Board index ‹ Bible

[jimwalton]

(1) I've given you several different lists to show that (a) John writes in such a way as to give evidence that he's not making stuff up. I found 3 or 4 very quickly just in chapters 1 & 2. (b) About a dozen pieces from just John 2 showing that he expects it to be regarded as true and not mythological. I could show you dozens, if not more than a hundred more. If you disagree so strongly, then the burden is on you to show that he's not telling the truth. I've given you a tiny piece of my case. Now I need a rebuttal case, not just "I don't agree with you."

(2) Of course it is, but possibly you don't realize that "historical fiction" was a virtually unknown genre in the ancient world. Though the Iliad and the Odyssey may possibly qualify as such, they are 2 of a mere handful of illustrations. For the most part, historical fiction didn't exist in the ancient world, and especially not in 1st-c. Rome. Historical fiction is one of our modern inventions, starting somewhere in the 17th c., I think. Instead, the Gospel writers follow the form and format of other Roman biographers, such as Josephus, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius. In addition, the Gospels and Acts are full of material that agrees with other extrabiblical sources, leading us to affirm their historicity. They also agree with the archaeological, geographical, and topographical realities of the land.

There's no reason to think of them as historical fiction. None.

(3) We don't really know when John was written. We have very few clues to help us date it. Guesses range all the way from the 60s to about 95. So you really can't conclude there were no witnesses alive. A very strong case can be made for the 60s, but cases can also be made for the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Your objection, though shared by some scholars, isn't a strong arguing point. It's too fluid.

> The most likely explanation is that no one cared.

This is a pretty radical perspective, and not shared by many. By the 50s, Christianity was changing Asia Minor (what we call Turkey), Greece, Rome, and Palestine. By the 60s Christianity was making itself felt in the Empire, not just in Palestine. Emperors like Nero, Claudius, Herod Agrippa, and Domitian were exercising political muscle against them. It's not plausible or likely that "no one cared."

> And I think there's a reasonable chance John was using earlier gospels as at least one of his sources.

What's your evidence? Though John does use some common material from the Synoptics, what makes you think the material in the Synoptics was possibly a source?

[Brave]

Hey, great response.

First - I think John could have been 'making stuff up' but expecting his readers to regard it as true.

I completely disagree that the burden of proof is on me to show that John is telling the truth about miraculous claims.

The fact of the matter is that he attests miracles. And we don't know his sources

What's more, whatever date we use for John, it's after the lives of most of the witnesses. Usually Christians go to the epistles or Mark if they want to make an argument that 'people would have refuted lies'

What is your source that by the 60s people cared that some of the gospels were making things up? or would have cared, rather

There were competing sects of Christianity at that time with gospels and books of saying all of their own -- with fully devout followers who believed just as strongly as the forefathers of modern Christianity. Can you make the case that they 'lost' because their doctrine was false, and because the canonical doctrine was true?

It appears more likely that making stuff up and outright forgery were the norm at the time - many of the canonical epistles are known forgeries

Here's my case that John uses the synoptic (or a common source) as his source

So it matters whether or not you believe that the Gospel order is Mark -> Matthew -> Luke -> John, and whether or not you think Luke redacted Matthew and Mark, and whether or not Matthew redacted Mark.

Assuming you agree with this, we can move onto John. John clearly borrows from Mark, and though he mostly rewrites in his own words (something Matthew fails to do with Mark), many of the details and sequence orders only make sense if if he's using Mark as a source. For example, John 6 clearly comes from Mark 6 31-52. The details are too similar, and their order practically identical. Five thousand were fed, exactly 12 baskets of crumbs remain, Jesus started with precisely 5 loaves and two fish, and feeding the crowd would have cost two hundred denarii. John borrows the character of Martha from Luke, who Mark (the earliest gospel) had never heard of. John also borrows the second Judas from Luke (again, neither Mark or Matthew agree). John takes Judas Iscariot's satanic possession from Luke (who made it up -- it's found in neither earlier Gospel). Both alone say Jesus was buried 'where no man had yet been laid. Luke and John are the only Gospels who put the risen Jesus visiting disciples in Jerusalem (instead of Galilee), and prove stigmata and have dinner.

And before we argue that mundane facts could have been independently attested instead of copied, many of the big, OH MY GOD, miracles everyone could see are different between the Gospels. For example, what day was Jesus murdered? What miraculous public event happened immediately after? Who discovered Jesus' empty tomb? How? What was the guard situation? Who did the witnesses of the empty tomb tell? Who did Jesus appear to after? Also, during life, did Jesus perform his miracles in secret so people would only know Him after death, or did he perform them publicly as evidence that he is God?

