bfniii

you may be unfamiliar with the fact that pilate, while not caring to help the jews, feared an uprising (which later did happen) due to the political and religious instability in judea at that time.

Vorkosigan

It's nothing to do with high standards or Shakespeare. The presence of at least multiple hands has been deduced from the presence of multiple different writing styles, and multiple theologies. Are you unfamiliar with the scholarship? Do you own some of the standard introductory works on this and other gospels?

Vorkosigan

bfniii

your cohort disagrees. (maybe the two of you should talk offline)

my contention all along has been that when you are a jew at pentecost and these crazy Christians are running around with their stupid stories, there had to be at least one person who either was or was standing next to someone who could refute their stories. that would require NO EFFORT. there would be no need to dismiss or conduct a formal investigation. your idea of dismissal to explain the lack of evidence you would need to obviate the gospels is weak. i agree with you that there were people who dismissed the Christians. but the thousands of jews in the area at that time, especially so many who despised the Christians, makes your explanation unreasonable. it is highly unlikely that every single one of them were silent. not one of them even so much as opened their mouth?

first, extra-biblical depictions of pilate can be just as ideologically tainted. second, they could be unreliable historically. third, how is pilate supposed to have acted knowing the polical and religious instability there at that time? his only other choice would be to release Jesus. is it not clear that would have incited a riot? it seems highly unreasonable to expect that. fourth, your account of pilate seems to be incomplete as noted by Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Center for Biblical Apologetics, Inc. when he states "Pilate did on occasion back down under pressure from Jewish leaders when it seemed expedient to do so."

mr. crossan is quite mistaken in several ways. he initially admits that there was a crowd but then claims that "later gospels" (which is an assumption) not only copy but exponentially increase the number of people before pilate at Jesus' trial. i have already addressed the issue of the alleged gospel "copying" in other posts. his theory of the growing crowd omits his earlier admission that the so-called earliest source acknowledges a crowd. he mistakenly claims that "In Mark 15:6-15, 'the crowd' comes before Pilate to obtain amnesty for Barabbas and only turn against Jesus when Pilate tries to release him instead." this is a complete misrepresentation. a reading of that passage and the other gospel accounts show that a crowd had already been formed for the purpose of punishing Jesus. his analysis of the passage is out of context. :down: the crowd wouldn't have even been formed if it weren't for their contempt of Jesus.

i must admit i'm not sure what example you would be looking for. there are examples of people who were converted and examples of people who were martyred. that would seem to cover both bases.

incidentally, i think your appraisal of the religious climate isn't totally accurate. while it is true that nero blamed the fire on the christians, the question is why pick them when he could have picked anyone? tacitus outlines the answer when he depicts the christians as increasingly despised and "depraved" for not participating in the roman pagan rituals.

Strange, James F. 1997. First Century Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts. Pp. 3948 in ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE GALlLEE, edited by Edwards and McCollough:1001
Ralph Earl, "Nain," ISBE 3:480

the "entrance" to the city does not have to be translated as "gate". in contrast, some gates are ceremonial (arc de triomphe, st. louis arch). this provides multiple explanations for the biblical passage.

please provide evidence that a city cannot have a gate without a wall.

if you are dismissive, we won't get anywhere. the question was what words are used in this passage that decisively say that the gate required a wall or that the gate wasn't merely the entrance to the city? i never said the gate was the road.

and nain couldn't have had a "monument"?

not all gates are military in nature, as you are well aware. now who is playing silly games?

i'm curious, where did the idea of an oral tradition come from anyway?

i've read enough here to know that the reasons opposing single authorship aren't as compelling as the reasons i outlined in another post responding to Vorkosigan

bfniii

i outlined several scholarly reasons why one author is acceptable. and quite frankly, those reasons are more compelling that the one you provide (that being literary style). i find it interesting that instead of addressing those reasons in a scholarly manner, you choose to insult.

yes there is a difference in the literary style which i addressed earlier. the theologies may differ, but don't contradict. a person is quite entitled to such. i myself have gone through various periods in life where different doctrines are stressed more than others. it's quite common, actually.

for a second time i have shown why the reasons you provide are interesting, but not conclusive. i doubt repeating them a third time will change my mind. i'm sorry that i don't worship the same opinions you do. however, the french would say "Viva La Difference".

