KAG said:

It matters because copy/pastes - especially, the long ones - tend to stifle debtes and dialogue - after all, if people wanted to debate Walker, they would have said as much. Furthermore, the fact that you seem to be the kind of person that mistakes copy/pastes for debates doesn't help matters, because - as has happened in this thread - if a full rebuttal is offered to the copy/paste, without even acknowledging the many points that may have been raised in the rebuttal, you just copy/paste yet another long article. It's, basically, disrespectful and intellectually dishonest.

I never read anything so ridiculous. You do not instruct people on how to get their points across. I THINK THEY need to 'copy and paste' if anything.

All THEY do is come on here and argue completely off the top of their heads, no citations, no sources, no references, simply ''Oh Paul said that, did this, and the Church fathers believe this'' Or (as is ricadelide's specialty question ''All bible scholars believe Jesus existed. Who are YOU to question them''. Or picking inconsequential holes in the author's presentation - interspersed with insults - while ignoring the thrust?

Is THAT what you call 'full rebuttal' of my posts? I call that people being too lazy to research their own religion, and sitting on their backsides echoing the next piece of foolishness that issues from the church's lips or their bible.

THEY should post citations. Post sources. Post archaeological remains, Make it a PROPER informed debate.

Don't attack ME for being the one doing the above. Blame THEM for being too damn lazy and arrogant to care to look where they should be looking for sources to buttress their viewpoints.

Jen33:

KAG said:

I never read anything so ridiculous.

Oh come now, I'm pretty sure you have.

You do not instruct people on how to get their points across.

I haven't instructed anyone.

I THINK THEY need to 'copy and paste' if anything.

Really, you do? I just might play devil's advocate - after all, who doesn't like a good ol' fashioned copy/paste battle.

All THEY do is come on here and argue completely off the top of their heads, no citations, no sources, no references, simply ''Oh Paul said that, did this, and the Church fathers believe this'' Or (as is ricadelide's specialty question ''All bible scholars believe Jesus existed. Who are YOU to question them''. Or picking inconsequential holes in the author's presentation - interspersed with insults - while ignoring the thrust?

To be fair,the instances that inluded "Paul said" did come with sources. Also, while Ricadelide could have probably cited a source, he's almost right: most Bible scholars do believe that a Yeshua ben Yosef did exist and many have conluded that stories about him were greatly exaggerated. By the way, if the holes are inconsequential you should be able to rebutt them easily rather than handwaving them away or worse - in my opinion - throwing another copy/paste at people.

Is THAT what you call 'full rebuttal' of my posts?

No, I don't. Although, having said that, if your response to barely half a rebuttal is anything to go by, I can't see any reason why anyone would want to devote the time to offer a full rebuttal.

I call that people being too lazy to research their own religion, and sitting on their backsides echoing the next piece of foolishness that issues from the church's lips or their bible.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.

THEY should post citations. Post sources. Post archaeological remains, Make it a PROPER informed debate.

Don't attack ME for being the one doing the above. Blame THEM for being too damn lazy and arrogant to care to look where they should be looking for sources to buttress their viewpoints.

Okay.

I may need a wash after this. Here's to hoping the E.A.C don't get wind of this.

[center]Shattering the Christ-Myth
The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus[/center]

During a discussion of William Shakespeare, a student asked the old professor about the en vogue theory that Shakespeare did not write the plays ascribed to him.

The professor growled, "Young man, if Shakespeare did not write those plays,then they were written by someone who lived at the same time and had the same name!"


It is a sure sign of desperation: In disbelieving circles, one of the most popular ideas to come to the fore recently is the "Jesus-myth" - the idea that Jesus did not even exist, much less conduct a ministry as described in the New Testament. It is an idea that one would suppose would be relegated to the pages of the Weekly World News - and it might even be funny, were it not for the fact that there are so many who take it seriously and are extremely vocal in their seriousness.

At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have).

Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven.

"Come off it, Holding. Just because a consensus of historians say that the Jesus-myth is wrong does not mean that it is wrong. The historians could be wrong. They could also be biased. Since this subject is dominated by theological agendas and philosophical presuppositions, a scholarly consensus does not constitute evidence for the existence of Jesus."

As silly as this may sound, it is actually the core of many arguments made in favor of the "Jesus-myth"! Behind every historian there is a conspiracy, a bias, or some gross error of judgment - and sometimes even the ancient historians are in on the conspiracy, too! At the end of this chapter we will offer some counsel for dealing with those who advance this type of argument, but for now, let's deal with this objection and take it seriously.

Of course, it is quite possible that all of the professional historians (even those with no religious interest!) are biased or wrong, while proponents of the "Jesus-myth" are the objective ones. And yes, a consensus does not equate with evidence. But a consensus on any historical question is usually based on evidence which is analyzed by those who are recognized as authoritative in their field, and therefore may be taken at their word. If this were not the case, why should there be any criteria for someone being a historian at all? Why should we not just pick a vagrant at random off the street and let him/her compose an official history of 20th-century America for the Smithsonian archives?

Therefore, while scholarly consensus is not itself evidence, it does function as a "weighting" or "warning" sign: if one agrees with peers who are detailed-students of the same subject matter, then less evidence is needed than would be needed if we disagreed with their consensus (as a very small minority). We would require not just a "good argument" but we would also have to refute all of the consensus arguments first. In other words, evidence may be mediated through expert witness and consensus. Therefore, the argument that consensus does not count as evidence, while correct in its own way, cannot be allowed to stand as a dismissal of consensus, nor as a leveling of the playing field. It is almost like the criteria, "extraordinarily bizarre positions require extraordinary evidence," that operates in scholarly circles. Such a minority position as the "Jesus-myth" is not courageous, but foolhardy - unless one has considerably stronger evidence than the majority; and even then, speculation about alternate views of historical references, such as is commonly found in "Jesus-myth" circles, is not going to keep the sawed-off limb up in the air!

If proponents of the "Jesus-myth" were either qualified historians or had equivalent knowledge, then their counter-consenus position might deserve to be taken more seriously. However, the overwhelming prevalance of tortured explanations, inventive theories, arguments from silence, and outright misrepresentations to get around the evidence that Jesus existed mitigates strongly against offering the Jesus-mythers any scholastic solace. The argument is more than that writers like G. A. Wells are scholars out of their field; it is also that their being out of their field shows like a gaping wound! Drews, for example [Drew.WH, 16-17], attempting to show that there were arguments that Jesus did not exist in early church history, cited these quotes from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Trypho, a Jewish person skeptical of Christianity, is speaking with Justin; the relevant passage says (words used by Drews, etc. highlighted):

When I had said this, my beloved friends, those who were with Trypho laughed; but he, smiling, says, "I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things; but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. For if you remain in that mode of philosophy, and live blamelessly, a hope of a better destiny were left to you; but when you have forsaken God, and reposed confidence in man, what safety still awaits you? If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God. But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

Drews writes with the implication that these quotes refer to Jesus, and that it was Jesus who was "made" and who was "entirely unknown." But these quotes make it quite clear that Trypho is not referring to the man Jesus. Trypho takes Jesus' historicity for granted throughout the debate with Justin. Consider these passages as samples:

* xxxii -- ", But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."
* xxvi -"Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made."
* xxxviii - "For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud; then that he became man, was crucified, and ascended up to heaven, and comes again to earth, and ought to be worshipped."
* xxxxix -- And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ]."

This is strange verbiage if Trypho believes that the Christians perpetrated a fraud to the point of inventing a man of history! What Trypho means in his earlier statement is that the Messiah - which is to say, the office of the Messiah - has been created by the Christians: He is saying that the "Christ" has not come in Jesus, but that Christians have made Jesus a Christ for themselves; and if the true Messiah was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown! The issue here relates to the Jewish belief that the Christ, when he came, would not proclaim himself (a belief we see evidenced from Jesus' own circumspection in claiming to be Messiah, and in that Bar Kochba, when he arrived, did not claim the title for himself, but allowed others to proclaim it for him). Trypho is accusing the Christians, therefore, of identifying one as Christ who is not Christ -- he is not accusing them of making up a man of history! This argument by Drews, depending as it does on taking Trypho's quotes badly out of their literary and social context, should be an extreme embarrassment to other mythicist advocates; but even Wells and Doherty are making use of it!

The modern defender of the "Jesus-myth" fares no better. G. A. Wells has also picked up on the "Trypho error" in his latest work. In another place, attempting to explain why Pilate was chosen as the person who authorized the death of his fictional Jesus, Wells says that he was selected because he was "particularly detested by the Jews, and is indeed the only one of the prefects who governed Judea between AD 6 and 41 who attracted sufficient attention to be discussed by the two principal Jewish writers of the first century," Philo and Josephus. [Hoff.JesH, 39-40] In other words, Pilate was chosen because he seemed like he would do something like the Gospels describe! If anything, this is better evidence, rather, that the Gospel writers knew what they were talking about, because they knew the history.

Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed. Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harv.JesC, 11] Dunn [Dunn.EvJ, 29] provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells' thesis, he writes:

The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!

Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith [Hoff.JesH, 47-8] . Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:

"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."

", he argues mainly from silence."

", many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."

"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

None of these scholars, we emphasize, are friends of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination.

"That's not good enough. If Jesus existed and was so famous, we should have heard a lot more about him in historical sources outside the New Testament and the Church Fathers. The fact that so little was written about Jesus indicates that he was the creation of the church."

On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 7-9] and Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 24-27] have indicated several reasons why Jesus remained a "marginal Jew" about whom we have so little information:

1. As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) , the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
2. Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
3. Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
4. Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
5. Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
6. Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!

A final consideration is that we have very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are:

* An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.
* An inscription that mentions Pilate.
* Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
* From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.

Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.
* From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.
* From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16]

To this Meier adds [ibid., 23] that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." It is just as was said in his earlier comment on Alexander the Great: What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him! (For a response to a commonly-used list of writers who allegedly should have mentioned Jesus, see here.)

What About the Christians?

In this essay set we will only deal briefly with the question of whether the testimony of the New Testament and/or the Church Fathers offer sufficient evidence for the existence and life of Jesus. Most historians would agree that these sources are sufficient to testify to the existence of Jesus. Whether they are reliable reports of Jesus' life is another matter, one best taken up in other areas.

On the more practical and popular level, using the New Testament and the Church Fathers as proof of the existence of Jesus is generally fruitless. As we might guess from the typical reaction to the opinion of professional historians, the Jesus-myth adherent will automatically say, "Well, the Bible and the Church Fathers are biased. Of course they assert that Jesus was real." Those words often bring the popular level of the argument to an end.

So, for our purposes, there is really no need to go much further into this facet of the subject, other than to quote Harris' illustrative anecdote, which although of a slightly different application, makes the point we seek [Harr.3Cruc, 25] :

Behind the call for additional non-Christian witnesses to the existence of Jesus is the refusal to accept the testimony of the four writers we do have. Should we reject the four because they are not forty? The silence of the imaginary majority cannot overthrow the clear testimony of the few. This demand for other witnesses reminds me of the anecdote about a man accused of theft. At his trial the prosecuting attorney brought forward four witnesses who saw him commit the crime, while the defense attorney introduced as evidence fourteen persons who did not see him do it. Needless to say, the man was found guilty!

To put it succinctly, the rule of parsimony, or simplest theory, applies here. It is used explicitly as a criterion for deciding between rival hypothesis of equal explanatory power, and the simplest theory wins. (Or, as one reader put it: "Not only does Hypothesis A have more items that beg experimental support than Hypothesis B has, some of them are bigger beggars than those in Hypothesis B." Occam's Razor is a logical fallacy and one that a scientist [like a physicist] ought to NOT use to eliminate theories; but historians may be able to use it in a form like this.) Even if we do grant the wildly outrageous view that the "Jesus-myth" has equal explanatory power, it would be rejected by the law of parsimony. But, since it fails to explain the vast majority of the details - passion of the few, triumph in closed locales, resistance to modification by subsequent cultures, uniformity in variegated sources, etc. - it never even makes it this far. Parsimony, we say in summary, is closely related to plausibility, and the most parsimonius and plausible explanation for the origin of Christianity in this regard is that Jesus actually existed.

With that, we now turn to mimi-essays on the non-Christian sources for the life and existence of Jesus. For each of these references, we will ask these questions, as applicable:

Is this a genuine reference, or are there doubts about its veracity? Does it really refer to Jesus?

Is this historian/writer a reliable source? Is there good reason to trust what they say?

What objections have been registered against this citataion?

What do we learn about Jesus and or Christianity from this historian/writer?

We conclude that we find three levels of source material:

* Highly reliable sources. There are two of these: Tacitus and Josephus.
* Moderately reliable sources. We find three: Thallus, Pliny, and Lucian. For the matter of Thallus, please see also our link in our essay to Glenn Miller's essay on that subject, linked in our essay. (We will look at some objections to the Thallus cite.)
* Marginally reliable or unreliable sources. Three are in this class: Suetonius, the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Talmud.



Conclusion: What To Do with this Information

The evidence is clear: The Jesus-myth is a groundless speculation, contrary to all evidence, and totally without basis. Here are our concluding thoughts on the matter:

I have personally come to the conclusion that adherence to the "Jesus-myth" is not the result of careful deliberation of the evidence, but rather, is the product and province of skeptical minds in the grips of an obsession. Long ago, I presented the information on Tacitus above to a Jesus-mythicist - whose ONLY source of data was G. A. Wells. He replied with implications that Tacitus was secretly in league with the Christians of his time! Then, in reply to the opinions of professional and distinguished historians regarding Wells' work, he simply suggested that they had not read Wells carefully, or even at all!

Some may say that this is merely abberational, but it is not: It is the modus operandi of the Jesus-myth circle. One well-known skeptic, Gordon Stein, cited as an authority on Josephus the works of Nathaniel Lardner - from the year 1838! There was no hint that Stein has consulted the works of modern Josephan scholars like Thackery and Feldman; there are no Taciteans, no cites from known experts in Greek and Roman history; instead, the bibliography of his report is bookended with works from G. A. Wells and Arthur Drews! Is this the work of a reasonable person, or someone in the grips of obsession?

The question remains: What on earth could possess otherwise intelligent and educated people to be so uncritical in their beliefs regarding the existence of Jesus? Here is my advice in the matter: If you have encountered people like this, I highly recommend that you provide a clear presentation of the Gospel, then leave them alone. It is a waste of time to deal with such people (except to the extent that they are deceiving others), we perform no service any time that we so much as imply that their views should be taken seriously. Their views are the result of a fallen and sinful human nature, of rampant egotism and arrogance, and nothing more.





The Gamaliel Challenge

And now an update. Every now and then I like to throw out challenges that I am pretty sure will sit here for 500 years ignored; that's fine with me, because it does make a good point. Now here's a new one: I challenge any Christ-myther to prove to me that Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 5:34) wasn't a myth.

You'll be hard pressed to dissuade me. You see, aside from that reference in Acts, Gamaliel isn't mentioned anywhere at all, except in a paltry handful of rabbinic material (see here from hundreds of years later. Since you think Acts was written as late as the second century, that means all we have to prove that Gamaliel existed is a bunch of third-hand (at best) hearsay -- and as well as know from the expert historian Thomas Paine, all hearsay is automatically flushed down the loo and not be be believed.

And yet, Jewish persons (with an obvious confessional interest!) would have us believe that this guy "occupied a leading position in the highest court, the great council of Jerusalem." What are they, religious nuts? They also say he wrote three epistles. Big deal! Those could have been forged by Gamaliel-fanatics in later centuries. I say that this is the case; as one of those worthless rabbinic documents says, "When he died the honor [outward respect] of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct" (Sot.ah xv: 18). I say he was a fake, and a rallying point used to keep Jewish persons in line in the troubling period after Bar Kochba.

I also find it suspicious (see link above) that he was the first person to have the title "rabban". I think it was retrojected onto him by the Jews as a way to honor this fake, who obviously never existed and was just a figment created to inspire Jewish persons.

Finally, if this Gamaliel guy was such a hot shot and a great Jewish leader, why is his name missing from the works of historians of the day? He's not mentioned by the chief Jewish historian of his day, Josephus, who as a comtemporary would surely have recognized him as a brilliant man if all that is said above was true about him. He's not found in the works of Tacitus, Plutarch, Quintillian, Seneca, Pliny, Juvenal, Arrian, Petronius, Appian, Lucanus, Silius Italicus, Ptolemy, Lucian, Pompon Mela, Favorinus, Damis, Columella, Happy, Dopey, Sneezy, Sleazy, or Doc. Surely if this guy was so important, one of these writers would have taken the time to at least write a sentence about him. Why don't they?

The few records we have of him are also suspicious. There is no hint of where he was born, or where he was educated, or what kinds of tacos he liked, or anything. Surely something would have compelled someone somewhere to babble all this contextually useless information about him. Given that Gamaliel of Jabneh, also known as Gamaliel the Younger (the supposed grandson of this obviously mythical figure Gamaliel the Elder) was the head of the school of Jabneh, which became the centre of Judaism and Jewish studies after the destruction of Jerusalem, it could easily be speculated that the reason for inventing the Gamaliel myth was that the persons in charge of the school of Jabneh needed to bolster the authority of their school and thus they together invented this Gamaliel myth in order to root the authority of their leading figure all the way back to the the supposed first "rabban".

I think Gamaliel never existed. Long live the Gamaliel myth! You just try and prove me wrong!


