Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Blackleaf]

Sucks when you get backed into a corner like that, don't it?

Backed into a corner? You painted yourself into a corner. Your arguments make no sense. They work better as arguments AGAINST your position. Comparing your Bible to a clear work of fiction? That's what WE do, and for good reason. Your book has no credibility to it. It's a mess written by a ton of authors who continually recreated this god of theirs over time. One author says that God is too weak to defeat an enemy of Israel because they use iron chariots, another says that he's omnipotent. One says that God changes his mind. Another says that God never changes. One says that God punishes the son for the sins of the father, another says that he does not. Another says that "all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved," then another says the exact opposite.

Do you not see the problem here? Not only is the Bible a work of fiction, it's a terrible work of fiction with a ton of plot holes.

[Mike Cl]

Yeah. Uh...no. Watch Dr. Wallace's talk on YouTube.

Yeah, your replies are about what I expected.  And I did try to watch that video of Wallace's.  Did not last very long.  Not going to invest and hr. watching somebody vomit back up dribble I've heard for over 60 yrs. now.  The fact is that when I started thinking about Jesus and his religion 60 odd years ago, there were almost no published works suggesting that Jesus was not real.  Even as a child I questioned that, but only to myself.

The search for a historical Jesus is usually divided into three quests.

First Quest:

Started in Germany in the 1800's, with Albert Schweitzer being the most prominent.  Bruno Bauer was the first scholar to suggest that Jesus was not historical.  He died in the 1880's.  And it is generally said that this quest ended in 1906 or so.

Second Quest:
There was a space of 45/50 yrs. where little was done in this area, but in '53 Ernest Kasemann delivered a speech that suggested a historical Jesus could be uncovered is the tools of historical analysis were used in a systematic way.  A small spate of material and books then were generated exploring that idea.  This second wave reached it's zenith in the '70's.

Third Quest:
It has not precise beginning but began to be seen in the late 70's or early 80's.  The first two quests were driven mostly by European Protestant theologians.  The third quest is world wide and has input from experts in many disciplines.

So, Randy, the quest for a historical Jesus is quite new.  And the quest for an ahistorical Jesus is even newer.  This is just a start, Randy.  You claimed there were only 7 who thought that--I have not looked it up--if so, that is a 700% increase in books that suggest that he did not exist.  And that is just a start. 

Even after reading several of those new books, I was still not convinced that Jesus could not have been some guy that had a heap of deeds given to him as time passed.  Now I am convinced (especially after reading Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus") that Jesus is simply a fiction.  But I really do hope Carrier's plea is acted upon.  He asks any and all to tear his book apart and show him where he is in error.  But don't do it with opinion, but with facts (so that leaves you out, Randy--sorry).  I look forward to that happening.

A big reason why this has been so slow in developing is that people like you, Randy, want to label as scholars and experts only those who are theists and theologians.  Well, hell, that is the group who will not countenance the idea that Jesus is not real; that's how they get paid--feeding that line to the masses; that way the masses will continue to pay these leeches for their own serfdom.  People care less and less if an 'expert' is a graduate from a bible school or not; whether they are a theist or not; a theologian or not.  More and more will be published on this subject as time goes on.  And much to your delight, eh, Randy?!

[Randy Carson]

When it comes to trustworthiness, primary sources > secondary sources > tertiary sources. What you offer is a tertiary source at best. It's a copy of a copy of a book that is claimed to have originally been written by Jesus' followers and eyewitnesses who claim to report what Jesus said.

True. But because we have a boatload of these texts, we can be confident that we know that primary sources said. That's what the science of textual criticism is all about.

And yes, they were written by Jesus' apostles and those who had access to the eyewitnesses.

That's not a trustworthy source. All you have to do to tell this is compare the four gospels. They contradict each other, which should tell you that if there was an original event that they were based on, the true events were not reliably reported or the copies changes details of it. The infallible Word of God is incredibly flawed.

If the four gospels were word-for-word identical, then you would reject them because of the clear appearance of collusion or conspiracy. They would not represent four testimonies but one. Police investigators recognize when criminals tell the same story too closely...it's evidence that they rehearsed their alibi.

So, the four gospels have just enough differences to suggest that they are actually independent accounts, but enough similarities to demonstrate the truth of the core message.

For example, all of the gospels acknowledge that Jesus rose from the dead regardless of how many people they report at the tomb on Easter morning.

[Randy Carson]

Aaaand wrong again! You are saying that there are no quotes of a Jesus in the NT? You just dug yourself a bigger hole.

