PaulS Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 On 10/28/2019 at 11:48 AM, thormas said: Paul, I'm simply suggesting that you or Rom start that broader conversation (gist vs stories): take an initial position, provide some detailed references that support that position, give us some info to mull over and let's take it from there. But give us something to work with, something to consider - not just unsupported I'm not sure what more I can add for you Thormas. I have said and demonstrated numerous times that the 'gist' of Jesus you are arguing for relies solely upon the NT sources that we have. If there was any other element of gist that was incongruent or to any degree different to what we have surviving in today's NT, then it is lost to history (we get a peak from Paul that there were differing Christian views about things, but we can't really say what they were because Paul doesn't elaborate). It is also interesting to note that our earliest canonical source for Jesus (Paul) doesn't talk very much at all about how Jesus lived his life or what he said, but rather Paul takes a more theological view of Jesus and focuses on what a Jesus death and resurrection mean. Incidentally, Paul doesn't support gist material such as miracles.So my whole point is that everything we say today about the gist of Jesus relies upon what was written largely decades after he died (and not from eye witnesses but from others who conveyed oral stories, rightly or wrongly) and we simply have nothing to validate this against. It could be 100% accurate, it could be 10% accurate, or any shade in between for all we know. Quote Regarding Josephus, If you prefer, leave him out of the picture. My question is if Ehrman, notwithstanding all his caveats, still states that we can say we do know what the authors of the gospels are saying (and I recognize the caveats) and he (and other scholars) then, working with those sources, find what they call gist material about the historical Jesus - where and why do you disagree with Ehrman's methods and conclusions? I don't disagree with Erhman's conclusions about what the Gospel authors are saying - are you seriously still missing my point? To the contrary, I agree wholeheartedly with him and you that the Gospel authors portray certain things about Jesus. My whole point since the beginning is that nothing they say can actually be verified, irrespective of how genuine they may have believed the stories they wrote to be. It can be understood as their stories of how they and maybe others understood Jesus. Can it be verified as an accurate portrayal of Jesus' life? - No. At best, we can say they are likely accounts because they survived, but it doesn't rule out misrepresentation or even creative alignment from future editors. Quote This gist material is historical information or facts about Jesus. What's the issue - where and why do you disagree? As we both know, Ehrman is one of the biggest skeptics out there but still he is the one I have quoted on this position. I have even been re-reading 'Did Jesus Exist' and there are no changes to Ehrman's position. At best, 'Did Jesus Exist' speculates aboiut historical information or facts about Jesus. If you have read all of 'Did Jesus Exist' you will have read several times over that Erhman says we cannot know for certain if things written in the Gospels are accurate of what Jesus said or did. Rather Erhman is making the point that because the Gospels exist, there is a strong likelihood (beyond all reasonable doubt for Erhman) that Jesus existed. I think you're stretching it a bit if you think 'Did Jesus Exist' argues well for the historicity of 'gist' material (outside of the barest of bare bones that aligns with Josephus). Quote Even if there were other 1st C gospels, we would be having the same discussions about them and they would be subject to the same methods used by scholars with the canonical gospels. Would other hypothetical gospels be judged credible if they differed drastically on the gist material (Jesus wasn't a Jew, wasn't a teacher, didn't use parables, wasn't crucified under Pilate)? Again, with gist we are dealing with historicity not the faith decision. I don't find any scholars (and since we have started this I have read or re-read selected works of at least 8 scholars) having problems with the concept of gist material or the basic list that I have included above. We probably WOULD be having the same discussion about other 1st century Gospels - so what? Frankly, I would judge other hypothetical gospels exactly how I, and scholars, are judging the existing Gospels that we do have. You confuse historicity of the writings with historicity of any verifiable evidence the Gospels accurately capture a broader gist of Jesus. Historicity of the gist of Jesus simply cannot be proved beyond assumptions that the Gospels (and to a lesser degree Paul when it comes to the gist list you provided) capture what some people believed about Jesus. As Erhman points out in 'Did Jesus Exist', the Gospel authors are largely only repeating other people's stories - none are eye witness accounts or personal experiences of Jesus themselves. Was it the majority of Christians, a minority of Christians, or some other % of Christians who held these views of Jesus that the Gospel authors picked up on? Who knows! But we do know this view dominated in the end and eventually became to be known as the orthodox view of Jesus - that still doesn't validate it necessarily. Show