Are the Old and New Testaments really history?

[polonius]

Beginning with a definition we have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity

Historicity is the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth, legend, or fiction. ... The historicity of a claim about the past is its factual status.

To begin with a realistic examination of the Old and New Testament, we have to begin with its history or lack of history.

When do the writings of the Old Testament and the New Testaments first appear?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 17 by oldbadger]

Hi..........
I don't see any resurrection in G-Mark.

As I said, it is suggested.

The women find the tomb empty and a young man appears telling them he is raised and will meet the men in Galilee.

I'm not even sure about which Yeshua was arrested/convicted....... there were originally two in G-Mark you know, but the first name of one somehow got removed.

I was not aware of this. How do we know that a name was removed? I am eager to see the evidence.

I accept the foundational truth of many of the incidents which you call miracles, but which I think are exaggerated into 'huge hyperbole', but to keep things simple, could we focus on either resurrection or miracles? Would that be ok?

I like the simplicity. Resurrection.

[oldbadger]

As I said, it is suggested.

The women find the tomb empty and a young man appears telling them he is raised and will meet the men in Galilee.

The women find the tomb empty on very early a Sunday morning after the tomb was left since a Friday evening......... ? That's over 36 hours!

I was not aware of this. How do we know that a name was removed? I am eager to see the evidence.

Sure......... two Yeshuas, one was Yeshua Son of Man, the other was Yeshua Son of the Father. Which was your Yeshua?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas
Some ancient manuscripts of Matthew 27:16–17 have the full name of Barabbas as "Jesus Barabbas" and this was probably the name as originally written in the text.[12] Early church father Origen was troubled by the fact that his copies of the gospels gave Barabbas' name as "Jesus Barabbas" and declared that since it was impossible he could have had such a holy name, "Jesus" must have been added to Barabbas' name by a heretic.[13] It is possible that later scribes, copying the passage, removed the name "Jesus" from "Jesus Barabbas" to avoid dishonour to the name of Jesus the Messiah.[14]

I like the simplicity. Resurrection.

OK....... There are a number of possibilities.
1. Pilate enjoyed the embarrassment of the Priesthood and the fuss in the Temple, and wished for Yreshua Son of Man to live because he might be useful, so he had Yeshua Son of Father whipped bloody and face disfigured and executed in place of the other. Nobody was near enough to identify...... Magdalene and Salome were kept 'far off'. Yeshua was got away North, and the disciples saw him at Genesarret as he passed by.

2. Yeshua Son of Man was crucified but Pilate agreed with Joseph to fake his death, (very early in a crucifixion,) and he was taken down by Juseph and later got away, taken North, where the disciples saw him at Genessaret. There is historical evidence that crucificts have been reprieved, taken off the cross and actually survived. I have that if you need it.

3. Yeshua Son of Man was executed, entombed, but taken away before Sunday morning.

4. Yeshua Son of Man Demonstrated in the Temple, Picketed the Temple Courts two days running, and that it was he himself who was arrested for rioting, but Pilot ensured that another, Yeshua Son of Father was executed.

5. The Sea Ports of Sidon and Tyre were trading with Cornwall for tin thousands of years before Yeshua's mission. The Cornish have a legend that Yeshua was taken there by the Jewish Levite Trader Joseph who traded in tin. Most interesting legend, and quite possible.

6. The people of Kashmir have a legend that Yeshua was taken there, lived there, died there, and has a tomb there..... Most interesting legend.

That's just for starters. And so, would you like to produce evidence that Yeshua was even crucified?...... or crucified and died?......... or was ever resurrected?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 22 by oldbadger]

liamconnor wrote:

As I said, it is suggested.

The women find the tomb empty and a young man appears telling them he is raised and will meet the men in Galilee.

The women find the tomb empty on very early a Sunday morning after the tomb was left since a Friday evening......... ? That's over 36 hours!

I do not see any significance here. At any rate the main point was whether Mark's original ending implied that Jesus was raised. It most certainly does. That of course does not mean it is historical. At any rate, I am not sure what you are getting at.

Quote:
I was not aware of this. How do we know that a name was removed? I am eager to see the evidence.

Sure......... two Yeshuas, one was Yeshua Son of Man, the other was Yeshua Son of the Father. Which was your Yeshua?

If you are referring to Barabbas, fine. I don't see any significance here. Clearly I am concerned with Jesus of Nazareth.

As for the link, the conclusion is nonsense. Wiki is hardly a scholarly sight. Yeshua was one of the most common semitic names of the period. Origen's conclusion is slanted by a sincere but misguided piety.

Quote:
I like the simplicity. Resurrection.

OK....... There are a number of possibilities.