John diverges so much from Mark and Paul that it appears to be his core message: Mark 8:11-12 is wrong. John seems to be 'correcting' earlier gospels.

[jimwalton]

> John could have been 'making stuff up' but expecting his readers to regard it as true.

Anything is possible. We have to follow the evidence and make a case. I think the evidence is overwhelming that John did no such thing. I gave you a few tidbits from chapters 1 & 2, but I could have gone through the whole book that way.

> I completely disagree that the burden of proof is on me to show that John is telling the truth about miraculous claims.

In a court of law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In a debate, however, the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim. Frankly, there has been a constant stream of claims about miracles throughout the entirety of human history, and even now. There have been definitive books written (Craig Keener's comes to mind) investigating such claims and finding them to be valid. So if you are going in a contrary direction, you need to substantiate your position. If you can't, I have no reason to side with your stance.

> And we don't know his sources

I've already covered this ground twice, giving you the reasons to perceive John as an eyewitness. You obviously disagree, but you've given no rebuttal and no evidence to support your stance.

> whatever date we use for John, it's after the lives of most of the witnesses.

If John were written in the 60s, there would still be many people around who knew Jesus. It's only 30 years after his death. It's like poking around now and trying to find people who know anything about Reagan's presidency, the fall of the Berlin wall, or the Chinese rebellion and Tiananmen Square. Even if you want to push back 40 or 50 years, there are still plenty of Vietnam Vets around, people who were alive during the Nixon years, or people who could tell you about the Iranian hostages during Jimmy Carter's presidency. This is not a challenge.

> What is your source that by the 60s people cared that some of the gospels were making things up?

I already told you. By the 50s, Christianity was changing Asia Minor (what we call Turkey), Greece, Rome, and Palestine. This is a matter of historical record. By the 60s Christianity was making itself felt in the Empire, not just in Palestine. Emperors like Nero, Claudius, Herod Agrippa, and Domitian were exercising political muscle against them. The evidence about the Neronian persecution comes from Roman historical Tacitus. The evidence about Claudius comes from his own edict in AD 41 against the Jews, which was also applied against the Christians. Herod Agrippa's comes from the Bible. Domitian's persecution of Christians is known in historical sources.

> There were competing sects of Christianity at that time No there weren't.

Do you have any proof for what you've just claimed?

> many of the canonical epistles are known forgeries

No they aren't. 2 Peter is suspected to be one by some people. But "many"? And "known"? You don't have much of a case on this one, either.

> it matters whether or not you believe that the Gospel order is Mark -> Matthew -> Luke -> John, and whether or not you think Luke redacted Matthew and Mark, and whether or not Matthew redacted Mark.

I tend to go with Mark first, Matthew and Luke mostly simultaneously, and John last. But there are 4 prominent theories of Gospel order: (1) two-sources: Q & Mark for Mt. & Lk.; (2) The Farrer Hypothesis: No Q. Matthew and Luke written independently, but both used Mark; (3) The Griesbach Hypothesis: Matthew first, Luke used Mt., Mk. used Mt. & Lk.; (4) The Oral Tradition Hypothesis: all are independent works tapping into the same oral tradition. No one really knows, though the first is currently widely accepted.

> John clearly borrows from Mark

Evidence? Proof? I've never heard ANYONE claim this. You mentioned a few. Let's examine them.

> John 6 and Mark 6

That they both report the same event is no indication of derivation. All 4 Gospels contain this significant event. John's and Mark's rendering of the event have almost nothing in common by way of grammar, sentence structure. The only commonality is the general plot of the event itself, which one would expect in reporting the same event. Despite all their differences, even CNN & Fox show similarities when reporting the same event, but we all know there's no derivation or copying there!

> The details are too similar

They are both reporting the same event. We would expect the details to be similar. This doesn't indicate copying.

> John borrows the character of Martha from Luke

> John borrows the character of Martha from Luke

Proof?

> Mark (the earliest gospel) had never heard of.

Proof? That Mark doesn't use this story doesn't mean he never heard of Martha. The authors were all selective, as all are historian and biographers. Mark is also very brief. We would fully expect him to leave out things other authors include. That doesn't mean he didn't know Martha.

> John also borrows the second Judas from Luke (again, neither Mark or Matthew agree).

