Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

BS Carp, you have not, nor can you, refute the subjective nature of these things. Trying to turn it around does not change that fact. So yes I do have my own standards to satisfy. But are they your standards? Doubtful. Are historical criterion written in stone - no they are changeable as you have said. So I'm not sure what you are defending.

So now you drop "arbitrary" to focus on "subjective." The tools of historical methodology are not "arbitrary," and their specification is not "subjective." We collectively know what the tools are. Their application can be subjective, which is true for any science that deals with the human person and their thoughts/activities. As previously noted, that is the permanent conundrum of historical analysis. It's tools are imprecise, and their application can be impacted by subjective choices (and even biases) of the historian. I have never said otherwise. But you make the error you always make: that a thing can be subjectively used makes it, in your argument "100% subjective" and largely useless. That's folly. The tools are the tools. When we agree on the tools, we have a basis for discussion, even when we disagree on their application.

You tossed the tools out, Seer, and relied on your "accept at face value" argument. Then, as you found how deeply you had buried yourself, the tools suddenly started being readmitted, but now with the claim that you have every right to "subjective apply them as you wish." Once again, your argument leaves you with no basis for making historical claims to anyone (excepting yourself) about the person of Jesus of Nazareth = so my original point stands.

There is only one way to have a historical discussion, Seer. We have to agree on the merits of the tools of historical analysis, and work to apply them as consistently as possible. Historians throughout the ages have sought to do that, and have largely come to agreement on most historical claims. There are still those where there is difference, of course, which is the reason for the discussions and debates that occur. But any historian who enters the world of history with the attitude, "I have the right to apply the tools of historical analysis any way I want," will simply be laughed out of the discussion.

And that is basically where we are now. There is still no basis for a historical discussion with you. You have confined yourself to "my way or the highway." I look to how historians use the tools in general, and try to adjust myself to that approach. That does not mean we will agree on everything. There will still be differences.

[seer]

There is only one way to have a historical discussion, Seer. We have to agree on the merits of the tools of historical analysis, and work to apply them as consistently as possible. Historians throughout the ages have sought to do that, and have largely come to agreement on most historical claims. There are still those where there is difference, of course, which is the reason for the discussions and debates that occur. But any historian who enters the world of history with the attitude, "I have the right to apply the tools of historical analysis any way I want," will simply be laughed out of the discussion.

Then list five of the criterion that all historians agree on?

[carpedm9587]

Then list five of the criterion that all historians agree on?

Well, this is slightly encouraging. At least we seem to be putting the nonsense of the last several exchanges behind us.

I have done this multiple times, though I have never claimed "all." There are certainly bad historians out there. I also don't remember claiming "five." But the basic tools a historian turns to so as to increase confidence in a historical claim are the common-sense ones previously outlined:

1) knowledge of author (important for establishing "could have known")
2) body of surrounding written work (for written historical claims, important for establishing history of accuracy)
3) proximity of sources to originals (generally, the closer sources are to the primary or original documents, the better)
4) independent, mutually affirming sources (the more independent claims of a thing, the higher the confidence. When they are from different venues, confidence is even higher. When they don't involve "human documentation", confidence becomes even higher)
5) lack of conflicting evidence (this can take several forms and come from several disciplines)

These are generally agreed upon as the things being looked for to determine if a historical claim is on solid ground. The fewer of these present, the weaker the claim. The more of these present, the stronger the claim. There are some historical claims for which there is so much evidence of this type, the historical claims are accepted as "almost certainly true." For others, the conclusion is, "likely true." For others the conclusion is "possible, but not certain." And, of course, it's not a binary analysis. Documentation as extensive as the NT can contain a blend of historically accurate claims and historically inaccurate claims.

They are also, Seer, the tools you use to assess that newspaper article you claim to "take at face value," as well as that hypothetical "paper on the porch" I proposed.

[seer]

1) knowledge of author (important for establishing "could have known")

Good for New Testament writers.

2) body of surrounding written work (for written historical claims, important for establishing history of accuracy)

Good for New Testament writers.

3) proximity of sources to originals (generally, the closer sources are to the primary or original documents, the better)

Can not apply to the majority of ancient texts.

