Thanks everyone for contributing to this debate.
Thanks to those who added sources, I've just spent a couple of hours trying to find some things which aren't anywhere easy to find...
Is it possible that the letters and gospels which make up the whole New Testament were "voted on"?
That certain facts were hidden or removed?
If so, what and who wrote them?
Just to quote a few people "What is History but a fable agreed upon?"
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat do you mean by "harmonization"? It does not appear to be a technical term in historical scholarship.
One word.
Harmonization.
Feel free to disprove that should you wish.
No historian worth his salt is going to completely disregard dozens of 2,000 year-old documents simply because they happen to be treated as religious texts (and many of them aren't).
You haven't given me anything to disprove.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThanks.
"Harmony" is a term contained in this essay:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html
Interestingly, the author you cited concludes that one does not need independent evidence outside the NT for the historicity of Jesus.
EDIT: Also worth noting that the author uses harmony between different testimonies to support the event testified to, unless the harmony is so perfect as to suggest one witness is plagiarising or drawing from the other.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerHarmonization - the act of harmonizing (making them more similar) accounts of a common event.
What do you mean by "harmonization"? It does not appear to be a technical term in historical scholarship.
No historian worth his salt is going to completely disregard dozens of 2,000 year-old documents simply because they happen to be treated as religious texts (and many of them aren't).
You haven't given me anything to disprove.
I agree, no historian worth his salt would disregard dozens of 2,000 year old documents.
Good thing for me that dozens of 2,000 year old documents don't actually exist. Only the dead sea scrolls can claim that antiquity, and they are not NT.
Originally posted by scottishinnzHarmonization - the act of harmonizing (making them more similar) accounts of a common event.
Harmonization - the act of harmonizing (making them more similar) accounts of a common event.
I agree, no historian worth his salt would disregard dozens of 2,000 year old documents.
Good thing for me that dozens of 2,000 year old documents don't actually exist. Only the dead sea scrolls can claim that antiquity, and they are not NT.
Do you have any evidence that this has happened with the NT documents?
Good thing for me that dozens of 2,000 year old documents don't actually exist. Only the dead sea scrolls can claim that antiquity, and they are not NT.
You're confusing two distinct (though related) issues here - the age of extant manuscripts of the Gospels and the age of the Gospels themselves.
Originally posted by lucifershammerHe says its most likely that someone called Jesus existed, although how factual the gospels are is quite open to dispute. Note that this does not constitute incontrovertible proof, since that is impossible to obtain, but a probability (which I'm happy to entertain). But I'd read that article a few times before I started forming conclusions myself.
Interestingly, the author you cited concludes that one does not need independent evidence outside the NT for the historicity of Jesus
Originally posted by lucifershammerMany Biblical scolars believe that the for main gospels are derived from one or two earlier sources. Can you show any evidence that any of the other books in the NT were written by someone who had not read at least one of the Gospels or clearly had another source of information (other than divine inspiration)
You haven't given me anything to disprove.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you're referring to the Two-Source Hypothesis, then that applies only to the three Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark and Luke) - not John, which draws from an independent source altogether. That just reduces the number of Gospel sources from four to three. What's more, even if you take a later estimate of all the NT writings, several of the epistles (e.g. those considered authentically Pauline) would've been written before or at most around the same time as the Synoptics.
Many Biblical scolars believe that the for main gospels are derived from one or two earlier sources. Can you show any evidence that any of the other books in the NT were written by someone who had not read at least one of the Gospels or clearly had another source of information (other than divine inspiration)
EDIT: Besides, you and scottishinnz have not offered any evidence to support your case that Jesus was an entirely fictional character.
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, I'm not confusing anything. YOU were the one who uttered the phrase "2,000 year old documents". If you had meant copies of 2000 year old documents you should have said that.
[b]Harmonization - the act of harmonizing (making them more similar) accounts of a common event.
Do you have any evidence that this has happened with the NT documents?
Good thing for me that dozens of 2,000 year old documents don't actually exist. Only the dead sea scrolls can claim that antiquity, and they are not NT.
You're conf ...[text shortened]... ues here - the age of extant manuscripts of the Gospels and the age of the Gospels themselves.[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't disbelieve that someone called Jesus actually existed. i have no evidence nor hold any position on that. I simply do not believe in the veracity of the bible as an unbiased historical document. I've postulated before about the posibility that the gospels all represent versions of the same myth, bit like chinese whispers. Of course, the oldest actual NT documents still in existance are in Hebrew dated about 800AD. Alot of harmonization can happen in the 6 - 700 years between the writing of the gospels (which were not written until long after the [supposed] date of death, between 30 and 130 years).
EDIT: Besides, you and scottishinnz have not offered any evidence to support your case that Jesus was an entirely fictional character.[/b]