Series Sources

1. Alli.Luc - Allinson, Francis G. Lucian Satirist and Artist. New York: Copper Square Publishers, 1963.
2. Barn.Leg - Barnes, T. D. "Legislation Against the Christians." Journal of Roman Studies 58, 1968, pp. 32-50.
3. Benar.Tac - Benario, Herbert W. An Introduction to Tacitus. Athens: You. of Georgia Press, 1975.
4. Benk.EC49 - Benko, Stephen. "The Edict of Claudius of A.D. 49." Theologische Zeitschrift 25, 1969, pp. 406-18.
5. Benk.PagRo - Benko, Stephen. Pagan Rome and the Early Christians. Bloomington: Indiana You. Press, 1984.
6. Blaik.MM - Blaiklock, E. M. Jesus Christ: Man or Myth? Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.
7. Chars.DSS - Charlesworth, James H., ed. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
8. Chars.JesJud - Charlesworth, James H. - Jesus Within Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 1988.
9. Chars.JDSS - Charlesworth, James H., ed. John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Crossroad, 1991.
10. ChilEv.Stud - Chilton, Bruce, and Craig A. Evans. Studying the Historical Jesus. London: E. J.Brill, 1994.
11. Chilv.Tac - Chilver, G.E.F. A Historical Commentary on Tacitus' Histories I and II. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979.
12. Cross.MedP - Crossan, John D. - The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: Harper, 1991.
13. Cutn.JGMM - Cutner, Herbert. Jesus: God, Man or Myth? New York: Truth Seeker, 1950.
14. Dor.Tac - Dorey, T. A., ed. Tacitus. London: Routledge, 1969.
15. Dud.Tac - Dudley, Donald. The World of Tacitus. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1968.
16. Drew.WH - Drews, Arthur. The Historicity of Jesus. New York: Arno Press, 1972. (Originally published 1912.)
17. Dunn.EvJ - Dunn, James G. D. The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville: Westminster, 1985.
18. Feld.JosMod - Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984.
19. Feld.JosJes - Feldman, Louis, ed. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987.
20. Fowl.LucSam - Fowler, H. W. The Works of Lucian of Samosata. Oxford: Clarendon, 1905.
21. Fox.PagChr - Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987.
22. Franc.EvJ - France, R. T. The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove: IVP, 1986.
23. Gran.Grec - Grant, Michael. Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation. London: Routledge, 1995.
24. Gran.Tac - Grant, Michael. Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome. Penguin Books, 1973.
25. Haber.VerdH - Habermas, Gary R. The Verdict of History: Conclusive Evidence for the Life of Jesus. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984.
26. Hada.FJos - Hadas-Lehl, Mirielle. Flavius Josephus. New York: Macmillan, 1993.
27. Harm.Luc - Harmon, A.M. Lucian. Loeb Classical Library, v.5 Cambridge: harvard Press, 1972.
28. Harr.GosP5 - Harris, Murray. "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors." Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.
29. Harr.3Cruc - Harris, Murray. 3 Crucial Questions About Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.
30. Harv.JesC - Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982.
31. Hoff.JesH - Hoffmann, R. J. and Larue, Gerald, eds. Jesus in History and Myth. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986.
32. Hutch.Tac - Hutchins, Robert Maynard. The Annals and the Histories by P. Cornelius Tacitus. Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc., 1952.
33. KrWoo.LHn - Kraus, C. S and A. J. Woodman. Latin Historians. Oxford You. Press, 1997.
34. Luce.TacT - Luce, T. J. and A .J. Woodman, eds. Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition. Princeton You. Press, 1995.
35. Mart.Tac - Martin, Donald. Tacitus. Berkeley: You. of California Press, 1981.
36. Maso.JosNT - Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992.
37. Meie.MarJ - Meier, John P. - A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
38. Mell.Tac - Mellor, Ronald. Tacitus. New York: Routledge, 1993.
39. Mende.Tac - Mendell, Clarence W. Tacitus: The Man and his Work. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957.
40. Momig.CFou - Momligliano, Arnaldo. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography. Berkeley: You. of California Press, 1990.
41. Momig.PagJC - Momigliano, Arnaldo. On Pagans, Jews and Christians. Middletown: Wesleyan You. Press, 1987.
42. Pfef.DSS - Pfeiffer, Charles F. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969.
43. Plin.NH - Goold, G. P., ed. Pliny the Elder. Natural History. Harvard You. Press, 1938.
44. Sand.HistF - Sanders, E.P. - The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Press, 1993.
45. Sen.NQ - Corcoren, Thomas, ed. Seneca. Naturales Questiones. Harvard You. Press, 1971.
46. Sym.Tac - Syme, Ronald. Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon, 1958.
47. Twel.GosP5 - Twelftree, Graham. "Jesus in Jewish Traditions." Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.
48. VanV.JONT -- Van Voorst, Robert. Jesus Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
49. Well.DidJ - Wells, G. A. Did Jesus Exist? Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1975.
50. Well.HistEv - Wells, G. A. The Historical Evidence for Jesus. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1982.
51. Well. JEaC - Wells, G.A. The Jesus of the Early Christians. Pemberton: 1971.
52. Well.JesL - Wells, G. A. The Jesus Legend. Chicago: Open Court, 1996.
53. Wilk.JUF - Wilkens, Michael J. and J. P. Moreland. Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
54. Wilk.ChrRom - Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven: Yale You. Press, 1984.
55. Willm.WorJos - Williamson, G. A. The World of Josephus. New York: Little, Brown & Co, 1964.
56. Wils.EvJ - Wilson, Ian. Jesus: The Evidence. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

@Jen33
Just need to set a few things straight cause you seem to like to repeat lies.
First,
Here was my statement

ricadelide:

None of the gospels are eyewitness accounts, as every bible scholar knows.

even though that statement is not true, if that is the basis for your denial of Jesus then it is laughable; because the majority of the so-called 'bible scholars' are in agreement as to the historicity of Jesus. So what do you bring to the table that should make us believe you over them? Are you aware of facts these 'scholars' aren't aware of?

Here is your paraphrase

''All bible scholars believe Jesus existed. Who are YOU to question them''.

Can you notice the difference? Do they mean or sound the same to you? Talk about lost in translation (or is it interpretation?) I did not say ALL. Neither did I say 'who are you to question them'.

My point was plain - mere skepticsm is not going to count as 'evidence' nor 'proof'. You need to provide cogent reasons and evidence to back up your claims. What facts do you bring to the table? NOT 'who are you to question them.'
Bad thing is that, because you keep saying the same things over and over, this is my second time mentioning/addressing this.

Second,
I did not insult you. Pointing out a logical fallacy or a falsehood in an argument does not constitute insult in case you didn't know - if anything, the insults you laced at me abound, and its there for all to see. The funny thing is that, i was basically (absurdly if i may say) addressing Mr Walker, so in the light of the queer nature of the debate we've hard (third-party debate) I wonder why you took my statements personal. Really queer debate it was.
Anyways, i'm done arguing with you (or rather, with your pastes, whoever the authors are/were). Cheers.

@KAG,
yeah, considering your skepticsm, you may need a wash.
However, i guess the word in bold should suffice in driving the point home to Jen that this is not the way to go.
BTW, what's EAC?

ricadelide, you make me laugh. You expect me to provide 'cogent reasons and evidence' to show that Jesus did not exist? But quite apart from the fact that it's decidedly hard to prove a negative, the onus for all intents and purposes surely falls on YOU to prove that he DID.

All we can show you is that there was nothing contemporary written about him. That there are no inscriptions of him, no artefacts, no letters, no records, etc.

Unreliable ''gospels'' from unknown sources, traceable to an original document(s) mysteriously known as ''Q'', which materialised several decades after the purported events from God knows where, and in a language foreign to the alleged participants, and thus highly dubious.

Lastly, you've stated more than once here that ''widespread archaelogical evidence exists'' to show that Jesus lived on earth.

Care to furnish us with one or two?

And please do not hesitate to cut and paste. We need verifiable references, not just YOUR word.

ricadelide:

@KAG,
yeah, considering your skepticsm, you may need a wash.
However, i guess the word in bold should suffice in driving the point home to Jen that this is not the way to go.

For some reason I dont think he gets my point - probaly due to glossing over my posts. In any case, yeah, copy/pasting JP Holding is dirty business.

BTW, what's EAC?

The Evil Atheist Conspiracy - we don't exist, no matter what you cat may have said.

Linky poo:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Evil_Atheist_Conspiracy
http://craptaculus.com/eac/
http://evilatheistconspiracy.org/



Just some things I noticed while skimming through the thread:

ricadelide: Again, the same old thrashed points. The statement in bold is one of your many lies. Here's a quote;
"Circa AD 52, Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. This work itself has been lost and only fragments of it exist in the citations of others. One such scholar who knew and spoke of it was Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, In speaking of Jesus' crucifixion and the darkness that covered the land during this event, Africanus found a reference in the writings of Thallus that dealt with this cosmic report. Africanus asserts: 'On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.'' Source - Josh McDowell 'A Ready Defense'

There's no evidence that Thallus was speaking about Jesus. Yes, Africanus claimed he was, but that was his interpretation of what was a reference to an eclipse.

That the historical writings about Jesus were written after his death does not prove that he did not exist. We're not talking 100 years here, we're talking 10-30 years. In many cases the authors still remembered verbatim his statements (see John). Give me a break. Do myths develop within 20 years?

Actually, yes, many myths develop well within 20 years. Heck, some develop instantly. One example that comes to mind is that of the followers of Mani who, alledgedly, proclaimed, while their prophet was clearly still dead, that Mani lives. Other examples - modern this time - include the Scientologists and John Smith.

Moreover, the reason the silence in Jesus' case is mysterious - to say the least - is because the Gospels hve led u to believe that he performed several miraculous, abnormal deeds, and a good deal of those were know far and wide. Besides, you'd expect any historian worth his salt to have nmentioned, at the very least, the slaughter of the infants and the resurrection of the dead that was witnessed by many.

FALSEHOOD
Many of the accounts about the life of Jesus, both in the gospels and in the epistles are by eyewitnesses, not hearsay. And not just mere eyewitnesses, credible ones. They each write from their own perspective in detail and precision and do not collude nor contradict one another.

If the traditional ascriptions of the authorship of the synoptics are correct; we can;t be 100% because the authors do not include their names in the text, then Matthew was an eyewitness, Luke and Mark were involved directly with eyewitnesses (see Luke 1;2), thus very credible third-parties - Luke's case is very clear (in the book of Acts). Mark was constantly with Paul and Barnabas (who also had been with Peter, James and John at various times). This very fundamental point undermines the whole of your argument becuase you keep repeating your unsubstantiated claims as your justification.

First, I don't agree that the writers were credible - Matthew certainly isn't. And a great deal of the writings aren't just hearsay, but impossible for anyone writing to have known. For instance, we have the Gospel writers relaying n a fcatual manner, Mary and Elizabeth's conversation.

Second, the general consensus is that Mark's Gospel was the first of the Biblical four and the others sourced his Gospel or were privy to his source.

Third, the four Biblical Gospels do contradict each other in several instances. For instance, two of them can't agree on Jesus' genealogy, and sorting out what happened after the resurrection is a logistical nightmare.

Finally, while I can't be certain about the others, it's evident that Matthew was not an eyewitness.

KAG:

The Evil Atheist Conspiracy - we don't exist, no matter what you cat may have said.

