Ben C Smith

It may be worth pointing out that Epiphanius, in Panarion 51.4, notes that the group he calls the alogoi rejected the gospel of John and cited this and other chronological tensions as reasons for doing so.

Ben.

Steven Avery

First, John is not a "synoptic".
Just for clarity.

To claim a "contradiction" on Carrier's own "implicit" interpretation
is at least disingenuous. And worse, it is in fact a fabrication.

(Deceptive is your word, it doesn't apply well since the error was
done in the open, en passant.)

You have simply made the exact same mistake as Carrier,
since it was a special transition moment that was highlighted
clearly in the Gospels.

- The call of preaching that began with John's imprisonment.

"repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"

There was definitely ministry before this, probably "preaching"
and there is not a single word in the Bible that says otherwise.
Again, it is simply wrong to claim a "contradiction" on what the
skeptical reader claims is "implicit", his glasses will always be
tinted to miss the beautiful harmony of the Bible.

So if you are going to try to defend Carrier you should not
just make the same error as he does.

Carrier has enough problems with his article in general. For him
to have false, gratuitous attempts at claiming error here or there
is really a disaster and puts a pall over the larger attempt, which
at least is interesting.

As I said, I'm really not sure yet whether this blunder is simply
an extraneous fly-by swipe attempt at claiming an unrelated
error - or whether it is needed is integral for his chronological
attempt.

Either way it is phoney and any savvy skeptic should disclaim
the attempt as both ill-formed and poorly executed.

====

The overall problem is that now .. Carrier's many errors in the
article are being highlighted and exposed. So understandably
his supporters get a tad testy.

Anyway, thanks for starting a split-off thread.
We should be able to really make good headway, by the grace
of the Lord Jesus.

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Toto

I see the confusion - the first "John" in my post referred to John the Baptist, not gJohn.

There is not a single word in the Bible that says that Jesus was not John the Baptist's special agent, carrying on his secret mission. But I don't think so.

...

No, the problem is that inerrantists are desparately trying to find a way to preserve their beliefs, and it gets boring after a while trying to keep up.

It's been almost 2000 years, and His supporters still can't get the holy scriptures straight.

Why will Jesus grace you when he failed so many before?

Steven Avery

Toto, please, you are doing a disservice to the thread. Remember, Richard Carrier wants this work to be taken seriously. The fact that it appears to be riddled with errors and difficulties and strained accusations is very significant. For sound scholarship, for apologetics, and for helping Richard publish an accurate and fair article. (If that is in fact his intention or desire.)

May I ask you to avoid skeptic sideshows so we can discuss the Richard Carrier article ..

'The Date of the Nativity in Luke'

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13

If you only knew the synoptics, would you conclude Jesus' ministry began after John's imprisonment?

What about Epiphanius' alogoi that Ben mentioned? They sound like Christians but they apparently read the synoptics the same way as your "skeptical reader" with his tinted glasses. :huh:

Steven Avery

I would definitely and properly conclude that Jesus' preaching of -

"repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"

began after John's imprisonment.
Additional conclusions would be conjectural and unwarranted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq What about Epiphanius' alogoi that Ben mentioned? They sound like Christians but they apparently read the synoptics the same way as your "skeptical reader" with his tinted glasses.

We are going pretty far afield. There were folks who even centered their whole religion on John the Baptist and his teachings, even today we have such groups. Since we are far afield and you don't give a link or a quote I won't search too hard.

Ok, having checked a little Epiphanius is specifically refuting many claims of the alogoi, much as I find that I have to refute many false assertions and accusations of Richard Carrier. I do not know if we have the full text online, but I did find this summary from Ephiphanius...

"everything is said truthfully and in agreement by the four evangelists"
Panarion 51.21.18
The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church, Charles Evans.


Bottom line - in a scholarly paper Richard Carrier is simply way out on a limb with a false sideswipe accusation against the Bible text. Again, it is unclear whether this is substantive to his argument or not. Apparently it may be, since Richard goes to a lot of effort to try to have the ministry of Jesus start significantly after that of John the Baptist. So far that aspect of the discussion does not concern me much, it is a small fish to fry, but it should be noted clearly that Richard builds the structure of the late ministry on a false accusation foundation.

On the contradiction accusation itself - the attempts to rehabilitate his attempt here are feeble, more perfunctory and diversionary than substantive. It is easy to see there is no contradiction and that Carrier was either 'fishing' or hoping most readers would not notice his accusation was simply false.

And hopefully we are mostly done with this aspect of the thread, (since the accusation is so obviously false). If someone really wants to try to defend Richard Carrier on this point please try to give something substantive.

Anyway, back shortly with the Luke 2:2 discussion. Wherein lies some of the more surprising omission and error and misdirection from Richard Carrier.