Did I say that we have no quotes? No. I said that we have no testimony DIRECTLY from Jesus. We have his words indirectly through eyewitnesses.

So there are a few bronze age simpletons who 'claim that they saw him'. We went through that. So what? I saw my brother yesterday, that doesn't make him a god. It only starts to get absurd when the miraculous and supernatural enters the picture.
keep wiggling...

Simpletons? Matthew was a government employee...a tax-collector. Paul was clearly a scholar under the tutelage of one of the greatest rabbis of his day. So, no.

Merely seeing your brother or Jesus does not make either of them God.

You would have to provide more compelling evidence. Like the gospel writers did.

[Blackleaf]

True. But because we have a boatload of these texts, we can be confident that we know that primary secondary sources said. That's what the science of textual criticism is all about.

Fixed. You do not have the original documents, and even if you did, they'd still be secondary sources. A secondary source is still not reliable, and there is a ton of variety among these copies of copies of copies that suggest many errors and purposeful changes were made to them. You can rule out some of those changes, but you're still left with an imperfect Bible.

And yes, they were written by Jesus' apostles and those who had access to the eyewitnesses.

You cannot verify that. All we know is who the author claimed to be. We have no reason to trust that Matthew was actually written by Matthew and not some other Christian who wanted to have some sort of authority to point to.

If the four gospels were word-for-word identical, then you would reject them because of the clear appearance of collusion or conspiracy. They would not represent four testimonies but one. Police investigators recognize when criminals tell the same story too closely...it's evidence that they rehearsed their alibi.

So, the four gospels have just enough differences to suggest that they are actually independent accounts, but enough similarities to demonstrate the truth of the core message.

For example, all of the gospels acknowledge that Jesus rose from the dead regardless of how many people they report at the tomb on Easter morning.

Now I know you're just repeating what you're told, because that is one of the many flawed arguments that Christians pass around to each other and never question. First, you claim this book to be the inspired Word of God, and yet you find evidence of flaws due to contradictions in different versions of the same stories. This means that the book was written by imperfect men, whose credibility could be when it comes to spiritual matters should be called into question. Second, minor differences are one thing, but when the exact opposite is reported in one story than in another, that's a sign that both are lying. Why do you think that cops separate people before questioning them? It's because they can't come up with a story together. When their stories don't match up, it means that one or both are lying.

[Randy Carson]

Yeah, your replies are about what I expected.  And I did try to watch that video of Wallace's.  Did not last very long.  Not going to invest and hr. watching somebody vomit back up dribble I've heard for over 60 yrs. now.  The fact is that when I started thinking about Jesus and his religion 60 odd years ago, there were almost no published works suggesting that Jesus was not real.  Even as a child I questioned that, but only to myself.

For good reason. It's foolishness that comes up every so often. This latest batch of mythicists are merely the latest batch of mythicists.

The search for a historical Jesus is usually divided into three quests.

First Quest:

Started in Germany in the 1800's, with Albert Schweitzer being the most prominent.  Bruno Bauer was the first scholar to suggest that Jesus was not historical.  He died in the 1880's.  And it is generally said that this quest ended in 1906 or so.

Second Quest:
There was a space of 45/50 yrs. where little was done in this area, but in '53 Ernest Kasemann delivered a speech that suggested a historical Jesus could be uncovered is the tools of historical analysis were used in a systematic way.  A small spate of material and books then were generated exploring that idea.  This second wave reached it's zenith in the '70's.

Third Quest:
It has not precise beginning but began to be seen in the late 70's or early 80's.  The first two quests were driven mostly by European Protestant theologians.  The third quest is world wide and has input from experts in many disciplines.

Ah. Well done. This is what I was alluding to.

So, Randy, the quest for a historical Jesus is quite new.  And the quest for an ahistorical Jesus is even newer.  This is just a start, Randy.  You claimed there were only 7 who thought that--I have not looked it up--if so, that is a 700% increase in books that suggest that he did not exist.  And that is just a start. 

No. I mentioned Richard Carrier. You (or someone else) posted a quote from Carrier who had apparently managed to scrounge up six more folks to join his little crusade.

As for the increase in books, sure...I have no doubt that people who are looking for any excuse to engage in all sorts of sinful activities will be eager to lap up whatever nonsense Dan Brown, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and others churn out. If there is no God, then you can pretty much do as you please.

