Genesis 2:2 He rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.

[Tassman]

Some of Matthew's record can logically be considered myth or hyperbole to be sure, but given that I have yet to find one scholar who disallows all miracle accounts and hasn't also given a mistaken exposition of one elementary statement of scripture or another, I consider such scholars to be somewhat unreliable.

It tends to be only the apologist scholars that accept miracles at face value. Most historians utilise the standard tool of historians, namely the historical-critical method, because in the realm of history there are only judgements of probability, varying from the highest to the lowest degree. Consequently an estimate must be made of the degree of probability attaching to any tradition or historical claim. And, for the likes of Bart Ehrman, the least probable explanations of an alleged event is likely to be a miracle...any natural explanation is more probable.

[tabibito]

It tends to be only the apologist scholars that accept miracles at face value. Most historians utilise the standard tool of historians, namely the historical-critical method, because in the realm of history there are only judgements of probability, varying from the highest to the lowest degree. Consequently an estimate must be made of the degree of probability attaching to any tradition or historical claim. And, for the likes of Bart Ehrman, the least probable explanations of an alleged event is likely to be a miracle...any natural explanation is more probable.

I would have to agree that a miracle is the least likely of all possible explanations - that is inextricably a part of and inherent to the definition of a miracle.
Predetermining that there was no occurrence of a miracle, however, flies in the face of the principles of scientific enquiry.
Claim: Jesus and Peter walked on water.
Predetermined response: No one can walk on water, therefore, it did not happen.
Scientific enquiry: What would make that possible? Let's investigate.

As far as Bart Ehrman is concerned:

… when Mark says that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal was eaten (Mark 14:12; 15:25) and John says he died the day before it was eaten (John 19:14) = maybe that is a genuine difference. {Misquoting Jesus, Harper Collins, 2005, p 10}

Well - he at least got the record of John right, and there are plenty of (more respected) authors who get that bit wrong. But Mark 14:12 shows the day as the one when the Passover is sacrificed, not the first of the Passover Sabbaths (which falls on the following day) Mark 15:25 shows the hour that Jesus was crucified, but not the day. Nothing in the entire paragraph identifies the actual day. However, Mark 15:42 declares the day that Jesus was placed in the tomb as the day of preparation ... So (according to Ehrman's assessment of Mark's record) the dead Jesus was entombed two days before he was crucified.

In sum: Ehrman demonstrates my comment about people who reject any possibility of the miracle accounts being valid, as customarily being unable to validly parse elementary scriptural accounts.

[JonathanL]

I would have to agree that a miracle is the least likely of all possible explanations - that is inextricably a part of and inherent to the definition of a miracle.

I disagree. I think the rarity and low probability of any sort of event being a miracle and not a natural explanation is incidental, not inherent.

[Tassman]

I would have to agree that a miracle is the least likely of all possible explanations - that is inextricably a part of and inherent to the definition of a miracle.
Predetermining that there was no occurrence of a miracle, however, flies in the face of the principles of scientific enquiry.

That’s not the argument.

Claim: Jesus and Peter walked on water.
Predetermined response: No one can walk on water, therefore, it did not happen.
Scientific enquiry: What would make that possible? Let's investigate.

That’s not the response of an historian employing historical-critical methodology. It is that the appearance of Jesus seemingly walking on the water most probably has a natural explanation. After all, in real life our automatic response when something bizarre happens is not “it must be a miracle”, we search for a natural explanation. OTOH, in the more credulous, prescientific society of 2,000 years ago a “miracle” would be an acceptable explanation. "Miracles" happened all the time.

As far as Bart Ehrman is concerned:

… when Mark says that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal was eaten (Mark 14:12; 15:25) and John says he died the day before it was eaten (John 19:14) = maybe that is a genuine difference. {Misquoting Jesus, Harper Collins, 2005, p 10}

Well - he at least got the record of John right, and there are plenty of (more respected) authors who get that bit wrong. But Mark 14:12 shows the day as the one when the Passover is sacrificed, not the first of the Passover Sabbaths (which falls on the following day) Mark 15:25 shows the hour that Jesus was crucified, but not the day. Nothing in the entire paragraph identifies the actual day. However, Mark 15:42 declares the day that Jesus was placed in the tomb as the day of preparation ... So (according to Ehrman's assessment of Mark's record) the dead Jesus was entombed two days before he was crucified.

In sum: Ehrman demonstrates my comment about people who reject any possibility of the miracle accounts being valid, as customarily being unable to validly parse elementary scriptural accounts.

Again, the likes of Ehrman do not reject the possibility of miraculous events; merely that they are the least probable explanation...any natural explanation, no matter how outlandish, is more probable that positing a miracle as the explanation..

[One Bad Pig]

Hey psstein, only christian biblical scholars believe the bible to be reliable history. Apparently you believe that all biblical scholars are christian. Try Prof. Francesca Stavrakopoulou.

