Basic Methodology For Dating Ancient Documents

[centauri]

 

As for the evidence provided thus far, I would simply (sincerely) ask you to share with me (specifically, not generally) how it is lacking.

The video is a simplistic sales pitch for Christianity, which is revisionist theology that uses bits and pieces of the Hebrew scriptures to mold a new religion.

Contrary to the video, God is not a man nor a son of man, John 1:1-3 is a twisted misapplication of Psalms 33:6, and the video ignores the doctrine of predestination which is clearly taught in the New Testament.

There is no need for a vicarious human sacrifice to "save" you.

Nor is there need to believe in a king messiah that didn't perform the job requirements.

A person can save themselves by obeying the law, repenting when you do wrong, and having a contrite heart.

That formula for salvation was laid down long before Christianity came along and claimed that God changed his rules.

[MerryG]

 

No Steve, the video is not a good answer. You can't scare us with videos about hell. 

 

We don't believe in the Christian hell, either.  It is preposterous that God "loves us" and yet sends people to hell for an eternity.  It is a fear tactic no matter how you try to twist it. It is crazy to say human beings deserve an eternity in hell for any reason. 

 

If you think I'm trying to scare you with hell then you completely missed the video's message.  The point is that forcing people to believe in God (which is what you are asking for by asking for empirical proof) would ultimately result in controlling many (who don't want to believe in God) with fear.

 

Being controlled by fear is an unacceptable basis for any relationship.

 

And you know that, that is true.

 

If someone doesn't want to believe in God, they shouldn't have to.

 

That is not the kind of relationship that Christ claims to want with any of us.

 

 

Wow. Those of us who were forced to accept christianity before we reached the age of reason and were told from infancy that anybody who didn't toe the christian line was going to hell might just find that post a teeeeeny bit insensitive and monstrously idiotic.

[Ravenstar]

[mymistake]

holy-napkin-87328-530-490_large.jpg

 

After all, the Holy Napkin is an original source . . .

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

[snip]

 

Now grab someone's journal from WWII.  If they fought in WWII, and died in 1943, then their journal will have recorded significant parts of the war-- but not its conclusion-- or any events after 1943.  And, obviously, recording such events would have been obligatory given their journal's subject matter.

 

 

---------------------

 

What happens when we apply this basic methodology to, lets say. . . the New Testament?

 

The book of Acts records:

[snip]

 

But if one is not even familiar with proper methodology, then one can not even know if a scholar-- or any source for that matter-- is being biased in objectively applying proper methodology or not.

 

If you find a scholar-- or any secondary source for that matter-- that doesn't even apply basic, proper methodology. . . run.

Steve, you seem to think that most scholars in universities, and in many seminaries, don't know even basic, proper methodology, but that you do know this.

 

WHAT REASONS, other than perhaps unbelief and/or rebellion against God, do you think they have for dating Luke/Acts in the second century? Before carrying on dialogue I'd like to know your level of understanding of "doing history" as a discipline.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Now grab someone's journal from WWII.  If they fought in WWII, and died in 1943, then their journal will have recorded significant parts of the war-- but not its conclusion-- or any events after 1943.  And, obviously, recording such events would have been obligatory given their journal's subject matter.

You mean something along the lines of Moses writing about his own death toward the end of Exodus, I assume.

[Deva]

 

I'm not sure I said I needed 100% empirical proof. Some description of God/Gods that sounded halfway reasonable might do it for me, since I am an agnostic. But Biblegod is not a reasonable description of a supreme being. You are the one that seems to want to provide empirical proof, but cannot do so.

 

Twisting my words is not going to prove your point. I am not the one who posted a video which refers to an eternal hell, you did. People can watch it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

 

That is a perfectly understandable request:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNjqLwH1MJI

 

As for the evidence provided thus far, I would simply (sincerely) ask you to share with me (specifically, not generally) how it is lacking.

 

I'll be logging off now.  Busy day tomorrow.  I'll be back in about 20 hours.

 

Best wishes,

 

Steve

 

OK I listened to about 6 minutes of it, and that was all I could take, because I have heard it all so many times before, and I'm not getting any younger.