Linky poo:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Evil_Atheist_Conspiracy
http://craptaculus.com/eac/
http://evilatheistconspiracy.org/

Now, those were some queer (or is it creepy) sites. As an 'insider', any reason for us to be affraid?

There's no evidence that Thallus was speaking about Jesus. Yes, Africanus claimed he was, but that was his interpretation of what was a reference to an eclipse.

You don't know why Africanus made his claim. Obviously, there have been many earthquakes in history, there might have been other reasons why Africanus made that assertion. The original work is lost now, but it is safe to assume that it wasn't lost then. For example, if Thallus had elsewhere stated the year he was referring to, and it happened to be the same year Jesus was crucified, then its not far-fatched to make such a conclusion (considering the odds of such an event happening more than once in a single year). That's just a possible explanation; i don't know for a fact.

Actually, yes, many myths develop well within 20 years. Heck, some develop instantly. One example that comes to mind is that of the followers of Mani who, alledgedly, proclaimed, while their prophet was clearly still dead, that Mani lives. Other examples - modern this time - include the Scientologists and John Smith.

I'm sure you know you're overstretching my point. Those analogies don't work. Can I fabricate a biography now about a great and popular miracle worker known throughout Lagos with claims that he existed 20 years ago? That was my context.

Moreover, the reason the silence in Jesus' case is mysterious - to say the least - is because the Gospels hve led u to believe that he performed several miraculous, abnormal deeds, and a good deal of those were know far and wide. Besides, you'd expect any historian worth his salt to have nmentioned, at the very least, the slaughter of the infants and the resurrection of the dead that was witnessed by many.

I've addressed the slaughter of the infants earlier. As for the first part, the anwer i would have given lies in the long treatise you posted earlier.

First, I don't agree that the writers were credible - Matthew certainly isn't. And a great deal of the writings aren't just hearsay, but impossible for anyone writing to have known. For instance, we have the Gospel writers relaying n a fcatual manner, Mary and Elizabeth's conversation.

Sincerely, that's your opinion. And to me, its patently false. As for the statement in bold, many explanations can be given, in this case though the parsimonious explanation is: he was told. If Matthew, the tax collector disciple of Jesus wrote the gospel as is traditionally touted, then that's a non-issue.

Second, the general consensus is that Mark's Gospel was the first of the Biblical four and the others sourced his Gospel or were privy to his source.

I mentioned that in my post; however, the notion only stems from the two-source hypothesis which the so-called bible scholars hold on to. It's not proven. There is also the augustinian hypothesis. One can hold on to whatever view he chooses.

Third, the four Biblical Gospels do contradict each other in several instances. For instance, two of them can't agree on Jesus' genealogy, and sorting out what happened after the resurrection is a logistical nightmare.

Now that's false. The gospels DONT contradict one another; they complement one another, with each person writing from his own perspective (if anything, that lends more credence to their accounts by showing that there was no collusion). I really wonder what skeptics are looking for here; perfectly identical accounts? Except, however, your definition of a contradiction is different from mine. As long as the different accounts can be logically reconciled, then they do not contradict one another. Are they different? Yes. Do they contradict? No. Can they be reconciled? Yes. A noteworthy example is the different accounts as regards Judas Iscariot's death. They are perfectly reconcilable.

Finally, while I can't be certain about the others, it's evident that Matthew was not an eyewitness.

Also, just your opinion, which IMO is false. Pilgrim.1 addressed this earlier more competently than I did: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-41030.32.html#msg1571014
Cheers.

Oga patapata ricadelide. . .

ricadelide:

Finally, while I can't be certain about the others, it's evident that Matthew was not an eyewitness.

Also, just your opinion, which IMO is false. Pilgrim.1 addressed this earlier more competently than I did: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-41030.32.html#msg1571014
Cheers.

Lol. . . I may indeed have offered a summary of the issues as to Matthew's authorship of the Gospel that bears his name. But "more competently". . ? Haba - I leave such accolades to my seniors (like you!) 

I observe a few interesting things, though. I'd applaud the objectivity of KAG's approach - which also we'd remarked to Jen33. It was somewhat predictable that the same routine would follow the latter's arguments (if he had anything of his own to present). . and wasn't it amazing that while he asserts that Paul didn't mention this or that, he quickly disavowed that mechanism in his subsequent rejoinder?    Here:

Jen33:

I will not turn this into a nit-picking session of what ''Paul'' said or did not say. Certainly he never claimed to have met Jesus. Except in a ''vision'' on the road to Damascus.

But he never mentioned anything about Jesus' supposed life on earth - virgin birth, crucifixion, miracles etc.

Bros, that was a good laugh! It sounded like: "I'm not even going there about Paul anymore". . . and then immediately follows through with: "even sef, Paul did not mention this and that!"  Does this gentleman have a consistent position at all? Has he taken a look at his assertions and mirrored them on the same documents he decried?

Anyhow, just teasingly, let me simply post the following for his consideration:

The charges are:

[list][li](a) Paul never mentioned ANYTHING about the virgin birth[/li][/list]

It may seem so - as long as he did not mention the word "virgin", then some would have worries as to the "birth". Have such discussants wondered that Paul never argued or hinted that Jesus was born of a sexual union? That he may not have mentioned 'virgin' does not mean he disavowed it.

However, Paul indeed mentioned the birth of Christ - not as a matter of repetion as though he meant to give a GOSPEL narrative; but rather as a matter of its implication in his teaching. Let's see just a few:

        "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
         which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh"
         - - - Rom. 1:3.

        "But when the fulness of the time was come,
         God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law"
        - - - Gal. 4:4.

But, of course, from his epistle to the Romans, it is clear that Paul had the OT prophecies in mind as he penned those words. Centuries earlier, Isaiah had already prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14). The question would rather be one of whether or not Paul in his epistles anywhere argued that Christ was NOT born of a virgin! If he had any such arguments, we would be glad to consider it. Otherwise, the popular mechanical device of arguing from silence has not quite helped these guys present a real scholarly read.

- - - - -

[list][li](b) Paul never mentioned ANYTHING about the crucifixion[/li][/list]

This is quite quaint. Paul never "mentioned" ANYTHING about Christ's crucifixion? I hear.  

For the moment, I'd just leave the following for Jen33's consideration:

[list]* "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness"  (1 Cor. 1:23)[/list]

[list]* "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2)[/list]

[list]* "For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you." (2 Cor. 13:4)[/list]

[list]* "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? " (Gal. 3:1)[/list]

As any objective reader would observe in the characteristic style of Paul's epistles, for him it was not a matter of writing a "GOSPEL" account or narrative; but rather, it was a matter of the implications of the crucifixion in his teaching ministry. Jen33 has yet to understand the distinctions between what is a Gospel narrative and an "EPISTLE".

Not only did Paul indeed make several references to (or "mention of" the crucifixion; but he did so as a matter teaching its implication as applied in the Christian life and faith. This is why he made the remarkable argument about the meaning of the RESURRECTION (please see 1 Corinthians 15) - which would have been meaningless indeed if Christ had not first experienced death (and yes, "the death of the Cross" [Php. 2:8]).

- - - -

[list][li](c) Paul never mentioned ANYTHING about the miracles[/li][/list]

Again, Paul was not presenting a GOSPEL narrative - his epistles were more concerned with the teaching and application of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Even so, it is clear that Paul believed and taught that miracles were wrought in his experience in Jesus' name (see Rom. 15:18-19 and Acts 15:2).

. . . . . . . . .

In all of these things, one would've hoped to read some objectivity in the arguments against a historical Jesus Christ. That "Paul did not mention this or that" does not have a strong case for their arguements. In the same way, we would have to ask them to look at what he did mention - and most of those assertive denials have been laid to rest.

All the same, we have become too familiar with "Paul never mentioned ANYTHING about this or that" - and when those assertions are debunked, it then becomes "I don't even want to look at what Paul said or did not say!"

Regards.

@(?? . . . ok. Luke 6:31) Pilgrim.1,
hehe humility is a virtue. However, observers know better .
For example, another well articulated post

Just kiddin tho, keep doing what u're doing.
I agree with your observations - i decided not to reply Jen33 anymore when it was obvious we are not on the same page. And, not to offend him but, checking out his other threads, i saw the same pattern. So . . .
It makes a lot of difference when one's discussant/co-debator is objective. And i've noticed that sometimes that does not depend on a person's religious convictions (or lack therof) - of course, not that those convictions don't or shouldn't help.
Cheers .

ricadelide:
Just kiddin tho, keep doing what u're doing.

I agree with your observations - and thanks for your warm encouragements.

How's the prep for exams coming on?

Many blessings.

ricadelide:

Now, those were some queer (or is it creepy) sites. As an 'insider', any reason for us to be affraid?

Afraid? No. It's not like we exist or are trying to destory the world - Muhahahaha.

You don't know why Africanus made his claim. Obviously, there have been many earthquakes in history, there might have been other reasons why Africanus made that assertion. The original work is lost now, but it is safe to assume that it wasn't lost then. For example, if Thallus had elsewhere stated the year he was referring to, and it happened to be the same year Jesus was crucified, then its not far-fatched to make such a conclusion (considering the odds of such an event happening more than once in a single year). That's just a possible explanation; i don't know for a fact.

Africanus was one of the church fathers - many of whom were involved in defending an historical Christ through means that included "citing" non-Christian contemporary sources circa Jesus' time. And, yes, while it's difficult to know what Thallus wrote exactly, we can harzard guesses.