me any scholar that can base the gist on anything, anything at all outside of the NT sources that can substantiate the gist you outline, in the first century? Not hat there is anything wrong with considering the Gospels for their historicity in themselves, but how do scholars validate the Gospel gist outside of the only remaining sources we have today? Scholars openly base their assumptions about the gist on the only existing material we have. That doesn't mean it is 100% (in fact I'm sure you would agree it is not 100% as evidenced by their contradictions in stories and attributed words of Jesus) and possibly could be only correct to some other degree. We simply cannot know for certain - that is all I am arguing. As you are reading 'Did Jesus Exist', take what Bart writes about Papias in Chapter 4 (Evidence for Jesus from Outside the Gospels) as an example of my thinking. Here, Bart points out that an early 2nd century Church Father wrote a 5-volume work but which we only know of because other Christians refer to it later in life (e.g. Eusebius). Now Papias writings, although quoted by Eusebius as claimed by Papias to be directly from followers of the disciples, did not survive the day. Why? Bart states "...it appears that some of the views that Papias advanced were seen to be offensive or at least naive". Even though those views were claimed by Papias to be directly linked to followers of Jesus' disciples. For me, that is representative of what I am saying and how it can happen - somebody's alleged accurate understanding of Jesus got pushed aside because somebody else believed it didn't accurately represent Jesus. One could say fair enough, but what if that view was actually correct and it was the incorrect views that actually got advanced over the decades. And when I say 'incorrect views' I don't always mean direct opposite, but for instance could mean things like elements of the gist you are proposing (or that Bart apparently proposes) could be tweaked differently. I think that matters and so we can't ignore it, but unfortunately neither can we verify it because we simply can't get to it with what we have. Quote All I'm asking is that someone not just give us one liners that go nowhere or questions for others without starting with or providing their own answers and if someone gives their opinion then at least give us something that supports that position, give us something with some detail (scholars, meaningful quotes, sources, etc.) so we can actually consider it, learn and decide. This is a pretty baseless remark - I have provided considerably more than one liners. If you want to learn, then look into what I am arguing and counter it with evidence. As Erhman says - "Expert opinion is still only an opinion". A fitting remark I think for a discussion which is stating (my position) that we have no evidence to validate any gist of the Gospel (apart from the barest of bare bones) from anywhere except those Gospels themselves, which is not surprising because it is the view that became what we now know as orthodox. Was it orthodox in 34CE? Who knows! Again, this really is going nowhere as it seems unless I quote you a scholar verbatim, you can't consider what I am saying. Even when I don't think it is a topic that very many biblical scholars would bother investing in because it simply goes nowhere - what NT scholar would have a career saying "this is interesting stuff but of course we can't say it is a valid reflection of who Jesus really was (apart from the barest of bare bones gist - he lived, was a wise man who won over followers, upset the authorities, got executed. Oh, a did some surprising deeds along the way). There's not a very promising future in that approach I imagine - however I think Erhman has the integrity to say that although we can think we know the gist of Jesus, as some early Christians understood it, we can only base that gist on what we have - the NT sources. That's all we have, so as long as we're not betting our houses on it, we can run with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 8 hours ago, PaulS said: Rather Erhman is making the point that because the Gospels exist, there is a strong likelihood (beyond all reasonable doubt for Erhman) that Jesus existed Ten or eleven years since I read this book. I seem to recall Ehrman saying in it (towards the end) that he is 90% certain Jesus existed. This of course could be part of my creative memory. And of course in his book, Ehrman describes himself as agnostic. But I agree with you, apart from a few minimal external references, the arguments for NT reliability are self referential. I don't even see this worthy of a discussion. The thing that bothers me a little about PC, is that the seem to be accepting of wisdom from various traditions, but it seems a little less clear to me how we actually verify the various bits we abstract as wisdom. And this what was the point of having decided on what were the useful bit of the gist stories (irrespective of historicity), what do PCs or whoever do next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burl Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 How long are all y’all going to keep using Ehrman et.al. as an excuse for not reading the actual NT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 5 minutes ago, Burl said: How long are all y’all going to keep using Ehrman et.al. as an excuse for not reading the actual NT? Is there a convincing argument to take the New