On a recent blog post, conversation turned toward the reliability of the New Testament, and more specifically, how much evidence we have for whether or not Jesus ever existed. Instead of continuing the discussion there (since it had already broken the 500th comment mark and this would have taken the conversation in a different direction), I thought it might be a good idea to do it here. Makes it easier for other people to find.
So without further ado, here are the three main comments that kicked it off. Feel free to add additional comments below.
UnkleE:
Hi kcchief1, it’s impossible ion a blog comment to do justice you your question, so I’ll give you a few quotes and some references.
EP Sanders, possibly the most respected NT scholar of the last few decades:
“Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.”
(from The Historical Figure of Jesus, p281)“I shall first offer a list of statements about Jesus that meet two standards: they are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life, and especially of his public career. (A list of everything that we know about Jesus would be appreciably longer.)
Jesus was born c 4 BCE near the time of the death of Herod the Great;
he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village;
he was baptised by John the Baptist;
he called disciples;
he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities);
he preached ‘the kingdom of God’;
about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover;
he created a disturbance in the Temple area;
he had a final meal with the disciples;
he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest;
he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.”
(from The Historical Figure of Jesus, p10-11)“I think we can be fairly certain that initially Jesus’ fame came as a result of healing, especially exorcism.”
(from The Historical Figure of Jesus, p154)Maurice Casey:
“[Mark’s] sources, though abbreviated, were literally accurate accounts of incidents and sayings from the life and teaching of Jesus. …. The completed Gospels of Matthew and Luke are also important sources for the life and teachings of Jesus ….Some of his [Matthew’s] special material … shows every sign of being authentic material literally and accurately translated from Aramaic sources.”
(from Jesus of Nazareth, p 97-99)Classical historian, Michael Grant:
“The consistency, therefore, of the tradition in their [the Gospels’] pages suggests that the picture they present is largely authentic.”
(From Jesus: an historian’s review of the gospels, p 202)Craig Evans:
“the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding, i.e., as the proclaimer of God’s rule, as understanding himself as the Lord’s anointed, and, indeed, as God’s own son, destined to rule Israel.”
(from http://craigaevans.com/Third_Quest.rev.pdf)John A.T. Robinson:
“The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world.”
(From Can we Trust the New Testament?, p36)You can find more quotes on Jesus in history, <a href="http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/nthistory.shtml"Are the gospels historical.
Note that both Evans & Sanders claim to be reporting the view of the majority of scholars.
I don’t think archaeology can help much because it can throw light on places, but not much on the text. But the much-maligned John’s gospel has been found by archaeology to report accurately several locations that were destroyed long before it was written – see Archaeology and John’s gospel.
So that’s as much as I should write here. Please check out the references for more.
kcchief1:
unkleE, you can always find Scholars to support your claims. That doesn’t mean they are right. Here are just a few Scholars who don’t agree with your Scholars. If your evidence was conclusive, why this disagreement amongst Scholars. Also when you tour Jerusalem the most common statement your Tour guide will make before he talks about a Holy Site or Holy person is the famous, ” Tradition tells us” NOT “History tells us” I was recently in the ancient city of Ephesus and someone from my group asked the local guide why he kept using the phrase,”Tradition tells us Paul preached here …isn’t there archaeological evidence for this?” The guide said ,”It’s your story not ours” I have no proof there wasn’t a Jesus any more than you have proof there was. I agree that much of the NT is historical in as much as certain cities, villages, and government official’s names are true. But you can’t boldly proclaim there is historical evidence for the main character, Jesus.
Oh not that it really matters because it proves nothing either but here are scholars who question the historicity of Jesus and/or the NT.
When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up.
-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus… The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information — not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life.
-Moncure D. Conway [1832 – 1907] (Modern Thought)
It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all.
-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)
Many people– then and now– have assumed that these letters [of Paul] are genuine, and five of them were in fact incorporated into the New Testament as “letters of Paul.” Even today, scholars dispute which are authentic and which are not. Most scholars, however, agree that Paul actually wrote only eight of the thirteen “Pauline” letters now included in the New Testament. collection: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Virtually all scholars agree that Paul himself did not write 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus– letters written in a style different from Paul’s and reflecting situations and viewpoints in a style different from those in Paul’s own letters. About the authorship of Ephesias, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, debate continues; but the majority of scholars include these, too, among the “deutero-Pauline”– literally, secondarily Pauline– letters.”
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (Adam, Eve, and the Serpent)
We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)
Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the “historical Jesus”. . . and that sorting out “authentic” material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence.”
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong.
-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
Far from being an intimate of an intimate of Jesus, Mark wrote at the forth remove from Jesus.
-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
Mark himself clearly did not know any eyewitnesses of Jesus.
-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.
-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)
The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of Jesus in any Gospel.
-Bishop John Shelby Spong
But even if it could be proved that John’s Gospel had been the first of the four to be written down, there would still be considerable confusion as to who “John” was. For the various styles of the New Testament texts ascribed to John- The Gospel, the letters, and the Book of Revelations– are each so different in their style that it is extremely unlikely that they had been written by one person.
-John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)
It was not until the third century that Jesus’ cross of execution became a common symbol of the Christian faith.
-John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)
What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things.
-Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p. 9)
When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position– that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards.
