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

[Craig4]

Actually when the 9 different New Testament writers---writing at different times and places--- wrote their works, they didn't have a clue it was going to end up in something called a Bible.

How do you figure there were only nine?

 

[DOC]

Actually, he describes himself as an agnostic who lost his faith through his academic study of the Bible.

Vs. the thousands and maybe millions who found their faith through reading the Bible, the best selling book ever according to some sources.

 

[zooterkin]

Vs. the thousands and maybe millions who found their faith through reading the Bible, the best selling book ever according to some sources.

But he's the subject of this thread, the "master explainer with deep knowledge of this field", so presumably you endorse his conclusion, rather than theirs?

 

[HansMustermann]

I have a feeling the apostle Peter (who probably knew a thing or two about the historical Jesus after 3 years of traveling with him) wasn't fabricating things in Rome where he went to preach.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

Except for the fact that we have no EVIDENCE that Peter was ever in Rome at all, nor that he ever wrote anything. In fact, as the same Barth Ehrman you brought up argues, Peter as an illiterate fisherman, and explicitly said in Acts (by the same "great historian Luke" that you so like) to be illiterate, almost certainly wouldn't write whole tracts of eloquent Greek sophistry.

So all we have is some forgeries attributed to Peter, and some pious fan-fic to claim continuity from him.

In fact, even those pious forgeries seem unable to agree where the hell was Peter.

E.g., the liar and forger Eusebius of Caesarea (from whom, sadly, most of such early church pseudo-history comes) says, "Peter the Apostle founded the Church at Antioch, and there securing his (episcopal) throne, he sat (reigning as bishop) for 25 years." And actually it's pretty important for his timeline to have Peter there until the next pope, or things don't add up for his pseudo-history about Ignatius.

The first source that puts Peter in Rome is a 5'th century or later Armenian translation and heavy interpolation (as in, it differs in every frikken sentence) of the same text, that says, "The Apostle Peter, having first founded the Church at Antioch, goes to the city of the Romans, and there preaches the Gospel, and remains Bishop of the Church there twenty years."

The two don't quite add up, and there's also the fact that the Armenian translation is heavily interpolated.

So was Peter in Rome? There is no frikken contemporary source, or even source outside Christianity at all, that places him there. Do we know WHAT he preached there? No, we don't. We have no frikken idea at all, because the only things attributed to him are actually forgeries in his name.

The ONLY contemporary mention of Peter is actually Paul, and he doesn't say much else than that Peter apparently had ideas diverging from Pauls. For example, obviously Peter was considering himself still a Jew and subject to the Law. And there we have the first problem with finding a continuity of Catholicism all the way to Peter. His ideas according to the only contemporary (if unreliable) source, don't quite match Catholicism.

And as I was mentioning in another thread, actually we have an even bigger problem in the fact that the early Church didn't know that Peter and Cephas were the same person. The doctrine until actually fairly recently was that they were two different people that Paul is talking about. You'd think that some people who learned from him, and talked to him, and were led by him for 25 years, would at least learn his frikken NAME. Don't you think it would kinda come up sooner or later?

 

[Agatha]

DOC, on which page of Bart Ehrman's book will you find the following quote?

The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence.

 

[Mojo]

DOC, on which page of Bart Ehrman's book will you find the following quote?

The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence.

Would that be the qoute that apparently continues, "That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesuses are) a myth"?

 

[Akhenaten]

Shouldn't this be merged with the "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth?" thread. At first I was willing to believe that DOC might actually be striking out into new, if still hightly erroneous territory, but it quickly became the same old thing.

Unfortunately I don't know how to make that suggestion to a Mod. Anyone?

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The fact is that all of the threads DOC starts are clones of TTTWND and the only thing we really need to worry about is that they themselves may one day become self-replicating.

In the interim, it's something of a convention that all DOC threads are under biomechanoid surveillance and your suggestion will already have been noted.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually when the 9 different New Testament writers--

You have no idea who wrote the New Testament.

-writing at different times and places---

None of which were times and places occupied by the alleged Jesus.

. . . wrote their works, they didn't have a clue it was going to end up in something called a Bible.

That's why it looks the way it does - a horse designed by a committee.

 

[Akhenaten]

Will you post any that present Erman's belief that your religion was fabricated over generations and has very little to do with the historical Jesus whom you reference?

I have a feeling the apostle Peter (who probably knew a thing or two about the historical Jesus after 3 years of traveling with him) wasn't fabricating things in Rome where he went to preach.

