Historical Jesus and Historical Tank Man: A Similitude?

[MrMacSon]

"When studying any history, one should endeavor as much as possible to allow the people to speak for themselves."

When studying history it is appropriate to find additional/other information that verifies what someone has said about that period of "history".

The victors & their agents often write "history".

No, that would be a limitation of history.

That is merely an affirming the consequent fallacy and an appeal to consequences fallacy. Of course it's a limitation of history.

Rather, you should build a composite picture using all primary sources available.

Exactly. There are no primary sources about the times of the biblical character Jesus the Christ of Nazareth;

nor are there primary documents about the origins of Christianity. There are fragments of many apocryphal/peudo-epigraphical gospels, many from the 2nd or 3rd centuries; many that show variations of the New Testament narratives.

[Mental flatliner]

Exactly. There are no primary sources about the times of the biblical character Jesus the Christ of Nazareth

You mean except for the gospels?

(Wait--a green named dude claiming to be a moderator says that if you make a claim, it's a forum rule that you have to back it up. You claim that the gospels are not primary sources despite the fact that they say in their own text that they are, and the obvious verification between them demonstrates as much. I'm going to have to ask you to back up that claim?)

[MrMacSon]

Exactly. There are no primary sources about the times of the biblical character Jesus the Christ of Nazareth

You mean except for the gospels?

(Wait--a green named dude claiming to be a moderator says that if you make a claim, it's a forum rule that you have to back it up. You claim that the gospels are not primary sources despite the fact that they say in their own text that they are, and the obvious verification between them demonstrates as much. I'm going to have to ask you to back up that claim?)

Nobody says the gospels were written at the times the alleged-Jesus allegedly lived.

Nobody really knows when they were written. An authoritative Christian encyclopedia says as much

The formation of the New Testament canon (A.D. 100-220)

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

[Mental flatliner]

Nobody says the gospels were written at the times the alleged-Jesus allegedly lived.

Nobody really knows when they were written. An authoritative Christian encyclopedia says as much

You've made three errors here:
1--You failed to provide the source asked for (I pretty much expected you wouldn't)
2--You're using an appeal to popularity fallacy (the fallacy can't serve as evidence)
3--Your appeal is factually incorrect (there are literally billions who claim that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and there are likely thousands of scholars who believe that at least some of the material was written while Jesus was alive, including me)

Would you like to try again, this time setting your standards a bit higher?

[neilgodfrey]

I'll throw you a bone. This is a quote from a man considered to be not at the top but THE top of Hittite studies, Trevor Bryce:

"When studying any history, one should endeavor as much as possible to allow the people to speak for themselves."

Oi! Trevor Bryce was my ancient history teacher in high school. He was studying for his doctorate at the time. I can assure you he would not approve of the naive message you are attempting to convey with this quotation. Speak for themselves, yes, but that includes the other sources and evidence that enable us to interpret and evaluate what any one record 'says' to us. I can introduce you to Trevor online if you like and you can ask him for yourself if you have understood him completely.

[MrMacSon]

Nobody says the gospels were written at the times the alleged-Jesus allegedly lived.

Nobody really knows when they were written. An authoritative Christian encyclopedia says as much.

You've made three errors here:
1--You failed to provide the source asked for (I pretty much expected you wouldn't)

You're being vague; source for what?

2--You're using an appeal to popularity fallacy (the fallacy can't serve as evidence)
3--Your appeal is factually incorrect (there are literally billions who claim that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and there are likely thousands of scholars who believe that at least some of the material was written while Jesus was alive, including me)

Oh, the irony of you appealing to popularity in your point 3.

Moreover; Where have I appealed to popularity?

"Would you like to try again, this time setting your standards a bit higher?"

[Andrew]

Nobody really knows when they were written. An authoritative Christian encyclopedia says as much

The formation of the New Testament canon (A.D. 100-220)

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Um, no it doesn't. That has nothing to do about the authorship dates of the gospels. It is about the affirmation of them as canonical Scripture. The formation of the canon doesn't mean the writing of the contents of the canon.

[MrMacSon]

The inclusion of some gospels in the early bibles - Codices Sinaiticus & Vaticanus - that were not in later bibles, as well as the presence of interesting parallel 'pseud-epigraphical' texts such as the Gospel of Thomas, suggests the content of the Canon was also being 'developed'.