I made no effort, subtle or otherwise, to slam non-believers. I would ask you not to accuse me of doing so.

I have a reason for claiming that most people don’t make major life decisions based on New Testament texts, it’s that most people use scripture as a justification for behavior, not as a motivating force for behavior. Let’s just take your first example, the Westboro Baptist Church. I think what you have there is a complex social dynamic. First, you have a very stupid and hateful person who has a need to lead others (the pastor). Second, you have a group of people who have a profound need to see the world in black an white, combined with a need to feel superior to others, combined with a need to have strong in-group/out-group interactions. Third, throw in some racism and homophobia. Finally, mix in the fact that to pull this off you need a rallying point for this group’s supposedly moral high ground, and they grab for the New Testament.

This particular kind of dynamic gives rise to all kinds of hateful movements, religious and secular, sometimes a mixture of both. These types of groups coalesce in all cultures, in all times, and for a variety of reasons. The point is that I think these people are using the New Testament to justify their convoluted way of seeing the world, and not seeing the world through the New Testament.

That was my point. Feel free to disregard it. I don’t deny that there is a small group of people who truly do make choices based on the New Testament, that was my point in referring to Schweitzer. Claiming no one does that was too strong. I also don’t deny that many people CLAIM to have the New Testament as a motivating force, but in what sense can you claim a book as a motivating force when you willfully misread it? Most people’s claims along with $1.50 will buy you a coke and hot dog at your average Costco.

I think you’re very much mistaken if you think that nobody ever makes major life decisions based on their reading of the New Testament, whether you consider their reading “simplistic” or not. In fact, I honestly don’t see how you could reach that conclusion, David, notwithstanding your not-so-subtle effort to slam nonbelievers.

Would you like some examples of people making major life decisions, based on a reading of the New Testament texts–even a “simplistic” reading? How about the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who devote their lives and resources to promoting their own simplistic reading of select fragments from the epistles of Paul? How about Catholic priests, who choose a life of celibacy, at least in part because Paul said it was better not to marry? Thousands have died, or even killed, in order to carry out what they believe they have read in the New Testament. How about early LDS missionaries, who travelled “without purse or script” (using those very words, despite their archaic nature), because they simplisticly read that phrase in the New Testament? We could go on and on, David. It’s simply not accurate to say that nobody makes major life decisions on the basis of the New Testament documents.

That person best fit in my opinion for Arthur:

But in the meanwhile, an opportunity happening, when these most cruel robbers were returned home, the poor remnants of our nation (to whom flocked from divers places round about our miserable countrymen as fast as bees to their hives, for fear of an ensuing storm), being strengthened by God, calling upon him with all their hearts…

that they might not be brought to utter destruction, took arms under the conduct of Ambrosius Aurelianus, a modest man, who of all the Roman nation was then alone in the confusion of this troubled period by chance left alive. His parents, who for their merit were adorned with the purple, had been slain in these same broils, and now his progeny in these our days, although shamefully degenerated from the worthiness of their ancestors, provoke to battle their cruel conquerors, and by the goodness of our Lord obtain the victory.

Chapter 26
After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, to the end that our Lord might in this land try after his accustomed manner these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not, until the year of the siege of Mount Badon [Note: Giles translates "Badonici montis" as "of Bath-hill"], when took place also the last almost, though not the least slaughter of our cruel foes, which was (as I am sure) forty-four years and one month after the landing of the Saxons, and also the time of my own nativity.

http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/gildas.html

Amen!!

Absolutely, though we’re not just talking about determining history here. We’re talking about basing major life decisions on the contents of these ancient documents, and when you think about it that’s a risky affair, whatever one may think of “metaphysical evidence” of their truthfulness.

Plus, a lot can be embellished in 30-60 years. Agreed. It’s another reason to try and follow a proper methodology when investigating the historical Jesus.

As to the importance of verifying Christ’s historicity, perhaps there’s a reason for the lack of documentation outside of the scriptures. Yes, most likely as a Jewish peasant no one thought much of him at the time, and so they didn’t write much down. It’s not like the ancient sources are awash in stories about 1st century Jewish peasants.