4) independent, mutually affirming sources (the more independent claims of a thing, the higher the confidence. When they are from different venues, confidence is even higher. When they don't involve "human documentation", confidence becomes even higher).

Arbitrary consideration. What constitutes "independent" (you and Bart would disagree). And how many such sources constitute a high confidence?

5) lack of conflicting evidence (this can take several forms and come from several disciplines).

Good for the New Testament

[carpedm9587]

1) knowledge of author (important for establishing "could have known")

Good for New Testament writers.

Umm...no. The best you can get to is "someone within the community" for the gospels and even several of the epistles have dubious authorship. Paul is the most strongly supported, IIRC, and are most likely the person Paul described in Acts. We know Acts and Luke have high probability of common authorship and it is widely assumed the author was a physician because of his descriptions, but even that is speculation. Finally, we cannot establish that any of the authors were present for the historical events they relate concerning Jesus of Nazareth. At best, it appear they were documenting stories from other people, making them a secondary source.

2) body of surrounding written work (for written historical claims, important for establishing history of accuracy)

Good for New Testament writers.

The only set of writings of any of these authors is the set that are contained within the NT. We do not have a "body of work" to reference to determine reliability.

3) proximity of sources to originals (generally, the closer sources are to the primary or original documents, the better)

Can not apply to the majority of ancient texts.

This is a commonly made response - but does not alter the fact that it is missing here, weakening the historical claims. But this proximity is not just about the fact that all we have is copies of copies - it is also about the fact that these stories are removed from the events they describe by 20-70 years - and we cannot establish that they were written by actual eyewitnesses. All of those combined with everything listed above, again, significantly weakens the claims.

4) independent, mutually affirming sources (the more independent claims of a thing, the higher the confidence. When they are from different venues, confidence is even higher. When they don't involve "human documentation", confidence becomes even higher).

Arbitrary consideration. What constitutes "independent" (you and Bart would disagree). And how many such sources constitute a high confidence?

Good old Seer. If the tool is inconvenient and your claims cannot provide for it - just throw it away and pretend it doesn't matter.

Setting aside your attempt to bait with "arbitrary" again, the lack of these weakens the claims. Where it is present, it strengthens the claims. "Independent" means that the sources do not share a common root or basis. It's not an absolute, but rather something that is assessed in degree. Matthew is not very independent Mark, for example, because it draws on Mark and both gospels come from within the early Christian community. John is more independent of the Synoptics (no literary dependence and separated in time), but still arises from within the early Christian community, so is prone to the internal bias of any cult/community. The separation in time also makes it even more removed from the events it reports, and we can see that in the increase in fantastical events reported. Most of the miracles are documented in John.

However, the names of cities and places are confirmed by numerous external sources, so we can accept them as true with a high degree of certainty. The claims about the specific words spoken by Jesus are not, and the reports are separated by decades, and cannot be shown to be written by eyewitnesses. All of that, coupled with our knowledge of how human memory works makes it extremely unlikely that the words attributed to Jesus were the exact words spoken by him. Are they "close to his message?" Probably. But again, we have no way of knowing how much was actually said by him and how much was inserted by the community reflecting back on his life and preaching.

I realize you are somewhat desperate to eliminate this aspect of historical analysis, and for obvious reasons. But when you arbitrarily (and this time that word is being used correctly) decide to eliminate the techniques by which we assess the credibility of a historical claim simply because your claim cannot provide for it, you show an extreme bias in your historical analysis. A good historian does not throw out the tool because they cannot use it: they acknowledge that that part of their historical claim is lacking.

ETA: Ultimately, any two written things will share some degree of dependence (i.e., both written by humans, etc.). Generally, the more independent the sources, the better the claim that they independently confirm a historic claim and could not have influenced one another.

5) lack of conflicting evidence (this can take several forms and come from several disciplines).

Good for the New Testament

Not so much. First, there are huge gaps where it is reasonable to presume there should have been some external corroboration. There are events described in the NT that should not have passed notice by historians of the era (earthquakes, dead rising and walking the streets of Jerusalem, etc.) This absence is concerning. And then we have the entire body of science that tells us how memories work, the probability of a "miracle" being real, etc. So there actually is evidence that runs counter to many of the NT claims. You simply reject the evidence out-of-hand and engage in special pleading to do so.