First, prior to to Africanus, no other writer or historian makes the connection between Thallus's eclipse and Jesus' crucifixion. That in itself suggests that Thallus neither made an explicit connection nor did he give a date (besides, Africanus never mentions or alludes to a Thallus-given time period)

Second, Africanus makes it clear that Thallus believed it was a solar eclipse (IIRC, Eusebius also mentions a historian referencing a solar eclipse in that period). Irrespective of fricanus' view, if it was solar eclipse, then we can be certain that it couldn't have been the same event as that mentioned in the Gospels (this is also assuming that the account in the Bible occured), because solar eclipses don't last three hours.

Finally, from Africanus's writings, we can conclude that Thallus never mentions Jesus, so using Thallus, through Africanus, as a source for a historical Jesus seems illogical.

I'm sure you know you're overstretching my point. Those analogies don't work. Can I fabricate a biography now about a great and popular miracle worker known throughout Lagos with claims that he existed 20 years ago? That was my context.

I got your point, but I was addresing the "Do myths develop within 20 years?" more specifically. In this day, it would be more difficult to create a mythical figure of that magnitude, but it was possible in the past. IHowever, I don't believe that the Jesus character wasn't built around an actual person.

By the way, would the case of Pope Joan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan) serve as an example of a great, maybe not so miraculous, figure that possibly didn't exist but, admittedly, more than twenty years later, has a biography?

I've addressed the slaughter of the infants earlier.

Found it.

Second, as regards the infanticide. First thing to note is this; that we do not have any other historical account does not prove anything.

It is mysterious, though.

Second, contrary to your thinking, Bethlehem was a small village - it did not even have more than 1000 people not to talk of 1000 babies. It was a village of around 600 or so people. How many babies would have been there? Your guess is as good as mine. Third, Herod was a maniac, he killed lots of people, and killing a few babies in an insignificant village is not going to amount to much news. There were more important things for historians to write about.
If you need more facts, follow this link

Not adequate, unfortunately. The curious thing about the Herod infanticide is that not only is there no record of it extra-Biblically, there's no mention of it anywhere outside of Matthew. I mean, we're talking about an extensive and extremely cruel infanticide here. Also, we can assume that there were, at the very least, a few hundred children that were killed - that would have drawn at leats a footnote from at least one writer other than Matthew.

As for the first part, the anwer i would have given lies in the long treatise you posted earlier.

What would that have been?

Sincerely, that's your opinion. And to me, its patently false. As for the statement in bold, many explanations can be given, in this case though the parsimonious explanation is: he was told. If Matthew, the tax collector disciple of Jesus wrote the gospel as is traditionally touted, then that's a non-issue.

Told by whom? The authors references no sources, and there are instances that he included in their gospels about which they couldn't have been told. If, for instance, we accept that for some reason Mary mentioned her various private experiences prior to Jesus' birth, who could we possibly assume told the Gopsel writers about Judas's or Herod's? Also, wouldn't the most parsimonious explanation be that they made it up?

I mentioned that in my post; however, the notion only stems from the two-source hypothesis which the so-called bible scholars hold on to. It's not proven. There is also the augustinian hypothesis. One can hold on to whatever view he chooses.

Fair enough.

Now that's false. The gospels DONT contradict one another; they complement one another, with each person writing from his own perspective (if anything, that lends more credence to their accounts by showing that there was no collusion).

I did give two examples: the genealogy problem and the post-resurrection headache.

I really wonder what skeptics are looking for here; perfectly identical accounts? Except, however, your definition of a contradiction is different from mine.

No, not perfectly identical accounts. Just accounts that you don't have to hem here, cut there, to sort of create a strange looking narrative.

As long as the different accounts can be logically reconciled, then they do not contradict one another. Are they different? Yes. Do they contradict? No. Can they be reconciled? Yes. A noteworthy example is the different accounts as regards Judas Iscariot's death. They are perfectly reconcilable.

I've yet to see anybody logically reconcile the events after Jesus' alledged resurrection. In fact, I'm still waiting for somebody to rise up to the easter challenge with something more than "they probably didn't have enough ink and/or paper" and other such convoluted suggestions.

Also, just your opinion, which IMO is false. Pilgrim.1 addressed this earlier more competently than I did: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-41030.32.html#msg1571014
Cheers.

Pilgrim posted a verse that shows Jesus asking a Matthew/Levi to follow him. I see no reason to presume that the two are the same.

Hi KAG,

KAG:

Pilgrim posted a verse that shows Jesus asking a Matthew/Levi to follow him. I see no reason to presume that the two are the same.

Well, perhaps you might have something to show that there could have been another Matthew(s)/Levi(s) other than the one recognized in those verses as positively identifying him?

pilgrim.1:

Hi KAG,

Well, perhaps you might have something to show that there could have been another Matthew(s)/Levi(s) other than the one recognized in those verses as positively identifying him?

There's absolutely no indication in the Gospel named Matthew taht should lead us to presume that it was written by Matthew/Levi the former tax collector. In fact, other than tradition, I doubt there's any tangible reason to accept Matthew as the author of the Gospel.

KAG:

There's absolutely no indication in the Gospel named Matthew taht should lead us to presume that it was written by Matthew/Levi the former tax collector. In fact, other than tradition, I doubt there's any tangible reason to accept Matthew as the author of the Gospel.

I could well understand your point of view - in as much as the other Gospel writers (except John) did not identify themselves plainly as saying "I wrote this account".

And yes, you do have a point as well in the reference to the traditional view of ascribing the authorship of that Gospel account to Matthew. However, we might have hoped to read a stronger point(s) for not accepting Matthew as its author.

pilgrim.1:

I could well understand your point of view - in as much as the other Gospel writers (except John) did not identify themselves plainly as saying "I wrote this account".

Also, the author (Matthew) didn't deem it necessary to give any indication that he and Matthew the former tax collector were one and the same.

And yes, you do have a point as well in the reference to the traditional view of ascribing the authorship of that Gospel account to Matthew. However, we might have hoped to read a stronger point(s) for not accepting Matthew as its author.

Stronger points than there's no internal or direct external indication that the account was written by Matthew? I'll have to think about it a little. While I'm doing that, do you have any positive evidence to support the view that the Gospel was written by Matthew Levi, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus?

KAG:

Africanus was one of the church fathers - many of whom were involved in defending an historical Christ through means that included "citing" non-Christian contemporary sources circa Jesus' time. And, yes, while it's difficult to know what Thallus wrote exactly, we can harzard guesses.

First, prior to to Africanus, no other writer or historian makes the connection between Thallus's eclipse and Jesus' crucifixion. That in itself suggests that Thallus neither made an explicit connection nor did he give a date (besides, Africanus never mentions or alludes to a Thallus-given time period)

Second, Africanus makes it clear that Thallus believed it was a solar eclipse (IIRC, Eusebius also mentions a historian referencing a solar eclipse in that period). Irrespective of fricanus' view, if it was solar eclipse, then we can be certain that it couldn't have been the same event as that mentioned in the Gospels (this is also assuming that the account in the Bible occured), because solar eclipses don't last three hours.

Finally, from Africanus's writings, we can conclude that Thallus never mentions Jesus, so using Thallus, through Africanus, as a source for a historical Jesus seems illogical.

Guesses and counterguesses? Its inconsequential to me though, so i'll pass.

I got your point, but I was addresing the "Do myths develop within 20 years?" more specifically. In this day, it would be more difficult to create a mythical figure of that magnitude, but it was possible in the past. IHowever, I don't believe that the Jesus character wasn't built around an actual person.

ok

By the way, would the case of Pope Joan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan) serve as an example of a great, maybe not so miraculous, figure that possibly didn't exist but, admittedly, more than twenty years later, has a biography?

wasn't that a timespan of like 400 years?

It is mysterious, though.

anywho.

Not adequate, unfortunately. The curious thing about the Herod infanticide is that not only is there no record of it extra-Biblically, there's no mention of it anywhere outside of Matthew. I mean, we're talking about an extensive and extremely cruel infanticide here. Also, we can assume that there were, at the very least, a few hundred children that were killed - that would have drawn at leats a footnote from at least one writer other than Matthew.

Again, you're not even entertaining the possibility of what i said. According to John McRay, a professor of archeology, Bethlehem was probably just a village of about 600 or so people, so there were just a few babies slaughtered (maybe up to 100 when you include the sorrounding villages). IMO, one can say that the fact that it isn't mentioned by the other gospels further shows that that couldn't have been the meanest action of Herod. Not that its not bad or its inconsequential though.

What would that have been?

First, i don't agree. He was mentioned by secular historians its just that he wasn't mentioned a lot or he appeared marginally. The reason for that isn't far-fetched, he was cheifly a religious figure, not a political one. If anything, he refrained from any urge to sway him(self) to the latter end. Religous figures in Isreal weren't new (see Acts 5:36-38) and with the way his life apparently ended, secular people might have dismissed him. Even his disciples were in doubt after he died, and it was his re-appearing that really changed everything to them. Historians of that day focussed mainly on the political figures. A notable exception though is John, who cut across in a way - and it was Josephus, a jewish historian who recorded him. As far as i can posit concerning the miracles? there were skeptics back then too. It would be absurd to expect a roman empire-affiliated historian to mention Jesus' ressurection.

Told by whom? The authors references no sources, and there are instances that he included in their gospels about which they couldn't have been told. If, for instance, we accept that for some reason Mary mentioned her various private experiences prior to Jesus' birth, who could we possibly assume told the Gopsel writers about Judas's or Herod's?

Maybe you should read Luke 1;1-4. Research? How do journalists know what is going on in the pentagon? However, see below.

Also, wouldn't the most parsimonious explanation be that they made it up?