-David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and general editor of the Anchor Bible series (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34)
Paul did not write the letters to Timothy to Titus or several others published under his name; and it is unlikely that the apostles Matthew, James, Jude, Peter and John had anything to do with the canonical books ascribed to them.
-Michael D. Coogan, Professor of religious studies at Stonehill College (Bible Review, June 1994)
A generation after Jesus’ death, when the Gospels were written, the Romans had destroyed the Jerusalem Temple (in 70 C.E.); the most influential centers of Christianity were cities of the Mediterranean world such as Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, Damascus, Ephesus and Rome. Although large number of Jews were also followers of Jesus, non-Jews came to predominate in the early Church. They controlled how the Gospels were written after 70 C.E.
-Bruce Chilton, Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College (Bible Review, Dec. 1994, p. 37)
James Dunn says that the Sermon on the Mount, mentioned only by Matthew, “is in fact not historical.”
How historical can the Gospels be? Are Murphy-O-Conner’s speculations concerning Jesus’ baptism by John simply wrong-headed? How can we really know if the baptism, or any other event written about in the Gospels, is historical?
-Daniel P. Sullivan (Bible Review, June 1996, Vol. XII, Number 3, p. 5)
David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus, 1836), had argued that the Gospels could not be read as straightforward accounts of what Jesus actually did and said; rather, the evangelists and later redactors and commentators, influenced by their religious beliefs, had made use of myths and legends that rendered the gospel narratives, and traditional accounts of Jesus’ life, unreliable as sources of historical information.
-Bible Review, October 1996, Vol. XII, Number 5, p. 39
The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts.
-Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels
Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries of translation and editing.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, “Who Wrote the Bible,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars– from liberal skeptics to conservative evangelicals- who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the writers of the texts identify themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or traveled with Jesus.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, “The Four Gospels,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Once written, many experts believe, the Gospels were redacted, or edited, repeatedly as they were copied and circulated among church elders during the last first and early second centuries.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, “The Four Gospels,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
The tradition attributing the fourth Gospel to the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, is first noted by Irenaeus in A.D. 180. It is a tradition based largely on what some view as the writer’s reference to himself as “the beloved disciple” and “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Current objection to John’s authorship are based largely on modern textural analyses that strongly suggest the fourth Gospel was the work of several hands, probably followers of an elderly teacher in Asia Minor named John who claimed as a young man to have been a disciple of Jesus.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, “The Four Gospels,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Some scholars say so many revisions occurred in the 100 years following Jesus’ death that no one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or authenticity of the Gospels, especially of the words the authors attributed to Jesus himself.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, “The catholic papers,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Three letters that Paul allegedly wrote to his friends and former co-workers Timothy and Titus are now widely disputed as having come from Paul’s hand.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, “The catholic papers,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
The Epistle of James is a practical book, light on theology and full of advice on ethical behavior. Even so, its place in the Bible has been challenged repeatedly over the years. It is generally believed to have been written near the end of the first century to Jewish Christians. . . but scholars are unable conclusively to identify the writer.
Five men named James appear in the New Testament: the brother of Jesus, the son of Zebedee, the son of Alphaeus, “James the younger” and the father of the Apostle Jude.
Little is known of the last three, and since the son of Zebedee was martyred in A.D. 44, tradition has leaned toward the brother of Jesus. However, the writer never claims to be Jesus’ brother. And scholars find the language too erudite for a simple Palestinian. This letter is also disputed on theological grounds. Martin Luther called it “an epistle of straw” that did not belong in the Bible because it seemed to contradict Paul’s teachings that salvation comes by faith as a “gift of God”– not by good works.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, “The catholic papers,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
The origins of the three letters of John are also far from certain.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, “The catholic papers,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Christian tradition has held that the Apostle Peter wrote the first [letter], probably in Rome shortly before his martyrdom about A.D. 65. However, some modern scholars cite the epistle’s cultivated language and its references to persecutions that did not occur until the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) as evidence that it was actually written by Peter’s disciples sometime later.
Second Peter has suffered even harsher scrutiny. Many scholars consider it the latest of all New Testament books, written around A.D. 125. The letter was never mentioned in second-century writings and was excluded from some church canons into the fifth century. “This letter cannot have been written by Peter,” wrote Werner Kummel, a Heidelberg University scholar, in his highly regarded Introduction to the New Testament.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, “The catholic papers,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
The letter of Jude also is considered too late to have been written by the attested author– “the brother of James” and, thus, of Jesus. The letter, believed written early in the second century.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, “The catholic papers,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
According to the declaration of the Second Vatican Council, a faithful account of the actions and words of Jesus is to be found in the Gospels; but it is impossible to reconcile this with the existence in the text of contradictions, improbabilities, things which are materially impossible or statements which run contrary to firmly established reality.
-Maurice Bucaille (The Bible, the Quran, and Science)
The bottom line is we really don’t know for sure who wrote the Gospels.
-Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in “The Four Gospels,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
Most scholars have come to acknowledge, was done not by the Apostles but by their anonymous followers (or their followers’ followers). Each presented a somewhat different picture of Jesus’ life. The earliest appeared to have been written some 40 years after his Crucifixion.
-David Van Biema, “The Gospel Truth?” (Time, April 8, 1996)
So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that “we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus.”
-Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg, the foremost Protestant scholar in the field in 1926
The Synoptic Gospels employ techniques that we today associate with fiction.
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
Josephus says that he himself witnessed a certain Eleazar casting out demons by a method of exorcism that had been given to Solomon by God himself– while Vespasian watched! In the same work, Josephus tells the story of a rainmaker, Onias (14.2.1).
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
For Mark’s gospel to work, for instance, you must believe that Isaiah 40:3 (quoted, in a slightly distorted form, in Mark 1:2-3) correctly predicted that a stranger named John would come out of the desert to prepare the way for Jesus. It will then come as something of a surprise to learn in the first chapter of Luke that John is a near relative, well known to Jesus’ family.
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
The narrative conventions and world outlook of the gospel prohibit our using it as a historical record of that year.
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 54)
Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.
-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)
The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They’re not biographies.
-Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)
The gospels are not eyewitness accounts
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
We are led to conclude that, in Paul’s past, there was no historical Jesus. Rather, the activities of the Son about which God’s gospel in scripture told, as interpreted by Paul, had taken place in the spiritual realm and were accessible only through revelation.
-Earl Doherty, “The Jesus Puzzle,” p.83
Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all– or anywhere else on earth.
-Earl Doherty, “The Jesus Puzzle,” p.141
Even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn’t one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every “historical Jesus” is a Christ of faith, of somebody’s faith. So the “historical Jesus” of modern scholarship is no less a fiction.
-Robert M. Price, “Jesus: Fact or Fiction, A Dialogue With Dr. Robert Price and Rev. John Rankin,” Opening Statement
It is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last.”
-Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute (Deconstructing Jesus, p. 260)
kcchief1:
unkleE, I could have shortened my last post by 90% by simply providing one Scholar whose reputation speaks for himself. Geza Vermes
Géza Vermes or Vermès (Hungarian: [ˈɡeːzɒ ˈvɛrmɛʃ], 22 June 1924 – 8 May 2013) was a British scholar of Jewish Hungarian origin—one who also served as a Catholic priest in his youth—and writer on religious history, particularly Jewish and Christian. He was a noted authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient works in Aramaic such as the Targums, and on the life and religion of Jesus. He was one of the most important voices in contemporary Jesus research,[1] and he has been described as the greatest Jesus scholar of his time.[2] Vermes’ written work on Jesus focuses principally on Jesus the Jew, as seen in the broader context of the narrative scope of Jewish history and theology, while questioning the basis of some Christian teachings on Jesus.[3]
Geza Vermes on the Resurrection
Vermes contends that neither the empty tomb or resurrection appearances satisfy the “minimum requirements of a legal or scientific inquiry. The only alternative historians are left with in their effort to make some sense of the Resurrection is to fall back on speculation…”(141) This speculation requires the dismissal of “two extreme” theories – (1) the “blind faith of the fundamentalist” who accept the bodily resurrection and (2) the “unbelievers” who “treat the whole Resurrection story as the figment of early Christian imagination.” (141) So what are the alternatives between this spectrum?
1. The Body was Removed by Someone Unconnected with Jesus
The emptiness of the tomb was genuine, but there are a number of reasons aside from Mark 16:6. The swift nature of the burial in a tomb “obviously prepared for someone else” is explained that someone – possibly the gardener (Jn 20:15) – “took the first opportunity to move the body of Jesus to another available tomb.” (142) It was this innocent transfer of the body that later developed into the “legend of the Resurrection.” (143) Vermes notes that this is itself problematic – those who organised the burial were well known and could have explained this.2. The Body of Jesus was Stolen by His Disciples
Those familiar with the narrative in Matthew will recognise this hypothesis as a current polemic against the empty tomb tradition (Matt 28:15). Vermes points out that this theory “presupposes that a fraudulent prophecy concerning Jesus’ rising from the dead was widely known among Palestinian Jews.” (143) Evidently, this is a “later Jewish gossip” circulating the time the evangelist was writing and its value for the Resurrection is “next to nil”.3. The Empty Tomb was not the Tomb of Jesus
Drawing on the fact that the witness of women was not very convincing, the disciples who investigated the report of the empty tomb (Luke 24:11) may have suspected the women had “gone to the wrong tomb.” The disciples may have simply been mistaken, and the resurrection appearances that soon followed “rendered such an inquiry [as to the location of the tomb] superfluous.” (144)4. Buried Alive, Jesus Later Left the Tomb
This is self-explanatory, and is elaborately forwarded by Barbara Thiering. Josephus’ Life 420 evidences crucifixion victims surviving. The theory is that Jesus was on the cross for such a short time that he was not dead when Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body. John’s mention of the spear in the side was an apologetic to dispel these sort of doubts. (John 19:34) However, I would argue that John’s mention, if invention, would have more to do with suffering servant styled prophecy fulfilled. Vermes sees this as implausible – a “semiconscious Jesus crept out of the tomb in the darkness of night…” (145)5. The Migrant Jesus
A belief evident in contemporary Ahmadiyya Islam which believes Jesus was revived and eventually died in Kashmir, India. Others such as Thiering believe that Jesus wandered off to Rome where he died. Vermes concludes “In the absence of real ancient evidence, these modern musings need not retain us.”(146) By real evidence, he is of course referring to Thiering’s discovery by using “Pesher” to find whatever she wants in whatever document. For a brief review of pesher see my earlier post.6. Do the appearances suggest spiritual, not bodily, resurrection?
