|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,789 Year: 4,046/9,624 Month: 917/974 Week: 244/286 Day: 5/46 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Interrogation of an Apostle | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Whether a direct eyewitness, an indirect report drawn from direct eyewitnesses, or a fabricated account, we can still use the same techniquesapplied to the accounts themselvesto determine the likelihood of each one being true given the degree of variation we see across all the accounts.
As you may have noticed, I've made no attempt to determine the reliability or trustworthiness of the gospel writers as eyewitnesses; my concern is specifically with the accounts they've given. I'm also not looking for a sure and final answer to the matter, but am interested here in addressing only a small piece of the whole puzzle. So, like I've said before, matters of primary and secondary source material aren't overly relevant to determining the truth or falsehood of an accountthe reliability and trustworthiness of the narrator, yes, but not simple veracity. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
A lot has been made in this thread about the primacy (or lack thereof) of the gospel accounts. I've repeatedly made the point that our investigation here need not be concerned with whether or not the accounts we've available are direct or indirect; but as confusion seems to persist, perhaps I can say a little more to help clear some of it up.
There is a difference between a report being reliable and a report being true. Very reliable reports may not be true, and very true reports needn't be reliable. Reliability is a measure of how much trust wethe audienceplace in the reporter giving the account; it is often what we use to guess at the truth of a report based on previous testimony by the same reporter that has proven true. In this sense, once the truth of an account is determined, we no longer need to worry about how trustworthy the account is: reliability becomes a non-issue. Likewise, reliabilityor trustworthinessalone cannot be used to determine the truth of a claim; using reliability in such a way is, as we know, a fallacious order of reasoning. To determine the truth of an account we can do only one thing: examine the account against physical evidence and check for corroboration in other accounts. In the case of the gospels, we've got nothing of physical evidence, and so must rely solely on corroboration criteria; likewise, this methodwhich is textual criticismis readily applied to both primary and secondary sources with identical results. To illustrate this, we can look at the following diagrams that show us how true accounts are identical to false accounts no matter where in the chain of sources the truth or falsehood is introduced:
|=True line of accounting :=False line of accounting 1. Eyewitness Sees Event | | | | | | Eyewitness creates written record (100% true) 2. Eyewitness Sees Event | | Eyewitness retells event to recorder | | | | Recorder creates written record (100% true) 3. Eyewitness Sees Event | | | |:←Insertion of falsehood by eyewitness |: |: Eyewitness creates written record ( true/ false) 4. Eyewitness Sees Event | | Eyewitness retells event to recorder | |:←Insertion of falsehood by recorder |: |: Recorder creates written record ( true/ false) 5. Eyewitness Sees Event | | | :←Suppletion of true account with false one : : Eyewitness creates written record (0% true) 6. Recorder fabricates account : : : : : : Recorder creates written record (0% true) What difference does it make if our account is transmitted by means 1 or 2? It is still 100% true. What difference does it make if our account is transmitted by means 3 or 4? It is still only half true. What difference does it make if our account is transmitted by means 5 or 6? It is still entirely false. How we determine what part of the account is false and what part is true does not require examination of the provenance of our records, but examination of the content of those records and evaluation of that content against available historical evidence or other, potentially corroboratory, accounts. In this way, primacy of our sources is entirely irrelevant to how much true or false information they contain. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
There were NO eye-witnesses. Agreed. So what? Even if we find the credibility of the reporter lacking, even if we think the account hard to believe; we can still examine the report itself both against physical evidence and against other reports in order to discern the veracity of the account. Our findings in such an investigation will not be absolute; our findings will likely not even be too specific or detailed. But, this should not keep us from trying.
The resurrection did NOT happen. Agreed. So what? The purpose of this thread is not to argue back and forth whether it happened or not. I'm interested in looking at the accounts themselves to see whether there are signs of fabrication or not (recall: just because a source is not primary does not mean the report is fabricated; just because a source is primary does not mean it isn't fabricated).
You seem to be trying to avoid the subject entirely, and then pretending that there WERE eye-witnesses after all. I'm doing no such thing; I do not believe the writers were themselves eyewitnesses. But this is not important here; we can still apply techniques of textual criticism to help determine the historicity of an account. If you believe we can discern nothing from the accounts themselves regardless of who wrote them, then you are sadly mistakenthe accounts are all we have, and are by no means invaluable. The throw-our-hands-up-in-the-air-and-fuggedaboutit approach gets us nowhere.
We have STORIES - stories fabricated from OT episodes, stories that grow over time; the authors changed the stories to suit their theological agendas, the stories are wildly different, the stories conflist with known facts. This is why we know the resurrection did NOT happen. Actually; we can be pretty certain that the resurrection didn't happen simply because people don't come back from the dead. But... so what? People can believe that people come back from the dead, and they can tell other people that they saw someone come back from the dead. And we can evaluate their accounts, or the second-hand reports of their accounts to determine whether they fabricated the stories or not. Even if the claims are clearly false (for the obvious reason mentioned), we can still figure out whether or not the stories are fabricated. Afterall, someone can tell the truth and still be wrong:
quote: So even if we have good reason to doubt their stories, we should not be so quick to assume that they are necessarily lying.
