NT Reliability

[thormas]

5 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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.  You are either misunderstanding english or you are being obstinate.  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.

Your main question, your main point, your main concern has been - is it verifiable, is there evidence, is it accurate, is there actual historical evidence?  Even your last major post screamed it: "there is exactly NO other evidence for any gist of Jesus" and "My whole point since the beginning is that nothing they say can actually be verified.........  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

But this is ancient history where historians deal with probability. Scholars discern that the multiple sources in and outside the NT provide (some) reliable historical material about Jesus, i.e. the gist. In such examples, the gospels, the sources are accurate, they provide accurate information (Jesus was a Jew, from Nazareth, with followers, a teacher, etc,) and capture the gist of Jesus: this is what scholars recognize, discern and say. It is not so because the say it, it is so, they recognize it and they say it.

 

[PaulS]

3 minutes ago, thormas said:

Your main question, your main point, your main concern has been - is it verifiable, is there evidence, is it accurate, is there actual historical evidence?  Even your last major post screamed it: "there is exactly NO other evidence for any gist of Jesus" and "My whole point since the beginning is that nothing they say can actually be verified.........  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

But this is ancient history where historians deal with probability. Scholars discern that the multiple sources in and outside the NT provide (some) reliable historical material about Jesus, i.e. the gist. In such examples, the gospels, the sources are accurate, they provide accurate information (Jesus was a Jew, from Nazareth, with followers, a teacher, etc,) and capture the gist of Jesus: this is what scholars recognize, discern and say. It is not so because the say it, it is so, they recognize it and they say it.

 

I'm finished on the matter.  BTW, I edited that post because I thought it unfair to call you obstinate (even if I think you are being that to some degree  ).

[thormas]

35 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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.

let me know when you find them.

[PaulS]

Just now, thormas said:

let me know when you find them.

Won't be looking.

[thormas]

38 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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?

It Luke is the only source on Paul as a wonder worker and he has reason to be bias then there is bias and there is no multiple independent sources to support this position. The probability has dropped, how could Luke be seen to be presenting reliable historical information on Paul?

[thormas]

4 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I'm finished on the matter.  BTW, I edited that post because I thought it unfair to call you obstinate (even if I think you are being that to some degree  ).

Back at you.............:+}

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

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.

This is a belief statement: I believe the trumpeter is the bestest President ever (poor fool). This is the equivalent of saying I believe Jesus is the son of God. How does the historian assess this? It is outside of the realm of history. 

But if we had multiple, independent sources that said that Trump cheated on his taxes and it was both plausible and an unbiased statement then the probability that it was accurate, historically accurate, factual would skyrocket. It would be highly probable that Trump cheated on his taxes. And to make it an even playing field, let's pretend we are 1500 years in the future and we have no way to 'prove' it, no tax returns - just multiple sources saying this. And of course, we would still be debating in that distant future :+}

[romansh]

6 hours ago, PaulS said:

[don't think]  bits of wisdom that some may take need to be verified

Fair enough … but if I were to take a away love your enemies and hate your family (ignoring fleet footed apologetics for the moment) as my wisdom from the NT, then it would be wise of me to review this as to whether it makes sense. And here I don't mean looking for the context as I is suspect it might be the end point driving the method.

While I agree this is not on topic, I do find it interesting.  We have had a similar discussion before, where error checking has not been a priority.

3 hours ago, thormas said:

anything in particular to back it up or support your statement/belief?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Non-Christian_sources

If you have any other sources please feel free to update wiki.

3 hours ago, thormas said:

How do you think wisdom is verified?

Well we can look at history, and see if particular wisdom strategies have worked.  I know it is tough to double blind replicates, but experiments might we worth a go, especially in low stakes environments. I think computer simulations will be increasingly instructive. The problem is the universe is fundamentally chaotic. So having a set of wisdom (traditions) while no doubt useful, won't work in every situation.

[PaulS]

4 hours ago, thormas said:

It Luke is the only source on Paul as a wonder worker and he has reason to be bias then there is bias and there is no multiple independent sources to support this position. The probability has dropped, how could Luke be seen to be presenting reliable historical information on Paul?