 

Trying to prove God loves us and we should surrender ourselves to him (meaning our reason) by using the Bible isn't cutting it here, for all the reasons everyone has told you. Human beings existed in their present form for at least 100,000 years. Now, 2,000 years ago God decides to reveal himself in a book. For a time span we cannot imagine, he just decided to remain silent on all this so-called love for us. The book itself has contradictions, parts of it were written to  "fulfill" other parts much more ancient and not a shred of proof outside of it. It simply doesn't make sense.

 

This idea that without fulfilling the design of our creator we have no purpose and no basis for morality is entirely false. Its rather cleverly done in the film, which tries to relate it to modern life through the example of a film "I Robot" , but it is simply not true. The film and the Bible are both fictional.

 

I notice in the film that creationism is taken for granted. We don't accept that.  Creationism is false.   Evolutionary theory has abundant proofs, and a fish in the sea doesn't uphold this notion that everyone and everything was created. Sorry, its not enough. 

 

Here's one more thought for you, Steve. The film makes this big deal of the word "Logos" like none of us nonbelievers would have a clue what it means.  That is very far from the case, and is almost insulting to our intelligence.

[Astreja]

Steve, all the "methodology" in the world is insufficient to support the mythology in the Bible.  If the stories about Jesus were just normal, everyday tales about someone who taught  a philosophy and died and stayed dead, no problem.

 

However, you appear to be trying to sell us a much larger and much more dubious package.  Hell?  Creationism?  A god?  No.  For that, you're going to need something better in the way of evidence.  In My case, I require a physical encounter with your alleged god in the real world.  I don't give a rat's ass about Paul or Luke or any of the other New Testament authors, because they lose all credibility the moment they speak of non-natural events.  They are not acceptable sources here on this forum.

 

Why did you come here, anyway?  Obviously not to wish us happiness with our post-Christian lives, but to ignore our criticisms and threaten us with Terrible Consequences if we don't voluntarily put on the shackles that we broke and threw away, and accept the "love" [sic] of a mythological entity that apparently intends to spend eternity ignoring the screams of the billions of people in hell.

[thereisnoperfect]

Steve:

 

Consider that this is a site for EX-Christians.

 

So the people here did not come at Christianity from a position of being biased against its conclusions. They believed it. They left it with varying degrees of pain, shock, anger, and fear (and relief, joy, delight). If they now reject those positions, it's not because they were biased against them. They were biased FOR them, yet still came to a different conclusion.

 

That does not, by itself, prove who is right. But it does suggest that treating us like people who were raised atheist and never really questioned our belief system doesn't make much sense.

[sdelsolray]

This one projects much, often and well.  Plus, have you noticed his need to control the conversation?  Creepy.

[Blood]

 

Luke and Acts were written together to the same person, and Luke refers to the destruction of the temple so by the criteria you listed, both must have occurred after 70AD. 

 

Jesus prophesied the temples destruction.

 

Even if one presupposes on some unsupported basis that prophesies are not possible for God, one wouldn't simply abandon basic methodology.  They would, instead, just say that Jesus made a lucky guess.  Or that Jesus could see the way things were going and had educated foresight.  Or that a Christian interpolation took place later.

 

All such explanations would be more believable even to a naturalist, than the idea that the book of Acts would simply leave out Paul's execution, the great Roman fire of 64 A.D., or the subsequent Christian persecution thereafter.

 

But one would not abandon basic methodolgy for sake of some philosophical bias regarding prophecies-- that would, obviously, clearly undermine any notion of a person's actual objectivity or openness to even the possibility that Jesus said and did what the gospel's claim.

 

It's basically setting up a rigged game-- where one will not be convinced. . .even if God raises someone from the dead. . . the point is, be careful-- your presuppositions with regard to certain possibilities can drastically affect your ability to employ normal investigative methodology.

 

Even scholars, and incredibly intelligent people, are not immune to this.  And one should train themselves to spot such biases right away!

 

 

You know you're creating your own "methodology," right? "Acts doesn't mention Paul's death, therefore Acts pre-dates Paul's death" is a ridiculous argument that only fundamentalists, not scholars, make. It's the same thing as saying, "Greek mythology book 'X' doesn't mention Hercules' death, therefore it was written before Hercules' death. Therefore, it's an eyewitness to the life of Hercules!" 

