Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[cj.23]

At the very least, we can lead this horse to water. Point him in the direction of places like earlychristianwritings.com, the Quelle, and the Jesus Seminar.

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

I don't think that many people in mainstream Biblical Criticism take the Jesus Seminar all that seriously. Just a friendly warning. I would recommend having a look at the mainstream Bib Crit journals instead. The Jesus Seminar was shall we say questionable in some ways... though much said by contributors to it was sound common sense, and very good scholarship. The much trumpeted Jesus Project which succeeded it appears to have now died a death...

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Is there really such thing as Atheist magazine? I'm familiar with most of the skeptical literature out there, but I've never heard of Atheist magazine. I think DOC may be lying for the lord, but what else is new.

Maybe he means American Atheist? http://www.atheists.org/aam/

cj x

 

[cj.23]

You mean the part that mentioned Christians and their already formed beliefs? That part?

No the reference is to Antiquities, 20, 9.

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest

.

cj x

 

[Elizabeth I]

No problem, but now that I think of it, Christ could perform miracles, so if he wanted to see all the nations of the world from a mountain top he certainly could. He could walk on water and raise the dead and feed 5000 from 5 loaves and 2 fish so what's the problem with seeing all the nations of the world if he wanted to. The same with the temple, if he wanted to be transported to the top of the temple in a second he could do it if he wanted to.

So no more "in the spirit"? It's magic all the way?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Earlier I talked about how Luke (author of the Gospel of Luke) had been called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous archaeologist. And the support for this can be seen on the above (here they are) website (see pages 256 - 260). This website discusses the book cited in post #1.

But Luke isn't the only Gospel writer who paid meticulous attention to detail. John, the man given credit for writing the Gospel of John for 2000 years (and an apostle), also gave very detailed information in his gospel. Pages 263 - 268 in the above (here they are) website gives 59 highly detailed facts listed in John.

For example #39 talks of the father in law of the high priest Caiphus, and #42 gives the name of a relative of the high priest who got his ear cut off. Why would someone who made up the story go into such fine detail about relatives and other facts.

Remember, this same John who goes into minute details, is the same John who said John the Baptist (who was quite famous at the time) saw the Spirit descend down on Christ. Since John the Baptist was so well known and popular this could totally destroy the other John's whole gospel story if it was not true. And since John the Baptist was so well known it would definitely raise eyebrows if no one ever heard about the fact that John the Baptist saw the Spirit in the form of a dove descend on Christ at his baptism.

So both John and Luke have proven themselves as Gospel writers who are quite meticulous with the facts.

Why you continue to quote me saying Here it is is beyond me, but my answer to this is the same as my answer earlier. Meticulousness with trivial facts does not mean that everything one writes is factually correct. It means that the writer conveyed the stories they knew. It does not mean that they worte history. John's gospel is clearly not an historical work in the way that ancient histories were composed. So, I'm not sure what you point is. Would you care to respond to my earlier comments?

 

[paximperium]

No the reference is to Antiquities, 20, 9.

.

cj x

What about that interpolation?

What about a single line that has zero relevance to the entire paragraph and in the fact no relevance to that entire charpter?
What about a reference to a "Christ" that a Jew like Josephus would never give to some mad street preacher?
What about a line that is believed to have been added by a scribe?

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest

Now that makes much more sense.

 

[paximperium]

Maybe he means American Atheist? http://www.atheists.org/aam/

cj x

Knowing DOC, he lied.

CJ, you are probably one of the smarter and honest theist in this forum. While I disagree with your religious belief, you seem to have at least some measure of reasoning behind it.

I would suggest if you want to start your own thread on this topic, go ahead, it would be very interesting. However, I would suggest you avoid supporting DOC, his dishonesty may taint you.

 

[paximperium]

I don't think that many people in mainstream Biblical Criticism take the Jesus Seminar all that seriously. Just a friendly warning. I would recommend having a look at the mainstream Bib Crit journals instead. The Jesus Seminar was shall we say questionable in some ways... though much said by contributors to it was sound common sense, and very good scholarship. The much trumpeted Jesus Project which succeeded it appears to have now died a death...

cj x

Why am I not surprised? If Creationists can deny all the science in the world, true believers can deny anything that contradicts their beliefs.