Testament seriously? What about the various aspects science and how we might use those to live our lives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burl Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 1 hour ago, romansh said: Is there a convincing argument to take the New Testament seriously? What about the various aspects science and how we might use those to live our lives? Wrong website. Plenty of Non-Christian science forums out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 11 hours ago, PaulS said: Incidentally, Paul doesn't support gist material such as miracles.So my whole point is that everything we say today about the gist of Jesus relies upon what was written largely decades after he died (and not from eye witnesses but from others who conveyed oral stories, rightly or wrongly) and we simply have nothing to validate this against. It could be 100% accurate, it could be 10% accurate, or any shade in between for all we know. Paul, I would beg to differ the point that Paul doesn't support the gist material such as miracles. He supports it as gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians Chapter 12. He is also recorded by others in Acts preforming miracles himself. Acts 14:10, !9:11-12, also Acts 20:10, Acts 28:8 and more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 6 hours ago, romansh said: But I agree with you, apart from a few minimal external references, the arguments for NT reliability are self referential. I don't even see this worthy of a discussion. I guess I only felt it was worthy of discussion is because Thormas was stating that we 'know' things about Jesus because scholars tell us so. The reality is, apart from the barest of bare bones, there is very little in the way of what anybody could call evidence to substantiate these positions. As you point out, the NT is self referential. 6 hours ago, romansh said: The thing that bothers me a little about PC, is that the seem to be accepting of wisdom from various traditions, but it seems a little less clear to me how we actually verify the various bits we abstract as wisdom. And this what was the point of having decided on what were the useful bit of the gist stories (irrespective of historicity), what do PCs or whoever do next? Personally, I don't think the bits of wisdom that some may take need to be verified, unless of course people are arguing for them being historically verifiable when they are not. I don't feel the need to do anything next about any gist or wisdom, other than take it in for my own benefit if I find it so and live life. But that's not what was being debated which indeed does seem to be a bit of a waste of time - I never expected it to be so prolonged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 5 hours ago, JosephM said: Paul, I would beg to differ the point that Paul doesn't support the gist material such as miracles. He supports it as gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians Chapter 12. He is also recorded by others in Acts preforming miracles himself. Acts 14:10, !9:11-12, also Acts 20:10, Acts 28:8 and more. Joseph, My point was relating to Thormas' earlier claim that the writings of Paul supports the 'gist' of Jesus found in the Gospels and that Josephus' claim of Jesus doing 'surprising deeds' was interpreted by Thormas to mean miracles. Paul makes no mention of Jesus performing any miracles - no walking on water, no water into wine, no raising dead people, etc. No miracle performed by Jesus is mentioned. This is quite contrary to what the Gospels portray about Jesus performing miracles. If you think the gifts of the spirit should be considered as a miracle performed by Jesus, then I will concede that one, but I think it's a stretch in the common understanding of Jesus performing miracles as told in the Gospels (but otherwise not supported by Paul). Paul simply makes no support whatsoever for a miracle-performing Jesus. Of course, he didn't write Acts either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 6 hours ago, Burl said: How long are all y’all going to keep using Ehrman et.al. as an excuse for not reading the actual NT? It's not an excuse Burl - The accurate point that Rom makes is that the NT is self-referential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 9 hours ago, romansh said: But I agree with you, apart from a few minimal external references, the arguments for NT reliability are self referential. I don't even see this worthy of a discussion. The thing that bothers me a little about PC, is that the seem to be accepting of wisdom from various traditions, but it seems a little less clear to me how we actually verify the various bits we abstract as wisdom. And this what was the point of having decided on what were the useful bit of the gist stories (irrespective of historicity), what do PCs or whoever do next? Well all are entitled to an opinion on the NT - anything in particular to back it up or support your statement/belief? How do you think wisdom is verified? