Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[Akhenaten]

Origen could have been wrong considering he was born 85 years after Josephus died. Do we even know how Origen came to that opinion? And Josephus could have changed his mind about Christ later in his life. The apostle Paul at one time didn't believe Jesus was the Christ either.

And Feldman did report in his book that "most" of the scholars in his poll believed in a partial interpolation.

Bolded relevant part of the quote

About as wrong as people who lived 50-100 years later writing about christ?

Jeepers. How wrong must Thomas Jefferson be?

 

[Akhenaten]

Perhaps by reading copies of Josephus before xians got around to tampering with them?

One has to wonder why the Jews didn't more carefully keep copies of Josephus since he was talking about "their" history.

Only if one is DOC. Anybody else would be likely to know that Josephus was teh Enemy.

Do you think it would be likely that the Allies would want to reverently preserve an account of WWII written by William Joyce "since he was talking about 'their' history"?

Why do his works seem to be have been more carefully kept by Christians.

Because they thought it would be useful to their cause, especially with a few little amendments.

It would seem that more Jews should have complained about these alleged interpolations while they were happening.

Why the sheol would the Jews care about the crap that the Christians were making up to serve as a basis for their shiny new cult?

Where are all the Jewish copyists while all this is supposedly happening.?

Copying Jewish texts and leaving the Christian texts to the Christian forgers copyists.

Go figure.

Where are all their copies of their own history?

Option 1

Preserved orally, which as we all know is the best way since the original Jews had no paper.​

Option 2

Google 'Old Testament'.​

 

[Akhenaten]

The New Testament Galatians was written about 19 years after Christ's crucifixion.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_earliest_book_written_in_the_New_Testament

Naturally you have a better source than this garbage and it's just an oversight that you didn't include it.

Please fix.

19 Years ago Bill Clinton was president, I don't have a problem remembering that.

Who?

And I easily remember things that happened personally to me 30 years ago.

Paul was a witness to the crucifiction of the alleged Jesus, was he?

Source?

 

[ddt]

Do you think it would be likely that the Allies would want to reverently preserve an account of WWII written by William Joyce "since he was talking about 'their' history"?

Had to look up that one. Mention of Lord Haw-Haw on the other hand...

Copying Jewish texts and leaving the Christian texts to the Christian forgers copyists.

Option 2

Google 'Old Testament'.​

[/INDENT]

Plus the Talmud and the Mishna.

Option 1

Preserved orally, which as we all know is the best way since the original Jews had no paper.​

​

 

[ddt]

Paul was a witness to the crucifiction of the alleged Jesus, was he?

During the acid trip which led to Revolution #9.

 

[Akhenaten]

Had to look up that one. Mention of Lord Haw-Haw on the other hand...

I was trying to be subtle enough to avoid the Godwin triggers.

Plus the Talmud and the Mishna.

Apparently DOC's exhaustive search for the missing history of the Jews hasn't revealed these arcane sources to him yet.

 

[Akhenaten]

During the acid trip which led to Revolution #9.

When he was heard to plead, "Hey Jew, don't make it bad!"

 

[ddt]

So instead of continuing the discussion here, DOC is now peddling his failed arguments in another thread. Honesty in action again.

 

[Akhenaten]

He can run, but he can't hide. It is written, after all, in Isaiah 48:22 . . .

There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked.​

 

[Mojo]

And Feldman did report in his book that "most" of the scholars in his poll believed in a partial interpolation.

Seriously, DOC, this doesn't help your argument. It means that most of them didn't think that the text is authentic. Clinging desperately to the word "partial" really doesn't look good.

 

[catsmate]

Seriously, DOC, this doesn't help your argument. It means that most of them didn't think that the text is authentic. Clinging desperately to the word "partial" really doesn't look good.

I'm mildly curious as to whether DOC has actually read Feldman's book or is merely parroting other god botherers.

 

[ddt]

Still waiting for an answer from DOC. Nearly one year and counting:

Or there simply could have been a Palestine census at exactly the time Luke reported and Quirinius could have been an official at that time. Rulers and politicians do hold more than one office in their lifetime. This census was around 4 BC. Josephus wasn't even born then and he didn't write about this time period until about 91 AD. Also Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD so its not like there would be a lot of census records laying around (for Joshephus to read) of something that happened 95 years ago.

