thejeff wrote:
I would encouraged you to read some of Lee Strobel's research... he was a profound atheist (as well as an investigative reporter, back when that was a thing, lol) that posed some of your same questions to a multitude of historians, archaeologists, and linguists. His findings contradict many of your positions. Worst case scenario, it will give you some new ammunition ;-)
I did read Strobel's "The Case for Christ." Let's just say I was not swayed. As a caveat, I will say that I have a heard time believing history that comes from apologists because they have "skin in the game" so to speak.
It's been awhile, so I had to open my Kindle and let at his arguments. After a quick look at the chapter headings, I'll just say my problems are:
1. He basically ignores the Q hypothesis altogether. Also, Strobel himself readily admits that the Gospels were passed as on "oral tradition" for 30 years before being written down. No problems with accuracy here, right?
2. Admits that some versions of Christian documentation were surpressed in favor of orthodoxy. How do we know the orthodoxy version is correct? We don't. See point 1.
3. Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger are not reliable corroborators for the Christ myth. For one, Josephus uses the term "christos" which is a title, not a name like Yeshua. It's also believed that some of Josephus is a later forgery anyway. Also, none of these corroborating texts say anything about hermeneutics.
4. The "evidence." As John McRay said in the book himself, the archaeological evidence, "doesn't confirm that what Jesus Christ said is right. Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological discoveries." One must also be suspect of: the census (no evidence of Augustus's census during Herod's reign), we aren't sure if Nazareth even existed in the first century CE, and the slaughter of the innocents is only mentioned in Matthew. NO other historical text anywhere mentions this event.
This is just a quick perusal of the first few chapters.