Denial does not make their findings go away.

 

[Sefarst]

I don't think that many people in mainstream Biblical Criticism take the Jesus Seminar all that seriously. Just a friendly warning. I would recommend having a look at the mainstream Bib Crit journals instead. The Jesus Seminar was shall we say questionable in some ways... though much said by contributors to it was sound common sense, and very good scholarship. The much trumpeted Jesus Project which succeeded it appears to have now died a death...

cj x

I'm aware. The criticisms of the seminar are included in the same wikipedia link I provided. There have also been lengthy responses to these criticisms.

That said, I wouldn't take anything DOC says regarding Biblical scholarship seriously if he wasn't at least familiar with the seminar.

 

[boloboffin]

Now that makes much more sense.

Actually it doesn't. There has to be something that Ananus the younger has done that agitated everyone. My point about the interpolation earlier is that there are questions about this passage. This might be James, the brother of Jesus. It might just be some well-respected James of the time that Christian scribes turned into the brother of Jesus. That much we don't know.

We don't know it because of the situation of the TF. That passage may not have come from Josephus' hand at all. If it did, what we have wasn't anything like what he wrote. The blatant interpolations in the TF call this smaller, less offensive passage into question.

Maybe they didn't change anything here (Jesus is only the one who was "called Christ"). Maybe this is a reference back to the TF passage, which Joseph would have written to simply mention Jesus. Perhaps this is an actual non-biblical reference to the historical Jesus. But the Christian scribes who preserved the text screwed it up by making the changes they did. It's worthless as a historical reference -- that is, unless somehow by chance we discover a copy of the Antiquities without the obvious interpolations and the TF essentially as reconstructed. Until then, Josephus as evidence for the existence of Jesus is impeached.

 

[paximperium]

Actually it doesn't. There has to be something that Ananus the younger has done that agitated everyone. My point about the interpolation earlier is that there are questions about this passage. This might be James, the brother of Jesus. It might just be some well-respected James of the time that Christian scribes turned into the brother of Jesus. That much we don't know.

We don't know it because of the situation of the TF. That passage may not have come from Josephus' hand at all. If it did, what we have wasn't anything like what he wrote. The blatant interpolations in the TF call this smaller, less offensive passage into question.

Maybe they didn't change anything here (Jesus is only the one who was "called Christ"). Maybe this is a reference back to the TF passage, which Joseph would have written to simply mention Jesus. Perhaps this is an actual non-biblical reference to the historical Jesus. But the Christian scribes who preserved the text screwed it up by making the changes they did. It's worthless as a historical reference -- that is, unless somehow by chance we discover a copy of the Antiquities without the obvious interpolations and the TF essentially as reconstructed. Until then, Josephus as evidence for the existence of Jesus is impeached.

Thanks for the info. Yes, it likely was referring to someone named James and the additional "Christ" reference was added on later. That little bit doesn't make much sense in the larger context of that paragraph.

Would a Roman sympathizer and Jew deign to call a heretic street preacher, the Christ?

 

[Sefarst]

Would a Roman sympathizer and Jew deign to call a heretic street preacher, the Christ?

In cj.x's defense, the disputed Josephus passage says that Jesus was called the Christ, not that Josephus himself called Jesus the Christ. I personally don't believe that passage is authentic, but a Christian could argue that Josephus was merely stating that others were calling Jesus the Christ, but for whatever reason he himself didn't believe it.

 

[DOC]

Is there really such thing as Atheist magazine? I'm familiar with most of the skeptical literature out there, but I've never heard of Atheist magazine. I think DOC may be lying for the lord, but what else is new.

Well you think wrong. I read the magazine at a university library around 1979 -1980. How would I know that there was even an atheist magazine 29 years ago. From my memory it had the word Atheist in the title. I should have said I read a couple of issues of an atheist magazine instead a couple issues of Atheist magazine. But someone in here said there might have been an American Atheist magazine so I could of actually been right and I just didn't remember the American part.

