4 ms·

My experience is that discussions of this nature can be good on HN, given participants with a mindset of learning and exploring rather than preaching and fighti

My experience is that discussions of this nature can be good on HN, given participants with a mindset of learning and exploring rather than preaching and fighting. For example, I suspect that a post describing the major viable positions on the historicity of Jesus, and their strengths and weaknesses, would be well-received. A post asserting one of those positions without giving mention to the others (like the pair that touched off this subthread) would be less well-received. Because the first type of post helps give people the tools they need to evaluate and draw their own conclusions, while the second type of post merely tells us what conclusions someone else has drawn and invites us into a fight. Most people on HN like to learn, even about religions they don't practice, and this is a great place to find people to learn from. But most people on HN don't want the sort of lame talking-past-each-other and name-calling that you can get on any other website.

jorangreef 11y ago
"A post asserting one of those positions" I think if you read my post again, you will see it's just a short list of facts intrinsic to the New Testament documents, capped with an invitation for open-minded investigation. For example, the point about thousands of manuscript copies is not me asserting a position. I don't think it's debatable that there are an overwhelming number of copies available for textual criticism compared to documents of the same period? Similarly, the point about the testimony of women being relied on at key points in the gospels, is something intrinsic to the gospels? I don't think the date ranges given were particularly subjective either. I am not aware of any evidence supporting a post 1st century dating of the documents, nor of this being seriously in dispute?
- lotharbot 11y ago
  > "it's just a short list of facts intrinsic to the New Testament documents" It's a list of facts intrinsic to the New Testament documents, followed by an assertion. There's no reference made to any of the potential issues that come up when investigating the historicity of Jesus. Now, to be clear, I believe in a historical Jesus, Savior, Messiah, second person of the Trinity -- I'm doctrinally quite orthodox. But I think when you're arguing for a historical Jesus, it's important to be clear on what the evidence both does and doesn't say. It's important to point out that, for example, the large number of manuscripts helps us determine that the story wasn't modified over time, but the accuracy of the original stories must be judged using other criteria (including some of the criteria you pointed out.) It's important to note that "unchanged" and "accurate" are independent questions. ----- As for the date ranges themselves, one of the most interesting arguments I've heard has to do with the distribution of names in the canonical Gospels. Modern archaeology has given us a fairly good idea as to the most common Jewish names in the region in that era, as well as in later and earlier eras and in other regions. And the canonical Gospels show the same pattern as early 1st century Palestine -- there are several characters named Simon, the most common male name in the archaeological record, and the name is treated like a common name that needs to be clarified (so you see things like "Simon Peter", "Simon the tanner", etc.) In short, the people who wrote the Gospels were clearly familiar with Jewish names in first-century Palestine -- people who lived there during the time of Jesus and then scattered before the fall of Jerusalem. Compare this to the various gnostic gospels, which hardly ever use names outside of Jesus and whoever their purported author was (Thomas, Mary, etc.) The lack of ordinary details like names and locations in those writings point toward their being mythology.

jorangreef 11y ago

"A post asserting one of those positions" I think if you read my post again, you will see it's just a short list of facts intrinsic to the New Testament documents, capped with an invitation for open-minded investigation. For example, the point about thousands of manuscript copies is not me asserting a position. I don't think it's debatable that there are an overwhelming number of copies available for textual criticism compared to documents of the same period? Similarly, the point about the testimony of women being relied on at key points in the gospels, is something intrinsic to the gospels? I don't think the date ranges given were particularly subjective either. I am not aware of any evidence supporting a post 1st century dating of the documents, nor of this being seriously in dispute?

lotharbot 11y ago
> "it's just a short list of facts intrinsic to the New Testament documents" It's a list of facts intrinsic to the New Testament documents, followed by an assertion. There's no reference made to any of the potential issues that come up when investigating the historicity of Jesus. Now, to be clear, I believe in a historical Jesus, Savior, Messiah, second person of the Trinity -- I'm doctrinally quite orthodox. But I think when you're arguing for a historical Jesus, it's important to be clear on what the evidence both does and doesn't say. It's important to point out that, for example, the large number of manuscripts helps us determine that the story wasn't modified over time, but the accuracy of the original stories must be judged using other criteria (including some of the criteria you pointed out.) It's important to note that "unchanged" and "accurate" are independent questions. ----- As for the date ranges themselves, one of the most interesting arguments I've heard has to do with the distribution of names in the canonical Gospels. Modern archaeology has given us a fairly good idea as to the most common Jewish names in the region in that era, as well as in later and earlier eras and in other regions. And the canonical Gospels show the same pattern as early 1st century Palestine -- there are several characters named Simon, the most common male name in the archaeological record, and the name is treated like a common name that needs to be clarified (so you see things like "Simon Peter", "Simon the tanner", etc.) In short, the people who wrote the Gospels were clearly familiar with Jewish names in first-century Palestine -- people who lived there during the time of Jesus and then scattered before the fall of Jerusalem. Compare this to the various gnostic gospels, which hardly ever use names outside of Jesus and whoever their purported author was (Thomas, Mary, etc.) The lack of ordinary details like names and locations in those writings point toward their being mythology.