Steven Carr

Jim originally wrote 'Until 1961 critics disclaimed the existence of Pontius Pilate, however that year archeologist found near ancient Ceasarea an inscription that revealed the name of Pontius Pilate.'

So not 'some critics' or any qualifier. There was a clear claim that Until 1961 critics disclaimed the existence of Pontius Pilate - implying all critics until 1961....

Now we learn that this means a few unnamed nutcases from the 19th century.....

Meanwhile, Larmore continues the naive view that Christians actually document many of their claims about sceptics, when he himself is a good example of how many Christians just repeat what they are told without checking it.

Now, I wonder if Christians of 2,000 years ago ever repeated claims without checking them.


As for the web sites Larmore gave

http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar1.htm

'Modern archaeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history. To take but a single, striking example: After the rise of liberal biblical criticism, doubt was expressed as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, since he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death. Then, in 1961, came the discovery at Caesarea of the now famous "Pilate inscription," definitely showing that, as usual, the New Testament writers were engaged in accurate historiography.'

Who could have written such a biased, misleading and downright perjurous misstatement of the facts?

Why John Warwick Montgomery, of course - one of the leading Christian apologists.

No wonder sceptics have little respect for those who speak with forked tongue.

Montgomery was of course, LYING when he said pagan historians mentioned Pilate only in connection with Jesus's death. Philo mentions him and never mentions Jesus at all.

Why do Christians lie so much?

Toto

Here's another view, from an Orthodox source:

Doctor X

I see . . . so it has proven that Junior was born first in roughly 4 BCE then again in roughly 10 CE?

Methinks--as painful as it is to write this [Stop that.--Ed.]--Toto has a point. The NT references to Pontius may just be attempts to place Junior in history. Of course, that is speculation of some extent which leads us to the whole "was-he-really-executed-did-a-"he"-really-exist" mess.

Now, in defense of Jim . . . yeeeeesssssss . . . he has made claims like many a fundamentalist . . . however, look back when you were all young [Cue Fade Back Music--Ed.] Yes . . . think back . . . back . . . your trousers are polyester . . . it is Cher's first career . . . people have to start "someplace" in approaching biblical criticism. Much of what he writes is assumed by people or is given to them without any reason to doubt it.

Patience people.

--J.D.

Jeremy Pallant

[Moderator]

<clears throat>

This is one of the upper fora. Can we please treat it like one?

By which I mean, let's have a serious discussion.

[/Moderator]

Roger Pearse

Good idea. Let's see if anyone can come up with something.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Jim Larmore

I'll admitt it Steve, I made a statement based on what I read in a book , are you saying you haven't done the same thing? Have you always checked out your sources before you quoted them?? You know if I do find the name of the critics who were claiming this its going to put mud on your face, but thats beside the point. Sources are sources I made an assumption that Grant Jeffreys was a legitimate source to quote. If I find out differently then I'll take the mud on my face and not quote him again ever.

As for critics making a fuss over things in the Bible , I've been researching the dating of Daniel on the web and other places, it seems the critics deemed the existence of Belshazzar a king of Babylon as a "figment of the jewish writer's ( Daniel's ) imagination", ( Ferdinard, Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel. Leipzig: Weidman, 1850 p. 75 ) but arceologist have forced critics to abandone that postion. ( Alan Millard, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History", Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1985 pp.74-75) As a matter of fact Dan. 5's mentioning of Belshazzar suggests that the underlying tradition had its origin close to the end of the Babylonian era. This is an area I'll get up with Bernard on later when I get all the info together.

Steven Carr

I do if what I am quoting sounds weird. (Quoting Grannt Jeffery is always weird :-)

1850 (!) Roll on the floor laughing.

Jim, don't you know that Belshazzar is mentioned in Josephus
and in the ancient Book of Baruch

10 They said: Here we send you money; so buy with the money burnt offerings and sin offerings and incense, and prepare a grain offering, and offer them on the altar of the Lord our God; 11and pray for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and for the life of his son Belshazzar, so that their days on earth may be like the days of heaven.

Perhaps the Book of Baruch was also written in Babylonic times?

Steven Carr

LAMORE quoting sceptics

'the critics deemed the existence of Belshazzar a king of Babylon...'

CARR

But there was no Belshaazzar king of Baylon, just as there is no George W. Bush, king of the USA.

The Chronicles of Nabonidus refer to the crown prince
http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/...of%20Nabonidus not the king, who was and remained Nabonidus


Belshazzar was never king. Nor was he related by blood to Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, who usurped Nebuchadnezzar (something the Book of Daniel totally admits, although he must have noticed it happening, if he was there)

Is Larmore getting his stuff from this Christian liar?
http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/mi...hapter_two.htm

' Daniel wrote that Belshazzar, a "son" of Nebuchadnezzar, was ruling as king in Babylon when the city was overthrown. (Daniel 5:1,11,18, 22, 30) Critics long assailed this point, for Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Bible. Instead, ancient historians identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last of the Babylonian kings. Thus, in 1850, Ferdinand Hitzig said that Belshazzar was obviously a figment of the writer's imagination.'

----------------------
Notice the 'scare' marks around 'son'. Daniel calls Belshazzar a son of Nebuchadnezzar many times, with no indication that Belshazzar was not related to Nebbie.

And notice that the Christian apologist repeats the claim that Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Bible.

It is in the Book of Baruch.

We already have one Jewish forgery abut Belshazzar....

The web site continues
'Nabonidus, it seems, married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar.'

Perhaps Jim can continue his track for lost references by producing any evidence for this Christian claim.


Nabonidus married Nitocris, and Larmore will found no evidence that she was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, even if he writes to every Christian scholar he can find.....


Belshazzar was not related to Nebuchadnezzar.

Vorkosigan

Steve, relax, will ya? Jim was quoting some fruitcake from the 19th century, not advancing a claim on his own.

I beg the good Mr. Hitzig Ferdinand's pardon. He was no fruitcake. Here is a 1911 encyclopedia entry on him

Hitzig Ferdinand. It seems incredible that a scholar of this rank might make an error like that, especially given the existence of Xenophon's work on Cyrus. An anti-Semite of some sort? Or maybe just pissed off because mom named him "Hitzig."

Vorkosigan

Roger Pearse

Thank you for the link.

NB: The chap was called Ferdinand HITZIG; i.e. Hitzig was his surname.

I didn't understand this.

However in general the question of anti-semitism in German biblical studies in the 19th century does not seem to have been addressed. (Unless anyone knows different, of course).

All the best,

Roger Pearse