Resolved: Jesus did not exist

[ITR_champion]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

So you acknowldege that there IS a contradiction?

I’ve already acknowledged a contradiction between the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, but I’ll do it again. Yes.

chora means “fields” or “open spaces” and in conction with cities it refers to the countryside or rural areas outside them, but Gerasa was not a metropolis with a 30 mile radius of farm territory around it.

You can find one at my link upthread.

This is reaching and implausible since there were three other Decapolis cities between Gerasa and the lake.

Matthew indeed tried to correct from Gerasa to Gadara (Luke retained Gerasa), but Gadara is still 6 miles from the lake and there are no cliffs between it and the lake.

The question here we’re dealing with is whether there’s a certain error on the location in Mark. There is not. It is not a slam dunk, as you seem to think. It’s a possible error, but there are perfectly plausible explanations on offer. We all on a daily basis refer to places using nearby places. When talking to a local I’ll tell them I live in Culpeper, but when talking to someone from across the country I’ll tell them I live around Washington because they have no idea where Culpeper is. It’s fully plausible that Matthew, writing for a Jewish audience, would use Gadara to described a location on the east shore of the Dead Sea, while Mark would use Gesara because foreigners would be familiar with it.

Concerning the map, I’d have to know whether it’s an ancient map (unlikely given how few maps have been repserved from Roman times) or a modern estimation of the boundaries.

On the use of “chora”, whatever the dictionary says, the fact is that in the Bible “chora” was often used in the singular for a large region. For instance in Acts 16:6, “the chora of Phrygia and Galatia”, which would be an area almost as large as all of Palestine. (Map) Or in Luke 3:1, “the chora of Ituraea and Trachonitis”, also a large region. (Map) So there’s nothing unreasonable about Mark using the word to indicate a region around Gesara stretching 30 miles, much less Matthew using it to indicate a region around Gadara stretching 6 miles.

It is worth remembering that only one of the two possibilities needs to be correct to eliminate the error. (And I’ve heard a third suggestions that Gergesa, was just another name for Khersa, farther up the coast.)

Nothing in that addresses my question, and it’s bullshit anyway. We know what Luke’s sources were,. They were Mark and Q - both Greek compositions.

Ah, back to your usual tactics, I see. You say that the Farris article is bullshit. Are you ready to quote the exact passages in it that lead you to that conclusion? You say we know that Luke’s sources were Mark and Q exclusively. Are you going to explain how you know that? As I showed in the last thread, there’s no shortage of scholars who question the existence of Q, but I don’t want to take up that debate again here. You rule out the possibility that Luke had other sources. Why? B. H. Streeter’s The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins maybe the most famous and influential book in establishing the two-source hypothesis as mainstream. Many people would be surprised to learn that Streeter instead endorsed a “four-document hypothesis”, with additional sources ‘L’ and ‘M’ for Luke and Matthew respectively. Subsequent scholarship has shown that Luke most likely had multiple additional sources beyond Mark and Q. In addition to the article by Stephen Farris which I already mentioned, Dr. Blomberg has tackled the largest section of unparalleled material in Luke, the “travel narrative” of chapters 9-18, and demonstrated that this likely also stems from an earlier written source. (Cite)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Yes, Luke does have some unique material and may have had a 3rd source (aside from his own imaginaton and probably Josephus). I know longer remember what the issue was with this, though.

[Skammer]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The summary of my case (aside from the fact that none of them claim to have known Jesus or known apostles) is the late dating, Matthew and Luke’s dependency on other secondary sources, and a host of factual errors, anachronisms and demonstrable literary constructions from the OT and other obvious fictions which would not be expected from a primary or even secondary source.

Nitpick, but Luke claimed to be at least a sometime companion of the apostle Paul, by his use of “we” and “us” when describing Paul’s travels.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

But Paul was an “apostle” by self-appointment only. He never actually knew Jesus personally - although he knew people who knew Jesus, so I guess it can’t be ruled out that Luke is a tertiary source (though I am skeptical even of this and think that the author of Luke-Acts simply incoporated the “we passages” in Acts from some other preexisting source).

[Skammer]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

But Paul was an “apostle” by self-appointment only. He never actually knew Jesus personally - although he knew people who knew Jesus, so I guess it can’t be ruled out that Luke is a tertiary source (though I am skeptical even of this and think that the author of Luke-Acts simply incoporated the “we passages” in Acts from some other preexisting source).

I’ll grant its possible, but if the author were using another first-person account as a source you would probably expect him to change the pronouns to the third person to match the rest of his work, or to indicate he was quoting someone else. Those passages certainly give the impression that he was a participant.