Visions of the risen Jesus are abundant in the Christian sources (with a notable exception being the shorter ending of Mark.) These visions are separated into 4 categories:
1. “In Matthew no concrete details are given”
2. John/Luke – unknown man such as the gardener and travel are later recognised as Jesus
3. Luke/John – “a spirit mysteriously enters the apostles’ residence despite the locked doors”
4. “The ghost later becomes a stranger with flesh and bones, who says he is Jesus and invited the apostles to touch him, and eat with him.” (146)
As the evangelists do not mention appearances to people outside the circle of his close followers Vermes takes these to imply that the Resurrection was not meant to be an extension of public ministry. In essence, the “Resurrection becomes a purely spiritual concept without requiring any accompanying physical reality.” (147) The idea of spiritual resurrection accounts for the visions, but the Jewish bond of body and spirit spurred the empty tomb and physicality of the body in John and Luke. In appealing to the mystic tradition, Vermes contends that this view is no different from crosscultural experiences. [I didn’t explain this option best although in my defence neither does Vermes.]Conclusions
Vermes really does come to something quite unsatisfying – “All in all, none of the six suggested theories stands up to stringent scrutiny.”Geza Vermes on the Nativity
‘The nature of the birth stories and the many fabulous features incorporated in them, angels, dreams, virginal conception, miraculous star,’ bring Dr Vermes to the view that the Infancy Gospels are ‘not the stuff out of which history is made’.Thank you for your time
Finding Truth 
Sorry, didn’t notice this about being busy. Posting too quickly.
LikeLike
Sorry, I missed this one… and it is quite funny.
Yeah, right…one can just imagine that old JC got away with that without any interference at any time let alone during passover.
An apparent beserker left unchallenged? Nah..com on. You’re a bit more savvy than that, surely?
Anyhow, don;t let this sidetrack you from coming up with those examples you would like me to offer about Saul and Acts I just thought I;’d give you a little something else to think about…but then again, maybe you tagged this piece of nonsense on specifically as bait? yeah, you’re not that stupid. Good one! Point to you.
LikeLike
Come on, there’s nothing wrong with semantics. 😉
You know there is good archaeology evidence for Nazareht to have existed at the time, contrary to Bethlehem in Judaea. It is overwhelmingly probable that Luke had no accurate geographical of the place, as , well, ancient Nazareth is not anywhere near a “cliff”. That does not mean Nazareth did not exist back then.
Are you saying that these scholars are engaged in a conspiracy? Do you have any evidence for that?
The issue isn’t one of taking the sum of all untrue stories. Take the Reagan analogy. Even if all other bits of info are complete guff, surely we would still have to take the possibility that Reagan supported violent insurrectionists against a fairly elected democratic government most seriously. It might sound horribly sodomite, but let’s not throw the baby away with the bath water.
If you do not mind, I have a few questions for you in return:
Now, will you go to refuting the reasons I mentioned for identifying the two Pauls with eachother? Also, can you elaborate what your thoughts exactly are on the historicity of Paul? Do you think that there might have been a Paul, but that he is not the one about whom the author of Acts intended to write?
Also, may I ask whether you now think that Jesus likely existed, though he was a human rabbi?
In any case, do you think the argument from embarrassing materials is sound?
Or would you accept the Josephan evidence as well or instead?
Finally, do you think that if Jesus or Paul did not exist, this must be put into a coherent and plausible framework? (Please feel free to ignore this if the conditions do not apply.)
I will respond to your comment on the disturbance at the Temple, but I’ll get to it later (likely tomorrow)!
LikeLike
”Are you saying that these scholars are engaged in a conspiracy? Do you have any evidence for that?”
Conspiracy…my goodness.! What a shocking suggestion. Christians and their sympathizers having an agenda. Who would think such a thing? Why don’t you just come out and ask if I think they are all a bunch of two bit liars?
My view has not changed since that pleasant tete a tete over on you buddy’s blog.
My view is still very much in line with Bernard’s.
And your Reagan analogy…are you going to two-step again? Yes , one can pretty much chuck out the baby with the bathwater..and the soap and the flannel.
So…I go back to my original question which you haven’t answered.
How many examples would you accept before you acknowledged it was pretty much all nonsense? 10, 20, 50 100! More?
By answering this question, and allowing me to provide the number of anomalies you state (I will do my very best with the numbers you request providing it isn’t completely ridiculous – but even then , it still might be very possible) I can then show you a different perspective and maybe you will be able to understand why I asked the question in the first place.
Once you do this it will then be a lot easier to answer the other questions and move the discussion forward.
LikeLike
I have replied to your question and I have indicated what is wrong with it. That a simple tally will invalidate a source, is a too simplistic notion. The Reagan analogy works quite fine, as it outlines a similar (hypothetical) methodological problem. Yes, I’ll agree that the consequence is that Acts would then be an unreliable source. So the only answer I’d consider rational is “all”.
In other words, I have responded, so the way is free for you to answer mine. If you think this is insufficient, you have to address what you think is wrong with my Reagan hagiography analogy.
LikeLike
No. Now you are just playing silly buggers, so typical of someone who is afraid to face the subject head on. If you are not prepared to answer the question in a direct manner it demonstrates quite clearly you are already painfully aware of the likely outcome – which wont suit your worldview.