 

[six7s]

Well you think wrong. I read the magazine at a university library around 1979 -1980. How would I know that there was even an atheist magazine 29 years ago. From my memory it had the word Atheist in the title. I should have said I read a couple of issues of an atheist magazine instead a couple issues of Atheist magazine. But someone in here said there might have been an American Atheist magazine so I could of actually been right and I just didn't remember the American part.

Fascinating!

Sorry to change the subject, but I can't help wondering...

DOC, do you have any "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth"?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Well you think wrong. I read the magazine at a university library around 1979 -1980. How would I know that there was even an atheist magazine 29 years ago. From my memory it had the word Atheist in the title. I should have said I read a couple of issues of an atheist magazine instead a couple issues of Atheist magazine. But someone in here said there might have been an American Atheist magazine so I could of actually been right and I just didn't remember the American part.

Well Doc, what if someone were to be writing a gospel from memory 40+ years later and left out some detail (similar to you forgetting the American bit in American Atheist) what evidence is there to ensure this did not happen to the Gospel writers?

It's been 32 pages and, as Six7s asks:

Sorry to change the subject, but I can't help wondering...

DOC, do you have any "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth"?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Maybe they didn't change anything here (Jesus is only the one who was "called Christ").

If this is the case, then he would have meant it ironically since Josephus clearly labelled Vespasian the messiah.

I think it's hard to know what to do with this passage. The testamonium flavium is clearly interpolation at best, if not wholly fabricated. This other passage I tend to accept, though we can never be sure. If the "who was called Christ" is a later interpolation, then this James and Jesus pairing could refer to a number of people. It does seem to fit, however, with what we get from Acts and from Paul -- that there was a James who was identified as Jesus' brother and was a big player in the Jerusalem community.

 

[rikzilla]

So no more "in the spirit"? It's magic all the way?

It's "turtles all the way down"...and specific turtles too! No Islamic or Hindu terapins will do.
Does DOC realize that but for an accident of birthplace he'd be a devout Muslim or Buddhist??? Has he thought about that?



What if you are wrong DOC? What will you say when you are face to face with your angry creator....the great ju-ju under the sea???

-z

 

[cj.23]

If this is the case, then he would have meant it ironically since Josephus clearly labelled Vespasian the messiah.

I think it's hard to know what to do with this passage. The testamonium flavium is clearly interpolation at best, if not wholly fabricated. This other passage I tend to accept, though we can never be sure. If the "who was called Christ" is a later interpolation, then this James and Jesus pairing could refer to a number of people. It does seem to fit, however, with what we get from Acts and from Paul -- that there was a James who was identified as Jesus' brother and was a big player in the Jerusalem community.

Absolutely, and ditto Sefarst and Paximperium. The textual issues surrounding the Antiquities passage are complex, but as Ichneumononwasp has pointed out, Josephus is making a case for Vespasian being the Messiah - the Christ if you will. Now the problem is we don't actually have a particular degree of agreement on what constitutes the meaning of Christ in 1st century Judaism - Geza Vermes is probbaly our best authority here.

The translators of the Septuagint used the Christ word to apply to Cyrus the Great, the original "pagan messiahh" if you like - it clearly means God's annointed, because Cyrus acts as liberator to the Jews in his time. So Christ is extant as a concept in the koine, and presumably linked in the hellenistic mind to the Jewish Messiah (and the ideas of the Messiah(s) is/are itself far more complex in the first century world than most people seem to realise -- but Paul's natural usage of Christ suggests the title was employed in the early Christian community by the 50's and 60's.

It is therefore no surprise at all that around 80 Josephus would refer to Jesus called the Christ - he is referring to a belief extant in the early Christian movement, at that time still to Josephus and the Romans as well effectively just a part of Judaism with slightly different beliefs, juts as many of us accept Mormonism as part of Christianity despite the massive theological differences -- to an outsier it is all pretty much the same. After all the disprities between the Pharisee and Saducee positions on some basic questions like resurrection of the dead were pretty major -- we are probably trying to impose a hegemony on early Judaism which simply was not there.

So Josephus was aware of Christians (Jews) who called Jesus the Christ, an what he saws seems to match well the record in Acts. Unlike the TF, there seems little support for textaul changes here. If we want a detailed discussion of the tF, I'm up for it, but it has been summarised well in many places on the web.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Why am I not surprised? If Creationists can deny all the science in the world, true believers can deny anything that contradicts their beliefs.

