Steven Carr

http://celsus.blog.com/2012/10/14/te...source-slogan/ has an interesting article about just what abysmal standards you can have and still get to be called a New Testament scholar.

aeebee50

Interesting. People should be sure their sources are correct.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven Carr,

Thank you for this interesting and amusing article.

The article correctly shows the absurdity of the scholarship of the Evangelical apologists. However, it does not attack the absurdity of the Christian Euhemerist apologists.

These are the facts of Jesus' historical existence that Ferguson accepts:

Chronology of Jesus:
4BCE – 7CE: Jesus is born
29CE: Jesus begins his ministry
30CE – 33CE: Jesus is crucified

There is no reason to accept that Jesus was born in either 4BCE or 7CE.

Herod the Great is mentioned in the account in the Matthew fiction. However, he is absurdly associated with the massacre of infants in Bethlehem. It is impossible to imagine that such a crime horrendous in both the eyes of Jews and Romans in the period, would not have been recorded about Herod the Great in other sources. Also at the age of 70, in a population where life expectancy was under 40, it is hard to imagine that a prophesy delivered by three magicians from the far East (Iran?) would be something he would care about. It was Rome who appointed him as King and he would have certainly expected Rome to appoint another king afterwards. Since the story is fits the mold of mythological stories about heroes born to great and immediate danger (Moses, Hercules), we cannot take it in any way as a history to establish a birthdate for Jesus.

In the case of Luke, it appears obvious that the absurd world wide census by Quirinus is simply a plot device to explain how Jesus could be born in Betlehem to fulfill a messianic prophesy and yet be from Nazareth. The story also relates this famous historical incident:

Jesus being born in 7 CE is as likely to have happened as the angel and the heavenly host appearing to the Shepherds. In short, there is no historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth or even anybody was born in Bethlehem in 4 BCE or 7 CE.

Jesus' ministry beginning in 29 BCE in stated only in the Gospel of Luke. The writer of against Marcion, Tertullian, asks, "But now, how happens it that the Lord has been revealed since the twelfth year of Tiberius Cæsar, while no creation of His at all has been discovered up to the fifteenth of the Emperor Severus." The fifteenth year of Severus is obviously the year that Tertullian would be 207. This was when Tertullian was writing. He believes that. The twelfth year of Tiberius' reign would be the year 25 or 26 CE.

The debate over if Marcion copied from Luke or Luke copied from Marcion is still on-going. There is no reason to believe that either Marcion or Luke had any direct knowledge of Jesus' ministry. Therefore this date too is not substantiated by any significant historical evidence.

Finally the date of Jesus' death from 30 to 33 is equally uncertain. A date of 35 or 36 has also been proposed and championed by scholars and Eusebius tells us that attacks against Christians of his time claimed that he had died in 19 CE. Again, there is no significant historical evidence for this date.

While Evangelical apologists falsify historical evidence for the supernatural Jesus of their imagination, Christian Euhemerist apologists falsify historical evidence for the historical Jesus of their imagination.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven Carr,

Thank you for this interesting and amusing article.

The article correctly shows the absurdity of the scholarship of the Evangelical apologists. However, it does not attack the absurdity of the Euhemerist apologists of which Matthew Ferguson appears to be one.

These are the facts of Jesus' historical existence that Ferguson accepts:

Chronology of Jesus:
4BCE – 7CE: Jesus is born
29CE: Jesus begins his ministry
30CE – 33CE: Jesus is crucified

There is no reason to accept that Jesus was born in either 4BCE or 7CE.

Herod the Great is mentioned in the account in the Matthew fiction. However, he is absurdly associated with the massacre of infants in Bethlehem. It is impossible to imagine that such a crime horrendous in both the eyes of Jews and Romans in the period, would not have been recorded about Herod the Great in other sources. Also at the age of 70, in a population where life expectancy was under 40, it is hard to imagine that a prophesy delivered by three magicians from the far East (Iran?) would be something he would care about. It was Rome who appointed him as King and he would have certainly expected Rome to appoint another king afterwards. Since the story is fits the mold of mythological stories about heroes born to great and immediate danger (Moses, Hercules), we cannot take it in any way as a history to establish a birthdate for Jesus.

In the case of Luke, it appears obvious that the absurd world wide census by Quirinus is simply a plot device to explain how Jesus could be born in Betlehem to fulfill a messianic prophesy and yet be from Nazareth. The story also relates this famous historical incident:

Jesus being born in 7 CE is as likely to have happened as the angel and the heavenly host appearing to the Shepherds. In short, there is no historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth or even anybody was born in Bethlehem in 4 BCE or 7 CE.

Jesus' ministry beginning in 29 BCE in stated only in the Gospel of Luke. The writer of against Marcion, Tertullian, asks, "But now, how happens it that the Lord has been revealed since the twelfth year of Tiberius Cæsar, while no creation of His at all has been discovered up to the fifteenth of the Emperor Severus." The fifteenth year of Severus is obviously the year that Tertullian would be 207. This was when Tertullian was writing. He believes that. The twelfth year of Tiberius' reign would be the year 25 or 26 CE.

The debate over if Marcion copied from Luke or Luke copied from Marcion is still on-going. There is no reason to believe that either Marcion or Luke had any direct knowledge of Jesus' ministry. Therefore this date too is not substantiated by any significant historical evidence.