And yes, Paul was self-designated, but normally acknowledged to be an apostle. It doesn’t really change your point, as I said I was just nit-picking.

[Malthus]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

But Paul was an “apostle” by self-appointment only. He never actually knew Jesus personally -

Why sure he did. He met him on the road to Damascus.

[monavis]

@JThunder

That’s hardly a good argument against the authorship of Peter’s epistles, though. While the first spreading of the word was indeed by word of mouth, that doesn’t preclude anyone from actually writing these words down at some point. It is also entirely possible that Peter, if he were incapable of writing the epistle by himself, had help from either Mark or Silvanus.

Again, I don’t want to get into a long debate about who actually wrote the Petrine Epistles, as that would merit another thread in itself. For now, I’d just like to point out that this particular argument is a rather poor one to make against the traditional authorship of these letters.

I believe it was on the History channel the proffessor said it was doubtful that Peter wrote any thing. I make no claim to how true it is.

[Thudlow_Boink]

The books attributed to Peter were actually written by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens.

[Voyager]

@Thudlow_Boink

The books attributed to Peter were actually written by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens.

Ah, Holy Ghost writers.

[JThunder]

If somebody declared that Peter wrote nothing, he or she was probably arguing on the grounds that Peter must have been illiterate, being a humble fisherman. Indeed, most Palestinians were illiterate. As I said though, it’s entirely possible that he had help from Mark or Silvanus. In addition, while Peter was described as unlearned (Acts 4:13), this does not necessarily mean complete illiteracy. The Apostle James, for example, was likewise a mere fisherman, yet he was familiar with the Septuagint as evidenced in Acts 15:14-18.

That’s the problem with many of these objections that skeptics raise – as ITR Champion said, they’re not slam dunks. Much has been said about the alleged contradiction in Luke wherein Quirinius was cited as being the governor, but there are various ways in which that could be explained – not the least of which is that the word used for governor (hegemoneuontos) can be rendered in multiple ways. The word simply means that Quirinius was governing, and does not necessarily imply the formal title of governor.

As I said, Diogenes tends to exaggerate the strength of his case – and as a result, gives undue credit to the theory that Jesus never existed, even though this claim is rejected by virtually every historian. Richard Carrier is a notable exception, and is pretty much a lone voice with no outpouring of support from professional historians.

[DrDeth]

@JThunder

If somebody declared that Peter wrote nothing, he or she was probably arguing on the grounds that Peter must have been illiterate, being a humble fisherman. Indeed, most Palestinians were illiterate. As I said though, it’s entirely possible that he had help from Mark or Silvanus. In addition, while Peter was described as unlearned (Acts 4:13), this does not necessarily mean complete illiteracy. The Apostle James, for example, was likewise a mere fisherman, yet he was familiar with the Septuagint as evidenced in Acts 15:14-18.

That’s the problem with many of these objections that skeptics raise – as ITR Champion said, they’re not slam dunks. Much has been said about the alleged contradiction in Luke wherein Quirinius was cited as being the governor, but there are various ways in which that could be explained – not the least of which is that the word used for governor (hegemoneuontos) can be rendered in multiple ways. The word simply means that Quirinius was governing, and does not necessarily imply the formal title of governor.

As I said, Diogenes tends to exaggerate the strength of his case – and as a result, gives undue credit to the theory that Jesus never existed, even though this claim is rejected by virtually every historian. Richard Carrier is a notable exception, and is pretty much a lone voice with no outpouring of support from professional historians.

Just about everyone who wasn’t a professional scribe would be considered “functionally illiterate” today. And, it’s quite possible that even a “unlearned” person can become “learned” or that they could dictate to a scribe, which was very common in those days, even among scholars.

And, it doesn’t even matter if Luke got a detail wrong. It only matters to those who claim the Bible is inerrant (hardly!:rolleyes:). However, some scholars claim that the issue is a minor mistranslation, that what Luke wanted to say that Jesus was born before the Big Census (which was a pretty big deal, according to Josephus). Or, it’s just that Luke had a different source which gave Luke a wrong detail. That actually enhances the overall credibilty of the Gospels, shows they weren’t just copying from each other.

Richard Carrier is a crackpot with a huge obvious bias.

[Meatros]

@JThunder

As I said, Diogenes tends to exaggerate the strength of his case – and as a result, gives undue credit to the theory that Jesus never existed, even though this claim is rejected by virtually every historian. Richard Carrier is a notable exception, and is pretty much a lone voice with no outpouring of support from professional historians.

Robert Price also gives credence to the notion that Jesus might not have existed. Carrier, in a recent podcast concedes that professional historians don’t put much stock in the mythers position - and rightfully so due to how poorly the case has been presented. He’s currently trying to get a Baynsian (sp?) theory of historicism published by an academic source. Then he’s going to work on getting a book published using the theory to show that Jesus probbably didn’t exist. He admits that even if he’s successful in both endeavors, that this is just the start of the process. He’s basically hoping to get the ball rolling (or to be blown out of the water).

DrDeth, Carrier may indeed be a “crackpot”, but you’ll have to demonstrate this. I can accept that his ideas on Jesus are far from mainstream and because of that the general audience would be justified on relying on the scholarly consensus that Jesus existed. That said, just dismissing him as a crackpot doesn’t make his arguments go away or mean that those with the background (or interest) should just ignore him. To do so would be to engage in an ad hominem logical fallacy.

[cosmosdan]

I prefer the Man From Earth theory

Jesus was actually a man who studied Buddhism and attempted to spread those teachings in Judea, and people incorporated other mystical myths into those teachings.

Of course in the movie he was an ancient man who had perfect tissue regeneration and had actually studied under Buddha, and had indeed come out of the tomb.

I found it interesting because they discuss the similarities of Jesus and Buddha’s teachings and how much of the Jesus mythology was borrowed from other sources.

[cosmosdan]

As far as Jesus goes, it seems we really don’t and can’t know whether he was based on an actual person , or several people, or is completely myth. The teachings are still valid and it really doesn’t matter.

[JThunder]

@Meatros

Robert Price also gives credence to the notion that Jesus might not have existed.

We were talking about historians though, and Robert M. Price does not have any degrees in history. That doesn’t automatically make him wrong, but it does mean that we can’t count him as an historian who lends support to the “Jesus never existed” myth.

Carrier, in a recent podcast concedes that professional historians don’t put much stock in the mythers position - and rightfully so due to how poorly the case has been presented. He’s currently trying to get a Baynsian (sp?) theory of historicism published by an academic source. Then he’s going to work on getting a book published using the theory to show that Jesus probbably didn’t exist.

You’re talking about Bayesian theory. The problem with using Bayesian theory to compute the probability of an event is that it requires a certain level of background information regarding that event. When you don’t have enough background information, or when the amount of information is uncertain, then this approach does not work very well. One could use Bayes’ Theorem to demonstrate the importance of this background information, or to point out how somebody failed to give it proper consideration. It would be decidedly more difficult to use Bayesian statistics when it comes to matters of ancient history, for which we don’t have nearly as much information as we do for modern times.

Additionally, when it comes to matters of ancient history, it is not always possible to assign hard numbers to probabilities and plug them into Bayes’ Theorem. This is especially true when one’s philosophical worldview would heavily influence the numbers that one would assign. (To cite an obvious example, when discussing the probability of a miracle occuring, an atheist would declare this probability to be zero or virtually zero. In contrast, a theist might declare a higher number, depending on the nature of the miracle and the circumstances behind it.)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@JThunder

If somebody declared that Peter wrote nothing, he or she was probably arguing on the grounds that Peter must have been illiterate, being a humble fisherman. Indeed, most Palestinians were illiterate. As I said though, it’s entirely possible that he had help from Mark or Silvanus. In addition, while Peter was described as unlearned (Acts 4:13), this does not necessarily mean complete illiteracy. The Apostle James, for example, was likewise a mere fisherman, yet he was familiar with the Septuagint as evidenced in Acts 15:14-18.

If Peter wrote anything (doubtful), we don’t have it anymore, nor do we have anything that appears to be dicated by him. The Epistles attributed to him are too late ((2 Peter is well into the 2nd Century) and have two different authors. The tradition that he Gospel of Mark was dictated by Peter (aside from the fact that the Gospel itself does not make this claim) has a number of significant problems with it, including several geographical errors not expected by someone familiar with Palestine, errors of Jewish law and legal procedure, an anti-apostolic anti-Petrine tone, and (perhaps most significantly), does not contain a Petrine witness to the resurrection. As a matter of fact, the book strongly implies that Peter never knew about it (it ends with the women running away from the empty tomb and says they “were too afraid to tell anybody”).

That’s the problem with many of these objections that skeptics raise – as ITR Champion said, they’re not slam dunks. Much has been said about the alleged contradiction in Luke wherein Quirinius was cited as being the governor, but there are various ways in which that could be explained – not the least of which is that the word used for governor (hegemoneuontos) can be rendered in multiple ways. The word simply means that Quirinius was governing, and does not necessarily imply the formal title of governor.