[midniterider]

If someone doesn't want to believe in God, they shouldn't have to.

 

I agree Steve and I have chosen not to believe in God.

[WarriorPoet]

I was born in 1980.  Some stuff happened, I eventually grew up and had one hell of a party on my 21st b-day.

 

This was obviously written in the year 2001 because it contains no information about events that happened later.

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

"Fear him that has the power to cast you into hell."

 

 

We are the only one's with that power.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWnsjOL0tQ8

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

"Fear him that has the power to cast you into hell."

 

 

We are the only one's with that power.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWnsjOL0tQ8

 

Another unfounded assertion that you have NO EVIDENCE for.  Seriously, boy, start proving your claims or get the hell off our website.  You have no clue as to how science works and no idea how to follow logic to a conclusion.  You're just a little child in a china shop wrecking things that you don't understand the value of.

[Guest SteveBennett]

I think the bulk of the way those who disagree are responding is something like this:

 

"The Bible is myth, therefore one can't apply basic methodology to it."

 

But if one fails to identify the premise of that statement as a bias, then one will not be able to see what is wrong with this line of reasoning. Instead a different question, more removed from the bias, needs to be asked:

 

"On what criteria does one tell the difference between a book that purports to record myths, and a book that purports to record history?"

 

In other words, one has to justify on a basis of established criteria what separates a text which purports to be historical vs. a text which purports to be fictional or mythical.

 

Here are some of the key criteria:

 

1)  Does the text claim to be an eye-witness account?  Or directly refer to eye-witnesses?

2)  Does the text provide specific, testable details that are consistent with an eye-witness account?

3)  Does the text purport to be pursuant of recording even earlier sources?

4)  Does the text speak in vague generalities, or does it provide specific names, places, people, and events that archaeologists can dig up? For example, "Harry potter went to Hogwartz," obviously, would not pass this criteria.

5)  Does the text have the tacit feel of history or myth? I.e. Is the author's purpose to inform or to entertain (as story tellers do)?

6)  Does the text have a target audience well known to exist at the time the text purports to have been written? What would that target audience have been concerned with?

 

For example.  Besides the fact that Superman comics are clearly intended to entertain (not inform) it consistently fails any testable claims that it makes.  "The daily planet" is not actually a newspaper. "Metropolis," is a very generic name for a city.

 

By all of the criteria available, Superman is clearly fictional.  Apply the same criteria to something like the Iliad, and it becomes very clear that the Iliad is actually fiction, based on an earlier, historical, war.  We can see that the author is far removed from the events themselves. And that the author's purpose is to show that heroism during that war is to be regarded as honorific (to an extreme level).

 

Meanwhile the purpose of the gospels is clearly to inform-- and that by that information, one may make an informed decision of following Jesus.

 

One thing anyone will notice, when they read the Qu'ran, is its complete and total lack of any testable details-- just vague, flowery language whenever it describes key events.  One continuously notices, though, that the author's purpose is focused on creating a social-political-military engine upon which an physical empire may be spread.  This is precisely what Muhammed did, in fact, accomplish during his lifetime.

 

Remember-- the key is not to ever jump to conclusions, but to establish objective criteria that keeps one's self separated from their own assumptions as much as possible.  Use the criteria and read a text critically.

 

Also, consider giving this short essay from C.S. Lewis a read. Titled "Myth Became Fact." http://sunnybrae.org/sites/sunnybrae.org/files/MythBecameFact.pdf

 

Lewis was the chairman for the Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University.  If anyone knows how to separate mythical texts from historical texts. . . he would.

[JadedAtheist]

How about telling us why the majority of scholars are wrong concerning the dating of Luke and Acts, without resorting to that hypothesis of yours?

[Guest SteveBennett]

How about telling us why the majority of scholars are wrong concerning the dating of Luke and Acts, without resorting to that hypothesis of yours?

 

If one doesn't know how basic dating methodology works (a method that anyone can test for themselves to see that it works) , then how does one know if a scholar-- or any source for that matter-- is being biased or not?

 

Popular vote?

 

If one doesn't know how basic methodology for distinguishing between mythical texts and historical texts works (a method that anyone can test for themselves to see that it works), then how does one know if a scholar -- or any source for that matter-- is being biased or not?