Obviously, we're looking at the coin from two different angles. I said parsminious because i know you don't believe that the bible is a divinely inspired book. There are many verses in scripture that the authors could not have known except under divine inspiration (eg Genesis 1-3, many verses in Hebrews 11, Jude 9, and many others). Again, two very different perspectives.
Unfortunately, one can't argue his way into accepting the bible as the Word of God - more likely, the reverse would happen (1Cor1;23) Oh well

I did give two examples: the genealogy problem and the post-resurrection headache.

the genealogy problem is not hard - Mathew's account is through Joseph and Luke's is through Mary. that's why Luke said in 3;23, "the son as was supposed of Joseph" - it was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was known that it is through Mary. Furthermore, Luke's emphasis was on christ's humanity, that's why he traces it all the way to Adam - Mathew's was on his kingship. There are websites that deal with it very comprehensively. I could provide a link
Post-ressurection as well was written from different perspectives, they don't contradict. Like i said, they have different emphasis - some don't mention his ascension, some do. Some mentioned many more appearances than others. It's just perspective.

No, not perfectly identical accounts. Just accounts that you don't have to hem here, cut there, to sort of create a strange looking narrative.

Little here, little there? Yes. To create a strange narrative? No. It acheives the opposite - it gives a complete and  balanced account without the potential allegation of a collusion.
To digress a little, a basic principle of scriptural study is cross-referencing; in fact, there's no book that demands it more. And the kind of cross-referencing in the bible is not just within books or across accounts referring to the same thing, but across books written at different times, by different people. For example, one cannot understand Revelation without Daniel, etc 

I've yet to see anybody logically reconcile the events after Jesus' alledged resurrection. In fact, I'm still waiting for somebody to rise up to the easter challenge with something more than "they probably didn't have enough ink and/or paper" and other such convoluted suggestions.

probably because there's no point? in fact, in this case, what the authors omit and include say (actually, the word is teach) more than what can be learnt from a mere chronological account. If it was a mere history book, maybe. Furthermore, if one were to reconcile it, there would still be objections - so what would be gained?

Pilgrim posted a verse that shows Jesus asking a Matthew/Levi to follow him. I see no reason to presume that the two are the same.

AND

KAG:

Stronger points than there's no internal or direct external indication that the account was written by Matthew? I'll have to think about it a little. While I'm doing that, do you have any positive evidence to support the view that the Gospel was written by Matthew Levi, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus?

You just make it look like its so hard. I'll pardon your skepticsm, but i find no reason why its hard to accept that those who considered the book back in the first century to be inspired, wouldn't have known who authored it. If an anonymous book is published now, if no one else, at least the publishers would know who wrote it. Then it was much worse - it had to be hand-copied. Its not hard for me to to deem that the early transcribers of the Mathew autograph would have known the author and its not so far-fatched to posit that the information hung around orally for a while. Like i said, you're entitled to your skepticism.

ricadelide:

Guesses and counterguesses? Its inconsequential to me though, so i'll pass.

In that case, that automatically excludes Thallus (or Syncellus quoting Africanus referencing Thallus) as an extr-Biblical source.

ok
wasn't that a timespan of like 400 years?

Depends. It could have started as little as within a generation after the alledged time of the pope's reign, or as much as a few centuries.

anywho.
Again, you're not even entertaining the possibility of what i said. According to John McRay, a professor of archeology, Bethlehem was probably just a village of about 600 or so people, so there were just a few babies slaughtered (maybe up to 100 when you include the sorrounding villages).
IMO, one can say that the fact that it isn't mentioned by the other gospels further shows that that couldn't have been the meanest action of Herod. Not that its not bad or its inconsequential though.

Approximatey 100 infants is not a few, in my opinion; and I suspect in those days, it wasn't a few either. I guess I just find it curious that not even one other Gospel writer thought it was worth mentioning. You say perhaps the other Gospel writers possibly didn't think it was Herod's meanest action; however, one would have expected, even if they didn't think it was that mean for Herod, that they would have thought it was important enough, considering the subject - after all, we not only have wise men claiming the Christ was born, we have Jesus escaping infanticide and other strange events.

First, i don't agree. He was mentioned by secular historians its just that he wasn't mentioned a lot or he appeared marginally.

As hearsay.

The reason for that isn't far-fetched, he was cheifly a religious figure, not a political one. If anything, he refrained from any urge to sway him(self) to the latter end. Religous figures in Isreal weren't new (see Acts 5:36-38) and with the way his life apparently ended, secular people might have dismissed him. Even his disciples were in doubt after he died, and it was his re-appearing that really changed everything to them. Historians of that day focussed mainly on the political figures. A notable exception though is John, who cut across in a way - and it was Josephus, a jewish historian who recorded him. As far as i can posit concerning the miracles? there were skeptics back then too. It would be absurd to expect a roman empire-affiliated historian to mention Jesus' ressurection.

I was referring to the resurrection of the multitude (Matthew 27: 52-53). For some reason, no one other than Matthew seems to have thought that was an event worth mentioning.

Also, Josephus' record of Jesus - allowing for a mention and ignoring the parts that are obvious interpolations - is more a record of hearsay than a record of witnessed fact.

Maybe you should read Luke 1;1-4. Research? How do journalists know what is going on in the pentagon? However, see below.

Read it (Luke) doesn't explain how things that could not have been told to them made it into the Gospels. How do journalists know what is going on in the pentagon? They only know what they are told. Anything else is speculation and creative license on their part.

Obviously, we're looking at the coin from two different angles. I said parsminious because i know you don't believe that the bible is a divinely inspired book. There are many verses in scripture that the authors could not have known except under divine inspiration (eg Genesis 1-3, many verses in Hebrews 11, Jude 9, and many others). Again, two very different perspectives.
Unfortunately, one can't argue his way into accepting the bible as the Word of God - more likely, the reverse would happen (1Cor1;23) Oh well

The thing is if the Gospels are to be accepted as evidence, then they have to be treated and read no differently than any other historical text. So, claims of supernatural inspiration have to be dismissed in much the same it's done when, for example, examining Julius Caeser's writings (he claims a lot of divine things too).

by the way, appealing to the divine is not parsimonious - in fact, it's usually the antithesis of parsimony.

the genealogy problem is not hard - Mathew's account is through Joseph and Luke's is through Mary. that's why Luke said in 3;23, "the son as was supposed of Joseph" - it was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was known that it is through Mary. Furthermore, Luke's emphasis was on christ's humanity, that's why he traces it all the way to Adam - Mathew's was on his kingship. There are websites that deal with it very comprehensively. I could provide a link

While, I could point out that Luke actually wrote Joseph the son of Jacob and not Joseph, the husband of Mary who was begat by - (which I think is the pertinent part, not Jesus'), more troubling for me is the fact that one genealogy is significantly shorter than the other. Now, if we assume Luke was talking about Mary's genealogy, it appears Mary was several generations older than Joseph.

Post-ressurection as well was written from different perspectives, they don't contradict. Like i said, they have different emphasis - some don't mention his ascension, some do. Some mentioned many more appearances than others. It's just perspective.

Then you shouldn't have any problem doing the Easter challenge: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-47997.0.html

Little here, little there? Yes. To create a strange narrative? No. It acheives the opposite - it gives a complete and balanced account without the potential allegation of a collusion.
To digress a little, a basic principle of scriptural study is cross-referencing; in fact, there's no book that demands it more. And the kind of cross-referencing in the bible is not just within books or across accounts referring to the same thing, but across books written at different times, by different people. For example, one cannot understand Revelation without Daniel, etc

That's a fair enough digression, but I've yet to come across a Christian that claims Biblical inerrancy that didn't have to do a whole lot of cutting and ignoring, to remain sane.

probably because there's no point? in fact, in this case, what the authors omit and include say (actually, the word is teach) more than what can be learnt from a mere chronological account. If it was a mere history book, maybe.

So to teach they decided to write acounts tht can't be reconciled chronologically? I mean, we are talking about accounts that have the same people doing and experiencing totally different things at approximately the same time, for Christ's sake.

Furthermore, if one were to reconcile it, there would still be objections - so what would be gained?

I won't object provided it didn't involve convolution and illogical ideas.

AND You just make it look like its so hard. I'll pardon your skepticsm, but i find no reason why its hard to accept that those who considered the book back in the first century to be inspired, wouldn't have known who authored it.
If an anonymous book is published now, if no one else, at least the publishers would know who wrote it. Then it was much worse - it had to be hand-copied. Its not hard for me to to deem that the early transcribers of the Mathew autograph would have known the author and its not so far-fatched to posit that the information hung around orally for a while. Like i said, you're entitled to your skepticism.

I guess scepticism comes naturally to me. In any case, you do have a good point and I can accept that the author of the Gospel was Matthew the disciple.

KAG:

Approximatey 100 infants is not a few, in my opinion; and I suspect in those days, it wasn't a few either. I guess I just find it curious that not even one other Gospel writer thought it was worth mentioning. You say perhaps the other Gospel writers possibly didn't think it was Herod's meanest action; however, one would have expected, even if they didn't think it was that mean for Herod, that they would have thought it was important enough, considering the subject - after all, we not only have wise men claiming the Christ was born, we have Jesus escaping infanticide and other strange events.

just to point out that I said maybe up to a hundred; the archaeologist i quoted said just a few.
However, that isn't my main point - my main point is that, the fact that it isn't mentioned by any of the other gospels doesn't mean its unreliable. If we just needed to have a comprehensive (albeit chronological) account, there would have been just one. But we have four different accounts. Why? They each had different emphasis (and also different perspectives) and omitting certain things in their own account just means that information wasn't important to their emphasis. Even certain teachings of Jesus are only found in one account, we can't thereby say that that teaching is unreliable. For instance, Mathew's emphasis was on christ's kingship on earth (note this isn't clearly stated unlike John who stated his own emphasis, but it can easily be inferred - for instance while Matt mentions kingdom at least 56 times, John only did so 4 times) - so he included things that related to that theme; the royal lineage of christ, the Magi, Herod's infanticide (- an earthly king being in fear over the king of kings), parables of the kingdom, supernatural occurences at Jesus' death etc. Yet he omitted something very important - his ascension. Shouldn't he have included that? Perhaps he should. However, understanding Matthew, the ascension wasn't relevant to his theme; Christ's kingship on earth; not that it isn't important as an event. I hope you get my drift.

