“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (1893)
Inspector Gregory and Sherlock Holmes in "Silver Blaze" (Doubleday p. 346-7)
The curious incident when evaluating the New Testament is the Jewish Uprising that happened from 66 to 73 AD. As you claim, it is said to be alluded to here and there in the gospels, but it is nowhere specifically mentioned.
That suggests an early date for each of the gospels. That is the argument presented by John Robinson in his book, Redating the New Testament. Although Robinson was a bishop in the Church of England, in his earlier book, Honest to God, he revealed an attitude toward the Deity that was almost agnostic. (That is not unusual for Anglican clergymen BTW.)
No, but they DO mean that they were not inspired by an omniscient God, unless you take “inspired” to mean that God just suggested they write their memoirs, and gave no further help to them.
So, AT BEST, you have doddering old men writing their hazy recollections of events that happened several decades earlier. More likely, you have what the writer of Luke says at the beginning of his gospel — legends that have built up around Jesus, compiled by people who have no personal knowledge of the events.
Either way, all we have are four anonymous accounts that are demonstrably fallible, and whose authors clearly set out with an agenda to promote Jesus as the Messiah.
You have only to watch the news for half an hour to see what people with an agenda, sincere or not, can do with facts that are far more solid than the gospel writers are likely to have had — even official birth records from Hawaii. And they were competing for the attentions of people who were steeped in all kinds of pagan mythologies — human-god couplings, miracles, resurrection, etc.
No sane, objective person would credit any but the most mundane details — there was a man named Jesus, he came from Nazareth, and he preached an apocalyptic message that won him a very small gathering of followers. That’s about it.
Shoot - just read other accounts back then by historians - they are filled with magical accounts.
Look at the texts regarding mermaids, vampires, and other mythical monsters (ex. Spring Heeled Jack).
I think Christopher Columbus might have even wrote of witnessing a mermaid (I think I heard that in a Stuff you should know podcast - so take this with a heap of salt).
Why should we believe the gospel writers, who were anonymous, writing after the events, when they claim miraculous stories, but not historians who wrote of other miraculous stories (Vespasian curing a blind man with spit, for instance)?
The gospel writers’ overriding agenda was to convince people that Jesus was the Messiah. The main job of the Messiah was to vanquish the enemies of Israel and rule over it in a new era of Israeli greatness. Calling attention to the fact that the Romans had smashed Israel shortly after executing the alleged Messiah would not be helpful to their cause.
But since you seem to think that the gospel writers would not fail to mention significant events, even if they had little to do with the life of Jesus, may I ask you for the third time how you reconcile the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, who each failed to report very significant events from the other’s account?
He mentions somebody named Luke once. He didn’t write 2 Timothy.
The legend is that this person, mentioned by Paul a single time in passing, had anything to do with writing Luke-Acts. 2nd Century folklore picked a name and created an authorship fable around it.
Yeah, it pretty much is known, at least the basics of it (Q vs Farrer is still worth discussing). I can go into excruciating detail if you wish.
You should probably remember, though, that the ones who want to assign specific authorship to these books (none of which identify their own authors, and none of which claim to be either primary or even secondary accounts) who have the burden of proof. The traditional attributions lack any substantiation and are contradicted by both internal and external evidence. I am not espousing a radical or “liberal” view here. This is the consensus of mainstream Biblical scholarship done largely by believers.
It is specifically mentioned by Mark in his “little apocalypse.”
If you were to read a novel in which a character predicted that terrorists would fly planes into the World Trade center, you would know it was written after 9/11. Mark knew the Temple mount would be razed, which means he had to have been writing post 70.
The story of Vespasian–mentioned by Tacitus in Hist. IV.81–is extremely relevant to this point and IMO worth quoting at length; I’m surprised more folks don’t know about it. Tacitus was writing some 30-40 years after the event in question:
Some obvious points of comparison with similar stories in the gospels: (1) Vespasian himself ridiculed the superstition of those who think he really had divine power. ; at best he’s talked into believing that he’s acting as God’s instrument (This is a somewhat typical attitude in most Roman history regarding the backward “barbarians”); (2) Tacitus provides a material explanation for what really happened; (3) Tacitus adds that the account comes from eye-witnesses, his acknowledgement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I have been reading with great interest for a couple of weeks now and finally decided to jump in. I, like many of you, am very interested in discussing politics, science, and in this case religion.