Your theories all clearly begin with the assumption that Jesus could not possibly have been crucified and raised. That is, you begin with a metaphysic that is not derived from historical research. You then proceed to explain the origins of the early church by any means possible: reading into things, stretching terms. Pretty much wholesale invention. Historians look for theories that meet certain criteria:

1) Explanatory Power

2) Explanatory Scope

3) Absence of Ad Hoc.

Your theories are desperately in violation of the third. It is what we call "multiplying hypotheses". Put another way, throwing out a bunch of "Well, maybe this happened, or this, or that" and considering them all valid.

At any rate, it is not serious historical work. AFter all, where in the data do we see any evidence that

2. Yeshua Son of Man was crucified but Pilate agreed with Joseph to fake his death, (very early in a crucifixion,) and he was taken down by Juseph and later got away, taken North, where the disciples saw him at Genessaret.

This is terribly ad hoc. There is zero room for this when studying the data. We have no evidence that Joseph thought Jesus anything other than dead as a door nail. There is zero evidence that he conspired with Pilate.

That's just for starters. And so, would you like to produce evidence that Yeshua was even crucified?...... or crucified and died?......... or was ever resurrected?

I would first like to know the historical credentials of the person I am debating with. If I am debating with someone who thinks any theory is better than one involving the miraculous, I should like to know on what grounds this conclusion rests. If I am debating with someone who simply applies a hyperskepticism to the data, I should like to know whether he or she is at least consistent--applying the same hyperskepticism to Plutarch, or Livy, Caesar.

We can start with the first by way of an alternative: is it more likely in your mind that Jesus' body was abducted by aliens (purely natural entities) than that a supernatural power revivified his corpse?

[oldbadger]

I do not see any significance here. At any rate the main point was whether Mark's original ending implied that Jesus was raised. It most certainly does. That of course does not mean it is historical. At any rate, I am not sure what you are getting at.

36 hours? No significance? I don't know of any Jury that would dismiss that evidence.
Mark's ending leaves Magdalene and Salome just standing there...... finish!

If you are referring to Barabbas, fine. I don't see any significance here. Clearly I am concerned with Jesus of Nazareth.

No significance? Now which was your Jesus?

Jesus sonofman or Jesus sonofFather?
Jesus who trashed the market and picketed the Temple Courts, armed with swords? ..... or Jesus who started a riot?
Jesus who got arrested, tried and convicted, or ......Oh.... they both did....
Jesus who was condemned to death? Oh..... they both were...
The Jesus that got executed? Well, which one was that thenm?

No significance.
I promise you, any detacked observer would think about these closee descriptions?
....

As for the link, the conclusion is nonsense. Wiki is hardly a scholarly sight. Yeshua was one of the most common semitic names of the period. Origen's conclusion is slanted by a sincere but misguided piety.

Amazing. I'll bet you like Wiki when it suits your cause, yes?
If I had a pound coin for everey time that folks trash Wiki (when it doesn't suit them) I could buy my wife a new washing machine....... with a fast-spin!

Your theories all clearly begin with the assumption that Jesus could not possibly have been crucified and raised.

Don't staple crucified together with raised, please. Crucified, yes..... raised.... No.

That is, you begin with a metaphysic that is not derived from historical research.

Oh yes it is....... the possibilities are right there, snuck in between the lines.
And members here insist that 'not all info' actually got written into the account. See the thread about Jesus and his brothers...

You then proceed to explain the origins of the early church by any means possible: reading into things, stretching terms. Pretty much wholesale invention.

Oh no I didn't. Every point I made could have happened, backed up by either bible reporets of other legends.

Historians look for theories that meet certain criteria:

1) Explanatory Power

2) Explanatory Scope

3) Absence of Ad Hoc.

Your theories are desperately in violation of the third. It is what we call "multiplying hypotheses". Put another way, throwing out a bunch of "Well, maybe this happened, or this, or that" and considering them all valid.

Ad Hoc? Show me what my agenda is, please..... If you make these allegations then you need to back them up.
Ah ha! You really ouight to read historians kicking each other's theories to pieces. There are no experts........ but there are some good investigators. I'm not bad at investigation, you know. And I've studied HJ for many years.

At any rate, it is not serious historical work. AFter all, where in the data do we see any evidence that 'Yeshua Son of Man was crucified but Pilate agreed with Joseph to fake his death'.

That meeting was most unusual. Pilate hated the priesthood. The priesthood hated Jesus. A 3-5 hour crucifixion doesn't kill, that takes up to 3 days.

This is terribly ad hoc. There is zero room for this when studying the data. We have no evidence that Joseph thought Jesus anything other than dead as a door nail. There is zero evidence that he conspired with Pilate.

Oh yes there is...... circumstance.
You cannot win this debate by just repeating 'Ad Hoc'.... You need to produce some evidence for your belief, surely? I can't see any.

All of the offered numbered points are possibilities, and clearly early writers wanted to separate one Yeshua from another....... Maybe they were the same person? Both were insurrectionists, you know. Both were armed. Both were violent.