I believe we’re supposed to dig into His words and actions as chronicled by His servants to come to know Jesus the Man And there are two ways of going about this. One is to follow a historian’s methodology to look for the historical Jesus. Another is to treat the Gospels as literature and use literary analytic techniques to figure out what the author is trying to say about Jesus using techniques such as dialogue, narrative structure, irony, grouping, juxtaposition, etc. Most believers take door #3 and just take the Gospels at face value. While that is fine there are two things you have to be careful of. First, you miss all of he insights of the first two approaches. Second, when people approach the Gospels this way, they tend to find their own biases, mores, politics, and ideas in Jesus. In this case reading the gospels becomes an exercise in reinforcing what you already think, not in figuring out what the life of Jesus was all about. It’s not an accident that many Mormons reading the Gospels come to the conclusion that Jesus espouses 21st century, American, middle class, conservative values. It’s because that’s what their values are.

Whether all the words and actions attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament are historical facts, is quite another matter. Agreed. This is why following a proper methodology is so important in gleaning information from ancient sources. It’s no guarantee that you will get at the truth, but it does help historians maintain honesty and objectivity in so far as those are possible. It also gives you the best chance of actually finding the truth.

Your points are taken, but not without flaws themselves. There are places where the Gospels contradict, and yet they’re all considered authentic. Plus, a lot can be embellished in 30-60 years. As to the importance of verifying Christ’s historicity, perhaps there’s a reason for the lack of documentation outside of the scriptures. Perhaps the Lord doesn’t want His story to be a historical certainty. I believe we’re supposed to dig into His words and actions as chronicled by His servants to come to know Jesus the Man, not to rely on factual proof He existed to come to know Him better.

Beside, I merely said the argument reminded me of the King Arthur question. I didn’t say they were facsimiles.

For the record, I’m sure there are historical facts contained in the New Testament. I strongl suspect that the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is one of those historical facts. Whether all the words and actions attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament are historical facts, is quite another matter.

In short, the New Testament is a highly unreliable set of documents That is only if you compare them with modern documents. For ancient documents they are about as reliable as any other document. Of course one would dearly love to have newspaper articles, transcripts, journals, opposition research doc, etc. But since there are none to be found ancient historians make do with what they have, and the New Testament is on average of the same quality as other documents from the period. If you accept the idea that you can do ancient history at all then you have to accept the New Testament as containing history.

Of course what you do with the facts is your own business.

I guess carrying that thought to its logical conclusion, this can be said of all religions. Certainly the religious books such as the old testament and the koran. Even less evidence exists for their own claims.

So, where does that leave us????

Now, the spiritual/religious claims which have been attached to him are quite another matter. Many of them, if not most, directly parallel prior mythology from other regional religions. The synoptic gospels were almost certainly not written by their alleged authors, and were written considerably later than even the epistles of Paul. These writers contradict one another on a whole variety of points, and several historical details don’t happen to square with other reliable historical sources. In short, the New Testament is a highly unreliable set of documents. Personally, I am convinced that christianity, with all its mythos surrounding Jesus, is the invention of Jesus’ over-zealous, post-mortum followers.

As my Forensic Science instructor used to often say: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

The two arguments are very different. The sources for Arthur are contradictory and late. The main sources for Jesus (Gospels) have substantial points of agreement and date from 30-60 years after he died. That’s why you can say things about a historical Jesus, but not a historical Arthur, the nature of the evidence is different. It’s not about academic calisthenics. I also would dispute the argument that confirming the historicity of Jesus takes a back seat to the necessity of faith that he was the Christ. They are both important. Knowing Jesus better informs one’s views of what it meant to be the Christ. Indeed if Jesus was not a historical figure then I would argue that the concept of Christ has no meaning. If he was a historical figure, then we can and should use historical tools to understand Jesus the man.