Finally the date of Jesus' death from 30 to 33 is equally uncertain. A date of 35 or 36 has also been proposed and championed by scholars and Eusebius tells us that attacks against Christians of his time claimed that he had died in 19 CE. Again, there is no significant historical evidence for this date.

While Evangelical apologists falsify historical evidence for the supernatural Jesus of their imagination, Christian Euhemerist apologists falsify historical evidence for the historical Jesus of their imagination.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

yalla

I have read [in christian apologia] that there are no contemporary accounts, or near contemporary, for the life of Alexander the Great.
In my ignorance I believed this was correct - until recently.
I have read that E.P. Sanders has claimed that there are better historical sources for JC than Alex the Great [although I cannot trace his actual words].

Then I found out that there are, in fact, numerous accounts relating to Alex.
From wiki:
"Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life included Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman. Their works are lost, but later works based on these original sources have survived. The earliest of these is Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), followed by Quintus Curtius Rufus (mid to late 1st century AD), Arrian (1st to 2nd century AD), the biographer Plutarch (1st to 2nd century AD), and finally Justin, whose work dated as late as the 4th century AD.[14] Of these, Arrian is generally considered the most reliable, given that he used Ptolemy and Aristobulus as his sources, closely followed by Diodorus."[14]

That is before we get to all the non literary evidence.

Steven Carr

No, that was the start of the ministry of John the Baptist, according to Luke.

Luke gives no date for the start of Jesus ministry. How could he?

tanya

Evidence, which I view as crucial, because, unlike the texts, which, until proven otherwise, have all been corrupted by political machinations.

Many of the coins paying homage to Alexander's accomplishments, date from his lifetime, or immediately thereafter, e.g. lying in state on his deathbed.

Urban settlements from Afghanistan to Egypt, numbering almost a dozen, have adopted his name, despite the spread of Islam in that region, with concomitant repudiation of "Hellenization".

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven Carr,

Thank you for this interesting and amusing article.

The article correctly shows the absurdity of the scholarship of the Evangelical apologists. However, it does not attack the absurdity of the Euhemerist apologists of which Matthew Ferguson appears to be one.

These are the facts of Jesus' historical existence that Ferguson accepts:

Chronology of Jesus:
4BCE – 7CE: Jesus is born
29CE: Jesus begins his ministry
30CE – 33CE: Jesus is crucified

There is no reason to accept that Jesus was born in either 4BCE or 7CE.

Herod the Great is mentioned in the account in the Matthew fiction. However, he is absurdly associated with the massacre of infants in Bethlehem. It is impossible to imagine that such a crime horrendous in both the eyes of Jews and Romans in the period, would not have been recorded about Herod the Great in other sources. Also at the age of 70, in a population where life expectancy was under 40, it is hard to imagine that a prophesy delivered by three magicians from the far East (Iran?) would be something he would care about. It was Rome who appointed him as King and he would have certainly expected Rome to appoint another king afterwards. Since the story is fits the mold of mythological stories about heroes born to great and immediate danger (Moses, Hercules), we cannot take it in any way as a history to establish a birthdate for Jesus.

In the case of Luke, it appears obvious that the absurd world wide census by Quirinus is simply a plot device to explain how Jesus could be born in Betlehem to fulfill a messianic prophesy and yet be from Nazareth. The story also relates this famous historical incident:

Jesus being born in 7 CE is as likely to have happened as the angel and the heavenly host appearing to the Shepherds. In short, there is no historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth or even anybody was born in Bethlehem in 4 BCE or 7 CE.

Jesus' ministry beginning in 29 BCE in stated only in the Gospel of Luke. The writer of against Marcion, Tertullian, asks, "But now, how happens it that the Lord has been revealed since the twelfth year of Tiberius Cæsar, while no creation of His at all has been discovered up to the fifteenth of the Emperor Severus." The fifteenth year of Severus is obviously the year that Tertullian would be 207. This was when Tertullian was writing. He believes that. The twelfth year of Tiberius' reign would be the year 25 or 26 CE.

The debate over if Marcion copied from Luke or Luke copied from Marcion is still on-going. There is no reason to believe that either Marcion or Luke had any direct knowledge of Jesus' ministry. Therefore this date too is not substantiated by any significant historical evidence.

Finally the date of Jesus' death from 30 to 33 is equally uncertain. A date of 35 or 36 has also been proposed and championed by scholars and Eusebius tells us that attacks against Christians of his time claimed that he had died in 19 CE. Again, there is no significant historical evidence for this date.

While Evangelical apologists falsify historical evidence for the supernatural Jesus of their imagination, Christian Euhemerist apologists falsify historical evidence for the historical Jesus of their imagination.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Roger Pearse

You will find it a very good policy to always verify your references, as Martin Routh used to say.

Careless indeed, although it can't really affect the argument to learn that the Master of the whole Roman world is only mentioned by the same number of literary sources as some peasant from the back of beyond.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven,

Good point. Thanks.

One would have thought that even the worst biography writer in the world would mention when they thought the main occupation of their subject began. Of course, people writing fiction would not worry about that sort of thing. If you're writing fiction, chronology does not matter so much.

Oh, and I forgot to add that Irenaeus places Jesus' death in the time of Claudius. So we can take our pick, 19 C.E., 27 C.E. 30-33, 35-36, or 41-54. At least one gnostic group thought the crucifixion didn't happen to Jesus at all. So we can also choose "never" and have an ancient source to back us up.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin