades after Pilate left office in a time when the Gospels were already being written and promulgated. For this reason anyone doubting the existence of Pilate would simply doubt the veracity of these texts as we have them. They could postulate that mentions of Pilate were deliberately placed in these texts by Christians who found it awkward that his name did not appear where it should have. People assert hypotheses just like this, after all, if the subject turns to the mention of Jesus in Josephus.It bugs me that I was unaware of Philo's mention of Pilate. Philo, as you say, was a contemporary. Skeptics in any debate that once existed could still argue that Christians tampered with the text. But by this point the weight of extra-canonical evidence for Pilate really adds up.I thus stand corrected on my last point. It is valid to point to Pilate's existence as an example of a Gospel figure corresponding to a historical person. One can legitimately view this as lending plausibility to the idea that other figures in the Gospels may represent real persons. But it is not correct to say, as I did, that no contemporary evidence for Pilate existed outside the Gospels before 1961.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : cleanup.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

These points are all interesting. It's worth mentioning, though, that nothing here weighs against the possibility of a historical Yeshua. On the contrary: every situation described is par for the course in the case of an influential historical personality.Choose any famous figure whose existence is not doubted. Vergil, Dante, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I, Lincoln, Nixon, Mao. Their ideas and work all show the influence of others. Their work is in turn portrayed in different and sometimes contradictory ways in subsequent portraits. Some portraits are fanciful and some more realistic. In time (if not right away) most portraits take on the quality of icons or myths rather than realistic portrayals of an actual person. All are composites.BTW - Although your post is billed as a response to me, an isolated bit of code in it (paragraph 2) suggests you are quoting that question. The question isn't mine.
___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.