However, first - yet an additional problem in his Luke 2:1 discussion. Richard Carrier gives us a rather glib and surprising claim.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Fortuna

After reading through Carrier's statement and some of Praxeus's statements, I cannot understand why Praxeus believes that Carrier is necessarily wrong.

Carrier is comparing the sequence of events from the synoptics to those in John. They apparently do seem to be different on this specific issue as with many others(the most apparent being the timing temple incident).

First let me say that it seems inherent to me that the synoptics (save for GMatt and GLuke's story of the birth of Jesus) start at the beginning of Jesus's public teaching or ministry. All seem to start this sequence of events with Jesus's baptism. If we inquire if Jesus taught prior to this, we cannot say either way and we have an argument from silence. This isn't Praxeus's objection anyway. But, the stories themselves seem (to me) to be clear that the baptism is the starting point of Jesus's public life. Enough said.

Let's explore.

On the surface, this seems to be true. Let's explore Praxeus's objections but add some context, perhaps the verses just prior and just after to his for starters. This will give us a better view of the sequence of events for comparitve purposes to GJohn. (As needed. I will put the verses just prior to Praxeus in italics with Praxeus's in a quote block).

For Carrier to be wrong, Praxeus must show that any of the synoptics have Jesus teaching prior to John's arrest (that Carrier has missed some occurrence of such).

It is not sufficient for Praxeus to use an argument from silence, such as an attempt to harmonize the sequence of events between John and the synoptics (which would be extremely difficult anyway) or even intra-synoptic because it does not make Carrier's statement incorrect due to Carriers preface ("we are told...") which specifically references the text of the synoptics. ( Further, we can never know with any certainty that these versions should be harmonized, as one or both might be historical fiction. (that is, a fictional story told in a historical context perhaps even using a real character, i.e. suppose we tried to harmonize 2 stories of the tale of George Washington and the cherry tree ? )


Let's review Praxeus's comments about the synoptics.

This is Mark. We note that up to this point in Mark's story there is no mention of Jesus teaching or ministering. The first mention is here.


Mark.

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.12 And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.


Note - Jesus is baptized, driven into the wilderness for 40 days. He then learns John is imprisoned, goes to Galilee, possibly preaching and recruits Peter and Andrew. Note that there must be some indeterminate amount of time between 2.13 and 1.14.(we don't know how Jesus gets the news about John's imprisonment)


Here is Matthew.

3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

Basically the same sequence of events as Mark, but with more detail while in the wilderness. Peter and Andrew recruited.


Luke. Luke is a bit more difficult. There is much more detail here. Luke temporally anchors the story. Also, like Mark and Matt, up to this point there is no mention of Jesus doing any teaching.

2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
(( ... John baptizes others, with dialogue ))
21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
(( ... Jesus's Genealogy ))
1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
(...)
14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
44 And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.
(...)
Luke 5 - apostle selection Peter and Andrew


In Luke, it is not clear if John or one of his disciples baptizes Jesus. It only says that "when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying,...", but this follows the statement that John was imprisoned. And we do read Jesus teaching after the time in the wilderness but before Peter and Andrew are recruited. But, not before John is said to be arrested.

The plot thickens a bit, but there is no statement of Jesus teaching prior to John's imprisonment as it is placed in Luke.

Praxeus adds ;

Agreed, but Carrier doesn't say anything about "waiting" only that Jesus teaching begins ""after John was arrested". And the 2 of the 3 synoptics definitely agree with that statement. With Luke, the placement of the statemnt is John's arrest does not conflict with Carriers statement.

If you are considering the indeterminate time between Jesus's leaving he wilderness and hearing of John's arrest, none of the synoptics say anything about Jesus teaching during that time.

Let's look at GJohn first please and what you present here.

Actually, he had many more than that. See John 1:37-47. He also had at that time Andrew, Peter (who he renames Cephas), Philip and Nathanael .

Show me one place in GJohn where that is stated, or anything at all about the "Kingdom of heaven" after 3:24. (I did a word search, there is not one occurrence of "kingdom of heaven", or "kingdom of god". (the word "Kingdom" only occurs in other contexts, same for the word "heaven").


Not once is that mentioned in GJohn. In the synoptics Yes, but not in GJohn.



Those are synoptics. Carrier is saying that ;

Which is true. And ther is no statement nor indication of such a shift in GJohn. If you disagree then Show me one in GJohn .

Only after his baptism according to the synoptics.

And you are trying to clear it up by silence. Again, show me.


No, that is not exactly true. So far you have presented an argument from silence. There is no "change" visible in GJohn nor have you shown one.
Show me !


A minor one I agree. More troubling is the contradictory timing of the temple incident.


That is a subjective opinion.

The Illiad is also a great work of literature, writTen in metric with many interconnecting themes and characters. It is much more complex and considerably more artfully created than any book of the NT. Wouldn;t you agree ?


It looks to me like you are wrong about this one. There are some minor problems with what Carrier said in his statement I will admit, but your criticism is problematic. You have not demonstratedthat Carier to be wrong.