Christians and those who are only interested in proving their point without addressing the evidence love to utilise these sort of tricks and think this makes them look clever, so they can puff up their chests and declare…”Aha! So there!”.
This type of attitude is used so often in apologetics it is almost nauseatingly cliche. Your mate is a prime example and he had his his arse handed to him by Bernard over Nazareth and like him, you are now behaving in a similar fashion. But I don’t have bernard’s patience.
And if anyone would like to read that particular exchange, between Unklee & Bernhard Schornak here it is:
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/nazareth-re-visited/
However,instead of making Christians look clever all this ‘tactic’ does, In fact, is just make them – and in this case you – look bloody stupid.
Reagan analogy, babies and their bath water. What next?
So, for the record, you have not, in fact, responded and plainly have no serious intention of doing so.
Fortunately this is not unkleE’s blog and any normal people that are following this dialogue can deduce their own answer regarding the story of Paul, Acts and the Epistles.
If you wish to reply feel free.
I won’t play this game with you again.
LikeLike
The reason Jesus would have been allowed to cause a ruckus is not mysterious, as Josephus describes what is pretty much the counterfactual. In Jewish War II, 5 – 13/Jewish Antiquities XVII, 206 – 217 it is described how an uproar at the Temple led to 500 soldiers being stoned to death (in the sense of having rock pelted at them, not of being high on THC) and 3000 Jews slaughtered. So there were quite reasonable motivations for not starting any skirmishes on the Temple grounds.
LikeLike
Ark, I am definitely not afraid of directly addressing the subject. I have done so several times in this discussion (recall your question about the evidence for Paul, which I addressed head-on). Also have I addressed your question about the tally of unreliable accounts before we can completely discarded. The reasons why I find fault with this have I spelt out, but as I noted in my second reply, the logical conclusion is that you would to demonstrate that all events are completely unreliable. There is no basis for claiming I have evaded the question.
Any parallel with apologetics has to be mighty obscure, as I can see none.
In any case, for the record, I have responded. My reply can be found in these two posts:
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/the-historicity-of-jesus/#comment-5875
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/the-historicity-of-jesus/#comment-5904
Now what I do find saddening is that thee questions I posed are still unanswered, though you have confirmed that you still think Jesus and Nazareth are mythical.
So to briefly reiterate the case for the existence of Jesus:
1. Paul mentions meeting Jesus’ brother James in Galatians 1: 19. Fictional people do not have real brothers.
2. Josephus provides independent witness of Jesus, and of James’ status as Jesus’ brother.
3. Embarrassing traditions about Jesus are more easily and rationally explained as genuine traditions about a historical Jesus.
Now for Paul:
1. We have a corpus of letters ascribed to Paul that share their style, theological opinions and practical occupation.
2. Paul is amply portayed as a historical person in the Acts of the Apostles, written in the late first century. Non-existent people do not write letters.
3. 1 Clement 47 mentions Paul as the author of an epistle to the Corinthians.
Best wishes.
LikeLike
In case anyone should consider I am unaware of what you are trying to push here….
I will not respond on Josephus as this is so worn out it is beneath contempt.
A closing thought for you:
If ‘Paul’ was who the bible claims, then he would have been aware of who Yeshua was,( they were around the same age) and he was a devout Jew, a zealot even.
He even had family there, supposedly and studied there as well.
He most certainly would have been in Jerusalem during passover and would have been the perfect contemporary witness for the Crucifixion. Yet he recounts absolutely nothing of this event.
The story is a fabrication.
We are done.
LikeLike
Actually, I don’t understand why it would be worn out. I have mentioned Josephus relatively often in this exchange, but you have only dropped his name two or three times.
First of all, Paul would have been a younger contemporary of Jesus, as he is referred to as a young man after Jesus’ death (Acts 7: 58). Second, Paul would have been a Diaspora Jew, so there is little reason to suppose he’d go to Jerusalem every Passover: in his letters he claims not having gone to Jerusalem for years after his conversion (a claim that is contested by several scholars), so there is not much reason to suppose he had much of a stake in going to Jerusalem yearly. Why would he have met Jesus then? Because, third, Jesus’ ministry was focussed in Galilee.
Paul does mention that Jesus was crucified, which I have already referred to (1 Cor 1: 22-23). So it is clear he believed in Jesus’ crucifixion, but never mentions himself as a witness. That is a good reason to suppose that he thought the crucifixion really occurred and that he wasn’t an eyewitness of it. You ought to refute the case for the authenticity of the accepted Pauline epistles for this argument to work.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why people put so much stock into Josephus. He was born after Christ had died. I’m sure it lends credence to there being a man named Jesus who some people regarded, but little else. And if the passage in Josephus’ writing are forged as some believe, then it means nothing.
I always here believers point out that Josephus wasn’t a Christian as if it means he was an unbiased observer – but he never observed Christ, again, he was born after Christ had died. And too, even if Josephus had knowledge of jesus, he obviously wasn’t convinced enough to believe the miraculous claims.
But if he did, I imagine it would go a little something like this:
Josephus: “Jesus was the Christ and rose from the dead.”
Random man: “wow, that’s amazing, what was it like?”
Josephus: “well I wasn’t there, but I imagine it was spectacular.”