Proof? What makes you think there's borrowing? Similarity doesn't mean derivation. Similarity, in contrast, could mean it happened.

> John takes Judas Iscariot's satanic possession from Luke (who made it up -- it's found in neither earlier Gospel).

You're entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Proof that Luke made it up? Proof that John borrowed it?

> Both alone say Jesus was buried 'where no man had yet been laid.

Similarity is no evidence of borrowing. They are both historiographers. But I thought your point was that John borrowed from Mark? You only gave one wispy example of Mark, and now you've been talking about Luke in the past several points. You're trying to prove John used the Synoptics as sources, but similarity could just be historigraphy, not derivation.

> miracles everyone could see are different between the Gospels

Ah, back to the miracles. There is no reason to doubt the miracles except (1) you've never seen any (which isn't proof that they don't happen), and (2) that you have a priori decided they're not possible (which is not proof they don't happen).

> what day was Jesus murdered?

Friday.

> What miraculous public event happened immediately after?

There was an earthquake, the veil of the temple was torn, and saints resurrected to walk on Earth for a brief time.

> Who discovered Jesus' empty tomb?

A group of women including Mary Magdalene and an unknown quantity of others. Different Gospel writers mention different ones to suit their agenda.

> What was the guard situation?

Guards, either Roman or Jewish, posted at the tomb on Saturday.

> Who did the witnesses of the empty tomb tell?

The disciples.

> Who did Jesus appear to after?

Mary Magdalene first, a group a women second, to Peter that same day, to two walkers on the road to Emmaus that day, and to a group of 10 disciples that evening.

> during life, did Jesus perform his miracles in secret so people would only know Him after death, or did he perform them publicly as evidence that he is God?

Most of his miracles were done in public, and they were done as signs: revealing His nature as God.

> John diverges so much from Mark and Paul that it appears to be his core message: Mark 8:11-12 is wrong. John seems to be 'correcting' earlier gospels.

Yes, John does. If he wrote the same, you'd accuse him of copying. If he wrote differently, you accuse him of "correcting." Seems he can't win. It's no contradiction of Mark. 8.11-12. He refuses to do anything merely as a sign to show off, and yet his life was full of signs. His life *was* a sign. He himself was the sign. If Jesus had catered to their specific request, he would have been guilty of breaking the Mosaic law (Deut. 13.1-5). He rejects their pretentious categories. . Theologically, the demand for unmistakable proof that God is at work in Jesus’s ministry is an expression of unbelief. He's not their organ-grinder monkey to do tricks.

Also, Paul didn't write a Gospel.

John's core message is "that you might believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life through His Name" (Jn. 20..31).

[Brave]

You're still not getting how the burden of proof is on the claim whether or not. the claim 'some miracle happened' is different wholesale from the claim 'this specific miracle happened.' You don't get to take your presumed proof (which I disagree with) that 'miracles are possible' as enough evidence for 'this miracle happened' so that the burden shifts onto me. I'm not convinced by the miracle claims, either in the bible or otherwise, and the burden is not on me to prove them impossible.

I have a lot more to write but you're you're asking me for a lot of evidence so forgive me - I will happily go through line by line. The problem is every time I raise a few issues, you double the issue count, and then I double it again. I wonder if there's one position that you'd like me to back up substantially rather than writing small dissertations on each?

For example - although I agree it's contentious, I don't think Q is necessary. I think it's completely adequately explained without Q. That's not to say Q is impossible; just that there's literally no reason for it. If it existed, it wouldn't change any of my arguments or positions; and it wouldn't change any of yours either. So it's not a helpful position to crack open.

[jimwalton]

> You're still not getting how the burden of proof is on the claim whether or not

I interpret this to mean you have no evidence for what you are claiming. You asked me for evidence, and I gave it. You have no rebuttal except disagreement, and you have nothing that substantiates your position. As I said, in a debate, the burden of proof is on everyone. From Google: "The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory." All I'm asking is that if you are taking a position, substantiate it.

> You don't get to take your presumed proof (which I disagree with) (of miracles)

I didn't give proof of miracles. I showed that they were possible. You keep claiming they aren't, and I ask you repeated for substantiation of that, but you seem to have none. You have no evidence for your positions, so it seems. It's flabbergasting to me that you disagree with my positions, which have evidence, in favor of your own, which have no evidence. If we follow the evidence where it leads, it doesn't seem to lead to your position based on what you've presented.

> I don't think Q is necessary

I agree that Q isn't necessary. I've never been a fan of the Q theory.