Sorry, but this one is simply unresolvable. Never mind that the suggestion that Quirinius ever had any “governing” authority in Syria before he was Governor is completly ungrounded in any evidence at all, but it would not solve anything if he was. The fact remains that Judea did not become part of the Syrian province until 6 CE. Syria had no jurisdiction over Judea before then. Under Herod the Great, Judea was a client kingdom, not a Roman province and was not subject to census or tax by the Romans. That was part of a deal Herod had made years before when he supported Augustus in the Roman civil wars.

There was never a census in Judea while Herod the great was king. Censuses were extremely unpopular in Judea, and the one by Quirinus in 6CE was a major deal. It caused riots and a near revolt. Jewish kings didn’t do it. Herod didn’t do it (it absolutely would have been known about and documented by Jewish historians such as Josephhus and Philo), and the Romans couldn’t do it before Judea was annexed as part of the Syrian province in 6 CE.

Incidentally, even Quirinius’ census did not have jurisdiction over Galilee (Galilee was remained under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas even after Judea was annexed), so Joseph would not have had to participate in it (not that anyone at all had to return to their ancestral homes for the census - that’s a blatantly fictional plot contrivance by Luke).

You aren’t going to be successful in trying to resolve this contradition. It’s one of the most irreconcilable in the entirety of the New Testament. It’s also not the only one in the nativities. There are several others. They are completely different and incompatible stories with virtually no overlap except for the names of the principles involved, the birth in Bethlehem and the virginity of Mary.

As I said, Diogenes tends to exaggerate the strength of his case – and as a result, gives undue credit to the theory that Jesus never existed, even though this claim is rejected by virtually every historian. Richard Carrier is a notable exception, and is pretty much a lone voice with no outpouring of support from professional historians.

I am not an advocate for the hypotesis that Jesus never existed. I think he probably did. I’m just saying that the mythicist hyothesis are not as crackpot as the status quo would like it to be and historicity not as bulletproof.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@DrDeth

And, it doesn’t even matter if Luke got a detail wrong. It only matters to those who claim the Bible is inerrant (hardly!:rolleyes:). However, some scholars claim that the issue is a minor mistranslation, that what Luke wanted to say that Jesus was born before the Big Census.

Huh? Here is the Greek for Luke 2:1-2 (translations my own)

Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην

“And it happened in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered [for tax].”

αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου

“This registraton was first made/completed when Quirinius was Governor [lit. was Governing/commanding] of Syria.”

[Aside to JThunder: the use of the genitive case (τῆς Συρίας) indicates that Quirinius was Governor/ in command OF Syria, not just holding some kind of lesser authority within it. That would take a dative case]
So where is the mistranslation? Πρώτος (protos) means “first,” not before. And if Luke meant to indicate that Jesus was born before the census, then what was Joseph going to Bethlehem for?

I think you may have misunderstood another defense which is sometimes used that maybe Luke was saying the census happened before Quirinius was Governor, but that’s not supportable either by the grammar of the Greek (though tortuous attempts are made to find instances of protos being used in ways which make it kinda/sorta similar close to being translatable as “before,” but Luke 2:2 is not a case where that choice can be made. The word means “first.” It’s an ordinal adverb, nota preposition) or by known history.

[JThunder]

That’s what you say, Diogenes. Other sources (one of which I cited earlier) say otherwise. As we said, you keep insisting that these objections of yours are slam dunks, when they’re not.

Little wonder then that you take Richard Carrier seriously, whereas professional historians don’t.

[JThunder]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I am not an advocate for the hypotesis that Jesus never existed.

Right, which is why I did not claim that you were. Rather, I lamented the fact that you’re taking the mythicist claim seriously, which you do.

I’m just saying that the mythicist hyothesis are not as crackpot as the status quo would like it to be and historicity not as bulletproof.

As I said, you take the claim seriously, despite the almost universal rejection of this hypothesis among professional historians.

BTW, before you bring up G.A. Wells again, I’d like to remind you (as I have done many times before) that he is not an historian. Rather, he is a professor of German, and thus, lacks the credentials of a true historian. Moreover, he has long since abandoned the view that Jesus never existed. Robert M. Price and Thomas L. Thompson, who you also cited, are not historians either. I don’t know about Burton Mack, but he clearly does not teach that Jesus never existed.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@JThunder

That’s what you say, Diogenes. Other sources (one of which I cited earlier) say otherwise.

That’s what I say about what? Who says otherwise? Are you actually disputing the Greek?