I would first like to know the historical credentials of the person I am debating with.

Love it! A reversed Ad-Hominem? Put any dozen Historians in the same room, talking about the same subject, and they will disagree..... which was the one with the credentials that you approve of?

You are on soft boggy ground when you turn the debate into a personal attack, Sir.

If I am debating with someone who thinks any theory is better than one involving the miraculous, I should like to know on what grounds this conclusion rests.

So your belief in miracles is automatically reasonable, and my explanation of real possibilitires is 'theory'? I like theory better, methinks.

If I am debating with someone who simply applies a hyperskepticism to the data, I should like to know whether he or she is at least consistent--applying the same hyperskepticism to Plutarch, or Livy, Caesar.

My proposals are not skeptical of the truth. I just seek objectively. I haven't got (nor ever had) an agenda.

We can start with the first by way of an alternative: is it more likely in your mind that Jesus' body was abducted by aliens (purely natural entities) than that a supernatural power revivified his corpse?

You've done it. It's official. You've failred to produce any real evidence for your proposal, that Jesus was raised during a 36 hour period in an empty tomb, so you now throw in the 'alien touch' as a kind of discredit to ACTUAL POSSIBLE OUTCOMES.

No wonder the disciples actually did see a Yeshua at Genessaret.......

[polonius]

liamoconner posted:

We can start with the first by way of an alternative: is it more likely in your mind that Jesus' body was abducted by aliens (purely natural entities) than that a supernatural power revivified his corpse?

RESPONSE: I'm afraid that you are using the "faulty dilemma" approach.

Let's consider instead what is most likely.

If a Jewish person died, he had to be buried by sundown.

However, it was a common practice to move his remains to the family plot as soon as possible, like the next day.

[bjs]

I was not aware of this. How do we know that a name was removed? I am eager to see the evidence.

Sure......... two Yeshuas, one was Yeshua Son of Man, the other was Yeshua Son of the Father. Which was your Yeshua?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas
Some ancient manuscripts of Matthew 27:16–17 have the full name of Barabbas as "Jesus Barabbas" and this was probably the name as originally written in the text.[12] Early church father Origen was troubled by the fact that his copies of the gospels gave Barabbas' name as "Jesus Barabbas" and declared that since it was impossible he could have had such a holy name, "Jesus" must have been added to Barabbas' name by a heretic.[13] It is possible that later scribes, copying the passage, removed the name "Jesus" from "Jesus Barabbas" to avoid dishonour to the name of Jesus the Messiah.[14]

For whatever it’s worth, in Matthew 27:16-17 the addition of the name “Jesus� before “Barabbas� didn’t show up until 9th century in the Codex Koridethi. Every text before that, and every church father who quoted the text, just called him “Barabbas.� None of the earliest or most reliable manuscripts include the name “Jesus� in that passage.

It is unlikely that name “Jesus� was removed from that passage of Matthew. It was more likely added, possibly by accident, centuries later.


Edit: I did a little more checking and found that the variant reading that includes the addition of the name “Jesus� before Barabbas is common in the Caesarean text-type. The Codex Koridethi is the oldest of these family of texts, dating from the ninth century.

However, it does seem that Origin of Alexandria did have access to the family of texts, even though none of the texts from his time still exist. However, the consistent way Origin referenced this family of texts means that he must have had access to it. All the more reliable families of texts (the Byzantine text-type, the Western text-type and the Alexandrian text-type) do not include the name “Jesus� before Barabbas.

Interestingly, when Origin quoted the passage itself he did not include the name “Jesus� before Barabbas. This suggests that he also had access to one of the other families of texts, and that he considered them more reliable than the Caesarean text-type.

All in all, the conclusion seems the same: The name “Jesus� was added to this passage later. It was not in the original manuscript of Matthew.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 25 by polonius.advice]

My question is intended to probe your metaphysic. I certainly do not think you actually hold "alien abduction" as a plausible hypothesis. But is it more plausible than a divine act?

If you say yes, then what should be discussed is not history but metaphysics.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 24 by oldbadger]

36 hours? No significance? I don't know of any Jury that would dismiss that evidence.
Mark's ending leaves Magdalene and Salome just standing there...... finish!

Certainly 36 hours is enough time for something to happen: a grave robbery or relocation. And that is a theory that certainly should be tested. In fact, it has, by numerous scholars. For instance, G. Vermes believes the body was stolen by a non-disciple.

As for Magdalene and Salome, what does it matter that we do not hear what happened next?

Quote:
If you are referring to Barabbas, fine. I don't see any significance here. Clearly I am concerned with Jesus of Nazareth.

No significance? Now which was your Jesus?

You are not seriously asking me to consider a "switch-a-roo"?

Quote:
As for the link, the conclusion is nonsense. Wiki is hardly a scholarly sight. Yeshua was one of the most common semitic names of the period. Origen's conclusion is slanted by a sincere but misguided piety.