Denial does not make their findings go away.

I think I should clarify my position here. You can read a great deal about the issues with the Jesus Seminar and Jesus Project online, but briefly -- this is not a matter of apologetics? What bloody difference does it make to Christianity if its true or not?

The issue is the actual framing of the supposedly objective enquiry, which while reflecting a great deal of the mainstream of modern Biblical Criticism, was not identical therewith. The Jesus Project for example was funded and set up by the CSER.

And you don't think CSER are apologists? http://www.centerforinquiry.net/ is the parent body - CFI - It's three constituent parts are

The Council for Secular Humanism (CSH) promotes naturalism and secular values to the public, and stimulates critical inquiry into the foundations and social effects of the world religions. The Council stands up for the dignity of those who dissent from today's reigning orthodoxies, and assists secular humanist community groups across North America. Different divisions focus on issues specific to the African-American and African experience, and to Islamic societies, with pioneering Koranic criticism and advocacy for separation of mosque and state.

The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) is a research division of the Center for Inquiry. Since its 1983 founding in Washington, DC, the Committee has worked to encourage humanistic, critical and non-parochial approaches to the study of religious traditions and institutions and to develop programs which promote the public understanding of religion in an international context.

Through its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), the Center for Inquiry evaluates claims of the paranormal (phenomena allegedly beyond the range of normal scientific explanations), such as psychic phenomena, ghosts, communication with the dead, and alleged extraterrestrial visitations. It also explores the fringes and borderlands of the sciences, attempting to separate promising research from irresponsible pseudosciences, such as "creation science" and astrology.

The latter is CSICOP as was. I used to support them, but recently have wondered a lot.

Now, let's get this straight. CSER had an avowed secular anti-religion agenda. It also claims to be rationalist, but I think the a priori judgement of the issue precludes this. Now lets have a look at the Jesus Project shall we? So far I have seen a couple of years of internet noise, a few annoyed scholars saying they want their names removed as they were never asked to they would endorse/attend, and bugger all else. Long term readers of this forums will recall discussion of Hoffman the Project's leaders rather imaginative reconstructions or Celsus arguments, which actually rendered me briefly speechless. Sure Price and others are attending. and guess what - his books are published by Prometheus Books, the publishing arm of the CSER/CSI/CSH. And look through the other delegates - yes, same story!

Now I happen to think much good can come of this. I'm glad people are throwing money at the critical study of religion. I just think it's deeply ironic you cite me as an apologist, yet ignore the deeply ideologicallly committed aspects of this kind of supposed academic work.

Now, go look at the Journal of the Society for Biblical Literature. Look at New Testament studies. In fact look at any mainstream academic work on the Early Church. Note the authors. How many are part of this project? What about great non-Christian scholars like Geza Vermes? Or experts like NT Wright, EP Sanders? People whose books are published by reputable mainstream publishing houses like Penguin Books? People generally considered the leading experts in the field? Where are they? Look at the Journal of New Testament Studies, the -- anyway you get the idea. It is easy to mistake good publicity for the academic consensus in a field, and syposiums and seminars fearlessly meeting to consider a radical perspective happen all the time - and often reflect a certain special interest group. The problem comes when they are percieved by those outside the discourse as ref;ecting the "state of the art" in that field, rather than, as is here the case, scholars who had a certain agenda, and whose books are in many cases published by single publishing house, albeit one i like.

cj x

 

[DOC]

Sorry to change the subject, but I can't help wondering...

DOC, do you have any "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth"?

I'll answer this question in the same way I've answered Zooterkin and everyone else who trollishly asked it.

Posted by zooterkin
Are you going to produce any of the evidence in support of the OP?

Haven't you read my 259 posts.

You ask for evidence, what is the least amount of evidence that would make you believe that the New Testament writers told the truth? If you can't answer that question, you are phony for asking.

Others will probably continue to trollishly ask this already answered question and I will continue to get the run around when I then ask what is the least amount of evidence that will satisfy them.

As a reminder, I gave answers.com and my definition for the word "evidence" in post #13.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4063010#post4063010