[Brave]

Please point me to where I claimed miracles aren't possible. Because that's not my position, so if I said that I'll be happy to amend. My position is miracles have not been demonstrated to be possible. That's wholly different. And I can even grant you they are and it still doesn't at all effect my position, because even if miracles are possible, they're still unlikely (which we would agree on, I presume), so I would still need a LOT of evidence to convince me it happened.

And one piece of evidence that a miracle happened would be: if all four gospels agreed that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, and was performing miracles to demonstrate his messiahship.

and a piece of evidence against historicity is that while the gospels are getting many of those mundane details we both pointed out straight, they fail to agree on some of the biggest, historically and theologically, details.

That's strange, and fits better in a 'they made some stuff up' hypothesis than 'they faithfully reported sources sources' hypothesis.

Even if the 'sources' were the ones to make it up.

[jimwalton]

If I'm remembering right, the only 2 miracles recorded in all 4 Gospels are the feeding of the 5,000 people with a boy's lunch (it's the one that speaks most directly to Jesus's identity as the Messiah) and the resurrection.

The Gospels show particular signs of authenticity that have been labeled "undesigned coincidences," where writers show agreement of a kind of that is hard to imagine as deliberately contrived by either author to make the story look authentic. Often the agreement is so subtle and incorrect that all but the most careful reader are likely to miss it. If you suppose that Gospel writers put in such agreements to make their narratives appear authentic, then you imagine that they are among the most brilliant of all ancient authors. The idea that several Gospel writers might have done this independently is even less plausible.

In the setting of the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000, Mark says it was green grass (6.39) and John says there was much grass (6.10). Neither makes anything more of this point, and one might wonder whether it was a detail put into make the story look authentic. Mark explains that Jesus used a boat to go to a remote location, but there’s nothing more with the idea that many people were moving about. John alone records that the Passover was approaching (6.4), when large numbers of people would be traveling through the area. John records nothing about the crowds traveling, as Mark does, and yet it is precisely the festival of John that would explain the detail in Mark about people traveling in such large numbers. In Mark, the fact that Jesus moved locations indicates that it was not a mere increase in traffic for a few hours, but a more prolonged increase in movements of people such as normally occurred only at the time of festivals. This therefore is an undesigned coincidence between Mark and John. John explains a puzzle in Mark, and yet, according to almost all scholarly opinion, Mark came first. Immediately after mentioning Passover, John records that Jesus singled out Philip, and Andrew joined the reply. John gives no explanation, but had earlier said that Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter (Jn. 1.44; see also 12.21). John does nothing with this information, but it makes sense in the light of Luke 9.10, which locates the miracle near Bethsaida. This information impacts how we read John. If we read John on its own, we see no particular reason why Jesus should ask Philip rather than any of the other disciples, nor why Philip and Andrew should be involved in responding. However, once we plug in the information from Luke, the whole scene is explained: Jesus turns to a man with local knowledge, and he and another man with local knowledge reply. So in this narrative, John explains the many people traveling in Mark, and Luke explains the dialogue in John. Even the little detail in John that the boy has barley loaves (6.9) fits nicely with the nearness of Passover, which immediately follows the barley harvest.

Back to the detail of the green grass, and why there was so much of it. We know from weather patterns that the Passover came after the five most significant months of precipitation in Palestine, and the grass would be both abundant and green. Note, however, that none of these undesigned coincidences touch directly on the miracle. One might therefore be inclined to claim that the setting was realistic but not the miracle. The miracle, someone might argue, arose as the story was told from one person to another and subsequently exaggerated. But the problem with treating the central part of the story—the miracle—as carelessly exaggerated is that the undesigned coincidences suggest careful transmission of peripheral details. If transmission of the major elements of the story has been careless, we should not expect the minor elements to have been well transmitted. Therefore, the idea that the miracle account arose through careless exaggeration involves an unrealistic process of selective corruption of information in the story. It lacks explanatory power for the current shape of the text.

As far as discrepancies in the Gospels, such things were common in the ancient world without detracting from historicity. There are discrepancies among our primary sources pertaining to the burning of Rome (Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Tacitus). Despite these discrepancies, we'd be hard-pressed to find a historian claiming that Rome may not have burned since the discrepancies among the accounts cast doubt on the event.

Xenophon's reports of Socrates’s teachings differ from those provided by Plato, both students of Socrates.