Amazing. I'll bet you like Wiki when it suits your cause, yes?
If I had a pound coin for everey time that folks trash Wiki (when it doesn't suit them) I could buy my wife a new washing machine....... with a fast-spin! Smile

I use wiki for very, very basic information. Dates and places mainly. But I certainly do not employ Wiki as an appeal to authority.

At any rate, my case remains: regardless of when 'Jesus' was added to the manuscripts, it is one of the most common semitic names of the time.

Oh no I didn't. Every point I made could have happened, backed up by either bible reporets of other legends.

Are you under the impression that because a theory could have happened it therefore did? The criterion of Possibility is one of the weakest: to meet it, one need merely offer a hypothesis that does not involve a contradiction. And I agree, none of your theories involve a contradiction. Does that mean that they all happened?

Quote:
Historians look for theories that meet certain criteria:

1) Explanatory Power

2) Explanatory Scope

3) Absence of Ad Hoc.

Your theories are desperately in violation of the third. It is what we call "multiplying hypotheses". Put another way, throwing out a bunch of "Well, maybe this happened, or this, or that" and considering them all valid.

Ad Hoc? Show me what my agenda is, please..... If you make these allegations then you need to back them up.

I said nothing about your "agenda".

As for Ad Hoc:

1. 1. Pilate enjoyed the embarrassment of the Priesthood and the fuss in the Temple, and wished for Yreshua Son of Man to live because he might be useful,

Why in the world should anyone think this true? Where in the data can you show this happening? If your response is, "I am just saying it could have happened" then that is what I mean by Ad Hoc: a bunch of wild 'maybes' thrown about whose only virtue is that they meet the first criterion of "non-contradiction", which is hardly worth an applause.

All of your theories take such a course. They are just a series of "well maybe this happened, or maybe that, or maybe this".

Quote:
At any rate, it is not serious historical work. AFter all, where in the data do we see any evidence that 'Yeshua Son of Man was crucified but Pilate agreed with Joseph to fake his death'.

That meeting was most unusual. Pilate hated the priesthood. The priesthood hated Jesus. A 3-5 hour crucifixion doesn't kill, that takes up to 3 days.

Should we conclude that the other two victims also did not die?

Quote:
This is terribly ad hoc. There is zero room for this when studying the data. We have no evidence that Joseph thought Jesus anything other than dead as a door nail. There is zero evidence that he conspired with Pilate.

Oh yes there is...... circumstance.
You cannot win this debate by just repeating 'Ad Hoc'.... You need to produce some evidence for your belief, surely? I can't see any.

Depends what you mean by 'win'. You have made claims. It is therefore your job to support them. So far, all I see you doing is reading into the data. When I read the gospels, I see a single line given to a guy we've never heard about--J. of Arimathea. When you read this single line, you apparently see (at least in some of your theories) a wild conspiracy. If this is not eisegesis (reading into something) I don't know what is.

All of the offered numbered points are possibilities,

Yes, they do not violate the criterion of non-contradiction. Neither does alien abduction; nor miraculous intervention. Thus far the theories have a very low rate as historical theories.

Quote:
I would first like to know the historical credentials of the person I am debating with.

Love it! A reversed Ad-Hominem?

Ad-HOminem? I made no attack against you as a person. I stated my intentions.

Put any dozen Historians in the same room, talking about the same subject, and they will disagree..... which was the one with the credentials that you approve of?

My favorites of the subject are E.P. Sanders, G. Vermes, M. Licona, N.T. Wright, R. Bauckham. The first two are far from conservative or even Christian.

Quote:
If I am debating with someone who thinks any theory is better than one involving the miraculous, I should like to know on what grounds this conclusion rests.

So your belief in miracles is automatically reasonable, and my explanation of real possibilitires is 'theory'? I like theory better, methinks.

Automatically? I never once stated a defense of miracles. I asked for your beliefs in the matter because you have presented a number of natural possibilities. It is now your duty to defend them as not only possible, but probable. This will of course be mighty difficult since they cannot all be true.

Quote:
We can start with the first by way of an alternative: is it more likely in your mind that Jesus' body was abducted by aliens (purely natural entities) than that a supernatural power revivified his corpse?

You've done it. It's official. You've failred to produce any real evidence for your proposal,

I don't recall making any proposal in this exchange. One should separate what one knows (or thinks he knows) about a person from what a person actually says. You are the only one who has so far made a proposal. So far the only merit of any of them is that they are possible, that they do not violate the principle of non-contradiction. Neither does alien abduction or divine intervention. The strength of your argument rests on a presupposition about God and nature. It is quite common on this site for skeptics to think that because they can come up with a number of theories that have no more going for them than that they are merely 'possible' (i.e., don't involve contradiction) they have somehow won the day.