Ignoring for a second that this bilge has nothing to do with the question you were asked, you have exactly the same amount of evidence for the Adventures of Peter Rabbi as you do for the alleged Jesus - not one whit.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

 

[Akhenaten]

Jesus talked some about the end of the world . . .

You have no evidence that the alleged Jesus said any particular thing about any subject.

. . . but he also managed to slip in enough morality to motivate Thomas Jefferson to write a book which included over 60 pages of Christ's life events and morality teachings.

As you've been told hundreds of times, the morality of which you speak and which so impressed Sir Thomas was bootlegged by the founders of the Jesus cult from sources which had existed, in some cases, for millenia.

Continually re-presenting this dross is, as you've also been told hundreds of times, is lyiing for Jesus and you really should stop.

If a guy is so focused on the end of the world why is he spending so much time on everyday morality, and loving your neighbor, and loving your enemies.

Because he's a fabrication, and as such is not constrained by the limits of time and effort that beset real people.

 

[ddt]

Ignoring for a second that this bilge has nothing to do with the question you were asked, you have exactly the same amount of evidence for the Adventures of Peter Rabbi as you do for the alleged Jesus - not one whit.

I see what you did there.

 

[Akhenaten]

I see what you did there.

 

[ddt]

I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed.

Mad history skillz DOC. Quoting a secondary source that you don't even own or have in your possession.

The irony is that ddt's link here:

I'm not very inclined to buy this very book of Ehrman's after having read Richard Carrier's review.

... exposes Bart for not having read the primary sources!

Like I said DOC, mad history skillz!

Took some time to read Carrier's review? Yes, it's quite long and detailed. And damning.

 

[ddt]

In your enthusiasm about Ehrman's new book you might forget there's still a question you need to answer. It's about your favourite historian, Luke. Here it is again:

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.

I hope you come around answering it this time. Maybe your pastor tomorrow can give you some guidance. Oh, plus the follow-up questions:

And three simple questions to you, DOC:

1) do you know Koine Greek?

2) do you plan on learning Koine Greek?

3) why not?

 

[Agatha]

*looks around*

This place seems remarkably familiar, almost as if we've been here for years. And yet, absolutely no progress has been made. It's a puzzle.

About that quote from Bart Ehrman's book, DOC, have you found it yet?

The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence.

 

[Akhenaten]

Mwahahahahaha!

TTTWND, otherwise known as the Great Attractor™, sucks up a few more victims.

 

[Akhenaten]

They apparently also didn't have quite have the clue what was up with that Yeshua guy. I mean, they can't even get that simple story straight and end up writing different versions? Bit odd, init?

I would be more worried if there was no inconsistencies when 9 separate writers are writing at different times and places.

No you wouldn't.

You'd claim that the remarkable consistency of the various accounts is evidence of their veracity.

And as I've said before, I've never read an alleged inconsistency in the Gospels that can't be logically explained.

Then why don't you try presenting some of those logical explanations rather than the fifth-rate apologetic gobbledigook that you've been posting for years?

If you had 9 people in the general area of the NY 911 attacks and none of them saw news accounts and that night you asked them to describe what happened that day do you think there would be any inconsistencies in their stories.

Yes, I do, and that would lead me cross-check the various stories, not just with each other but with the thousands of other accounts of the events that took place that day. Then I'd compare the stories to the physical evidence.

In other words, more or less the opposite of what you've done in this thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

...The only way that Bart Erhman could be described as a a skeptic favourite is if someone named a pizza after him.

Which will probably happen, now that I come to think about it. ...

Will this count as a fulfilled prophecy, O Pharaoh?

Indeed it will since, unlike the god of the reedcutters, Pharaoh has the power to deliver on his promises.*




*10am - midnight. Metro area only.

 

[ddt]

I would be more worried if there was no inconsistencies when 9 separate writers are writing at different times and places. And as I've said before, I've never read an alleged inconsistency in the Gospels that can't be logically explained.

Let's try Jesus' DOB first. Was it during Herod's reign (before 4BC) or during Quirinius' tenure as governor of Syria (after 6AD)?

If you had 9 people in the general area of the NY 911 attacks and none of them saw news accounts and that night you asked them to describe what happened that day do you think there would be any inconsistencies in their stories.

However, none of your 9 writers of the NT books were eyewitnesses, so the comparison is moot.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually, he describes himself as an agnostic who lost his faith through his academic study of the Bible.

Vs. the thousands and maybe millions who found their faith through reading the Bible,

No, not versus them at all, since they aren't the subject of your latest attempt to do whatever it is that you think you're doing.

. . . the best selling book ever according to some sources.

Just for giggles, how about sharing some of them with us?