First of all, the text does not support that. You have brought in Heichelheim and Geisler claiming that, but you have not given any argumentation why their claims are valid. Let's go over that 9-word sentence of Luke 2:2 again:

αὑτη ἡ ἀπογραφη πρωτη ἐγενετο ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου

Now, let's break down that sentence.

It's subject is αὑτη ἡ ἀπογραφη - "that census". The word αὑτη is a demonstrative pronoun ("that"), and refers back to the previous verse where it said that Augustus ordered a census. The word ἡ is the definite article (which is usual in Greek in this construct but obviously not translated in English). Lastly, ἀπογραφη means census; it's a feminine word; as it's the subject, it's in the nominative; and it's singular;. The words αὑτη and ἡ are inflected to agree with that.

The verb is ἐγενετο. It's the aorist indicative, 3rd person singular of γιγνομαι - to become, to be, to happen (cf. the English word Genesis). It acts here as a copula.

Then the word we've skipped: πρωτη. That is a superlative of an adjective that has no positive grade, and means "first" or "earliest". A Greek superlative may also be translated as "very ...", so "very early" would also be possible. It's inflected in the nominative singular feminine, and so it's the predicate of the copula.

Then the last four words: ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου. They are a genitive absolute construction. The word ἡγεμονευοντος is the genitive singular masculine of the present participle of ἡγεμονευω, "to rule", "to govern", so literally it means "ruling". This verb happens to have its direct object in the genitive case too; that object is της Συριας, i.e., Syria (της is the genitive singular feminine of the definite article "the"). The last word, Κυρηνιου, is the genitive singular of Κυρηνιος, the Greek transcription of the name Quirinius. So the whole construct means "Quirinius ruling over Syria". A genitive absolute construct is called "absolute" because it stands "loose", it is independent grammatically, of the rest of the sentence. It is typically translated as a subordinate clause, with simply a temporal relation ("while", "when") or a causal relation ("because") or a concessive relation ("although") or whatever the translator deems appropriate. The fact that the participle employed here is a present participle means that the action in the genitive absolute construction is contemporaneous with the action in the main clause.

So, all in all, my translation is: "This census was the first, while Quirinius ruled over Syria".

Now, I don't see any mention in this sentence of two censuses as your favourite apologists contend, but I'll give you some rope to hang yourself with. Some scholars claim that the NT writers now and then employed a superlative (here: πρωτη, "earliest") when they actually meant a comparative (which would be προτερη, "earlier"). In case of a comparative there has to be a thing you compare it with, say: "Peter is taller than Paul". You can't just say "Peter is taller". That (the italicized part) can be expressed in two ways in Greek: (1) the word ἠ stands for "than" and the actual thing is in the same case as the thing we compare it with, or (2) the thing we compare it with is put in the genitive case.

Now, obviously the word ἠ is absent; and the genitive construction doesn't work either IMHO: firstly, the verb ἐγενετο is placed in between which makes this unlikely to have been the idea (Greek word order is not that free); and secondly, the genitives are there for a genitive absolute, not for a comparative.

And even if you were able to convince me of such a translation, there are also historical reasons why this doesn't work.

A census in Judea around 4 BC is right out, for several reasons. Herod reigned over Judea, and the finances of Judea was not the Romans' worry. They had an agreement with Herod how much tax he had to turn over and it was his business how to get that. There was no need for the Romans to mandate he conduct a census, and still, then it would have been Herod's census and not Quirinius' c.q. Augustus' census.

Varus was the governor over Syria in the last years of Herod's reign. Even in your fantastic scenario of a Roman census in that time, Quirinius would have been a subordinate. The Greek text of Luke 2:2 however is very clear:

ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου

which means "while Quirinius reigned over Syria". The use of the verb ἡγεμονεω leaves open a subordinate position, however, της Συριας is a direct object (in the genitive) and precludes anything but him being the boss - otherwise, Luke would have written ἐν τῃ Συριᾳ ("in Syria"). But we're here already in the realm of fantasy, as noted above.

But to put your last fantastical delusions to an end: if you're going to argue Quirinius may have been governor of Syria after Varus, then this is the first instance we know that the same man had been governor twice of the same Roman province. Surely Josephus, Tacitus or any other Roman historian would have told us.

