|
Post by yeshuafreak on Mar 8, 2010 14:14:21 GMT -8
On a previous thread we were discussing only the historicity of the resurrection, but it blossomed into a wider conversation. This thread is for us to discuss what we can validly set forth as historically probable events, teachings, etc concerning Jesus.
-John
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Mar 8, 2010 14:16:08 GMT -8
These are the criteria i agree mainly use in interpreting events:
Criterion of Age Sources closer to the event recorded are generally more reliable.
Criterion of dissimilarity More narrowly, the criterion of embarrassment, statements contrary or dissimilar to the author's agenda are likely to be more reliable. For example, early Christians would be unlikely to claim that Jesus had been crucified unless he actually had been because the crucifixion was a cause of embarrassment.
Criterion of independent attestation When two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is at least nearly certain that the tradition pre-dates the sources. Multiple attestation is not the same as independent attestation, e.g. Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel as a source, therefore a story present in all these three Gospels is in fact attested in only one independent source. See the Historicity of Jesus for a list of sources pertaining to this question.
Linguistic criteria There are certain conclusions that can be drawn from linguistic analysis of the Gospels. For example, if a dialogue makes sense only in Greek (the language of its written source), it is quite likely the author is reporting something different from the original historical facts, e.g. the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus from John ch. 3 makes sense in Greek, but not in Aramaic. In Bart Ehrman's opinion, this criterion is included in the contextual credibility, e.g. in their historical context Jesus and Nicodemus were discussing in Aramaic.
Author's Agenda This criterion is the flip side of the criterion of dissimilarity. When the presented material serves the perceived purpose of the author or redactor, it is suspect. For example, various sections of the Gospels, such as the Massacre of the Innocents, portray Jesus' life as fulfilling prophecy, and in the view of many scholars, reflect the agenda of the gospel authors rather than historical events.
Does everyone agree?
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 9, 2010 12:53:42 GMT -8
First off, I would cite your source.
Thoughts:
Agreed on the criteria of age and of dissimilarity: another example, which I suppose you agree with, is that the account of the women being the first to discover the empty tomb is most likely accurate because it's an embarrassing claim in the context of their culture, which often dismissed the testimony of women.
It's not always cut and dry differentiating between merely multiple attestation derived from a single source or independent attestation. Sometimes a historical claim (like, let's say a single story from the life of Jesus) can be a bit of both (partly derived from an earlier source and partly added to by fresh information)
All that this criteria attempts to prove is whether something is an accurate verbatim record of what a historical figure said, not whether it is an accurate or faithful record of what the historical figure meant. We shouldn't confuse paraphrase with falsehood.
I do not believe this deserves to be a major criterion. The natural suspicion to such passages is worth investigating but on it's own doesn't discredit an account. The example given here reflects more of an unfair bias on the part of scholars than of the gospel writers. Should we doubt the scholars opinions simply because they also have an anti-supernatural agenda?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 9, 2010 12:55:46 GMT -8
We should also add the criteria of Author's Credibility.
Is the source trustworthy?
The early Christians eyewitnesses to the life and death and resurrection of Jesus should be taken seriously because they were willing to die for their claims. People will, of course, die for what they mistakenly believe, but people very rarely die for something they know is a lie, and the ones that do are generally considered crazy.
Also, the Biblical writers can be shown to be accurate on a multitude of things that are provable, giving them more credibility on the things which are unprovable.
|
|