Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Randy Carson]

Hell, I don't even consider any of these facts.  Any you want me to come up with theories to explain them?

If this is your position, then you should begin by establishing for yourself whether or not this is the view of mainstream NT scholarship.

(It is.)

Helpful hint: Gary Habermas has done the research, but you'll need to determine for yourself whether his scholarship is reliable. The fact that he is a Christian and a professor at Liberty University is not an automatic disqualifier, but again, this is something that you need to work out to your own satisfaction.

[Randy Carson]

It was standard practice for bodies of crucified individuals to be denied entombment

Habermas notes that Fact #5: "Burial in a tomb" does not enjoy the same degree of acceptance as the other four facts. Specifically, while a majority of scholars accept it, the majority is not as large as is the case for the other four facts.

So, good choice on your part. You correctly chose the weakest fact in your rebuttal.

However, I have a few questions for you:

1. If Jesus was not buried in a tomb, why would the disciples report that he was in the gospels? This claim could have been easily dismissed by the Jewish and Roman leaders who would have known otherwise or been able to cite the same "standard procedure" that you have appealed to.
2. If Jesus was not buried in a tomb, what happened to his body? Was it thrown into an unknown grave, dug up by wild dogs and eaten? If this is the case, how would it account for facts 2, 3 and four? Paul, an enemy of the Church, would have been the skeptic MOST LIKELY to assume that the disciples were lying. How does the shallow grave theory account for his conversion?
3. Does "standard practice" mean that there could not possibly have been an exception ever? In which case, how would we go about proving that there were no exceptions?

In fact, there were exceptions as Raymond Brown noted. Concerning the Roman views of burial of the crucified, Brown wrote:

In investigating Roman customs or laws dealing with the burial of crucified criminals, we find some guidance in DJ 48.24, which gives the clement views of Ulpian and of Julius Paulus from the period CA. AD 200. The bodies of those who suffer capital punishment are not to be refused to their relatives (Ulpian) nor to any who seek them for burial (Paulus). Ulpian traces this attitude back to Augustus in Book 10 of Vita Sua, but he recognizes that the generous granting of bodies may have to be refused if the condemnation has been for treason (maiestas). The exception was verified a few years before Ulpian in the treatment of the martyrs of Lyons reported in Eusebius (EH 5.1.61-62): The bodies of the crucified Christians were displayed for six days and then burned so that the ashes might be scattered in the Rhone. Christian fellow-disciples complained, "We could not bury the bodies in the earth...neither did money or prayers move them, for in every possible way they kept guard as if the prevention of burial would give them great gain."

If we move back from the 2d cent., what was the Roman attitude at the time of Jesus towards the bodies of crucified criminals? Despite what Ulpian tells us about Augustus, he was not always so clement. Suetonius (Augustus 13.1-2) reports, with the obvious disapproval of 2d-cent. hindsight, that Augustus refused to allow decent burial for the bodies of those who fought for Brutus: "That matter must be settled with the carrion-birds." Since Augustus would have looked on Brutus as a traitor, the parallel to the question of what would happen to those convicted of treason (maiestas) is significant. In the reign of terror that followed the fall of Sejanus (AD 31), Tacitus reports the actions of Tiberius: "People sentenced to death forfeited their property and were forbidden burial" (Annals 6.29). Beyond such imperial vengeance, severity is assumed to be normal by Petronius (Satyricon 111-12), as in Nero's time he writes the story of a soldier at Ephesus who neglected his duty of preventing the bodies of dead criminals from being removed from the cross. While he was absent in the night making love to a widow, the parents came stealthily, took the body down, and buried it, causing the soldier to fear the severest punishment. Evidently it was almost proverbial that those who hung on the cross fed the crows with their bodies (Horace, Epistle 1.16.48).

Discerning Roman legal practice for a province like Judea is difficult. The law cited above (DJ) was juxta ordinem, i.e., customary law in Rome for dealing with Roman citizens. Decisions in the provinces dealing with non-citizens were most often extra ordinem, so that such a matter as the deposition of crucified bodies would have been left to the local magistrate. Before Jesus' time, in Sicily, much closer to Rome, Cicero (In Verrem 2.5.45; #119) reports that a corrupt governor made parents pay for permission to bury their children. Philo (In Flaccum 10.83-84) tells us that in Egypt, on the eve of a Roman holiday, customarily "people who have been crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them ordinary rites." But the prefect Flaccus (within a decade of Jesus' death) "gave no orders to take down those who had died on the cross," even on the eve of a feast. Indeed, he crucified others, after maltreating them with the lash. (Raymond Edward Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: a Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 1207-1208)

Concerning the attitude of the Jews, Brown noted:

As we have seen (pp. 532-33 above), there is solid evidence that in Jesus' era crucifixion came under the Jewish laws and customs governing hanging, and in particular under Deut 21:22-23: "If there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged." The conflict between Roman and Jewish attitudes is phrased thus by S. Lieberman: "The Roman practice of depriving executed criminals of the rite of burial and exposing corpses on the cross for many days...horrified the Jews." In the First Jewish Revolt the Idumeans cast out corpses without burial. Commenting with disgust on this, Josephus states, "The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were found guilty are taken down and buried before sunset."