We have four non-identical narratives of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

Compared to the sources for Greco-Roman history, the Gospels stand head and shoulders above what Greco-Roman historians have to work with, which are usually hundreds of years after the events they report, usually involved very few eyewitnesses, and are usually told by people who are completely biased. And yet Greco-Roman historians reconstruct the course of history of the ancient world.

[Brave]

> If I'm remembering right, the only 2 miracles recorded in all 4 Gospels are the feeding of the 5,000 people with a boy's lunch (it's the one that speaks most directly to Jesus's identity as the Messiah) and the resurrection.

That sounds right - it's been a while since I've studied harmonies and contradictions.

> The Gospels show particular signs of authenticity that have been labeled "undesigned coincidences," where writers show agreement of a kind of that is hard to imagine as deliberately contrived by either author to make the story look authentic. Often the agreement is so subtle and incorrect that all but the most careful reader are likely to miss it. If you suppose that Gospel writers put in such agreements to make their narratives appear authentic, then you imagine that they are among the most brilliant of all ancient authors. The idea that several Gospel writers might have done this independently is even less plausible.

Okay so we're going to have to stop right here. "Undesigned coincidences" is a problem for me because it smuggles in its own assumption that the texts are independent. If they are not independent, then the 'undesigned coincidences' are just 'using each other or common sources.' If I didn't like how the second installment of Hunger Games, "Catching Fire," turned out and I rewrote it and expanded on it, it's not strange that I fill in narrative gaps or expand on characters and situations in non-contradictory ways.

None of these are curious if they aren't independent, which is widely held by secular scholars to be the case. John redacted Luke, Luke redacted Matthew and Mark, Matthew redacted Mark, Mark made it up. If you want to contest this, then this should be the entire thrust of the next exchange.

> Note, however, that none of these undesigned coincidences touch directly on the miracle. One might therefore be inclined to claim that the setting was realistic but not the miracle. The miracle, someone might argue, arose as the story was told from one person to another and subsequently exaggerated. But the problem with treating the central part of the story—the miracle—as carelessly exaggerated is that the undesigned coincidences suggest careful transmission of peripheral details. If transmission of the major elements of the story has been careless, we should not expect the minor elements to have been well transmitted. Therefore, the idea that the miracle account arose through careless exaggeration involves an unrealistic process of selective corruption of information in the story. It lacks explanatory power for the current shape of the text.

Again, it fits perfectly if you are writing stories about Jesus, but making him do and say things that better suit your theology or worldview, and you are 'correcting' previous gospels.

> As far as discrepancies in the Gospels, such things were common in the ancient world without detracting from historicity. There are discrepancies among our primary sources pertaining to the burning of Rome (Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Tacitus). Despite these discrepancies, we'd be hard-pressed to find a historian claiming that Rome may not have burned since the discrepancies among the accounts cast doubt on the event.

Just because discrepancies might be common doesn't mean that they don't hurt historical claims. We're not talking about two account arguing over how tall Pontius Pilate is - we're talking about one account that says the sun was blotted out for 3 hours, and another that says zombies came up and wandered Jerusalem. These are things that should definitely be more corroboratively attested, Biblically and extra biblically.

It is not trivial that the major miracles (and Jesus' disposition for miracles) don't find agreement, especially when they find the capacity to be in agreement on 'how many baskets of crumbs were left over?' It's devastating.

Apologists try to have it both ways here; close agreement on a fact counts as evidence, but major disagreement doesn't count as evidence against? That's absurd. The study of any other text would never get this treatment. I might be mistaken, but wasn't 'undesigned coincidences' created by a religious apologist to demonstrate historicity? As in: it's not a historical term of art, except to defend the gospel? A quick google shows only apologists ever using the term.

> Xenophon's reports of Socrates’s teachings differ from those provided by Plato, both students of Socrates. We have four non-identical narratives of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

None of these claim anything spectacular, so knowing the 'true' version is not a monumentally important task. There are multiple similar accounts of alien abductions that are different in detail and we don't take them seriously. This isn't an argument for historicity. You're saying 'mundane details are often confused about mundane events; that doesn't mean the overall event didn't happen.' Fine. But when you are saying that the event is an alien abduction, you have a lot more work to do.

> Compared to the sources for Greco-Roman history, the Gospels stand head and shoulders above what Greco-Roman historians have to work with, which are usually hundreds of years after the events they report, usually involved very few eyewitnesses, and are usually told by people who are completely biased. And yet Greco-Roman historians reconstruct the course of history of the ancient world.

