Steven Carr

It is interesting that Biblical historians will refuse to give any evidence, even when asked point blank to do so.


Instead they will claim that I regard them as ‘ignorant’ and ‘worthless’, even when you have as polite to them,as they have been obnoxious about you.

Was I polite? I think I was.

But why did Professor Larry Hurtado not just produce the evidence that Judas, Lazarus, Thomas existed.

All he could say was 'They are in the Bible.'


This is bad logic, but what else could Professor Larry Hurtado say? He had no evidence, so all he could say was 'The Bible says so.'


But this is entirely circular.


http://cscoedinburgh.wordpress.com/2...did-jesus-die/

Here is my reply to Professor Hurtado, although I doubt that it will be allowed.

Paul, of course, is a primary source, so letters by him are primary documents. Claims by Paul to have existed and to know of the existence of Apollos,Priscilla etc are valuable primary affidavits.

Mischaracterising my views by pretending I do not know the difference between primary and secondary sources is not nice of you.

The Gospels are secondary anonymous sources. They mention a lot of characters who,like a lot of characters in the Book of Mormon, do not exist outside their pages.

Therefore , the gospels are not evidence of the existence of Judas,Lazarus, Barabbas, Thomas, and the vast cast of Gospel characters who are never mentioned by Christians writing to each other.

‘ You ask for an affidavit signed by first-century Christians, but unfortunately we don’t have any such affidavit for most people from history.’

Is this an explanation of why there is no evidence for Judas? Because no evidence should be expected?

Explaining why there is no evidence of their existence is not producing evidence that they existed.

The difference is the sheer number of people mentioned in the Gospels who vanish into thin air as soon as there is a public church, in precisely the same manner that the Angel Moroni vanished when Joseph Smith went public.

No Christian ever named himself as seeing this vast cast of Gospel characters.

And when Christians write to each other, and tell each other of examples of people who behaved in a certain instructive manner, they almost invariably use Old Testament examples,even if the actions of Judas, John the Baptist, Lazarus, Thomas, Joseph of Arimathea etc would have been far more suitable material to use.

‘you misconstrue Paul’s comment in Romans 10:14-15, if you take it to mean that no Jew had ever heard of Jesus.’

As I already pointed out, Paul is clear that Jews HAD heard of Jesus. People had been sent to preach about him.

Paul asks rhetorically, how can they believe in the one they have never heard of, and how can they hear unless somebody is sent to preach.

He then points out that people have been sent to preach about Jesus, so that Jews do now know about Jesus, and not all have accepted the good news.

The implication is obvious that Paul thinks Jews heard about Jesus by people sent to preach about him.

Mischaracterising my views by pretending I claim Paul says Jews have never heard of Jesus is not nice of you.

David Deas

This Hurtado fool is pretty nasty. I wonder what crawled up his ass?

Toto

Steven Carr has been posting on biblioblogs in a rather un-collegial manner. He just lists a few zingers that expose the weaknesses in the standard argument, without going through all the social niceties that people need to do when they want to challenge the orthodoxy and get a point across without just raising resistance.

Steven would need to first of all praise something about Professor Hurtado - your brilliant exposition of <something somewhere> but how do scholars account for <factor x> and does not this whole argument depend on <uncritically accepted assumtions about y> - and then there is at least a possibility of getting through.

But perhaps it's all hopeless.

First century Christian texts carefully hidden away until the second century?

Again, the dating for those letters is dodgy.

And then, of course, "critical" scholarship proceeds merrily along and ignores all of the difficulties, so that uncritical Christian apologists can claim that scholarship all agrees that Jesus existed, the gospels were written in the first century, etc., and no Christian need ever confront the problems in their faith.

Of course

Well, it is his blog, and he is paid to play the scholarly game. So play by his rules or go away.

bacht

"When did Jesus die?"

How about this fellow?

1. BUT the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there (12) So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

Antiquities 18 ch 4 [Whiston]

Stephan has got me thinking about Samaritans, as they get good press in the NT.

show_no_mercy

I think only in Luke and John (both later, anti-docetic writings... oddly) do Samaritans get a good mention. In Matt, a Samaritan woman is compared to a dog and Samaritans make no appearance in Mark.

Of course, John has the absurdity of Samartians accepting a Jewish/Davidic messiah (Jesus). IIRC Samaritans' messiah was supposed to be a "son of Joseph". But why are Samaritans represented more favorably in later Christian writings and not earlier ones? Is it part of the Catholicizing (i.e. universal appeal) movement? Wasn't Justin Martyr a Samaritan? Paul's evil twin Simon Magus was also supposed to be a Samaritan.

bacht

Well, Acts presents successful preaching in Samaria (late, as you say). I was also thinking of the association of John the Baptist with the Jordan, I believe his shrine is in Samaria. The gnostics would have him as the beginning of a sect that had Dositheus and Simon Magus as successors. The "holy mountain" of the Transfiguration scene could have been Mt Gerizim rather than Zion as usually assumed.

Philosopher Jay's idea about parallel stories of John and Jesus got me thinking about whether the original focus was on John, who may have operated in the north. If there were Christian roots in Samaria this would help explain the hostility of Jews, who apparently wanted to kill Paul.

As for why the Jewish messiah became the root of Roman Catholicism, I can only guess that it was easier than adapting the Samaritan religion, with its focus on the Pentateuch. Also the Jewish state was conveniently destroyed, leaving more of a vacuum to fill for gentile Christians. Or the presence of large numbers of diaspora Jews might have been a factor (?)

aeebee50

I thought he was still alive. He almost ran me down a few years ago.

Steve Weiss

Jesus can't die because he never lived. Myths persist forever.

stephan huller

March 23, 37 CE.

Sunday March 25th has always been held by the Alexandrian Church to be the date of the Resurrection.

Jack Finegan's Handbook of Biblical Chronology makes clear 37 CE is the only year that has a new moon in Nisan that allows for the rest of the synoptic chronology to work.

mountainman

Harry Potter 7 was released this month.