“The historicity of the King Arthur legend has long been debated by scholars. One school of thought, based on references in the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae, would see Arthur as a shadowy historical figure, a Romano-British leader fighting against the invading Anglo-Saxons sometime in the late fifth to early sixth century. The Historia Brittonum (“History of the Britons”), a ninth century Latin historical compilation attributed in some late manuscripts to a Welsh cleric called Nennius, gives a list of twelve battles fought by Arthur, culminating in the Battle of Mons Badonicus, where he is said to have single-handedly killed 960 men. Unfortunately, recent studies suggest that the Historia Brittonum cannot be considered a reliable source for fifth- and sixth-century history. On the other hand, the tenth century Annales Cambriae (“Welsh Annals”) also links Arthur with the Badon and this has often been taken to confirm that Arthur really did fight this battle. The Annales dates this battle to 516/8, and also mentions the Battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut were both killed, dated to 537/9. However, the latest research into the Annales Cambriae shows that this chronicle was based around one which was started in the late eighth century in Wales, around 300 years after Arthur is meant to have lived. Worse, because of the complex textual history of the Annales Cambriae there can be no certainty that the Arthurian annals were put into it even that early. It is more likely that they entered it at some point in the tenth century and that they had no existence in any earlier set of annals, with the Badon entry probably being derived from the Historia Brittonum. This lack of convincing early evidence is the reason that many modern historians prefer to avoid including Arthur in their accounts of post-Roman Britain. Thomas Charles-Edwards recently commented that “at this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but]… the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him”, and this is one of the more positive assessments. Indeed, it is not certain that Arthur was even considered a king in these texts: neither the Historia or the Annales call him this, with the former calling him instead dux bellorum or “dux (leader) of battles”.

It’s all academic calisthenics anyway. Confirming the historicity of Christ takes a back seat to the necessity of faith in Christ.

This is the exact same situation with Joseph Smith and the golden plates. Mormons make two claims: First that a boy/young man named Joseph Smith lived and produced a book called the Book of Mormon. Inarguable. No one disputes that, and it is unlikely that the fact will ever be disputed beyond a few people who muse whether or not he plagiarized the BOM from other sources, which is an incredibly unlikely story, given the compared sources. The other claim we make is that the BOM was engraved originally on gold plates which JS found buried in a stone box, and that they are the writings of prophets living at least partly in this part of the world. [We make some other extraordinary claims, also, but most of them are more on the level of theology rather than history, which makes them less germaine to the current discussion].

This second claim made by Mormons is the one that is difficult for people. First, the plates are no longer around, which makes it really easy to be skeptical. If the plates were still around, the only question would be one of the quality of the translation, not their existence. So what do we have for evidence of their existence? The translation, the statements of those who saw them, and the testimony of those who witnessed JS protecting something, even though they never saw the actual plates. That’s it. Frankly, given the actions of those that saw the plates, I’d say that their testimony of the existence of the plates is as good as a lot of what passes for eyewitness testimony in courts of law even today, and better than most.

Great article. Yes, you can argue with the deity of Jesus or specific acts and things attributed to him. But, it does seem to me that His existence is indisputable.

Once of the interesting aspect of my own study of the new testament is that I see things very differently than most members of the church.

One idea is that most Jews of that time rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Well, I would say that most Jews of that time never even heard of Jesus, knew nothing about him and so, didn’t have an opinion either way. According to the new testament, the Jewish leadership, save a few, did reject his Messiahship. But then again, the history shows a plethora of Messiah candidates on the scene around the same time. Some of Judaism most revered Rabbis promoted their own choices for Messiah. Those turning out to not be up to the role.

Now, later on, Judaism as a whole, did reject the Messiahship of Jesus. But, as you stated, mentioned him in the Talmud. Mostly, in a negative sense. Many of those references were eliminated from some versions as not to incite the wrath of Christian against the Jews anymore than they were already experiencing.

People can argue about whether Jesus was the Son of God and the Savior of the world, that’s a matter of faith. However, you can’t really argue that Jesus the man did not exist. If you look at the matter as an objective historian, using the name techniques that you would use to investigate anybody else in ancient times, you have to conclude that Jesus existed. In fact, you can even come to an agreement about very broad outlines of his life. If you say that Jesus the man did not exist you have to do so by rejecting most of ancient history. The reason for this is that the evidence about the existence of Jesus is of similar quality to evidence that we have about other people in antiquity. If you say Jesus didn’t exist, you have to start saying a lot of other people did not exist either. Nobody bothers to doubt their existence because it does not serve a political, religious, or social agenda.

Belief bias is strong, and we are very susceptible to it. Anyone who claims otherwise is being very foolish. Such is life.