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 9 hours ago, Burl said: How long are all y’all going to keep using Ehrman et.al. as an excuse for not reading the actual NT? some of us can multitask Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 6 hours ago, JosephM said: Paul, I would beg to differ the point that Paul doesn't support the gist material such as miracles. He supports it as gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians Chapter 12. He is also recorded by others in Acts preforming miracles himself. Acts 14:10, !9:11-12, also Acts 20:10, Acts 28:8 and more. I agree with Joseph on this but I question if miracles are part of the gist. That Jesus was known as, even considered a 'wonder worker' is gist but it is not the purview of historians to determine if something actually was a miracle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 17 minutes ago, thormas said: I agree with Joseph on this but I question if miracles are part of the gist. That Jesus was known as, even considered a 'wonder worker' is gist but it is not the purview of historians to determine if something actually was a miracle You agree how? That Paul cites Jesus as a miracle worker, or that because the author of Acts attributes miracles to Paul that then demonstrates Paul thought of Jesus as a miracle worker? It was you who said that it seemed miracles and wonders and surprising deeds are basically the same. The fact that the Gospels highlight clear 'miracles' (e.g. Jesus raising somebody from the dead or walking on water, etc) which Paul fails to even consider, would indicate that the two parties understand Jesus differently on this point. Would you not agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 3 hours ago, PaulS said: I guess I only felt it was worthy of discussion is because Thormas was stating that we 'know' things about Jesus because scholars tell us so. The reality is, apart from the barest of bare bones, there is very little in the way of what anybody could call evidence to substantiate these positions. As you point out, the NT is self referential. Many people don't know what to make of the NT: history, narrative, real, imagined. Scholars are able to look at the NT writings and make assessments as to whether or not they meet certain criteria such as are they out of context (the born again story with Nicodemus), are they plausible (was jJesus born in Bethlehem) and is there evidence of bias (again Jesus born in Bethlehem, the side trip to Egypt). If material is judged to be contextually sound, plausible and unbiased, it is probably (historians deal in probabilities) historical. This material is referred to as gist memories or material and ...............scholars tell us so. We knew them already if, as Burl advises, we read the NT but still many people wonder and are unsure. Scholars have the time, education and interest to make these assessments and confirm the probable historical nature of this information. If you are looking for, demanding evidence, you are not doing or you are unfamiliar with, ancient history: it is not certainty, it is probabilities. It is more than bare bones but it also doesn't cover or include many things in the sources. That the NT is self referential is opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 9 minutes ago, thormas said: If you are looking for, demanding evidence, you are not doing or you are unfamiliar with, ancient history: it is not certainty, it is probabilities. It is more than bare bones but it also doesn't cover or include many things in the sources. And finally it seems you come around to my point! We can well say on the balance of probabilities Jesus may have been this or that, but we cannot say that any of it is historically verifiable! This was my whole point about what Erhman has to say on the matter - he basis his expert opinion on what we have and 'best guesses' what it means. He acknowledges such. It seems like the past few pages have been trying to get to this point. Quote That the NT is self referential is opinion. In the absence of any other evidence, it is fact. It cannot be unless there is other references, which there are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 3 hours ago, PaulS said: Personally, I don't think the bits of wisdom that some may take need to be verified, unless of course people are arguing for them being historically verifiable when they are not. I don't feel the need to do anything next about any gist or wisdom, other than take it in for my own benefit if I find it so and live life. But that's not what was being debated which indeed does seem to be a bit of a waste of time - I never expected it to be so prolonged. Do any scholars include wisdom in the gist? This seems different in kind than information/facts that Jesus was a Jew, from Nazareth, had followers, was a teacher, etc. Just as miracles are not the purview of historians, so too, (seemingly) neither is wisdom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 Just now, thormas said: Do any scholars include wisdom in the gist? This seems different in kind than information/facts that Jesus was a Jew, from Nazareth, had followers, was a teacher, etc. Just as miracles are not the purview of historians, so too, (seemingly) neither is wisdom. This was an answer to Rom and so I didn't take it in the vein of establishing gist about Jesus. Wisdom can come from anywhere and it is largely in the eye of the beholder. "One man's wisdom is another's folly" - Emerson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 (edited) 26 minutes ago, PaulS said: You agree how? That Paul cites Jesus as a miracle worker, or that because the author of Acts attributes miracles to Paul that then demonstrates Paul thought of Jesus as a miracle worker? It was you who said that it seemed miracles and wonders and surprising deeds are basically the same. The fact that the Gospels highlight clear 'miracles' (e.g. Jesus raising