I agree, so I am confused even more how you then agree with Joseph that Paul supports the gist material such as miracles (Joseph was countering my claim that Paul doesn't support miracles by Jesus). Joseph claims one instance from Paul (the gifts of the spirit, which I don't think one can claim as a miracle of Jesus') and then a bunch from Luke as laid out in Acts, which you have just discredited.  Have you misread Joseph's post perhaps?

[PaulS]

3 hours ago, thormas said:

This is a belief statement: I believe the trumpeter is the bestest President ever (poor fool). This is the equivalent of saying I believe Jesus is the son of God. How does the historian assess this? It is outside of the realm of history. 

But if we had multiple, independent sources that said that Trump cheated on his taxes and it was both plausible and an unbiased statement then the probability that it was accurate, historically accurate, factual would skyrocket. It would be highly probable that Trump cheated on his taxes. And to make it an even playing field, let's pretend we are 1500 years in the future and we have no way to 'prove' it, no tax returns - just multiple sources saying this. And of course, we would still be debating in that distant future :+}

And everything written in Mark is a belief statement.  There is no other validating sources.  So scholars and historians put it all together and as you rightly point out, state that on the balance of probabilities (I think you need to understand what that means) we have X,Y,Z.  It is not historical verification, it is probability and likelihood - they are more than 50% sure that this is likely to be the case.  Not 100% or even beyond all reasonable doubt, but more than 50% only.

[PaulS]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

Fair enough … but if I were to take a away love your enemies and hate your family (ignoring fleet footed apologetics for the moment) as my wisdom from the NT, then it would be wise of me to review this as to whether it makes sense. And here I don't mean looking for the context as I is suspect it might be the end point driving the method.

While I agree this is not on topic, I do find it interesting.  We have had a similar discussion before, where error checking has not been a priority.

Of course it would be wise for you to see if it make sense to you - but do you necessarily have to validate who actually said it? I think I already said that much about wisdom is in the eye of the beholder.  How one interprets wisdom to be of value to them is a personal thing, and of course what some take as wisdom can seem ridiculous to others.  As I have already quoted from Emerson - just because it is wisdom to some, doesn't mean it is wisdom to all.  Hating your family doesn't sound like wisdom to me but I know there are those that feel they need to follow that saying (so are we arguing if it is wisdom or just a silly belief system?).

 

[thormas]

4 hours ago, romansh said:

If you have any other sources please feel free to update wiki.

 

I'll leave that to you, I have enough sources on the sources.

 

[thormas]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

I agree, so I am confused even more how you then agree with Joseph that Paul supports the gist material such as miracles (Joseph was countering my claim that Paul doesn't support miracles by Jesus). Joseph claims one instance from Paul (the gifts of the spirit, which I don't think one can claim as a miracle of Jesus') and then a bunch from Luke as laid out in Acts, which you have just discredited.  Have you misread Joseph's post perhaps?

I have not looked back to check on Luke, Acts or Paul himself on miracle, I was dealing in the hypothetical. So I don't remember what Paul says about miracles or whether he says anything. Regardless, assuming for a minute that miracles actually happen (which I don't for theological reasons), they are not and cannot be part of gist material. And this is simply because the historian can't assess them. Miracles by definition (at least theistically) are supernatural, superhistorical: their 'results' might occur in history but their origin is supernatural so there is no way for a historian to examine the supernatural and determine if A, B or C was actually a miraculous event. 

However what is historical and what can be assess and put to the criteria and investigated across multiple sources is if one has a reputation or is known/thought of as a wonder or a miracle worker. 

So if Paul or Jesus were or might have been known as wonder workers is one thing, that miracles themselves are gist is another. 

[thormas]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

And everything written in Mark is a belief statement.  There is no other validating sources.  So scholars and historians put it all together and as you rightly point out, state that on the balance of probabilities (I think you need to understand what that means) we have X,Y,Z.  It is not historical verification, it is probability and likelihood - they are more than 50% sure that this is likely to be the case.  Not 100% or even beyond all reasonable doubt, but more than 50% only.