The crucial issue in Judaism, however, would have been the type of burial. The hanged person was accursed, especially since most often in Jewish legal practice this punishment would have been meted out to those already executed in another way, e.g., stoning. In the OT we see a tendency to refuse to the wicked honorable burial in an ancestral plot (1 Kings 13:21-22). Even a king like Jehoiakim, despite his rank, having been condemned by the Lord for wickedness, had these words spoken of him by Jeremiah (22:19): "The burial of an ass shall be given him, dragged and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem." Jer 26:23 refers to a prophet condemned (unjustly) and slain by the king being thrown "into the burial place of the common people" (see also II Kings 23:6). I Enoch 98:13 excludes from prepared graves the wicked who rejoice in the death of the righteous, and Josephus (Ant. 5.1.14; #44) has Achar at nightfall given "the ignominious burial proper to the condemned" (see also 4.8.24; #264). The account of the death of Judas in Matt 27:5-8 shows that the Jews of Jesus' time would think of a common burial place for the despised, not a family tomb. (Raymond Edward Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: a Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 1209-1210.

If the Jews considered the charge of treason by the Romans to be unjust, then denying Jesus burial would have been unlikely. Brown notes:

In a political situation where the death penalty was imposed by the Gentiles, however, the opposite could be true: An innocent or noble Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. . . According to Mark/Matt the Sanhedrin found him worth of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus (Ant. 4.8.6; #202) would have the blasphemer stoned, hung, "and buried ignominiously and in obscurity." Mart. Of Polycarp 17:2 has Jews instigating opposition lest the body of Polycarp be given to his adherents for honorable burial. On the other hand, Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews. Could this have been regarded as a death not in accordance with Jewish law and so not necessarily subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial? (Raymond Edward Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: a Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 1210.)

Clearly, the Jews disliked Jesus, but they hated the Romans more. And Pilate was motivated to avoid conflict with the leaders of the Sanhedrin and further uproar in the city. So, when a leading member of the Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea, asked for Jesus' body, it was granted as was Pilate's right.

[SGOS]

Where does Trent Horn suggest that they are all individually weak?

He states that upfront:   "No one piece of evidence may prove it."
If he actually had one piece of evidence that proved it, he could just state it.  The whole argument would be over, and I'd be a theist.

What he acknowledges (and this is true of just about any case based upon indirect evidence) is that the combined effect of the evidence we do have may be sufficient to convince someone that God's existence is more probable than not.

"Acknowledge," as in recognizing a universal truth?  Not quite.  He's making a unsupported claim, and there's nothing he puts forward that proves anything.  At best, he put's forth a combination of arguments, and not very substantial ones at that, which prove nothing as a whole, but obviously do please those of faith.  But we are not talking about proof, as he uses the term in his first sentence.  Instead, he switches from "proof" to "probability" and suggests:

"that the combined effect of the evidence we do have may be sufficient to convince someone that God's existence is more probable."

'More probable' is a long way from proof.  He is talking about arguments designed to influence the opinion of those with much lower standards for determining proof (to convince someone does not establish proof).  I wouldn't even try to extract a "probability" from such a thesis.

If you draw from that that each point is "weak", well, that's your opinion as a a member of the jury, of course. Other people disagree.

That each point is weak is exactly my opinion.  In fact, amassing a body of weak arguments, comes nowhere near the status required of proof.  It's only a convincing victory to those who equate truth to belief.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why do you think the disciples of Jesus claimed that they had seen him alive after the crucifixion?

I don't believe they did.

[Randy Carson]

He states that upfront:   "No one piece of evidence may prove it."
If he actually had one piece of evidence that proved it, he could just state it.  The whole argument would be over, and I'd be a theist.

No question. But that's not usually how a case is made in a court of law, is it? We DON'T have a single, knock-down, argument over piece of evidence. Instead, what we have are a lot of compelling pieces of information that lead to a conclusion that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course, God DID give the apostles your kind of evidence, didn't he? He walked out of the tomb.

At least, that's what the historically accurate accounts of honest eyewitnesses tell us.

[Randy Carson]

I don't believe they did.

The disciples did not claim that Jesus rose from the dead?