As hearsay.

perhaps the record of all historians who mention events happening before their time should be discountenanced, all being 'hearsay'.

I was referring to the resurrection of the multitude (Matthew 27: 52-53). For some reason, no one other than Matthew seems to have thought that was an event worth mentioning.

i seem to think i've addressed this above.

Also, Josephus' record of Jesus - allowing for a mention and ignoring the parts that are obvious interpolations - is more a record of hearsay than a record of witnessed fact.

He was born 37AD.

Read it (Luke) doesn't explain how things that could not have been told to them made it into the Gospels. How do journalists know what is going on in the pentagon? They only know what they are told. Anything else is speculation and creative license on their part.

How do you know they could not have been told? In the case in question, they could have had inside sources. For example, Nicodemus was a member of the Jewish council, yet he secretly identified with the disciples (see John 3:1-2 and 19:39).

The thing is if the Gospels are to be accepted as evidence, then they have to be treated and read no differently than any other historical text. So, claims of supernatural inspiration have to be dismissed in much the same it's done when, for example, examining Julius Caeser's writings (he claims a lot of divine things too).

first, you misunderstood my context (and my reason) for mentioning supernatural inspiration. See next quote below.
However, that said, the analogy just doesn't work for me. I don't really think the bible is a collection of books like any other - it's one thing to claim something, its another thing entirely to live up to that claim.

by the way, appealing to the divine is not parsimonious - in fact, it's usually the antithesis of parsimony.

You really missed my point - i wasn't appealing to the divine as a form of parsimony. Quite the opposite - i did give an explanation for how they could have gotten the info ie they could have been told. However, i realized that, for the sake of balance (and i guess Truth), it just can't work that way in every single verse of the bible (for example the biblical prophecies, the passages i earlier quoted, etc) so i had to make it known that, naturalistic explanations for reasons of parsimony isn't always sufficient when a book like the bible is in question - and i don't think there ought to be apologies for that. Every book doesn't have to be (and i dare to say isn't) treated the same - at least i know that the scrutiny to which skeptics have subjected the bible, the ire it provokes, and the endless questions and so on is not the same way 'Julius Ceaser's writings' have been examined. And please don't say its because christians still hold on to it. LDS's also hold on to the book of Mormon. Furthermore, christians have continued to provide answers but those answers are "never sufficient".

While, I could point out that Luke actually wrote Joseph the son of Jacob and not Joseph, the husband of Mary who was begat by - (which I think is the pertinent part, not Jesus'), more troubling for me is the fact that one genealogy is significantly shorter than the other. Now, if we assume Luke was talking about Mary's genealogy, it appears Mary was several generations older than Joseph.

Yes, Luke said Joseph the son of Heli. No, he didn't say the son of Jacob. Matthew says Joseph the son of Jacob. Did Joseph have two fathers? or could Luke have rather meant the son-in-law (which in Jewish tradition is simply, the son) of Heli? I mean, these books were written in the first century when all these could have been checked out for Pete's sake, they didn't just appear out of the blues 500 years later when the unfortunate apologists were now too embarassed or too handicapped to have 'corrected' the authors' 'mistake'.
There are 28 generations to David in Joseph's line and 42 in Mary's. Just an illustration, if on average the approximately 30 generations of Joseph were 40 when they had the next child in the lineage and in the line of Mary, the approximately 40 generations were 30 years when they had the next child; (which is explanable given the fact that one is a royal lineage and the other isn't) what would that amount to?
Except of course for the notion that skepticsm constitutes such a hobby.

Then you shouldn't have any problem doing the Easter challenge: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-47997.0.html

would look into it.

That's a fair enough digression, but I've yet to come across a Christian that claims Biblical inerrancy that didn't have to do a whole lot of cutting and ignoring, to remain sane.

Obviously, i can't agree in any way with you here. I didn't say 'cutting and ignoring' - i said cross-referencing. Definitely i wouldn't claim to understand everything in the bible as of yet - bible study to me is lifelong; however i've seen enough things for me marvel in awe at the wisdom of God displayed through the writers and the different books. To me the Word is flawless. And, to the contrary, if not for the bible, there's no sanity for any of us - however, i'm guessing your definition of sanity is different than mine . . . .

So to teach they decided to write acounts that can't be reconciled chronologically? I mean, we are talking about accounts that have the same people doing and experiencing totally different things at approximately the same time, for Christ's sake.

Again, i didn't say that they decided to write accounts that can't be reconciled chronologically. I hope you can recognize your assumption here. I said, every one wrote from his own perspective and clearly, there was no collusion but rather 5 independent accounts. Morever, i said each writer had his emphasis and included things that related to their theme. Many times, they didn't write their accounts in chronological fashion - that doesn't mean they CAN'T be chronologically reconciled nor that the events didn't take place in chronologically thus calling to question the vericity of the events in the first place.

I won't object provided it didn't involve convolution and illogical ideas.

Let's hope so. By convolution you mean 'twisting' out of context?

I guess scepticism comes naturally to me. In any case, you do have a good point and I can accept that the author of the Gospel was Matthew the disciple.

ok.

ricadelide:

just to point out that I said maybe up to a hundred; the archaeologist i quoted said just a few.

Which archeologist?

However, that isn't my main point - my main point is that, the fact that it isn't mentioned by any of the other gospels doesn't mean its unreliable.

Actually, coupled with the supernatural happenings surrounding the account, that does make it unreliable.

If we just needed to have a comprehensive (albeit chronological) account, there would have been just one. But we have four different accounts. Why? They each had different emphasis (and also different perspectives) and omitting certain things in their own account just means that information wasn't important to their emphasis.

Wait, are you saying that a comprehensive (helped by a ordered chronology) account can't be gotten from the four Biblical Gospels, or that we don't need one?

Also, from my perspective, and in keeping with parsimony, yes, they wrote from their perspectives, but they (at the very least, Matthew did) manufactured, rather than omitted, certain things in their accounts. I find the argument that perhaps the other Gospel writers (both Biblical and extra-Biblical), like, strangely, the secular historians, just didn't think reporting it was important to their emphasis, extremely unconvincing.

Even certain teachings of Jesus are only found in one account, we can't thereby say that that teaching is unreliable.

We can. That is not to say that they automatically dismissed jut because they appear only in one Gospel - weighing them against certain criteria like, the dependability of the author in question, the odds of it being true, etc; help in making a decision.

For instance, Mathew's emphasis was on christ's kingship on earth (note this isn't clearly stated unlike John who stated his own emphasis, but it can easily be inferred - for instance while Matt mentions kingdom at least 56 times, John only did so 4 times) - so he included things that related to that theme; the royal lineage of christ, the Magi, Herod's infanticide (- an earthly king being in fear over the king of kings), parables of the kingdom, supernatural occurences at Jesus' death etc.

Or, the more likely, from a secular historian's (not that I'm one) point of view, he invented events to suit a theme he thought appropriate for his desired audience at the time.

Yet he omitted something very important - his ascension. Shouldn't he have included that? Perhaps he should. However, understanding Matthew, the ascension wasn't relevant to his theme; Christ's kingship on earth; not that it isn't important as an event. I hope you get my drift.

I get your drift. As a counter-argument (from my perspective), I'd say that he didn't include the ascension because it wasn't included in his source either. By the way, from what I gather from the other Gospels, Jesus actively discouraged the notion of a/his kingship on Earth. Or have I misinterpreted?

perhaps the record of all historians who mention events happening before their time should be discountenanced, all being 'hearsay'.

Not dismissed, merely earmarked as what they are, if they are indeed hearsay - especially when they are presented as such.

i seem to think i've addressed this above.

No, you didn't. Again, I wasn't talking about Jesus' ressurection, I was talking about the ressurection of the multitude that was witnessed by many (Matthew 27: 52-53). The explanation for why Jesus' ressurection may have gone unnoticed was reasonable, though.

He was born 37AD.

Yes, he was.

How do you know they could not have been told? In the case in question, they could have had inside sources. For example, Nicodemus was a member of the Jewish council, yet he secretly identified with the disciples (see John 3:1-2 and 19:39).

Inside sources? I wonder what inside source would have told the Gospel writers about Simeon's experience or about what happened with the Wise men:

" And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod"

Just a couple without having to scan the entire Gospels.

first, you misunderstood my context (and my reason) for mentioning supernatural inspiration. See next quote below.
However, that said, the analogy just doesn't work for me. I don't really think the bible is a collection of books like any other - it's one thing to claim something, its another thing entirely to live up to that claim.

Except, from my perspective - that of a non-Christian, the Bible is a just collection of books (to put it in very simplistic terms). Having said that, I think you missed my point. I understand that, as a Christian, you believe your scriptures are divinely inspired; however, the point was, if they are to be accepted as evidence, then notions of divine inspiration and the supernatural have to dismissed.

You really missed my point - i wasn't appealing to the divine as a form of parsimony.

I didn't say that (at least I didn't mean that). I meant that appealing to the divine isn't parsimonious and is the opposite of what parsimony represents in most instances.