Vorkosigan

It's not insulting to ask, since the issue isn't just "literary style," but style, theology, and the clear presence of seams and additions (most notoriously John 21, which is totally different than the rest of the Gospel)). You seem to always reduce others' comments to impoverished strawmen. I wondered whether you were familiar with the scholarship.

John 21 specifically notes that the Gospel has at least two authors.

21:24
It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, 14 and we know that his testimony is true.

Note that the 'we' of this comment is different from the disciple who wrote the rest of John. In reality, there were at least three different authors (some exegetes detect as many as five).

Most of us, however, prefer to go with positions that depend on evidence and argument, not a religious a priori. But as you said, vive la difference.

Amaleq13

I said that arguments from silence are "rarely" a secure foundation. Such arguments are only as strong as the expectation of something other than silence. For example, it is entirely reasonable to expect someone to find it remarkable enough to record the appearance of several risen dead "saints" entering Jerusalem. It is entirely reasonable to expect Paul or the other Gospel authors to mention it. That no one besides the author of Matthew mentions it certainly does not recommend that we assume this isolated and amazing claim is historical. In fact, the more rational position is to assume it is theological fiction unless and until substantiating evidence is discovered.

Not necessarily. If the claim is extraordinary, the absence of evidence makes it entirely reasonable to conclude that the claim is not true. This misses the point, however, since your assertion is that the Bible is a reliable document in its entirety. You fall short of this assertion whenever you admit that there exists a biblical claim that cannot reliably be shown to be true because that constitutes, at the very least, a claim of questionable reliability.

There are no "reliable documents". There are only reliable claims made within documents. You've already acknowledged that each claim must be supported on its own merits.

Super. We can, therefore, state that those specific claims are reliable. You've already acknowledged that it is unreasonable to generalize this reliability to other claims so what is your point?

That is not my problem. It is a problem for anyone who wishes to assert that the entire Bible is historically reliable. I doubt you'll bother but we've had several discussions about the Exodus and you can search for them. Otherwise, I'll let others more knowledgeable on the topic attempt to educate you if they wish. I've been convinced by the arguments given.

People are held to this standard in court but that is irrelevant to the discussion. You need to learn more about how historians work, though, because that is not how ancient texts are examined. In fact, it is widely recognized that all ancient texts contain errors both intentional and unintentional. It is only faithful Believers such as yourself who wish to hold the Bible to a less rigorous standard.

Your understanding of the science supporting evolution is clearly inadequate but this is not the appropriate forum for the subject. Feel free to visit the Evolution forum if you wish to learn the facts.

I don't know that they do but simply concluding that there is no good reason to believe what cannot be supported probably doesn't sell as many books as asserting those claims are false.

Please stop reading the strawman arguments apologists so love to address and actually read what I have written. There is clear evidence of a literary relationship between the Gospel stories. In other words, these do not appear to be independent accounts of the same events. I tend to accept the conclusions of the majority of scholars on this relationship because I've read the main arguments and find those to be the most credible. This means that I accept "Mark" as the first with "Matthew" and "Luke" taking that version and independently rewriting it. The latter two authors also appear to have independently shared a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus (ie Q).

There is no double standard. The methodologies that lead to the above conclusions are the same methodologies applied to all ancient texts.

He is probably relying on Papias for his belief since he is the earliest source for this claim. Unfortunately, Papias also claims that Matthew wrote in Hebrew and the extant Gospel appears to have been written in Greek. You can find discussions about whether the Greek Matthew can be shown to have been originally written in Aramaic but, IMO, the evidence is insufficient to establish the claim. Likewise, your "reason" is clearly insufficient to establish the claim.

There is a gap of around a century between the earliest quotes from the texts and the attachment of the author names to the texts.

Amaleq13

I have no idea what you are talking about since I don't see anybody besides you asserting that it is reasonable to expect the earliest opponents of Christian claims to create a formal, written critique of those claims.

No, your original contention was an argument from silence which insisted that it was relevant and compelling that no written records existed that opposed early Christian assertions. Since there is no good reason to expect such a record to have been created, the argument from silence fails. In addition, I've already asked, in response to this new position you are taking, how do you know that the above did not take place?

The theological motivation of the Gospel authors is evident but you will need to explain why we should also be suspicious of the accounts independently given by Philo and Josephus.

Please explain. You need to provide specific arguments and evidence calling into question the independent accounts of Philo and Josephus which portray Pilate as a despot who showed no consideration for the Jews under his control but consistently treated them quite disrespectfully. You'll need to explain, for example, why Pilate really lost his job since it could not have been due to his unreasonable cruelty as these other sources indicate.