It is my opinion that the books of the Holy Bible are as described in 2nd Timothy “God-breathed” which would be somewhat more than merely inspired yet less than dictated. 2 Timothy 3:16 (in part) “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (NKJV) going back to the greek the operative word is theopneustos and this is one of the few cases were the New International version gets it better than the New King James. Same verse “All Scripture is God-breathed…”
The point is that the translations are not God-breathed and are subject to error. IMO the NKJV (above ex. notwithstanding) is one of the best and most easily understood by me and the translation that I study from the most however there are times when I compare different versions to get a more clear picture and precious few times when I seek out help with greek or hebrew to clarify. If I do not denote a version then chances are it is NKJV…either that or I forgot to.
To quote Brocks in post #53 "… I am not claiming that any typo in a modern history book makes it no more reliable than Herodotus. I am claiming significant errors and contradictions in any part cast serious doubt on its overall reliability, and that ANY substantive errors obviously disprove claims of infallibility. "
I agree and it is my intention to only defend substantive errors
in the Biblical text if you find a name mispelt or a bit of bad grammar please do not bother me with it. I will entertain figurative speech taken as literal however but only because its so easy. Ex. Joshua 10:13 “So the sun stood still…” has it not been some time since Einstein proved that all motion is relative? Relative to Joshua the sun did stand still.
There has been some discussion on how important this or that contradiction is. I agree with the critics on this if any substantive contradiction can be found then the whole body of work can be deemed untrustworthy.
And then there is this…the best proof I can offer is the changes that scripture has made in my own life and I am not talking about some ill defined feeling here I just enjoy life so much more since I decided to give God a chance and attempt to do it his way…I am far from perfect and I fail in my own expectations pretty much daily but even in my feeble attempt I have found much joy. If you really want to know I suggest this read the New Testament daily for a month and follow the suggestions (there are very few actual commandments) it gives you…be honest and open minded about it and if this helps you in any way then please continue the experiment!
The “God-breathed” quotation in 2 Timothy referred only to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), not to the New Testament. That’s because there was no New Testament when that author was writing, and the author had no idea that he was writing anything that would ever be canonized as “scripture.”
That’s obviously a completely circular argument for the truth of a text anyway. “The Bible is divinely inspired because it says so” is about as patently fallacious an argument as you could make.
The errors, ahistoricities and contradictions of the New Testament exist in the Greek, and are not an artifact of translation.
I am not impressed by the witnessing. People give the exact same testimony about Dianetics, the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Tao Te Ching, Al-Qu’ran and The Secret.
I’ve studied the New Testament extensively, and in Greek. The more I studied it, the more I saw how human it was.
I have seen this argument before but never with alot of substance to back it up perhaps you could offer some.
I agree and am sorry that I left the impression I was offering it up as proof. I was defining my position since that was my first post and I have had the advantage of reading many of yours.
I am trying to get to some of those in fact I had just lost my second post (somehow) when I saw this…thank you for your reply BTW.
I was only speaking of my own experience.
Ah but thats only half the experament…have you tried the other half?
In the interest of disclosure I am no scholar and have not studied the greek very much but I do seek out help with it when there is something I dont understand and think that will clarify.
If you had read just a bit further you would have seen this Galatians 5:6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.”
Then in 1 Corinthians 10 starting in verse 23 " All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. 24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being."
And then skipping down to verse 31 same book and chapter " Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved."
In Corinthians the writer is talking about food offered to idols but the concept is the same.
Circumcision the physical act is never preached against but the ritual act was but most often it it used as a metaphor for trying to live under the new law and the old law at the same time as in "those of the circumcision. The new law is all about the intents and purposes of the heart while the old law was based on ones physical actions.
In Titus a stand against those perverting the Church (wanting to keep parts of the old law) was needed but in Acts 16 diplomacy was called for.
This does not address authorship it was prob the same Luke that wrote the Gospel and I doubt he was a companion of Paul.
If one starts with the concept that at the heart of every fable or myth, there is a grain of truth, then where would that lead us? Yes, there may very well have been a walking, talking, breathing human being named Jesus, the son of Joseph (Yeshua bar Yussup, I believe it would be; I stand to be corrected). He probably was a carpenter by trade. He probably was a very highly regarded Jewish rabbi. He probably got cross-ways with the local power structure because he wanted to reform the religious practices of the time, and they got him crucified.
So did he exist? Possibly. But was he a demigod, or have supernatural powers of any kind? No.
There’s a very interesting story spun in a book called The Jesus Scroll by Donovan Joyce. He came up with the idea that Jesus really was the king of the Jews and was actively rebelling against both the Romans and the local religious honchos. He was caught and crucified, but the fix was in - he didn’t die on the cross. He was carried away, survived and went on leading the Jews, finally dying as on old man at the siege of Masada. Frankly, his concept makes more sense than the bible story does.