Even after reading several of those new books, I was still not convinced that Jesus could not have been some guy that had a heap of deeds given to him as time passed.  Now I am convinced (especially after reading Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus") that Jesus is simply a fiction.  But I really do hope Carrier's plea is acted upon.  He asks any and all to tear his book apart and show him where he is in error.  But don't do it with opinion, but with facts (so that leaves you out, Randy--sorry).  I look forward to that happening.

Ehrman took Carrier to task on more than one occasion. So have others. You can read their books and blog posts if you like, but I suspect you'd rather continue in your delusion.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

A big reason why this has been so slow in developing is that people like you, Randy, want to label as scholars and experts only those who are theists and theologians.  Well, hell, that is the group who will not countenance the idea that Jesus is not real; that's how they get paid--feeding that line to the masses; that way the masses will continue to pay these leeches for their own serfdom.  People care less and less if an 'expert' is a graduate from a bible school or not; whether they are a theist or not; a theologian or not.  More and more will be published on this subject as time goes on.  And much to your delight, eh, Randy?!

Bart Ehrman is a theist and theologian?



In addition to this about Carrier: http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/, Ehrman has also said this about mythicists in general:

“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds â€" thousands? â€" of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.” (Quoted in an article published by the Huffington Post)

And Atheist Tim O'Neill destroys Carrier and the Mythicists here:

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

and here:

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/


That's friendly fire raining down on your head, Mike. It's not coming from me.

[Unbeliever]

Did Jesus of Nazareth exist? Yes or no.

I don't believe there was any such place as Nazasreth - it was a misunderstanding of the term 'nazarite', which had nothing to do with any place:

Nazareth â€" The Town that Theology Built

The word 'nazarene'appears only once in the whole Bible:


Mat 2:23

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

I wonder by which prophets this was spoken?

But the word 'nazarite' appears 9 times in the Bible, and none reference a place:
Num 6:2

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:

Num 6:13

And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:

Num 6:18

And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

Num 6:19

And the priest shall take the sodden shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after the hair of his separation is shaven:

Num 6:20

And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.

Num 6:21

This is the law of the Nazarite who hath vowed, and of his offering unto the LORD for his separation, beside that that his hand shall get: according to the vow which he vowed, so he must do after the law of his separation.

Jdg 13:5

For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

Jdg 13:7

But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.

Jdg 16:17

That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man.

[Randy Carson]

Fixed. You do not have the original documents, and even if you did, they'd still be secondary sources.

I stand corrected. You are thinking of the original speaker while I was thinking of the original author. I cede to your reckoning.

A secondary source is still not reliable, and there is a ton of variety among these copies of copies of copies that suggest many errors and purposeful changes were made to them.

Sorry, but a secondary source can be extremely reliable..or not. That would depend on the author. And yes, there were changes. We know this. It is not a problem once you understand how textual criticism works.

You can rule out some of those changes, but you're still left with an imperfect Bible.

Perhaps. But not an unreliable Bible. Does anyone doubt that the gospel writers claim that Jesus rose from the dead? This has not been impacted by later interpolations.

You cannot verify that. All we know is who the author claimed to be. We have no reason to trust that Matthew was actually written by Matthew and not some other Christian who wanted to have some sort of authority to point to.

If you were some other person writing a gospel and trying to get it accepted by the growing Church, would you claim it was written by a hated tax collector? Or would you ascribe it to the pillars of the Early Church - Peter, James or John? C'mon...use your understanding of basic marketing here.

Now I know you're just repeating what you're told, because that is one of the many flawed arguments that Christians pass around to each other and never question. First, you claim this book to be the inspired Word of God, and yet you find evidence of flaws due to contradictions in different versions of the same stories. This means that the book was written by imperfect men, whose credibility could be when it comes to spiritual matters should be called into question. Second, minor differences are one thing, but when the exact opposite is reported in one story than in another, that's a sign that both are lying. Why do you think that cops separate people before questioning them? It's because they can't come up with a story together. When their stories don't match up, it means that one or both are lying.

I know why cops separate people. That's what J. Warner Wallace knows as a detective in Los Angeles. That's why he finds the gospels so compelling and why he abandoned the atheism he learned in his parents' home and became a believer. However, it may also be the case that two people are telling the truth and emphasizing different things or simply recalling different details. This is expected by law enforcement professionals.

The authors of the NT were not mere scribes taking dictation from God. They were true authors who used their own skills and abilities to record what the Holy Spirit inspired them to record. There is no problem in this.

Yes, there are differences, but not things that flat-out contradictory - the exact opposite. If you think differently, please provide a NT example.

[reasonist]

"That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man."

I feel like that every time I get a haircut.