Ruthlessly and without regard to the desires of the Jewish leaders. There is no evidence that anyone engaged in the practice of offering to free a condemned prisoner in recognition of Passover and that includes men who are otherwise described as generally nice to the Jews. The closest you will find is a favorable description of one (can't recall the name) who postponed an execution until after the Emperor's birthday. To suggest that Pilate would offer to free anyone in respect of Passover is ridiculous. To suggest that Pilate would offer to free a convicted insurrectionist (according to Mark's story) is completely idiotic and obviously fictional.

Even if this could be supported with specific examples, it falls woefully short of establishing that Pilate would offer to free a convicted insurrectionist during Passover.

You are also missing the point that the Jewish leaders wouldn't have to frame Jesus if he had actually disrupted the Temple or claimed to be the Messiah and Pilate wouldn't have considered him innocent. The scene reeks of fiction.

What Crossan has to say about the references to crowds is irrelevant to his recognition that the Gospel accounts of Pilate conflict with the extrabiblical evidence.

I'm looking for an example of opponents treating the asserted beliefs of early Christians seriously enough to make it reasonable to expect those opponents to have taken the time to write down a formal criticism of those claims. It simply doesn't exist. The earliest evidence of opposition to Christianity seems to involve a rather summary dismissal with little regard to the specifics of their faith.

On the contrary, this is entirely consistent with what I have been saying. Christians were despised and reviled for their failure to participate in the beliefs of the Empire. There is no evidence that the specifics of their beliefs were even known let alone critically examined. Your appeal to an absence of early written critiques of Christian beliefs is wholly without merit.

That there is no archaeological evidence of any "ceremonial gate" does not make the claim more credible. Where is a reference to the event that this gate was built to allegedly commemorate?

It is not referred to as a monument. It is referred to as a gate. This only shows how difficult it is to "prove a negative" and why it makes more sense to require the affirmative to be supported. There is no evidence to support the existence of a gate so there is no evidence to support the claim.

You certainly implied that this misinterpretation might explain the absence of any evidence of a gate.

That is how stories, traditions, and myths that predate literacy or originate from within a non-literate group are typically preserved.

Then you are no doubt aware that your position is a minority view even among Christian scholars. After reading what are presumably the best efforts, I consider the arguments for your position to be insufficient to support the claim. That such a large number of Christian scholars agree suggests that claims of anti-Christian bias are entirely without merit. I don't think you've made that claim but it is a common accusation to explain the failure of others to accept your beliefs.

Crucifiction

Is there something unique that shows Jesus to be different than the frauds that went before him?

DramaQ

1)Amaleq13 and I are not “cohorts�.

2)I don’t disagree with his point at all. The two points are not mutually exclusive.

Your position is that a lack of refutation of Christian claims early on MUST mean that the position was SO strong and SO “true� that refutation was impossible.

Amaleq13 and I have both argued that this conclusion is flawed. We just independently pointed out that there is more than one reason why no refutations exist that have nothing to do with the “irrefutableness� of the claims.

His point was that no one may have BOTHERED to refute because the claims were just too silly to them.

My point was that refutation may have occurred but has since been DESTROYED.

Earlier I also pointed out that this “silence� on the part of any early skeptics could just as easily be because no one ever heard the claims to begin with.

You want us to accept that your “scenario� as not only possible, but perhaps the ONLY possible explanation.

But honestly – “No one countered the claims because they were so awed by the incontrovertible truth of it.� Do you really not hear how absurd that sounds?

(More on this in my next post).

dq

DramaQ

Predicting the future is not supernatural. I can predict anything I want to. SEEING into the future IS supernatural. This simply does not happen in this world. Your wishful thinking that it exists does not make it so.

You’re STILL appealing to numbers of believers as some kind of “proof�??? Have you BEEN to the Flat Earth website to check out the number people who believe in that?

Certainly. Again, seeing into the future is a “miraculous�, supernatural phenomenon.

When I am presented with a story whose character’s actions and events coincide with some earlier predictions I can make one of two conclusions:

1)The laws of nature as we understand them have been suspended for our viewing pleasure, or
2)The writer of the later piece made his character conform to the “predictions� of the earlier piece.

1)is a statement of faith. 2) is a rather bland but obvious statement of reality.