somebody from the dead or walking on water, etc) which Paul fails to even consider, would indicate that the two parties understand Jesus differently on this point. Would you not agree? I agree that Paul the apostle seemingly accepted the realities of miracles and that he, Paul, was known as (and, if he was, knew himself as) a wonder worker. I disagree that miracles are part of the gist. Miracles by their very nature are beyond nature (i.e. supernatural) and are ahistorical, they are not the subject nor can they be the subject of the historian. However that someone is thought of as a wonder worker, that Paul or other sources accepted or understood Jesus as a wonder worker is historical and if the sources meet the criteria, it is gist material. Miracles and wonders (if indeed either took place) are or can be different ways of saying/describing the same thing. However, in both cases, the miracle or wonder itself is ahistorical. Saying that someone is known as a wonder worker or as one who performed miracles is historical. This is obvious given what miracles are thought to be and given the purview of history. Edited October 30, 2019 by thormas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 12 minutes ago, thormas said: I agree that Paul the apostle seemingly accepted the realities of miracles and that he, Paul, was known as (and, if he was, knew himself as) a wonder worker. I disagree that miracles are part of the gist. Miracles by their very nature are beyond nature (i.e. supernatural) and are ahistorical, they are not the subject nor can they be the subject of the historian. However that someone is thought of as a wonder worker, that Paul or other sources accepted or understood Jesus as a wonder worker is historical and if the sources meet the criteria, it is gist material. Miracles and wonders (if indeed either took place) are or can be different ways of saying/describing the same thing. However, in both cases, the miracle or wonder itself is ahistorical. Saying that someone is known as a wonder worker or as one who performed miracles is historical. This is obvious given what miracles are thought to be and given the purview of history. So where does Paul say that Jesus was known as a wonder worker or as one who performed miracles? I am interested how you have established that Paul seemingly accepted the realities of miracles and wonder if you are deliberately avoiding that Paul didn't attribute any miracles to Jesus? Are you only talking about 'other' miracles to substantiate his belief, but of course not those attributed to Jesus in the Gospels? Paul was known by the author of Acts, and as far as we can tell the author of Acts alone, as a wonder worker, so I'm not sure on the balance of probabilities we can quote that Paul was known for this (except to one person) and even then, how do we substantiate that this isn't just storytelling to emphasise legitimacy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 19 minutes ago, PaulS said: And finally it seems you come around to my point! We can well say on the balance of probabilities Jesus may have been this or that, but we cannot say that any of it is historically verifiable! This was my whole point about what Erhman has to say on the matter - he basis his expert opinion on what we have and 'best guesses' what it means. He acknowledges such. It seems like the past few pages have been trying to get to this point. Just the opposite. You are completely focused on evidence, verification, certainty. That you insist on evidence indicates that you don't really appreciate the role and limits of the scholar of ancient history. The historian deals in probabilities. In the case of the gist material, the historian has identified certain criteria that determine first the possibility of X really happening and, after meeting additional criteria, then there is greater and greater probabilities of X happening (i.e. historical fact). In the case of the Jesus gist, ancient historians, Ehrman included, after assessing material against set criteria, determine that certain material is historically reliable material about Jesus. This is the 'evidence.' Where exactly does Ehrman say what you said he says on the matter? I have already given you what he does say about the gist. Does Ehrman or do other scholars speak of evidence, certainty or historical verifiability when it comes to ancient history? Do they say it is possible? Or do they speak about probability? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 1 hour ago, thormas said: Just the opposite. You are completely focused on evidence, verification, certainty. That you insist on evidence indicates that you don't really appreciate the role and limits of the scholar of ancient history. The historian deals in probabilities. In the case of the gist material, the historian has identified certain criteria that determine first the possibility of X really happening and, after meeting additional criteria, then there is greater and greater probabilities of X happening (i.e. historical fact). In the case of the Jesus gist, ancient historians, Ehrman included, after assessing material against set criteria, determine that certain material is historically reliable material about Jesus. This is the 'evidence.' Where exactly does Ehrman say what you said he says on the matter? I have already given you what he does say about the gist. Does Ehrman or do other scholars speak of evidence, certainty or historical verifiability when