No, there you are wrong. Other possible validating sources are Paul, Q, M, L, other epistles, Acts and extra canonical sources (as listed in Does Jesus Exist?). That Jesus was a Jew, from Nazareth, connected to the Baptist, was a teacher, had conflicts with authorities, was crucified, etc. makes sense in the context of 1st C Palestine, is plausible and is unbiased (such as  being from Nazareth - not Bethlehem, baptism at the hands of another and the scandal of crucifixion). These do not push the Christian agenda as does, for example the virgin birth (born in Bethlehem, from the line of David). These can also be independently attested across multiple sources. Thus what is first determined to be possible moves to probable and more and more probable with every criteria met. Thus these are judged to be historically accurate;, that is they are judged to provide reliable historical material about Jesus, i.e. the gist. There is no absolute certainty, that is not possible with ancient history. However, isn't the gist 'historically verified' in that it is verified to be information that is contextually accurate, plausible and unbiased in multiple sources? 

Historians don't give % odds. It would seem fair to suggest that Mark 'believed' what he wrote but there is a difference between gist and belief (for example the resurrection is a belief that is outside the scope of there historian but that people professed Jesus as risen is assessable (whether we believe resurrection is possible or not). 

The NT is not a single source. The gospel of Matthew for example has multiple sources: Mark, Q (shared material with Luke) and M (material specific to Matthew alone) and if I remember correctly it is possible that Q and M were not single source but a combination of oral and some written material (would have to double check on this). And Luke is similar: its sources are Mark, Q and L. So just in a consideration of Luke and Matthew we have 4 independent sources: Mark, Q, M and L that historians look to, along with Acts, Paul, other epistles, and outside sources) to determine multiple, independent attestation of material.

To demand absolute certainty  is to not understand how the study of ancient history works and is to be more skeptical than the scholars. Such skepticism appears to be the flip side of fundamentalism: the one accepts everything as is and the other doubts everything that is; the one accepts everything as fact, the other sees everything as belief.

There is no (and you have to understand this) 'balance of probabilities' if your meaning is reflected in your earlier Trump example - which is closer to polling and not an expert examination of material that demands the passing of rigorous criteria and having multiple sources. To have a group state whether or not Trump is the best president ever is never going to enable us to arrive at reliable historical information or material about Trump.   

[thormas]

14 hours ago, PaulS said:

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....

According to Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? page 140: "What we can know is that Paul certainly thought that Jesus existed. He had clear knowledge of important aspects of Jesus' life (and Ehrman goes on to provide a list of what Paul knew)." That list corresponds to some of what Ehrman listed as gist material - therefore "the writings of Paul support (some of) the gist of Jesus found in the Gospels." Actually, it would seem that Paul is also an independent source for the gist material, one of multiple such sources containing some of the same information about Jesus.

Regarding Josephus, not sure what the issue is as 'surprising deeds' sound like miracles. However, miracles themselves are not part of the gist material, nor to the best of my recollection is Jesus known as a wonder worker part of the gist.

 

 

Regarding miracles, Allison lists the many miracles from the gospels and, again goes to general patterns, concluding that:  

• "Jesus was reputed to be and thought himself to be a successful exorcist, healer and wonder-worker
• some who knew him believed that they had witnessed truly extraordinary event"

However, there is a difference, I believe, between gist material and Allison's general patterns. I'm not sure if general patterns pass all the criteria that gist material does. I am still reading on this but doesn't it seem that miracles associated with Jesus could be biased? 

Edited October 30, 2019 by thormas

[thormas]

10 hours ago, thormas said:

I am only focused on evidence because you claimed it.  You have consistently claimed that the gist of Jesus is historically verifiable.

Paul,

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I have gone back to the messages section and I'm not sure what you mean or to what you are referring when you say I 'claimed evidence.'