Random man: “oh… I guess it would have been great… can we go see him now?”
Josephus: “no, he’s gone now.”
Random man: “well, when he comes back?”
Josephus: “he went to heaven and no one knows when he’ll come back. Just amazing.”
Random man: “ah. Well, what did he say to you?”
Josephus: “me? Oh, I’ve never seen him.”
Random man: “so you didn’t actually see him rise from the dead?”
Josephus: “no.”
Random man: “but you did see him go to heaven?”
Josephus: “no.”
Random man: “well… you saw some of his miracles.”
Josephus: “no.”
Random man: “but you have seen some of the people he’s healed?”
Josephus: “no.”
Random man: “hmm”
Josephus: “some of his followers are writing letters that explain most of this and they are guided by a Holy Spirit.”
Random man: “what does the spirit look like?”
Josephus: “no one can see it and only they can hear it. God works in mysterious ways.”
Random man: “Josephus, how do you know that they’re being truthful?”
Josephus: “well God wouldn’t lie, would he? So if God is telling these people what to write, who are we to discredit it? And look at all of his believers. They couldn’t all be wrong could they? And I haven’t seen Jesus’ body, so it must be in heaven, right?”
Random man: “I guess… So you really believe all of this, huh?”
Josephus: “oh yes.”
Random man: “so you’re going to follow his teachings and will become a disciple of Jesus?”
Josephus: “nah”
LikeLike
“hear” not “here” – boy, that’s embarrassing…
LikeLike
Why would anyone trust what Josephus had to say anyway ?
He fought the Romans in the First Jewish-Roman War of 66–73 as a Jewish military leader in Galilee. Prior to this, in his early twenties, he traveled to negotiate with Emperor Nero for the release of several Jewish priests. Upon his return to Jerusalem, he was drafted as a commander of the Galilean forces.[9] After the Jewish garrison of Yodfat fell under siege, the Romans invaded, killing thousands; the survivors committed suicide. According to Josephus, he was trapped in a cave with forty of his companions in July 67. The Romans (commanded by Flavius Vespasian and his son Titus, both subsequently Roman emperors) asked the group to surrender, but they refused. Josephus suggested a method of collective suicide: they drew lots and killed each other, one by one, counting to every third person. The sole survivor of this process was Josephus (this method as a mathematical problem is referred to as the Josephus problem, or Roman roulette),[10] who surrendered to the Roman forces and became a prisoner. In 69 Josephus was released.[11] According to his account, he acted as a negotiator with the defenders during the Siege of Jerusalem in 70, in which his parents and first wife died.
What a worthless piece of human flesh !
LikeLike
The early Egyptians were some of the first to believe in an afterlife. It was late into the OT that the Jews started believing in an afterlife because they were being persecuted by the Babylonians and weren’t getting their earthly rewards for being observant Jews.
If we were all honest with ourselves, most would admit it would be nice to have another chance to be with the ones we love after this life is over. Where we differ is how real we think this possibility is.
Obviously the atheists consider the likelihood 0%-1%
Deists (like myself) 1%-2%
Christians and Muslims 50% – 100%
It’s a pleasant thought but where some really go off the cliff is not caring enough about making this life count and instead waiting for the next life to come. Unfortunately there are those who are quite willing to end this life sooner than later for the opportunity to get that 2nd chance.
I like to mix it up with other people on these blog sites but in reality at the end of the day what does it matter? I understand Ark’s concern that people are filling their children’s heads with utter nonsense. I get that.
Though I am only 1% or 2% away from an atheist, something inside me wishes there might be more to come. It’s not something I dwell on however. My main concern is to spend every waking moment making this life as pleasurable for me and those around me.
If anything happens after I die, great ! If not, I will have not been cheated.
Most everyone here is passionate about their beliefs. I just hope everyone here is just as passionate about making this life count .
Someone once said the thing we learn from history is that we never learn. Maybe it’s time to change this course before it’s too late.
LikeLike
And to what kcchief1 just wrote, I say AMEN!!!!
LikeLike
@kcchief
The case of Josephus and his TF was kicked into touch – by Christian scholars -a long long time ago and was only dug out for a rethink by later Christians who must have felt they were losing ground?
Maybe the entire TF was always considered genuine by fundamentalists?
But for a while the more fashionable approach of a genuine core gained some ground.
In reality, it is a fraud and if one is prepared to look at it in context it becomes glaringly apparent that it is – and likely the work of someone such as Eusebius.
The same contextual methodology should be applied to Nazareth, and also to the character of Saul/Paul – take in the whole picture, not just cherry pick bits and say well this or that could be true.
One doesn’t have to be a theology scholar either, simply read and apply common sense.
Ask the questions: What evidence is there to demonstrate that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus? Answer None.
Can Acts and the (supposed) ‘genuine’ Epistles be harmonized. Answer: No.
And the really big issue, the evidence that Moses, the Exodus and invasion of Canaan shows beyond any reasonable doubt that it is ALL fiction, clearly demonstrates that Christianity and Islam are built upon the foundation of a perpetuated myth.
And if the biblical character of Jesus mentions Moses and Abraham, he was mistaken or lying as was Saul when Acts claims he was spoken to by Jesus of Nazareth.