it comes to ancient history? Do they say it is possible? Or do they speak about probability? I am only focused on evidence because you claimed it. You have consistently claimed that the gist of Jesus is historically verifiable. It simply isn't. You have finally acknowledged that in the post above when you state that any claims are only on the balance of probabilities. This is nowhere near the same as historically verifiable. For example, if 51% of people (the balance of probabilities) said that Donald Trump was the bestest President ever, is that historically verifiable? You are either misunderstanding english or you simply don't understand where 'evidence' sits on the scale of balance of probabilities. Either way, I am simply tired of this. It is going nowhere. I can not be bothered with the discussion any more. I just don't want to keep going on about our differences. Have your opinion. It is contrary to mine. I am fine with that. Ooroo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 10 minutes ago, PaulS said: So where does Paul say that Jesus was known as a wonder worker or as one who performed miracles? I am interested how you have established that Paul seemingly accepted the realities of miracles and wonder if you are deliberately avoiding that Paul didn't attribute any miracles to Jesus? Are you only talking about 'other' miracles to substantiate his belief, but of course not those attributed to Jesus in the Gospels? Paul was known by the author of Acts, and as far as we can tell the author of Acts alone, as a wonder worker, so I'm not sure on the balance of probabilities we can quote that Paul was known for this (except to one person) and even then, how do we substantiate that this isn't just storytelling to emphasise legitimacy? That someone is known or thought of as a wonder worker is an historical issue that the historian can assess. However the 'performance' of a miracle or a wonder is ahistorical and cannot be assess by the historian who deals only with the historical, thus the title historian. I'm not avoiding anything I am talking about the actual scope of the historian. If Luke is actually the only one who 'knows' Paul and also knows him as a wonder worker, then before we get to probabilities Luke has to be assessed in term of the criteria: context, plausibility and bias. Let's skip to the last one: what do you think, was there any possible bias on the part of Luke? Then we would have to ask if there is multiple attestation but if Luke is the only source, we have our answer. Any possible miracles by Paul are outside the purview of the historian but is it probable, given what we just said, that Paul was known as a wonder worker? If something passes the criteria and has multiple attestation - that is the substantiation, that is the extent of what the historian does: probabilities not certainty. In the case of Luke if it is just storytelling to emphasize legitimacy- isn't that bias? And if it is, it failed at least one of the criteria and is has less probability than if it passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 1 hour ago, PaulS said: This was an answer to Rom and so I didn't take it in the vein of establishing gist about Jesus. Wisdom can come from anywhere and it is largely in the eye of the beholder. "One man's wisdom is another's folly" - Emerson. I know but the question stands: Do any scholars include wisdom in the gist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 43 minutes ago, thormas said: That someone is known or thought of as a wonder worker is an historical issue that the historian can assess. However the 'performance' of a miracle or a wonder is ahistorical and cannot be assess by the historian who deals only with the historical, thus the title historian. I'm not avoiding anything I am talking about the actual scope of the historian. If Luke is actually the only one who 'knows' Paul and also knows him as a wonder worker, then before we get to probabilities Luke has to be assessed in term of the criteria: context, plausibility and bias. Let's skip to the last one: what do you think, was there any possible bias on the part of Luke? Then we would have to ask if there is multiple attestation but if Luke is the only source, we have our answer. Any possible miracles by Paul are outside the purview of the historian but is it probable, given what we just said, that Paul was known as a wonder worker? If something passes the criteria and has multiple attestation - that is the substantiation, that is the extent of what the historian does: probabilities not certainty. In the case of Luke if it is just storytelling to emphasize legitimacy- isn't that bias? And if it is, it failed at least one of the criteria and is has less probability than if it passed. I'll answer this because you have asked, but I am finished with debating historical validity of any 'gist'. You've lost me. Are you agreeing that Luke in Acts isn't a good reference for claiming that Paul was known as a wonder worker, because Luke could be biased and there isn't multiple attestations to Paul the wonder worker in the NT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 25 minutes ago, thormas said: I know but the question stands: Do any scholars include wisdom in the gist? I have not read all scholars to know but I expect there would be scholars who some regard as 'conservative' that would regard Jesus' wisdom as an integral part of his gist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.