 

Ad hoc analogies that sound catchy and wax our fancy?

 

I'm sorry, but that's a terrible strategy for approaching an issue in which strong opinions and biases are known to exist.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

How about telling us why the majority of scholars are wrong concerning the dating of Luke and Acts, without resorting to that hypothesis of yours?

 

If one doesn't know how basic dating methodology works (a method that anyone can test for themselves to see that it works) , then how does one know if a scholar-- or any source for that matter-- is being biased or not?

 

Popular vote?

 

If one doesn't know how basic methodology for distinguishing between mythical texts and historical texts works (a method that anyone can test for themselves to see that it works), then how does one know if a scholar -- or any source for that matter-- is being biased or not?

 

Ad hoc analogies that sound catchy and wax our fancy?

 

I'm sorry, but that's a terrible strategy for approaching an issue in which strong opinions and biases are known to exist.

 

If one doesn't know how the scientific method works (a method anyone can learn how to use), then how does one know if their fundamental belief that the bible is true is biased or not?  

 

Oh, yeah, faith.

[JadedAtheist]

Sorry champ, the answer "they are all biased" isn't an acceptable one. What you are doing here is resorting to a common Christian argument in the face of overwhelming majority disagreement - blame bias / demonic possession / Satan being the god of this world etc. I mean, look at it this way - only evangelicals and fundamentalists give earlier datings, so who has the bias? Most scholars in any field related to Christianity are in fact Christians, they're on your side. It would seem weird for them to shoot themselves in the foot? You look at textual critics, most of whom are conservative Christians, yet they don't give earlier dates just so that it would fit supposed prophecies. They're committed to the truth, unlike you. I would also add, there aren't always disagreements between the two camps in terms of dating either. It only happens when it would disprove something in the Bible, which Christians like you will have none of.

 

As an aside to this discussion, I was curious as to your view of the Synoptic Problem? Do you hold a Markian priority, or you don't believe a problem exists? I'm not interested in debating the issue with you, merely curious.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Sorry champ, the answer "they are all biased" isn't an acceptable one. What you are doing here is resorting to a common Christian argument in the face of overwhelming majority disagreement - blame bias / demonic possession / Satan being the god of this world etc. I mean, look at it this way - only evangelicals and fundamentalists give earlier datings, so who has the bias? Most scholars in any field related to Christianity are in fact Christians, they're on your side. It would seem weird for them to shoot themselves in the foot? You look at textual critics, most of whom are conservative Christians, yet they don't give earlier dates just so that it would fit supposed prophecies. They're committed to the truth, unlike you. I would also add, there aren't always disagreements between the two camps in terms of dating either. It only happens when it would disprove something in the Bible, which Christians like you will have none of.

 

As an aside to this discussion, I was curious as to your view of the Synoptic Problem? Do you hold a Markian priority, or you don't believe a problem exists? I'm not interested in debating the issue with you, merely curious.

 

Your repeating something you heard in an echo chamber somewhere.  You obviously have no idea what scholars actually believe:

 

http://vridar.org/2011/03/13/what-do-biblical-scholars-make-of-the-resurrection/

 

You will notice that there is really very little question of the facts-- the issue becomes the philosophical presuppositions by which one, then, interprets those facts.

 

As for Markian priority, I personally think Mark was written before Mathew for internal textual reasons.

[JadedAtheist]

What do you object to exactly? That the majority of scholars are Christian? That most believe in a later date or Luke? Please tell me which you object to as that link doesn't really address those points and I will address your objection as required. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

I think the bulk of the way those who disagree are responding is something like this:

 

"The Bible is myth, therefore one can't apply basic methodology to it."

 

But if one fails to identify the premise of that statement as a bias, then one will not be able to see what is wrong with this line of reasoning. Instead a different question, more removed from the bias, needs to be asked:

 

"On what criteria does one tell the difference between a book that purports to record myths, and a book that purports to record history?"

 

In other words, one has to justify on a basis of established criteria what separates a text which purports to be historical vs. a text which purports to be fictional or mythical.

 

Here are some of the key criteria:

 

1)  Does the text claim to be an eye-witness account?  Or directly refer to eye-witnesses?

2)  Does the text provide specific, testable details that are consistent with an eye-witness account?