F

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

In an overall sense one of the weakest parts of the Richard Carrier presentation is his "gap theory". His attempt to try to read a twelve-year gap between the births of John and Jesus into the mind and pen of Luke. Carrier puts yeoman efforts towards this task, repeatedly wresting the clear sense of the NT passages. Some of that is buried in a footnote and may be helpful to return to later.

One part of this Carrier fantasy relates to our ongoing study of Luke 2:1-2. Consider this as part 3 of the verse 1 analysis ('census' and 'inhabitants' being the first two parts) and definitely the most shocking and alarming.

And it is hidden in a small comment on Luke 2:1 -
First the true context of -"the days..."

Luke 1:5 (KJB)
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,
a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:
and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron,
and her name was Elisabeth.

Luke 2:1
And it came to pass in those days

Richard Carrier translation:
It happened in those days that a decree

Now with a whole chapter having discussed Elizabeth and
Mary and John and Zecharias as in "the days" of Herod
commentaries have no difficulties here whatsoever.

Two quick examples.

John Gill,
When John the Baptist was born, and Christ was conceived,
and his mother pregnant with him, and the time of his birth drew on....

Albert Barnes
About the time of the birth of John and of Christ.

Richard Carrier just fabricates a nonsensical idea and slips it into
his argument. In trying to justify his "gap theory" Richard Carrier
wrests language and context on its head..

Richard Carrier amazing commentary:
"in those days" from vv. 2:1 picks up the "day"
of the previous vv. 1:80

Luke 1:80
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit,
and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

This is prima facie absurd.
'Agenda-driven drivel' would be as nice as one could call this 'scholarship'.
And of course Richard gives us not a single commentary or scholastic or
logical reason for his unique 'theory' that the maturity of John is the
referent for "in those days" rather than what was clearly spoke of
as "the days" of Herod. Seventy-odd verses in the previous chapter all taking place in those specified "days".

Luke 1:5 (KJB)
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea ..

To heighten the absurdity and compound the blunder Carrier turns
around and tries to time-forward the 'temporal marker' .. supposedly
of John growing up (!) from the decree onto the next verses.

(the context as chronological ... it reads as when Quirinius was governing Syria because of the preceding temporal marker "it happened in those days" and the immediately following phrase "and everyone was going," together linking the Quirinius clause with the temporal context and purpose of the story, not with any conceptual digression)

In other words, in the temporal fantasy world of Richard Carrier, Luke is linking the small indefinite-in-time reference of the growing up of John the Baptist as the major temporal marker of the Lukan story ! Talk about riding a lame mare in the Kentucky Derby ! Please.. this poor temporal horse is better shot, or more humanely, at least put out to pasture.

Once again .. note what Luke clearly says is the marker...

Along with the events concurring, the birth of John the Baptist, etc..
As the song goes ... 'those were the days my friend ..'

Luke 1:5
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,
a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:
and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron,
and her name was Elisabeth.

Honestly, dear readers. I know we are implored to be respectful to the 'scholarship' attempt of Richard Carrier. This whole game exposed here is such a transparent ruse of convenience that one almost gags in disbelief.

Please.
Stuff like this has stood as scholarship ? .. for many years ?
In skeptic-land ?
Does anybody actually read the Bible text ?

=====

Next .. by the grace of the Lord Jesus .. on to Luke 2:2.

(Although it might be good to discuss a bit the implications of the strained and rigged interpretation that Richard Carrier offers for "in those days". Why is there such an inaccurate exegesis on such a simple point ? And what does it do to his basic thesis when it is corrected ? That might be a worthwhile discussion, now or shortly.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Fortuna,

Your whole argument is based on a fallacy. The burden of proof is upon the claim of a contradiction. That you get the most basic part of the issue wrong is not a good sign, and the rest of your study, while quite interesting in its own right, has its conclusion based on having the basics backwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortuna ... There are some minor problems with what Carrier said in his statement I will admit, but your criticism is problematic. You have not demonstratedthat Carier to be wrong.

Richard Carrier is the one who claims the contradiction as to when Jesus "starts preaching". Neither he nor you have demonstrated any such thing.

All you did was essentially demonstrate my case in more detail and then attempt to shift the burden of proof. I may have other comments, since the whole topic is fascinating, but I don't want to detract from the basic issue.

The case of the Richard Carrier accusation of contradiction as to when Jesus "starts preaching" is dismissed by reason of failure to provide evidence.

A supposed implicit understanding inferred by a skeptical reader can be placed in a separate scholarly study of personal circumstantial conjectures - and must be deemed irrelevant to the accusation of contradiction.

Case closed.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

matthewthomas

I don't have his books to hand to give a reference, but IIRC Strobel cites Vardaman's microletters claims as strong evidence. If so, then it is worth spending time thoroughly looking at these claims, regardless of whether one thinks they are ridiculous.