And none of them claim the raising of Romulus from the dead actually happened. Ancient history is a mess of probabilities. We say things like 'we're pretty sure Romans had invented a fog horn' - but that's as far as a historian might go. Apologists are claiming that the gospel evidence of the bible is so good as to be believed with pure certainty, and that just doesn't fit.

[jimwalton]

> "Undesigned coincidences" is a problem for me because it smuggles in its on assumption that the texts are independent.

There is much speculation about the formation of the Gospels. There are four primary theories, with the first one being the most widely accepted.

1. Two-source hypothesis (Markan Priority and Q): Mark and Q are claimed to be two major sources of Matthew and Luke.

2. The Farrer Hypothesis (Matthew and Luke were written independently. No Q. Both Matthew and Luke used Mark. Luke also used Matthew).

3. The Griesbach hypothesis (two-Gospel hypothesis)
A. Matthew came first (Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 6.25, citing Origen)
B. Luke used Matthew
C. Mark utilized both Matthew and Luke. Mark, in fact, conflates Matthew & Luke

4. The Oral Tradition hypothesis (the orality and memory hypothesis). Oral instruction was widespread. The Gospels are the result of an oral tradition characterized by a flexible stability. While the sayings of Jesus were somewhat “fixed,” the narrative seem to have been handed down with greater flexibility. The Gospel writers tapped into the oral traditions to write their accounts, hence their similarity.

We don't really know how the Gospels were formed, in what order, and who used what for sources. All of academic speculation is exactly that, using the tools we have at our disposal. Since we don't really know who used what, or even in what order they came, we have to look at the similarities and differences and try to interpret and draw conclusions. The point of what I was saying is that the interplay between the Gospels gives evidence of historicity, not fiction.

And if you claim that Mark "made it up," the burden of proof is on you to show what leads you to that conclusion. Or are we back to the miracles? If so, it seems that no amount of conversation, but only your own research, will ever motivate you to stick with or change your position.

> Just because discrepancies might be common doesn't mean that they don't hurt historical claims.

But that was exactly my point. These discrepancies DON'T hurt historical claims. We take them in stride, wish they weren't there, but we nonetheless don't doubt the historicity of the people and events. We just wonder about the details.

We also have to understand that the ancients approached historiography with a different mindset and worldview than we do. What “historical writing” means differs from age to age. The ancient world had no history writing as we would understand it. The recording of events did not have the aim of producing verifiable accounts of “what really happened.” Instead, these accounts used stylistic and formulaic elements to legitimate the king and explain the outcomes that were evident in the past or being shaped for understanding the present. That doesn’t mean it’s not true or didn’t happen, but only that their purpose was not historiography as we understand it. It's anachronistic to evaluate their presentation of history by our standards.

> we're talking about one account that says the sun was blotted out for 3 hours, and another that says zombies came up and wandered Jerusalem. These are things that should definitely be more corroboratively attested, Biblically and extra biblically.

I have no problem with historians being selective in their material. As a matter of fact, there is no historian who is not. We are all interpreters, and we are selective. There is never time or space to tell the whole of any story. The details we include reflect our views and priorities, but that doesn't mean they're false.

Neither Philo nor Josephus, arguably the most prominent non-Christian Jewish writers of the 1st century, mentioned Emperor Claudius’s expulsion of all Jews from Rome in c. AD 49-50. Only Suetonius and Luke mention the event, and each give it only one line in passing. For a modern example, Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, offered only two sentences about his first marriage which saw the birth of two children.

Historians select data because of its relevancy to the particular historians, and these become evidence for building the historian’s case for a particular hypothesis.

> It is not trivial that the major miracles (and Jesus' disposition for miracles) don't find agreement, especially when they find the capacity to be in agreement on 'how many baskets of crumbs were left over?' It's devastating.

The miracles of Jesus coming from the different authors show widespread agreement. I really don't know to what you are referring here. The raising of Jairus's daughter, the feeding of the 5000, walking on water, healing the blind and lame—widespread agreement. You'll have to be more specific.

> 'how many baskets of crumbs were left over

* Matthew 14.20: 12 basketfuls left over
* Mark 6.43: 12 basketfuls left over
* Luke 9.17: 12 basketfuls left over
* John 6.13: 12 basketfuls left over

What's your point? How is it "devastating"?

> None of these claim anything spectacular, so knowing the 'true' version is not a monumentally important task.

It's evidence that historical accounts differ in their telling, and yet we don't doubt that Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

> Ancient history is a mess of probabilities.

Very true, but we don't discard it as history.

So I guess we have to start with the evidence that Mark made it all up.