When people like Ignorantianescia begin to use analogy and try to harmonize blatant anomalies and contradictions, picking some texts while dismissing other they consider irrelevant you should know you are dealing with someone who refuses to acknowledge the evidence and only wants to shoehorn everything to fit their religious worldview.
LikeLike
Sorry to post something so lengthy but I believe it merits it. It shows some of the troubling scriptures of the NT that I don’t see being explained rationally.
Why Jesus?
Jesus has been held in high regard by Christians and non-Christians alike. Regardless of whether he existed in history, or whether he was divine, many have asserted that the New Testament Christ character was the highest example of moral living. Many believe that his teachings, if truly understood and followed, would make this a better world.
Is this true? Does Jesus merit the widespread adoration he has received? Let’s look at what he said and did.
Was Jesus Peaceable And Compassionate?
The birth of Jesus was heralded with “Peace on Earth,” yet Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27. In a parable, but spoken of favorably.)
The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John 15:6)
Jesus looked at his critics “with anger” (Mark 3:5), and attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent animals (Matthew 8:32). He refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother (Matthew 15:22-28).
The most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion of eternal torment. “The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:41-42) “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” (Mark 9:43)
Is this nice? Is it exemplary to make your point with threats of violence? Is hell a kind, peaceful idea?
Did Jesus Promote “Family Values”?
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
“I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matthew 10:35-36)
When one of his disciples requested time off for his father’s funeral, Jesus rebuked him: “Let the dead bury their dead.” (Matthew 8:22)
Jesus never used the word “family.” He never married or fathered children. To his own mother, he said, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (John 2:4)
What Were His Views On Equality And Social Justice?
Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: “And that servant [slave], which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” (Luke 12:47) He never denounced servitude, incorporating the master-slave relationship into many of his parables.
He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, “Ye have the poor with you always.” (Mark 14:3-7)
No women were chosen as disciples or invited to the Last Supper.
What Moral Advice Did Jesus Give?
“There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” (Matthew 19:12) Some believers, including church father Origen, took this verse literally and castrated themselves. Even metaphorically, this advice is in poor taste.
If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).
Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
Don’t plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)
Don’t save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)
Don’t become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)
Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)
Don’t work to obtain food. (John 6:27)
Don’t have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)
Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)
Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)
Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)
If someone steals from you, don’t try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)
If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)
If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)
If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)
If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42)
Is this wise? Is this what you would teach your children?
Was Jesus Reliable?
Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming: “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28). “Behold, I come quickly.” (Revelation 3:11) It’s been 2,000 years, and believers are still waiting for his “quick” return.
He mistakenly claimed that the mustard seed is “the least of all seeds” (Matt. 13:32), and that salt could “lose its savour” (Matthew 5:13).
Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a “fool” shall be in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22), yet he called people “fools” himself (Matthew 23:17).
Regarding his own truthfulness, Jesus gave two conflicting opinions: “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true” (John 5:31), and “Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true” (John 8:14).
Was Jesus A Good Example?
He irrationally cursed a fig tree for being fruitless out of season (Matthew 21:18-19, and Mark 11:13-14). He broke the law by stealing corn on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23), and he encouraged his disciples to take a horse without asking permission (Matthew 21).
The “humble” Jesus said that he was “greater than the temple” (Matt 12:6), “greater than Jonah” (Matthew 12:41), and “greater than Solomon” (Matthew 12:42). He appeared to suffer from a dictator’s “paranoia” when he said, “He that is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12:30).
Why Jesus?
Although other verses can be cited that portray Jesus in a different light, they do not erase the disturbing side of his character. The conflicting passages, however, prove that the New Testament is contradictory.
The “Golden Rule” had been said many times by earlier religious leaders. (Confucius: “Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.”) “Turn the other cheek” encourages victims to invite further violence. “Love thy neighbor” applied only to fellow believers. (Neither the Jews nor Jesus showed much love to foreign religions). A few of the Beatitudes (“Blessed are the peacemakers”) are acceptable, but they are all conditions of future reward, not based on respect for human life or values.
On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell). He instituted no social programs. Being “omniscient,” he could have shared some useful science or medicine, but he appeared ignorant of such things (as if his character were merely the invention of writers stuck in the first century).
Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of Jesus. Albert Schweitzer said, “The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma.” No first-century writer confirms the Jesus story. The New Testament is internally contradictory and contains historical errors. The story is filled with miracles and other outrageous claims. Consisting mostly of material borrowed from pagan religions, the Jesus story appears to be cut from the same fabric as all other myths and fables.
Why is Jesus so special? It would be more reasonable and productive to emulate real, flesh-and-blood human beings who have contributed to humanity–mothers who have given birth, scientists who have alleviated suffering, social reformers who have fought injustice–than to worship a character of such dubious qualities as Jesus.
LikeLike
Thanks Nan ! 🙂
LikeLike
You’re welcome! And I have to say this last posting is even better. You’ve presented facts that few can deny because it’s all right there in black and white (in the bible).
LikeLike
Wow, KC! Fantastic post! I have nothing to add but look forward to reading attempts to explain away the laundry list of legitimate points you made. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks Graham. I copied that from a website I linked a couple of years ago and stumbled onto it earlier this evening. There’s not much new that Nate, William and others haven’t posted before. It’s more of a compilation of all the questions rolled into one post.