I have no idea where you got the notion that psstein believes that all biblical scholars are christian; you certainly did not get it from the content of his posts. This appears to be an attempt to deflect from the fact that you have no answer to his question.

If you're reduced to immolating strawmen, you've lost.

[JimL]

I have no idea where you got the notion that psstein believes that all biblical scholars are christian; you certainly did not get it from the content of his posts. This appears to be an attempt to deflect from the fact that you have no answer to his question.

If you're reduced to immolating strawmen, you've lost.

I've already answered his question twice, Prof. Francesca Stavrakopoulou is right in the post of mine you're responding to.

[One Bad Pig]

I've already answered his question twice, Prof. Francesca Stavrakopoulou is right in the post of mine you're responding to.

What question do you think she answers?

[psstein]

Hey psstein, only christian biblical scholars believe the bible to be reliable history. Apparently you believe that all biblical scholars are christian. Try Prof. Francesca Stavrakopoulou.

Seeing as how Geza Vermes and Paula Fredrikson are Jewish and Maurice Casey was an agnostic, I clearly know that not all Biblical scholars are Christian. And, the vast majority of those who are Christian tend to profess a more liberal faith (I can provide multiple examples).

I don't think the entirety of the Bible is reliable history in terms of being a blow by blow, accurate account of all that happened. Nobody really believes that outside of extreme fundamentalists.

[psstein]

It tends to be only the apologist scholars that accept miracles at face value. Most historians utilise the standard tool of historians, namely the historical-critical method, because in the realm of history there are only judgements of probability, varying from the highest to the lowest degree. Consequently an estimate must be made of the degree of probability attaching to any tradition or historical claim. And, for the likes of Bart Ehrman, the least probable explanations of an alleged event is likely to be a miracle...any natural explanation is more probable.

Seeing as how I actually am a historian, I can tell you that this is not universally true. There are some highly respected historians who believe that one cannot adjudicate positively or negatively on whether or not a miracle occurred, only that it was reported. This is the view that I follow as well.

In terms of history as probability, that is more or less correct, though there are quite a few who doubt the usefulness of that method.

[psstein]

I have no idea where you got the notion that psstein believes that all biblical scholars are christian; you certainly did not get it from the content of his posts. This appears to be an attempt to deflect from the fact that you have no answer to his question.

If you're reduced to immolating strawmen, you've lost.

To reiterate, I certainly don't believe that all Biblical scholars are Christian, seeing as how I came very close to a career in NT (I gave up on it for a number of reasons, one of which is that the field is an absolute disaster as it currently stands).

[psstein]

Some of Matthew's record can logically be considered myth or hyperbole to be sure, but given that I have yet to find one scholar who disallows all miracle accounts and hasn't also given a mistaken exposition of one elementary statement of scripture or another, I consider such scholars to be somewhat unreliable.

It depends on what you mean by "miracle account." In current NT scholarship, there's little debate that Jesus performed healings and exorcisms that were interpreted as miracles.

In terms of the nature miracles and the like, that's a different story.

[Tassman]

Seeing as how I actually am a historian, I can tell you that this is not universally true. There are some highly respected historians who believe that one cannot adjudicate positively or negatively on whether or not a miracle occurred, only that it was reported. This is the view that I follow as well.

I’m not disagreeing. I’m just saying that historical-critical methodology will view “a miracle” as the least probable explanation of an unusual or bizarre event. This is especially the case when they emanate from a pre-scientific, more credulous era and there are no first-hand accounts of them...as per the biblical miracles.

In terms of history as probability, that is more or less correct, though there are quite a few who doubt the usefulness of that method.

There's no viable alternative method.

[tabibito]

To reiterate, I certainly don't believe that all Biblical scholars are Christian, seeing as how I came very close to a career in NT (I gave up on it for a number of reasons, one of which is that the field is an absolute disaster as it currently stands).

[psstein]

I wish I could say that my current field is any better. The issue with history is that far too much of the field never leaves its own disciplinary and political echo chamber. I specialize in history of science, myself. There's been a lot of trash (and I mean a lot) published since the mid-1990s.

With Biblical studies more generally, the issue is that, while OT has really shifted towards questions of history and archaeology, NT has developed in a way where Jesus and Paul can be reinterpreted to fit any theological scheme you like. Recently, there was an article in a good journal (don't remember which one) about reading John's Jesus as a "queer black woman." I have my own qualms with conservative evangelical scholarship, but conservative evangelicals represent a good portion of NT scholars asking even remotely interesting questions.

[37818]

It does, in fact. Science tells us that Adam and Eve are fictions; the considerable evidence renders this beyond doubt. That Paul or Jesus thought otherwise is irrelevant. They were wrong. This is not to say that they were stupid or careless. Two thousand years ago, for a Jew to believe in Adam and Eve made sense. But time moves on and our knowledge grows and our understanding of the world evolves.

Science tells us nothing that actually refutes the direct creation of man and woman by God. What fact of science disallows that event?