The stories were fabricated from OT episodes ... We have STORIES - stories fabricated from OT episodes ... We've DONE that - the stories are different, and came from the OT anyway. ... stories lifted from the OT This would be interesting evidence for you to present. If the investigators find the alibi full of events and sequences of events that are very similar to a well-known movie, then it increases the likelihood that the witnesses aren't being truthful.
This story did not happen in history. The only people who believe it did are BELIEVERS. Your belief or disbelief is not the topic of this thread. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I am very sorry. My attempts to clarify the topic have clearly failed.
Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Over in Reconstructing the Historical Jesus, I brought up the issue of Jesus being regarded, during his lifetime, as the resurrected form of someone else:
quote: As I stated in that post, I think this can be related to the unrecognizable Jesus as recounted in Luke and John:
quote: If we combine these matters, I think we can come up with a plausible explanation for the resurrection that doesn't involve the disciples inventing the entire thing wholesaleafterall, it was far more typical for the followers of failed Messiahs to simply disband or attach to a new leader, not to continue following the failed one. To do this, we need to examine further on a few of the ideas. First, the mention of Jesus as a resurrected someone else hints at the popularity of the belief that resurrected individuals didn't have to look like their pre-death form. Thus, reincarnation and resurrection appear to be treated as indistinguishable; or reincarnation appears to be treated as being equal in effect to resurrection, with no (or a low) requirement being placed on physical similarity.1 Next, our resurrection accounts in the canonical gospels come in two forms:2
The accounts of the second form appear to stem from the same tradition, with specific additions made by each of the authors (Luke and John) based on their own theological motives. The second unrecognizable Jesus from John's gospel doesn't appear shortly after the discovery of the empty tomb, but at least a handful of days later (depending on what the 'this' is that the events are after, since chapter 21 doesn't appear to belong where it is). Thus, we have four reported Jesus sightings: The Jesus Mary sees, the Jesus who is walking on the road to Emmaus, the Jesus who shows the disciples his hands, and the Jesus who fishes with the disciples. Two of the accounts seem incompatible, though they involve a similar rundown in events:
Chapter 21 of John contains a similar account, where a stranger approaches some of the disciples and is only credited as being Jesus after performing some sort of Jesus-like action (in this case a miracle); in this story, though, the stranger never acknowledges his identityindeed, his identity is never even questioned:
quote: In Matthew 28 we have a Jesus who, like in John (20:19—23),4 is physically recognizable as Jesus. Finally, we have the story of the man who reportedly took Jesus' body to entomb it. In the synoptics, he does this by himself with only some of the women looking on or following (Mk 15:42—47, Lk 23:50—56, Mt 27:57—61). In John (19:38—42), he is also accompanied by Nicodemus of 'born again' fame. The story of Jesus' entombment, then, doesn't take place with any notable onlookers; and the only consistently-reported witnesses (the women) are the same folk who discover the tomb empty! The same people who reportedly see Jesus' body set in the tomb are also the first to find it empty. Is it possible that these accounts can be better explained not as inventions by the disciples but as genuine sightings (however embellished) of 'Jesus' after his resurrection? Perhaps several people pretending to be Jesus, one or more of whom actually looked like Jesus, began to move in on Jesus' disciples, cashing in on the opportunity? Does anyone find this more plausible than a totally fabricated resurrection account? I'm not yet sure. I mean... Perhaps the women invented it all? Jon__________ 1 These accounts could also be explained, of course, as a side-effect of the capabilities of the communication media of the day, where people often hear a lot about important figures without necessarily having seen them. Afterall, no one alive at the time would have seen any of the Jewish prophets of old. Thus, these claims of resurrection may not have involved a known difference in physical appearance. Elsewhere, resurrections are always accompanied by a revival of the physical body of the dead person, recognizable by friends and family (e.g., Mk 5:35—43, Jn 11:38—44). 2 Categorizing the account in Matthew (28:16—20) seems a little problematic. It appears as though the disciples instantly recognize Jesusthus implying him to be recognizable, i.e., in his pre-death physical formexcept for the small mention of 'but some doubted' (v. 17). What can be made of this is hard to say; perhaps Matthew is attempting to downplay the failure of the disciples to recognize Jesus, which may have been common (but embarrassing) elements of the Jesus tradition, while still maintaining enough to avoid challenges to the story's integrity. In such case, the story would be doubly classified, perhaps drawing on the more expanded traditions and compacting them into what amounts to little more than a blurb at the end of the gospel. 3 Despite using words like 'recognized' (or perhaps more accurately, 'knew'), there is not really any mention that the the stranger has changed form to make himself look like Jesus, or that the followers now see him as looking like Jesus; we only read that the followers came to think that the stranger was Jesus resurrected, and perhaps resurrected in the same was as John was believed to be resurrected: in a body not his own. 4 I think it reasonable to include Luke as one of the gospels presenting a recognizable Jesus story (Lk 24:36—43), even though it is possible at the time of the second sighting that the disciples are merely recognizing the stranger seen earlier as Jesus, that is, it is possible that the second sighting doesn't involve a figure that actually looked like the pre-resurrected Jesus. Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024