3)  Does the text purport to be pursuant of recording even earlier sources?

4)  Does the text speak in vague generalities, or does it provide specific names, places, people, and events that archaeologists can dig up? For example, "Harry potter went to Hogwartz," obviously, would not pass this criteria.

5)  Does the text have the tacit feel of history or myth? I.e. Is the author's purpose to inform or to entertain (as story tellers do)?

6)  Does the text have a target audience well known to exist at the time the text purports to have been written? What would that target audience have been concerned with?

 

For example.  Besides the fact that Superman comics are clearly intended to entertain (not inform) it consistently fails any testable claims that it makes.  "The daily planet" is not actually a newspaper. "Metropolis," is a very generic name for a city.

 

By all of the criteria available, Superman is clearly fictional.  Apply the same criteria to something like the Iliad, and it becomes very clear that the Iliad is actually fiction, based on an earlier, historical, war.  We can see that the author is far removed from the events themselves. And that the author's purpose is to show that heroism during that war is to be regarded as honorific (to an extreme level).

 

Meanwhile the purpose of the gospels is clearly to inform-- and that by that information, one may make an informed decision of following Jesus.

Steve, your post is vitiated at the outset by a FALSE DICHOTOMY. When trying to compare the Bible to other ancient texts, we need to consider a wider range of possible categories than "purports to record myth" vs. "purports to record history." For example, Plato's dialogues purport to do both.

 

Second, as people have tried to point out, trying to think as historians, we have to weigh sources and consider the apparent biases of their authors. So "purports" needs to be taken apart, big time.

 

Which trained historians, teaching in universities and not seminaries, put forth the "key criteria" that you instruct us to apply? You may think that I'm indulging in an ad verecundiam fallacy here. No, I'd like to know that your instructions about methodologies and criteria to use in HISTORY are not of your own devising but are in fact "established", as you say they are.

 

That's because I start off REJECTING UTTERLY your criteria 1-4. They apply, for example, to Apuleius' The Golden Ass, which starts off claiming to be an eyewitness account (the diff. is in degree not in kind). No one denies that there is factual material in various books of the Bible.

Criteria 1-4 reveal an IGNORATIO ELENCHI fallacy. The question that matters is not what a given book of the Bible "purports to be". Xenophon's Memorabilia purport to be eyewitness accounts of conversations held by Socrates, but analysis shows that this work is not so.

 

Your criterion 5 again poses a FALSE DICHOTOMY. There are more purposes than entertain vs. inform. For example, to persuade. Propaganda poses as fact. The Gospel of John declares itself to be propaganda: "these have been written that you may believe..." It's not just info, it's a persuasive spiel. For starters, the proportion of speech to "factual" narrative, and the nature of the speeches, shows that the genre we are dealing with in John is not the same as, for example, what we have in Thucydides or Polybius. And even in ancient historical writing, let alone in the gospels etc., a major structuring element was RHETORIC. How the author seeks to guide the audience's response, and to what end, is a critical question (I applaud your bringing it up).

 

Your tacit feel criterion makes my head reel. Details like dead people coming to life and walking around, people running on water and then looking down and being scared of sinking and then being grabbed, people who are struck dead immediately for lying about finances, rods thrown down on the floor turning into snakes and having a fight... these are details that give the tacit feel of "just the facts, ma'am"?

Modern systems/intelligence analysts or others who lack training in ancient texts do not have the training to pronounce on the tacit feel of an ancient text. For starters, one needs to know the original language...

 

Your criterion 6 about a target audience "well known to exist at the time" plunges straight into BEGGING THE QUESTION. Since you date Luke/Acts, for example, betw 58-64, and there is no extrabiblical evidence about the Jesus cult from that early a period, your conclusions about the target audience will inevitably come from the very texts, for the explanation of which you invoke criteria about a target audience. So you will be stuck in a circle.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Here is another script on sources for ancient history, by Matthew Ferguson. I understand that he was a grad student in ancient history when he wrote this blog entry, so not an authority but soaking up academic training in the field... Too long to quote, so here's the link:

 

http://celsus.blog.com/2012/10/19/methodological-approaches-to-ancient-history/

 

His criteria are:

1. distance from the event to the record

2. first-hand vs second-hand accounts

3. oral vs textual sources (later ancient authors who use earlier documents give more reliable info than later authors who rely on oral tradition)

4. genre of literature

5. authorial bias

6. authorial license (how far the author goes in fleshing out documented material with his own fill-in material; Plato and John are two authors F. thinks go a long way in this direction)

7. plausibility vs probability, i.e. intrinsic likelihood (e.g. I'd offer the example: intrinsic likelihood that rods become snakes on the floor, or Tacitus' report of a claim of a cow speaking)

[Guest Marty]

 

1)  Does the text claim to be an eye-witness account?  Or directly refer to eye-witnesses?

2)  Does the text provide specific, testable details that are consistent with an eye-witness account?

3)  Does the text purport to be pursuant of recording even earlier sources?

4)  Does the text speak in vague generalities, or does it provide specific names, places, people, and events that archaeologists can dig up? For example, "Harry potter went to Hogwartz," obviously, would not pass this criteria.

5)  Does the text have the tacit feel of history or myth? I.e. Is the author's purpose to inform or to entertain (as story tellers do)?

6)  Does the text have a target audience well known to exist at the time the text purports to have been written? What would that target audience have been concerned with?

 

 

1) Eye witness accounts are known to be very unreliable forms of "evidence".

 

2) Much of the bible is so fantastical that it can not be tested, such as talking snakes, talking donkeys, and dead people rising from their graves and preaching to the living.  Common life experience instead should inform the reader that such things are fantasy and could not have ever happened.

 

3) Not sure what #3 has to do with anything.  Just cause something says it is recording another document it should be believed without evidence?  Or only if it is in the bible?

 

4) The city of Troy was once thought to be a myth; until they found it.  So by your reasoning the ancient Greek gods and their deeds are true, because Homer wrote down in an accent text about a city called Troy that we now know existed.  So everything else Homer wrote about must be true too?  Cyclops, the Sirens song, all of these creatures must be real, because we know the city of Troy existed, and was mentioned in the same pages as these creatures.  Also, in some instances (such as the demon being cast into the pigs) the bible specific details of geology are completely inconsistent with the area it is supposed to be describing.  IIrc, the pigs would have had to run for a few miles to get to the sea from where they were, yet the bible seems to imply the city was a seaside town.  (details of this one have become foggy, if someone else cares to elaborate)...

 

5) The bible very much has a feeling of myth to it.  I know of no historical accounts of walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, worldwide floods, parting of a sea, darkness for 3 hours at mid-day, talking animals, turning inanimate objects into snakes, demon possession, talking bushes on fire, miraculous feeding of thousands from just a few fish and some bread, etc etc.  These types of events should immediately be classified as fantastical and/or mythological because of the impossibility of them occurring without assumptions of an undemonstrated supernatural entity.  If you could demonstrate that such a deity exists, or is likely to exist, I could consider fantastical things.  But you so far have not even attempted to show us that any deity exists.

 

6) The bibles targeted audience (then and now) are uneducated poor people who long for a better life with none of the hardships they face.  This is why so much of it is discussing how to be a slave, to submit to your rulers, to give your taxes to the government, how the meek will inherit everything if they just hold on a little longer.  Those who are wealthy use the religion as a powerful tool to con and coerce the poor masses into tithing their hard earned income to the church thus making them more well off.  You don't get the payoff until after you are dead so nobody will come demanding their money back for broken promises.  It is genius, really.

 

Why don't you use your criteria on the bible itself?  We all have, which is why your assumption the bible is a reliable source of information falls on deaf ears, and your condescending lectures of "proper methodology" are off-putting to say the least.  You chastise us for not thinking properly when you have not taken your own approach to the most fundamental, basic layers of your faith.  If you had, you would be here on this side of the fence.  Instead, you assume the bible is true, and fill your posts with big words in an attempt to sound authoritative and educated, but this basic flaw is obvious to everyone here but you and other christians.  The bible can not even be considered a "primary source" because of all the translation it went though over the last several thousand years.  We know there are more changes to the text in the NT than there are actual words in the NT, so you can not even point to a definitive version of it as a "primary source".  By your own criteria the bible fails.

 

And you lecture us on bias and proper methodology.  Bah!