Quite the opposite - i did give an explanation for how they could have gotten the info ie they could have been told. However, i realized that, for the sake of balance (and i guess Truth), it just can't work that way in every single verse of the bible (for example the biblical prophecies, the passages i earlier quoted, etc) so i had to make it known that, naturalistic explanations for reasons of parsimony isn't always sufficient when a book like the bible is in question - and i don't think there ought to be apologies for that. Every book doesn't have to be (and i dare to say isn't) treated the same - at least i know that the scrutiny to which skeptics have subjected the bible, the ire it provokes, and the endless questions and so on is not the same way 'Julius Ceaser's writings' have been examined.

First, let me say, I did understand your point. However, ascribing the influence for portions of the Bible still violates the principle of parsimony. I, of course, disagree that naturalistic explanations aren't always sufficient when it's the Bible - from what I've observed, they are abundantly sufficient.

Second, in a broad sense,when dealing with historical texts, all books are treated the same way, whether it be the Bible or Caesar's tome. That one may have ben more scrutinised than the other doesn't affect the fact that the same historical method has been applied and is adequate for secular discussion.

And please don't say its because christians still hold on to it. LDS's also hold on to the book of Mormon.

That doesn't change secular implications.

Furthermore, christians have continued to provide answers but those answers are "never sufficient".

Maybe the answers are never sufficient because they aren't sufficient?

Yes, Luke said Joseph the son of Heli. No, he didn't say the son of Jacob. Matthew says Joseph the son of Jacob. Did Joseph have two fathers? or could Luke have rather meant the son-in-law (which in Jewish tradition is simply, the son) of Heli? I mean, these books were written in the first century when all these could have been checked out for Pete's sake, they didn't just appear out of the blues 500 years later when the unfortunate apologists were now too embarassed or too handicapped to have 'corrected' the authors' 'mistake'.

They were questioned. We can infer that from some of the writings of the early church fathers. Furthermore, I get the distict feeling that Paul was addressing the issue when he advised against genealogies.

There are 28 generations to David in Joseph's line and 42 in Mary's. Just an illustration, if on average the approximately 30 generations of Joseph were 40 when they had the next child in the lineage and in the line of Mary, the approximately 40 generations were 30 years when they had the next child; (which is explanable given the fact that one is a royal lineage and the other isn't) what would that amount to?

That's a lot of dodgy approximations and assumptions just to make Mary and Joseph the exact same age.

Except of course for the notion that skepticsm constitutes such a hobby.

Huh?

would look into it.

Cool. Let me know what you find.

Obviously, i can't agree in any way with you here. I didn't say 'cutting and ignoring' - i said cross-referencing.

I know you didn't say cutting and ignoring: I did. I still haven't seen any of the many inerrantists do without them.

Definitely i wouldn't claim to understand everything in the bible as of yet - bible study to me is lifelong; however i've seen enough things for me marvel in awe at the wisdom of God displayed through the writers and the different books. To me the Word is flawless. And, to the contrary, if not for the bible, there's no sanity for any of us - however, i'm guessing your definition of sanity is different than mine . . . .

I can appreciate your view, I especially don't think it - especially the belief that the Bible is inerrant or flawless - is sane . Hmm, maybe my defintion of sanity does differ from yours.

Again, i didn't say that they decided to write accounts that can't be reconciled chronologically. I hope you can recognize your assumption here.

I think it was more of an implication.

I said, every one wrote from his own perspective and clearly, there was no collusion but rather 5 independent accounts.

No, perhaps not collusion; however, at least a couple are deemed, by secular historians, to have been dependent on a source.

Morever, i said each writer had his emphasis and included things that related to their theme. Many times, they didn't write their accounts in chronological fashion - that doesn't mean they CAN'T be chronologically reconciled nor that the events didn't take place in chronologically thus calling to question the vericity of the events in the first place.

Well, the Easter challenge is a few year's old.

Let's hope so. By convolution you mean 'twisting' out of context?
ok.

Pretty much.

sorry i'm just replying; was off Nairaland for a while

Actually, coupled with the supernatural happenings surrounding the account, that does make it unreliable.

from my perspective, and in keeping with parsimony, yes, they wrote from their perspectives, but they (at the very least, Matthew did) manufactured, rather than omitted, certain things in their accounts.

Or, the more likely, from a secular historian's (not that I'm one) point of view, he invented events to suit a theme he thought appropriate for his desired audience at the time.

I grouped related comments together so as not to keep on with the continous nit-picking and back and forths. . . .
you alluded that they invented the stories to suit their theme (or something like that). My question is "why do you think they made those particular accounts up?" Is it because they recorded supernatural events? and in your worldview such events aren't permitted to occur? Or is it because no other accounts recorded those events? Or some other reason, which is. . . ?

Wait, are you saying that a comprehensive (helped by a ordered chronology) account can't be gotten from the four Biblical Gospels, or that we don't need one?

I'm saying neither. I meant that they did not write a chronological account, nor was any single one of the accounts comprehensive or i should say exhaustive; biographies can be written thematically. And in their case, they had theological considerations for the events they chose to record.

I find the argument that perhaps the other Gospel writers (both Biblical and extra-Biblical), like, strangely, the secular historians, just didn't think reporting it was important to their emphasis, extremely unconvincing.

As long as historical accounts CANNOT be entirely exhaustive, the issue of 'what to record' remains a personal issue, involving personal considerations which in each different case may be perfectly valid logically, depending on the individual's context.

I get your drift. As a counter-argument (from my perspective), I'd say that he didn't include the ascension because it wasn't included in his source either.

that just isn't true. Your main problem is you don't understand the context of the bible and as long as you're not willing to acknowlege that the bible didn't (or doesn't) have to be written to suit or according to your requirements, then you'd keep having problems accepting it as truth. If you considered your point, and the earlier point about Matthew's authorship, you'd realize it doesn't fit; Matthew did witness the ascension (we can see that from the other accounts eg. Acts. 1:13), so his not including it sends a strong message (of course to people who understand biblical context) of his theme rather than the counter-argument you're making.

By the way, from what I gather from the other Gospels, Jesus actively discouraged the notion of a/his kingship on Earth. Or have I misinterpreted?

Yes you have. He discouraged the misunderstanding that his kingdom (at his first coming) was an earthly kingdom rather than a spiritual one. He did ride as king in Matt. 21;1-5

Inside sources? I wonder what inside source would have told the Gospel writers about Simeon's experience or about what happened with the Wise men:

" And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod"

Just a couple without having to scan the entire Gospels.

I think you're trying to drag me into an unnecessary quagmire - "what inside sources told Moses about what happened in Genesis 1 & 2, and, NO, don't tell me God told him"

I understand that, as a Christian, you believe your scriptures are divinely inspired; however, the point was, if they are to be accepted as evidence, then notions of divine inspiration and the supernatural have to dismissed.

And then my question would be: why? Ruling things out ab initio isn't the way to confirm or deny the vericity of a claim.

I meant that appealing to the divine isn't parsimonious and is the opposite of what parsimony represents in most instances.

I think you should have said in some instances. In some other instances, (particularly, with some other audiences i should say) appealing to the divine is sufficiently parsimonious.

I, of course, disagree that naturalistic explanations aren't always sufficient when it's the Bible - from what I've observed, they are abundantly sufficient.

Now this is funny. Care to expand how this is possible? Oh. they made up all those info that they couldn't have gotten naturally.
Naturalistic explanations as to how they got their material (ie the process of material acquisition)? Or as to the content of their material? or the object of their writings (ie their theology, themes, doctrine etc)? In any context, and in any way you look at it, except perhaps in the actual physical writing of the text (which isn't always adequate even in this limited case - some of Moses' documents had supernatural origins), it just doesn't factor in. The bible IS spiritual, and involves a lot of superantural occurences both in its content and its acquisition. That fact is foundational to the bible (and i dare say no other book) - and the root of our argument, i must say, here lies.

Second, in a broad sense,when dealing with historical texts, all books are treated the same way, whether it be the Bible or Caesar's tome. That one may have ben more scrutinised than the other doesn't affect the fact that the same historical method has been applied and is adequate for secular discussion.

The same historical method may be applied, but that doesn't mean it is adequate.
The gospels DO contain history, however, they aren't merely history. Ignoring the other contexts and attributes of the gospels in an attempt to "understand" it is, if i may say, counter-productive.

Maybe the answers are never sufficient because they aren't sufficient?

My point is: its a deeper problem; it CAN'T be sufficient, because of their underlying worldview. A person can only make allowance for what agrees with their frame of mind. For example a supernaturally incredulous person cannot accept evidence for/of spirits; his worldview just wouldn't make room for such 'nonsense'.

They were questioned. We can infer that from some of the writings of the early church fathers. Furthermore, I get the distict feeling that Paul was addressing the issue when he advised against genealogies.

which church fathers? Paul wasn't referring to that at all.

That's a lot of dodgy approximations and assumptions just to make Mary and Joseph the exact same age

Gets the job done. I wonder how you didn't see the overstretching on your part though - two lineages don't have to be the exact same number of generations to generate contemporaries.

Cool. Let me know what you find.

that they can be reconciled. Do you want me to post my hypotheses or possible explanations?

I can appreciate your view, I especially don't think it - especially the belief that the Bible is inerrant or flawless - is sane  . Hmm, maybe my defintion of sanity does differ from yours

You're only saying that because you're reading the bible from your present point of view - and sincerely i can understand. If i were still in your shoes (not that i was in your exact same shoes before but similar ones) i would have said the same thing. I've been outside before, now i'm in. I can tell you, from my experience, that "the Word is perfect" And yes, i DO NOT understand everything in the Book yet, but that aspect (of it's divine inspiration) i've already settled.
As per the definitions, it would be hard to tell whose is right. As they say, each one is 'right in his own eyes'. Cheers.

I do not need archaelogical facts to prove to me that the word of the lord is true and real.