No I can’t. Nor am I about to waste my time with it. Any more than I would waste time trying to prove the “non-existence� of Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, or Elvis working at a gas station.

It’s that “for sure� part that we have a different approach to. You seem to think that just because someone is skeptical they somehow refuse to allow any possibilities. I suspect most of us who come here are apt to not be “for sure� about anything, but simply prefer to go with the “best explanation� available. The most LIKELY. The least cumbersome. The most uncontrived. The highest percentage of probability. Like my number 2) above: it’s a lot neater, cleaner, easier and more likely explanation than the invocation of some unprovable supernatural force needed for number 1).

I imagine their believers feel similarly about your religion. To each his own.

Sorry. I did answer it, but I guess not very clearly. Your question is “aren't you making the same argument in reverse?�

My clearer answer is: No.

As for misrepresenting your position, then I guess I would have to apologize again. I must admit it’s been difficult for me to work out exactly what your position is. The above discussion had to do with the use of claims as proof. Let me try restating this and then you can help me clear it up if I have it wrong:

Statement:

Claims do not make something true.

Reverse Argument:

Lack of claims do not make things false.

My point with the gray/elephant reverse logic (using a different analogy):

Mister X writes that on June 15th, 1992 a huge golden star suddenly appeared in the western sky (as seen from North America) and that this star remained visible (day and night) for 2 weeks. No one else wrote about this phenomenon.

The CLAIM about the star does not make the event true. However, the LACK of claims elsewhere DO make the claim highly suspect and CAN be used to indicate that the claim is false.

If not a single word refuting Mister X’s claim above can be found, that obviously does not “prove� that Mister X was “right�, nor can it even be construed as evidence that what he wrote was true.

To summarize:

A lack of writers substantiating Mr. X’s claim IS evidence against the claim.
A lack of writers REFUTING Mr. X IS NOT evidence FOR the claim.

I simply don’t see how anyone can reasonably and comfortably maintain that this lack of refutation of a claim is evidence of anything. As I said before, it’s absurd.

You DO make this argument, whether it’s indirectly or not. Your statement was:

The BIBLE says many people witnessed these biblical events. THAT’S verifying the Bible with the Bible. I’m not misrepresenting your position, I am calling you on using more claims that are self-substantiating.

“Guilty� and “innocent� of WHAT? Would I be right in assuming that to you, “Bible Truth� = “Innocent�. “Bible False� = “Guilty�?

Would you feel the same way if we were discussing The Book of Satan? Would such a book be “innocent� (true) until proven “guilty�?

I don’t really want to play silly semantics with you, but I will say this: normally one is considered “guilty� of having DONE something. And they are “innocent� by virtue of NOT having done the something.

If we stuck with your peculiar analogy, the Bible should be considered “innocent� - that is NOT having done the events claimed - until it can be proven “guilty� – HAVING done the events claimed. The burden of proof rests on the claimant who says the events happened. You would be the prosecuting attorney trying to prove the bible is guilty of those events. If you can’t do that, the bible is “innocent� of those events by default.

As for the approach of a skeptic, where did you get the idea that we “pick and choose� what to believe and what not to? Pretty much if your skeptical you DON’T believe it until you’re given a good reason to. Show me a good reason to believe it and I will. Meanwhile, quit wasting my time.

And yet there’s not. There’s a lot of misstating and emotional posturing at work. On your part.

I know of no one who holds Josephus’ silence as “stone cold fact�. Why on earth would you put words like that in people’s mouths and then seek to refute them? I also know of no one who has labeled him as “unreliable�. Only the two obviously Christian passages. Do you really think it does your argument good to undermine the opposing view by misstating it?

Then they never would have gotten into power. But they did. Protestants were once repressed by a powerful Catholic church. They weren’t in power and by your logic should not have had the leverage to make their changes stick. But they did. So what? How humble or weak (or absurd) a movement is at its outset is irrelevant. Maybe someday UFOlogy will rise up and become the dominant religion. Then THEY’LL lay claim to being “right�. Until someone replaces them.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I imagine there may be more than one or two Jews out there who have a different opinion. Inasmuch as only 1 person in 6 in this world is Christian, I would venture to say you’ll find a LOT of differing opinions out there. I have no intention of getting into your reasons for “rejecting� them. I really don’t care.

When it comes to faith, as I said, “to each his own�. Just quit stamping your brand of faith as “truth� and trying to pass it off as such to me. As Sgt. Friday used to say, “Just the facts�.

DramaQ out…