LikeLike
One more thing. There are several Christians on this blog who tend to offer simplistic explanations to our questions and then look at us as though we are idiots because we don’t understand and agree with them.
I just read a 29 page article written by the late Raymond Brown who was arguably one of the foremost Bible Scholars of the Catholic Church. The title of his work is, “Does the New Testament call Jesus , “God” ?
You would think a Christian could answer this with a yes or no. After reading his 29 page article, I was left with blurred vision and dizziness. I think this only substantiates the confusion many atheists and de-converts have with the bible.
If you too would care to scratch your head, here is the link to his article:
Click to access raymond_brown_does_the_nt_call_jesus_god.pdf
LikeLike
I find it strange that a God who purportedly spoke the universe into existence felt it an unworthy endeavor to leave irrefutable evidence of his earthly passage — that is, incontestable evidence which even the most hardened skeptic would find impossible to deny. IMHO, a deity incapable of making its existence known is indistinguishable from one which doesn’t exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ron just stated my own position perfectly!
LikeLike
William,
Yes, he was no contemporary of Jesus in any sense. But Josephus is still relevant. He was alive and old enough to remember the death of a certain James the Just in the 60s. Now guess whose brother that was. Bingo.
The uninterpolated testimony from Josephus doesn’t indeed offer much beyond Jesus’ existence and what kind of human he was: a devout Jew, a teachers and miracle worker, with a still remaining following consisting of Jews and Gentiles, possibly a claimed messiah.
But the belief that the Testimonium Flavianum is entirely forged is much on its recess, being about as impopular as the notion that it is completely genuine. The “some” are mostly Mythicist pseudoscholars. And rare is the scholar who thinks that the second reference to Jesus in Ant. XX is also a forgery.
Besides, the parts of the TF that are thought to be genuine conform well to Josephus’ style in Greek, whereas the most clear interpolations are bloody obvious. There is certainly debate about the extent of what’s interpolated and what’s not, but the problem for complete inauthenticity remains: why are some parts of the forgery so clever and smooth while other parts are so hamhanded and transparent? Are we to suppose two interpolators, first an intelligent one and then a dense one, or one extremely clever one who was farsighted enough (with double entendre) to perform reverse psychology on scholars more than sixteen centuries later by forging part of his interpolation in Josephan style, part in a different style?
Also, see this (Christian) website:
http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
He was not unbiased and he was certainly no believer – though he might have believed Jesus to have been a miracle worker (in the sense I described in a post above).
kcchief1,
Josephus isn’t very reliable about his own life, being rather apologetic. In any case, he is an important source and on other subjects considered relatively reliable (when he doesn’t depend on the OT as his source), even if he has his biases and fantastic stories. How we view his life is not very relevant to that.
If you don’t mind, I won’t reply to your post about the afterlife. It is interesting, but I’d rather not get drawn into religious debates in this comments thread.
Arkenaten,
The history of scholarship isn’t particularly relevant, as an appeal to it for truth is simply the genetic fallacy. In fact, one of the earliest advocates for partial authenticity was Jewish. This is spectacularly irrelevant, but does refute you.
Yes, some Fundamentalists believe that the TF is completely genuine. The late Peter Carsten Thiede, a Swiss Anglican who seemingly was something of an unholy hybrid between a Protestant Fundamentalist and a Roman Catholic archtraditionalist, thought that no Christian could have written “he was the Messiah” and concluded that Josephus must have believed in two messiahs, a Davidic (Vespasian) and Aaronic (Jesus), and ditched the priestly messiah. But I argue nothing of the sort, so what is the point of it?
It likely is not a fraud entirely actually. The style is in part Josephan
Can you substantiate that someone like Eusebius was the forger? What reasons do you have for this?
If you contest that the genuine Epistles are only supposedly genuine, you have to argue a case for it.
As for your method, it is not sufficiently sophisticated. It does not account for the fact that a source can be biased on particular points (like embellishments in the NT), that it uses a reliable and an unreliable source (like the stories about the saints rising from the grave in Matthew) or that it is just confused on occasion (Theudas in Acts). Washington Irving was ignorant about the debate surrounding Columbus’ voyage to ‘India’. Does that mean Columbus never set sail to the west? You have to be more critical. Calling it cherry picking is too simplistic.
There is plenty of evidence for Nazareth, recently including Early Roman coin finds reported by Alexandre.
I’m not going to discuss the Exodus and the Conquest here, though I agree that the OT is not a reliable source for them.
And yes, if Jesus refers to Abraham and Moses as historical persons, that is a mistake. It is possible Paul did have some vision of Jesus, which may be accepted if there are plausible naturalistic mechanisms. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
This is a complete caricature of what I have done, you are attacking a straw man.
The analogy is simply an explanation of how to apply a critical method, unlike a rather blunt one. Checking for embarrassing material in unreliable sources is a rather good criterion for authenticity.
I have not tried to harmonise blatant anomalies and contradictions. If I did, you should be able to provide examples. This is actually a quite severe accusation, so it demands demonstration.
As I am defending a secular historical perspective on Jesus here, you invoking religious views is not a fair argument. Honestly Ark, I don’t want to take on a telling off attitude, but it takes two to tango for a considerate debate.
I will reply to the later comments at some other time. I’d also appreciate it if people were to engage with my arguments for a change.
LikeLike