None of the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels contradict anything about prevailing religious thought or authority. He even said to obey the Pharisees. He wasn’t a religious reformer, or at least is not presented as such in the Gospels. He condemns hypocrisy Jewish authorities, but nothing about the religion itself.
Hi Brocks
How many times did you ask the question? I lost track at around 4 or 5 and you never did get a “real” answer I will attempt to rectify that.
I dont really know who started the nativity scenes or what they first looked like but I blame the ones I see these days for alot of the confusion surrounding the birth accounts.
The birth account of Matthew is found in the first chapter starting at verse 18 and in Luke it is found in the first half of the second chapter.
The second chapter of Matthew is not part of the birth account and it tells us that at the start in verse 1 “Now after Jesus was born…” not to mention that when the magi showed up they were in a house and not in a manger.
So taking Matthew and Luke together we have this:
Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. Shepherds visit Jesus at the manger. Circumcision of Jesus. Jesus presented in the Temple. Wise men present gifts in house.
Joseph’s family escapes to Egypt. Herod’s wrath on Bethlehem’s children.
Joseph’s family settles in Nazareth.
Its often referred to as the harmony of the Gospels neither narrative is an exhaustive account and shouldnt be treated as such.
As for the census the term Luke uses for Quirinius’ ‘governorship’ is the very general hegemon in greek. So it is quite possible that Quirinius took a census before he became an actual govenor. Augustus certainly implies that some sort of census took place around 2 BC in the Res Gestae “While I was administering my thirteenth consulship the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country”
Also Josephus wrote of the Jews swearing loyalty to Augustus “Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king’s government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand”
As far as the slaughter of innocents…why would Josephus write of it? He was an orthadox Jew and opposed Christianity. In fact most if not all of the persecution of the Christians came as a direct result of actions by the Jews.
Very true with the exception of claiming to be the Son of God and they only considered that a sin because they assumed he lied. In fact as you obviously already know he was crucified for the sin of heresy.
The phrase “Son of God” was just an honorific title for kings in the line of David, and for the Messiah in particular. It was not a claim to literal divine descendancy, sinve the Jewish Messiah was not God, but just a human king.
Jesus was not crucified for “heresy,” but (according to the Gospels), for claiming to be the King of the Jews. Crucifixion was exclusively a Roman form of execution, and used in the provinces exclusively for crimes against the Roman state. The Roman obviously did not crucify people for Jewish “heresy,” else they’d have to crucify themselves.
Mark’s Gospel (and the other two synoptics which copy Mark) do have Jesus being convicted by the Sanhedrin of the crime of blasphemy for saying he is the Messiah, but claiming to be the Messiah was not blasphemy under Jewish law, or against any Jewish law at all. This story is a fabrication of Mark’s, and show’s Mark’s lack of knowledge of Jewish law (and he shows it in a number of other ways besides having Jesus convicted of something that wasn’t illegal).
[Nick Cave]“Or at least that’s what I’m told”[/NC] I think present scholarship says “day labourer”(τεκτων - “tekton”) of various possible sorts - mason, tent maker, general handyman. The only reference made to carpentry as Jesus’ job is where he miraculously stretched a plank in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, I think (not to be confused with the Apocryphal “sayings” Gospel of Thomas) - and that’s pretty much a made-up book full of miracles.
No, there are several problems with this. The major problem is that Herod died ten years before the census, but there are other problems too. Matthew has Jesus and Mary living in Bethlehem (in a house) from the outset, and then relocating to Nazareth only after the return from Egypt and see that Archelaus has taken over Judea (which, by the way, means that Judea still hadn’t been annexed as part of the Syrian province yet, and the census still hadn’t occurred. Luke has them living in Nazareth, then going to Bethlehem for the census (something they would not actually have been required to do, by the way, especially since Nazareth was not in Judea and not under the authority of Quirinius to begin with).
These stories are not reconcilable.
It’s not possible at all. I’ve seen this attempt to fudge the term hegemon to pretend it doesn’t mean what it means, but it does. It means “leader,” “commander,” “the guy in charge.” Quirinius did not have any command or authority in Syria until 6 CE, but even if he had - and this is the real sticking point - iit wpuldn’t have mattered because Judea was not part of Syria yet. It was a client kingdom not subject to census or tax. The cenus under Quirinius was the very first one to be imposed on Judea by the Romans.
This is such a stretch I don’t even know why you’d bother, but, in point of fact, Judeans were not “Roman people” (i.e. not Roman citizens), and this implies no census anyway.
This is not a census, bro.
Josephus was not afraid to talk shit about Herod. what does Christianity have to do with it? And where did Josephus ever say he opposed Christianity? He barely mentions it, and when he does, he expresses no personal opinion on it.