[Blackleaf]

Are those ALL the possibilities? Nope.

It's also possible that Jesus existed AND performed all those miracles AND rose from the dead.

You intentionally leave out some possibilities because of your presuppositions. That's not how objective science is done, is it?

Science doesn't deal with magic and miracles. Those things are mysteriously invisible to science. Yet you continue to put the burden of proof on others to show that your assumptions are NOT true. Skepticism is the default position, not belief.

Fine. You have objections to the foundation of Islam. So do I. Muslims need to prove that this actually occurred before we will believe it.

In the case of Christianity, there are five facts which need to be addressed:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus tomb was found to be empty

How do you account for these facts?

Easy. They're not facts. Done. Neither your religion or Islam have any facts. You have beliefs.

[Unbeliever]

The contradictions are overstated. It would take us quite awhile to iron out all the wrinkles that you think exist, but it CAN be done.

I don't think the contradictions are overstated, nor can the wrinkles be ironed out  - but here's my list of the many contradictions in the Bible, in case you would care to give them a go:

Bible Contradictions - By Category

[reasonist]

"Simpletons? Matthew was a government employee...a tax-collector. Paul was clearly a scholar under the tutelage of one of the greatest rabbis of his day. So, no."

So yes. At the time and place 98% of the population were illiterate. You mention 2 out of 12 apostles. Jesus himself was a woodworker, one step above slave. They were all simpletons otherwise we would read about the germ theory or DNA or quantum mechanics or electricity or.....
The Jesus in the bible and his crew were with a couple exceptions carpenters, fishermen etc. who according to you were not only literate but spoke and wrote in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Even your godly dude Christos had no idea that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed. Duh. These people had no clue about anything but smiting, stoning and enslaving.
Give us ONE (1!) word in the bible that could not have been written by a simpleton and I stand corrected. Anything that would make our jaws drop in awe or be remotely surprised. Please prove us wrong. 

[Unbeliever]

Perhaps. But not an unreliable Bible. Does anyone doubt that the gospel writers claim that Jesus rose from the dead? This has not been impacted by later interpolations.

Mark's Gospel ends at 16:8 leaving the women afraid and failing to record the resurrection (only the empty tomb), Christ's final instructions, and the Ascension.

If it weren't for the last 12 verses, added later, there would be exactly 666 verses in the gospel of Mark. Isn't that special?

[Unbeliever]

[trdsf]

Most of life is like that. Most of our knowledge comes to us like that.

Ever been to Beijing? The back side of the moon? If not, how do you know what they are like?

Because reliable people can be trusted to tell us things that we cannot verify for ourselves. Oh, sure...you COULD go to the moon...it's possible...but you won't. So, you rely on others who have seen it and taken photographs to know what it looks like.

And you rely on them to be honest and not produce photoshopped pictures, so that's no out.

Reliable men tell us what they know to be true, and we can accept their testimonies. This is a basic philosophical truth.

Again, incorrect.  Reliable people tell us what they know to be true because other people can verify their statements independently.  Mere eyewitness reporting is the least compelling form of evidence.  I assert that I have seen a flying saucer.  Do you believe me?  I mean, I'm an eyewitness telling you it's true.

Beijing?  Sure, I'm willing to accept Beijing exists without having seen it myself.  Not only is there an overwhelming (i.e., not just one book that's been multiply copied and translated over two millennia) body of evidence for the existence of the place from multiple disparate sources, but I can look for myself at the photographic evidence.  There are far too many photos -- ground level and satellite -- for them all to have been photoshopped to be in accord with each other.  You're asking for a conspiracy that dates back hundreds, thousands of years to deliberately fool the rest of the world into thinking that a city of several million exists when it doesn't.  Occam's Razor cuts the throat of that pretty efficiently.

The far side of the moon?  Obviously, it must have one.  There is no such thing as a topologically simple physical object that has only one side.  The photographs from multiple sources all agree.  Unless, of course, you want to suggest the the former Soviet Union and the US have been colluding for 50 years to convince astronomers and interested amateurs that the far side of the moon looks as photographed, when it actually looks differently.  Occam's Razor again plays Sweeney Todd.

Now, there is a vast difference between my being willing to accept the existence of Beijing and the far side of the moon, and my being willing to accept either the historicity or the putative divinity of a first-century preacher in the Middle East.  And the only "evidence" you're offering to accept the existence of this first century preacher's divinity is the very "evidence" that you're trying to assert in the first place.

I have two words for you: circular reasoning.

I use the word 'reasoning' advisedly.