I do accept (claim) that the gist is historically accurate; it is reliable historical material about Jesus (that is why it is part of the gist). If verifiable is a proof or certainty, there is none. If verifiable indicates that the gist material can be shown to have passed the criteria and is attested to in multiple sources, then yes it is 'historically verifiable.' Again, we are talking about probability (not how you understand it in the Trump example) not certainty, proof or verifiable (as I think you understand the word).

The first mention that might pertain to this, in the messages section is your comment:

"..........any scholar who says they 'know' or says that we can tell from what we have who Jesus was, what he stood for, what he believed, and how he carried himself etc, is simply wrong.  It cannot be known from what we have.  When you were saying you trust the excellent scholarship, I don't understand what you think you're trusting as excellent scholarship, because as Bart points out - we just cannot know - we don't have the evidence."

 

I can't find the original discussion but I disagree with your opening sentence above.

Ehrman said: 

My view is that we do have good ideas about what they wrote.  Most of the time.  But not all of the time.......

Most of the time scholars agree on what the originals said.  But not all of the time.  Those are facts.

we can never “know” what the authors wrote, if by that we mean “know with absolute certainty”.......For most of us that doesn’t matter much.  At the same time......... as a working assumption I think it only makes sense to suppose we have a “good idea” about what the authors wrote.  That’s a working assumption because it really does work. "

So, of course no absolute certainty but to say that scholars know (not sure they actually use this terminology) or have a 'good idea' and agree on what the originals said is on the mark. So I trust excellent scholarship that agrees with Ehrman on this point and carries on with their work (of course I usually compare and contrast because Ehrman did add that they don't agree all the time.

 

Sincerely I'm not sure what you are referring to about 'claiming evidence.' Perhaps it is our different use of a word but I do understand the gist to be 'reliable historical material.'

From my perspective you have always wanted proof, certainty, verification and question the 'accuracy' of the sources both because we don't have the originals and because we don't know what we lost that could make a difference. I simply don't see scholars who share this concern: they agree or have a good idea what the authors wrote and then try to assess what is 'there' - including what would be considered gist, while some like Allison, also go after patterns (which I think is a step beyond gist).

Edited October 30, 2019 by thormas

[JosephM]

15 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.

Paul,

I'll buy your point that Paul was not the writer of the book of Acts and yes, of course we have no way of proving that everything is recorded accurately BUT, since we are using Paul of the NT  and you are limiting me to his writings then it makes reasonable sense to me that a reading of Corinthians and the gifts of the spirit by Paul would obviously support the idea that Paul, a follower of Jesus was including Jesus in miracles  because he attributed to Jesus the fullness of the Spirit.  Having said that, that is not the reason i believe  Jesus did perform miracles although its a reasonable assumption supported by the NT (perhaps not exactly as reported)  but because that gift and a few of the others mentioned have been confirmed by my own personal  experiences. 

 

[PaulS]

9 hours ago, JosephM said:

Paul,

I'll buy your point that Paul was not the writer of the book of Acts and yes, of course we have no way of proving that everything is recorded accurately BUT, since we are using Paul of the NT  and you are limiting me to his writings then it makes reasonable sense to me that a reading of Corinthians and the gifts of the spirit by Paul would obviously support the idea that Paul, a follower of Jesus was including Jesus in miracles  because he attributed to Jesus the fullness of the Spirit.  Having said that, that is not the reason i believe  Jesus did perform miracles although its a reasonable assumption supported by the NT (perhaps not exactly as reported)  but because that gift and a few of the others mentioned have been confirmed by my own personal  experiences. 

 

When compared to the Gospel writers, there is a significant difference to how they portray a wonder working Jesus and how Paul does.  That's why I contend that Paul doesn't reflect on Jesus as one who did miracles.  If he did, it wouldn't be a  big ask to expect a simple one liner about this or that miracle that Jesus supposedly executed somewhere in the multitude of writings we have of Paul (Gospel writers made it pretty clear), but on the balance of probabilities (which of course is not conclusive evidence by any stretch of the definition) it would seem Paul was oblivious to Jesus the wonder worker or simply didn't accept it as true.  I don't see the 'obvious support' you claim for Corinthians simply because Paul talks about 'gifts of the spirit' (to me, the gift seems to be more about receiving Christ wisdom and the strength to withstand opposition to their beliefs, etc).  Possibly also the gift of talking in tongues.  And this, particularly in light of the clear claims made in the Gospels about Jesus' miracles, would seem to suggest Paul simply didn't know or believe in a miracle-doing Jesus.