Also if Luke wanted to make up a story of how Joseph and Mary got to Bethlehem why make up a story that can be challenged by all the people of that time (that doesn't make sense). Why not just make up a story that can't be challenged. He could say something like the dead Joseph wanted to visit his hometown, or he wanted to have the child in the place he was born. Why go through all the trouble of bringing in historical people and events into made up story where it can be challenged, that doesn't make sense to do that.

Your posts here are a testament to the gullibility of the general populace to take any story they're told at face value. Skeptics who critically engage a story were in the minority then as well as now. Most of Luke's readers were not in the position to challenge the story. They didn't have Wikipedia to look up that there's actually a gap of 10 years between Herod's death and Quirinius' tenure. They couldn't check the claim that Joseph had to travel for a census. However, there's a definite advantage to Luke's story - from a Christian perspective. After the Jewish Revolt, Jews were looked upon with suspicion by Romans. The early Christians had to disambiguate their cult from the Jews. There also was the story (per Josephus) of the revolt of Judas the Galilee as a reaction to Quirinius' census. Having Joseph be an obedient Roman subject, willing to make an arduous journey with his highly pregnant wife paints Christians as law-abiding Roman subjects from the outset.

And three simple questions to you, DOC:

1) do you know Koine Greek?

2) do you plan on learning Koine Greek?

3) why not?

 

[DOC]

Skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman's new book states: Yes, Jesus of Nazareth Did Exist.

In the 5 years or so I've been on this site many people have written in my threads that Jesus is a myth, a fairy tale. Well that is not what skeptic favorite Bart Ehrman says in his new book, "Did Jesus Exist".

Here is a quote from the inside jacket of the book.

"As a leading Bible expert, Ehrman's supporters and critics alike have queried him about this nagging question that has become a conspiracy theorIst cottage industry the world over. The idea that the character of Jesus was an invention of the early church-- and later a tool of control employed by the Roman Catholic Church-- is a widely held belief, and Ehrman has decided it's time to put the issue to rest.

YES, THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH DID EXIST.

Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of this field. Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular "mythicist" arguments against the existence of Jesus..."

____

Maybe the time has come on this site for everyone to accept the evidence that Ehrman mentions in his new book, and the evidence I point out in my Evidence thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

and simply admit that:

"Yes, The historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist"

and then proceed from there.

 

[The Dark Lord]

So what if some crazy preacher named Jesus existed.

 

[Agatha]

Skeptic favourite? You've been here since January 2007 and it seems you have learnt nothing.

 

[Amazer]

Skeptic favourite? You've been here since January 2007 and it seems you have learnt nothing.

If you followed any of the threads that DOC participates in... this wouldn't have come as a surprise.

 

[JoeMorgue]

How is Bart Ehrman a "Skeptic Favorite?"

He looks to be a standard religious apologist to me.

 

[DOC]

On page 328 of Ehrman's book, cited in post #1, he states there are solid reasons to believe that Jesus was betrayed by Judas.

 

[Mashuna]

On page 328 of Ehrman's book, cited in post #1, he states there are solid reasons to believe that Jesus was betrayed by Judas.

You've had to jump to page 328 to start your cherry-picking?

 

[ddt]

Maybe the time has come on this site for everyone to accept the evidence that Ehrman mentions in his new book,

So could you sum up the evidence Ehrman gives in his book? Did you read it, or did you only copy the jacket text from a website?

and the evidence I point out in my Evidence thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

and simply admit that:

"Yes, The historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist"

That's a gross equivocation. I'm pretty sure that Ehrman didn't use arguments like "5,000 manuscripts existing" or invokes people like Sir William Ramsay or Norman Geisler.

And there's a second equivocation. "Jesus existed" and "Christ existed" are two different claims. "Christ existed" includes the virgin birth, the miracles, and foremost, the resurrection. That is your claim and you utterly failed to convince anyone of that.

"Jesus existed" only claims there was a wandering rabbi around the start of the 1st C. AD who stood model for the Jesus Christ in the NT. No miracles, no resurrection here. This is what Ehrman claims.

And now get your ass back to the "Evidence of the NT" thread or the "failed prophecies" thread. There's some Greek homework lying there for you.