So we are back to the original observation: Seer cannot historically substantiate his claims about Jesus of Nazareth.

[seer]

Umm...no. The best you can get to is "someone within the community" for the gospels and even several of the epistles have dubious authorship. Paul is the most strongly supported, IIRC, and are most likely the person Paul described in Acts. We know Acts and Luke have high probability of common authorship and it is widely assumed the author was a physician because of his descriptions, but even that is speculation. Finally, we cannot establish that any of the authors were present for the historical events they relate concerning Jesus of Nazareth. At best, it appear they were documenting stories from other people, making them a secondary source.

You can not deny that these writing can out of a community that was populated by the the Apostles and disciples of Christ. Good grief even Ehrman doesn't deny this. It fulfills your standard:knowledge of author (important for establishing "could have known")

[rogue06]

You can not deny that these writing can out of a community that was populated by the the Apostles and disciples of Christ. Good grief even Ehrman doesn't deny this. It fulfills your standard:knowledge of author (important for establishing "could have known")

Of course he can deny it. Just not credibly.

[carpedm9587]

You can not deny that these writing can out of a community that was populated by the the Apostles and disciples of Christ. Good grief even Ehrman doesn't deny this.

While it is by no means certain, I actually agree with Ehrman that at least some of the members of the early church at the time of the writing of these books were alive when Jesus was alive.

It fulfills your standard: knowledge of author (important for establishing "could have known")

No it doesn't, Seer. It makes several things possible, but doesn't show that they WERE as you insist them to be. We don't know who the authors are, how they were related to these people who co-existed with Jesus or if they ever had direct access to them. We don't know if they accurately documented what these contemporaries said and we cannot show that the contemporaries, reporting on events that were 20-70 years in the past, were relating them correctly. You have to pile assumption on top of assumption to arrive at these conclusions.

It just doesn't pass muster, unless you believe in the "magic hand of god preserving the integrity of his word." But that is just magical thinking designed to confirm a pre-existing belief. It bipasses any need for historical analysis and simply states, "I believe it because I believe it." So be it - but we are back to the original claim: Seer cannot historically substantiate his historic claims about Jesus of Nazareth.

[seer]

While it is by no means certain, I actually agree with Ehrman that at least some of the members of the early church at the time of the writing of these books were alive when Jesus was alive.

No it doesn't, Seer. It makes several things possible, but doesn't show that they WERE as you insist them to be. We don't know who the authors are, how they were related to these people who co-existed with Jesus or if they ever had direct access to them. We don't know if they accurately documented what these contemporaries said and we cannot show that the contemporaries, reporting on events that were 20-70 years in the past, were relating them correctly. You have to pile assumption on top of assumption to arrive at these conclusions.

It just doesn't pass muster, unless you believe in the "magic hand of god preserving the integrity of his word." But that is just magical thinking designed to confirm a pre-existing belief. It bipasses any need for historical analysis and simply states, "I believe it because I believe it." So be it - but we are back to the original claim: Seer cannot historically substantiate his historic claims about Jesus of Nazareth.

Nonsense Carp, you said "could have known" - of course the New Testament writers could have known. Even if they are just relating what their companions related. That is not assumption on assumption. It is a rational inference, especially with Paul and Luke. And what evidence do you have that they didn't report them correctly, especially with life changing events like the resurrection? And stop with your childish "Seer cannot historically substantiate..." na,na,na a na,na...

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense Carp, you said "could have known" - of course the New Testament writers could have known. Even if they are just relating what their companions related. That is not assumption on assumption. It is a rational inference, especially with Paul and Luke. And what evidence do you have that they didn't report them correctly, especially with life changing events like the resurrection? And stop with your childish "Seer cannot historically substantiate..." na,na,na a na,na...

Seer..."could have known" is a baseline. If you drop below that baseline, the historical claim based on the author's claims have no merit because, by definition, they couldn't have known. But between "could have known" and "did know" is a world of difference. In other words, "could have known" eliminates false claims - it does not ensure the claim is true, which is what you are trying to leap to.