Of course, personal experience is a different kettle of fish to discuss and naturally is fairly limiting to those outside of the personal experience.

[PaulS]

10 hours ago, thormas said:

Paul,

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I have gone back to the messages section and I'm not sure what you mean or to what you are referring when you say I 'claimed evidence.'

You have continually asserted, and still do, that the information we have for Jesus in Gospels (restricted to the gist because we can't trust the other stuff) is historically reliable and accurate, even though in more recent posts ion this thread you acknowledge that it is so, only on the balance of probabilities.  You can't have it both ways - you can't say something is true and then say there is still room for doubt (that's what the balance of probabilities means - there is room for doubt, reasonable doubt).  

So whilst we agree that what we have about Jesus from the Gospels and other sources (that we don't have text for but rather can allude to some of) paints a picture, it is not verifiable fact that that picture is 100% or even another % accurate.  So we simply cannot say it is historically verifiable or historically accurate, no matter how much it 'seems' to be based on what we sparingly know.  This is my only point.

Quote

If verifiable is a proof or certainty...

Yes, that's what the word verifiable means!  Verifiable - "able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified". 

This is not the same standard as 'balance of probabilities' that refers to when a matter is judged as a whole, it is a reference to the likelihood of one party’s version of events being more probable to have occurred than not.  Scholars like Erhman don't say 'historically verifiable' for a reason - it isn't.  Rather, he correctly says something is based on the balance of probabilities because he recognizes there is room for error, doubt, misunderstanding.

Quote

From my perspective you have always wanted proof, certainty, verification and question the 'accuracy' of the sources both because we don't have the originals and because we don't know what we lost that could make a difference. I simply don't see scholars who share this concern: they agree or have a good idea what the authors wrote and then try to assess what is 'there' - including what would be considered gist, while some like Allison, also go after patterns (which I think is a step beyond gist).

I don't "want" the proof, I just disagree with you (or anyone for that matter) who say the Gospel gist of Jesus (whatever and whoever scholars definition you want to use) is historically verifiable.  It simply isn't and scholars like Erhman acknowledge this when they refer to 'balance of probabilities'.

[thormas]

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

You have continually asserted, and still do, that the information we have for Jesus in Gospels (restricted to the gist because we can't trust the other stuff) is historically reliable and accurate, even though in more recent posts on this thread you acknowledge that it is so, only on the balance of probabilities.  You can't have it both ways - you can't say something is true and then say there is still room for doubt (that's what the balance of probabilities means - there is room for doubt, reasonable doubt).  

So whilst we agree that what we have about Jesus from the Gospels and other sources (that we don't have text for but rather can allude to some of) paints a picture, it is not verifiable fact that that picture is 100% or even another % accurate.  So we simply cannot say it is historically verifiable or historically accurate, no matter how much it 'seems' to be based on what we sparingly know.  This is my only point.

I don't know if it is accurate to suggest it is having it 'both ways' and I question what 'balance of probabilities' actually means (your Trump example is just an example of an opinion poll), the simplest answer is 'Yes, it is both.'

First, we should acknowledge with Ehrman that this is ancient history and there is no absolute certainty - there are probabilities: high degrees of probability indicate historical reliability. If a particular piece of information - such as Jesus was a Jew, from Nazareth, was a teacher, taught in parables, was crucified, etc. - meets the historian/scholar's required criteria it moves from just a possibility to the probability that it is true or historical, in other words that it is historically accurate or reliable. A simple example is that it is historically reliable that Jesus is from Nazareth and one that does not meet the criteria, does not have a high degree of probability and is not considered historically reliable is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. 