Peter, James and John? Matthew? Paul? THOSE disciples didn't claim this?

[Baruch]

We still don't like Jesus or his Gentile followers.  We don't trust Jewish followers of Jesus either. - standard Jewish POV

I don't like followers in general, and leaders in particular.  Qui Bono?  I can think for myself.

But I don't hold it against Jesus, or any other meme.

PS - the other leaders and followers of other Jewish sects 2000 years ago, where pretty messed up also.  Some Jews were way too intolerant, puritanical fundies they were, just like Hamas.  And that put them at cross purposes with the Roman Empire then, and the American Empire today.  Paul was smart enough to see past that ... just not so successful in bringing together an eclectic bunch of Jewish/Gentile messianics ... but I give him an A for effort and commitment.  The Epistle to the Romans was pretty amazing, for its time ... he was really great heretical Jew ... it is always the heretics who are the angels or demons.  The conformists get nowhere slowly.  But his powers of prophecy were ... meh.  Of all the ancient pre-Christian guys, I would certainly enjoy talking with him.  John of Revelations, not so much ... I would freak out when he passed the bong.

I may have already talked to Paul ... there once was a woman on the Internet blogs, whose personality was like she was channeling Paul ... like John the Baptist was channeling Elijah, or Jesus was channeling Elisha.  See you have to think outside the box, to observe the "it doesn't fit my notion of reality" ... in order to be really spiritual.

[SGOS]

No question. But that's not usually how a case is made in a court of law, is it? We DON'T have a single, knock-down, argument over piece of evidence.

Courts of law operate on opinion and the persuasiveness of the attorney and susceptibility of the jurors, which is why they get it wrong so many times.

Instead, what we have are a lot of compelling pieces of information that lead to a conclusion that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

In cases where no actual proof exists like in the question of God's existence, the reasonableness of the doubt becomes even more subjective, and varies from one person to the next, again depending on the individual's susceptibility to authority, peer pressure, indoctrination, and personal bias.  What a Christian finds compelling, even undeniable, has little to do with the arguments, but more to do with their own predispositions and desires, rather than the logical aspects of the arguments themselves.

[Randy Carson]

One question for the gang here:

If you are reading a comprehensive history of New York City, and you noticed that it ends without mentioning the attack on the World Trade Center which resulted in their complete collapse, what reason would explain the fact that this information is missing?

Oh, and the book does contain the story of the bombing of the World Trade Center...but not the attack conducted with hijacked airplanes.

Why is this missing?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The disciples did not claim that Jesus rose from the dead?



Peter, James and John? Matthew? Paul? THOSE disciples didn't claim this?

Prove any of them said you claim they said. Real proof, not apologetics.

[aitm]

Randy Carson:
Proclaims the OT is widely and mostly metaphorical,
Claims the NT is historically absolutely true
Uses the OT as proof the NT is true
Claims victory…..

can't figure out why others laugh at him.

[Blackleaf]

Don't think I didn't notice you still haven't addressed my question, Randy. What's the matter, you can't think of some BS explanation? Afraid to have to admit you were wrong?

Which is more convenient, option 1 or option 2?

Option 1: Do your sin in secret, don't put yourself through the emotional rollercoaster that is deconversion so you can justify it. Use religion to justify yourself instead, because God forgives and no sinner has the right to judge you.

Option 2: Give up your religion, which a considerable portion of your life has been devoted to. Give up a major source of emotional support, both the imaginary God you pray to and the congregation that gives you a sense of belonging. Give up your hope for an afterlife, and the sense that your life has a purpose. All so that you can sleep with your (insert gender of your preference here)friend.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

True.

They're also pretty good at sniffing them out...especially when given a LOT of time to do so.

Odd that we have 2,000 years of contiguous fail then.

Or is it just that believers don't want to face reality...

[Baruch]

One question for the gang here:

If you are reading a comprehensive history of New York City, and you noticed that it ends without mentioning the attack on the World Trade Center which resulted in their complete collapse, what reason would explain the fact that this information is missing?

Oh, and the book does contain the story of the bombing of the World Trade Center...but not the attack conducted with hijacked airplanes.

Why is this missing?

There was no attack on New York City.  Irregular demolition team hired by the government ... maybe.  Kind of like the unavoidable collateral damage when the Avengers fought Loki.

[Blackleaf]

One question for the gang here:

If you are reading a comprehensive history of New York City, and you noticed that it ends without mentioning the attack on the World Trade Center which resulted in their complete collapse, what reason would explain the fact that this information is missing?

Oh, and the book does contain the story of the bombing of the World Trade Center...but not the attack conducted with hijacked airplanes.

Why is this missing?

Because they didn't want apologists to have to make up weird hypothetical situations to try to make a point?