So it is indeed possible that the authors of the NT books were in the company of contemporaries of Jesus. It is possible they accurately heard accurately related stories and accurately documented them. That part has never been in dispute. But to make the claim that they actually were in the company of the contemporaries, the related stories were accurate to the events they described (20-70 years after the fact), and the authors that heard them documented them correctly is where you begin to pile assumption on top of assumption to arrive at your desired conclusions, and you do so without any of the other supporting evidence that good historical methodology turns to (e.g., body of works, absence of contracting evidence, multiple independent sources, etc.).

And I am not going to go down your rat hole of "proving they didn't." I can no more prove they didn't than you can prove they did. That is the entire point of my observation that "Seer cannot historically substantiate the claims he makes about Jesus of Nazareth." You are (again) attempting to shift the discussion because you know you can no more substantiate the claims you are making than I can prove an alternate claim. The fact is - we don't know. "What happened" is largely lost to history. What we DO know is what the early Christian church believed happened. That is what is historic about the NT books. They are primary source material to THAT claim. They are weak secondary source material to the claims about Jesus of Nazareth himself.

[seer]

So it is indeed possible that the authors of the NT books were in the company of contemporaries of Jesus. It is possible they accurately heard accurately related stories and accurately documented them. That part has never been in dispute. But to make the claim that they actually were in the company of the contemporaries, the related stories were accurate to the events they described (20-70 years after the fact), and the authors that heard them documented them correctly is where you begin to pile assumption on top of assumption to arrive at your desired conclusions, and you do so without any of the other supporting evidence that good historical methodology turns to (e.g., body of works, absence of contracting evidence, multiple independent sources, etc.).

I will ask again, if you had a friend that claimed to be the Son of God, died and came back from the grave are those things you would misremember or get wrong? 20, 30 or 70 yeas later?

[carpedm9587]

I will ask again, if you had a friend that claimed to be the Son of God, died and came back from the grave are those things you would misremember or get wrong? 20, 30 or 70 yeas later?

The question is pointless - and has no bearing on the accuracy of the historical claims made concerning Jesus of Nazareth. All it does is note a possibility and does not actually get to "what happened." It does not address the problems with the historical claims made about the NT.

But nice try at changing the subject.

[seer]

The question is pointless - and has no bearing on the accuracy of the historical claims made concerning Jesus of Nazareth. All it does is note a possibility and does not actually get to "what happened." It does not address the problems with the historical claims made about the NT.

But nice try at changing the subject.

No Carp, I asked this a number of times and you dodged the question. And it relates directly to the 20-70 year time line. I maintain that the claims of Christ and His resurrection are not things men would misremember or get wrong. No matter how many years went by.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, I asked this a number of times and you dodged the question.

Yes - I am not answering the question as asked. It is pointless and only feeds into your pre-existing narrative.

And it relates directly to the 20-70 year time line.

No - it doesn't.

I maintain that the claims of Christ and His resurrection are not things men would misremember or get wrong. No matter how many years went by.

If it happened, the people who witnessed it may could well have remembered it correctly. Your problem is showing that it happened, and you can't get there by appealing to "they remembered it correctly" because you don't know that and would be arguing in circles. You cannot show this scenario to be the only one, or even the most likely one. There are multiple possible explanations for the contents of the NT books. You lack any basis for declaring one of them superior to any other. That was the entire point. For the record - neither can I. As I've repeatedly said, there is inadequate evidence to make detailed assertions about the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Tassman]

Right and if you listen to my link he says that is not unusual or disqualifying. Watch the first 35 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzjYmpwbHEA&t=8175s

This link concerns the existence of the MAN Jesus, whom Ehrman acknowledges existed (minus the supernatural components) as opposed to the Christ myth theory as held by Robert M Price and the likes of Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier et al. Nevertheless, Prof Ehrman's claim that "in the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet etc. etc. etc." - is indicative that Jesus made very little impact outside of his little circle of followers during his own lifetime nor in the 100 years after his death.