The simple, verifiable fact is that scholars, who know this subject better than you (or me) and who know that there is no absolute certainty in the study of ancient history, still assert that the gist material is historically reliable. I give you Ehrman in 'Does God Exist:' "....there are a number of important facts about the life of Jesus that virtually all critical scholars agree on....Everyone except the mythicists, of course......."

Speaking of the NT and extra canonical sources, Ehrman also says, "...they are also ample for knowing a few more things about his (Jesus) life, as virtually every researcher agrees."

Ehrman in this same book states: "I will discuss the various criteria that scholars use to determine which of the many traditions about Jesus are probably historically reliable......I will provide an overview of what the rigorous application of these criteria yield, explaining the most important features of Jesus's life the we can know about with relative certainty."

Yes, it is both!

If I have not been as clear as I could have been in the past, I apologize but what I have been saying is correct. If you disagree, that is fine but if you do disagree, at least present us with references from scholars establishing that your understanding is correct or that Ehrman's and virtually all critical scholars are incorrect. 

 

[thormas]

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

.........he (Ehrman) correctly says something is based on the balance of probabilities because he recognizes there is room for error, doubt, misunderstanding.

Again, no one is claiming absolute certainty which I have repeatedly made clear.

I have not been able to find this quote, perhaps I have just missed it - where does Ehrman say this?

Edited October 31, 2019 by thormas

[thormas]

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't "want" the proof, I just disagree with you (or anyone for that matter) who say the Gospel gist of Jesus (whatever and whoever scholars definition you want to use) is historically verifiable.  It simply isn't and scholars like Erhman acknowledge this when they refer to 'balance of probabilities'.

I simply meant you seem to want proof that the gist material is historical and since 'proof'or certainty is not forthcoming, you cannot acknowledge with Ehrman and other scholars that the gist material is "probably historically reliable." 

 

[thormas]

Paul,

I thought you said that your issue was that I 'continually asserted that the information we have for Jesus in Gospels is historically reliable and accurate (and probable). But you also are saying your issue is that you  'disagree with me saying the gist of Jesus is historically verifiable.'

We know that Ehrmans uses terms like facts, knowing things (which sounds definitive) and (probably) historically reliable. 

So my question is does it make a difference if historically reliable is used rather than historically verifiable - or do you still have an issue with both?  

 

Note: I have not checked whether or not Ehrman and others have used this latter term.

[thormas]

Just to add yet another voice, Luke Timothy Johnson, in the book, 'The Historical Jesus, Five Views, writes: "...the historian can assert with a high degree of probability ..." in one paragraph and in the very next uses almost the same language: "...the historian can affirm with a very high degree of probability" and yet again in that same paragraph: "the historian can affirm with considerable probability..."

 

The point being that he shares, as a critical scholar, the same language used by Ehrman: he talks about affirming or asserting (again rather definitive words) and joins them with (high degree, very high degree and considerable) probability. And he concludes "this is not an insignificant yield of historical information concerning Jesus..." 

Like Ehrman, he too refers to what the historian asserts or affirms with probability as 'historical information.'

Edited October 31, 2019 by thormas

[PaulS]

16 hours ago, thormas said:

I simply meant you seem to want proof that the gist material is historical and since 'proof'or certainty is not forthcoming, you cannot acknowledge with Ehrman and other scholars that the gist material is "probably historically reliable." 

I'm not saying any of that though am I - I am simply arguing with you that you cannot say that any gist of Jesus is historically verifiable which is the claim you were initially making and laboring the point that our scholars says so.  That is ALL my point has ever been - on the initial thread, in our private conversations, and here.    The only point I was making is that we simply cannot, historians simply cannot, biblical scholars simply cannot, call any of the NT materials we have as historically verifiable for Jesus.  Probability has a different meaning altogether.  Reliability is measured in degrees and the only thing that can be considered 100% reliable or accurate is something that can be verified.  If it can't be verified, then there is room for error (or a different understanding).

It now seems you agree with me.