Steven Carr

Is that why Ehrman claims there have been interpolations in Josephus and in 1 Thess 2:14?

Where does Doherty claim there have been interpolations?

Steven Carr

No, they simply announce that Paul is silent, so they then have no need to wonder why Paul wrote what he did after what the Romans did to Jesus.

But please give us the historicist argument as to what changed Paul from regarding the Romans as oppressors to regarding them as God's agents - killing wrong-doers, and who do not bear the sword for nothing.

I suppose it was because they had flogged, crucified and mocked the Son of God, which is why Paul regards them as killing wrong-doers.

Steven Carr

Ah, good old 'multiple attestation'.

Of course, if one of the Gospels do not have any baptism, that makes it historically certain, because it could only have been left out if it was embarrassing, and it could only have been embarrassing if it had happened.

But Erhrman is right 'This act of betrayal is about as historically certain as anything else in the tradition.'

In other words, nothing is more historically certain than something for which their is no evidence.

The author of Hebrews, looking for an example of a betrayal, naturally never turns to Judas as an example.

He must have been too embarrassed by it to mention it.

hjalti

On the contrary, they do.

aa5874

What you assert is erroneous. It is HJers who must argue that the NT contains the opposite description of Jesus.

It is HJers who must reject the conception, birth, the holy Ghost at the baptism, the temptation by Satan, the healing of incurable diseases with Spit, the cursing of the fig tree, the walking on the sea, the feeding of thousands, the transfiguration, the resurrection and the ascension.

HJers cannot accept any texts in the NT that show Jesus as a figure of Faith and MUST claim the text mean exactly the opposite just like Galatians 4.4 which clearly described Jesus as God Incarnate, God's son made of a woman yet HJers refuse to even accept that the NT Canon is about God Incarnate and the Canon does not contain the heresy and could not be expected to contain the heresy that Jesus was an ordinary man.

Mjers on the other hand accept every bit of information in the NT that show Jesus was an article of FAITH from conception to ascension.

EarlDoherty

If this is the sort of thing that Ehrman puts in his book to defend the HJ, he’ll be the one to get eaten alive.

And I love it the way Don postulates any “what if” he likes (his “best explanation”) and then draws his desired conclusion from it. It’s about par for the course in the methodology traditional scholarship as a whole employs.

Now, I have no idea what Carrier means by this, as quoted by Don:

“…But most of all, he routinely treats Tatian's Gospels as holy scripture, divinely inspired, on par with the Hebrew prophets (M 118).”

Tatian’s Gospels? Where in Theophilus does he refer to whatever these might be? And what the heck is “M 118”? Does Don even know? And did he check Theophilus on this to back up his appeal to Carrier? Does he think Theophilus refers to “Tatian’s Gospels”? As a matter of fact, the name of Tatian appears nowhere in Autolycus, let alone in reference to his “Gospels”. If Don has quoted him correctly, Carrier is dead wrong on this. If Don did not realize this, he is ignorant of the content of the writings he appeals to in defence of his views. If he did, he is guilty of deceptive misrepresentation. Either way, he is discredited.

Incidentally, where can one find this quote from Carrier? Don does not identify it, more of his typical antics.

But it gets worse. Don has bolded a particular sentence from Carrier’s passage:

“He is also a window into the thinking of converts: he was converted by the predictions concerning Jesus in the OT (ibid. [i.e., To Autolycus] 1.14)

Well, not only does Autolycus not mention “Jesus” in this passage (or anywhere else), he doesn’t even refer to his Logos/Son or any other figure, earthly or heavenly, in regard to these “predictions”. This, in fact, is what he says, following on a passage in which he argues for the resurrection of humans (by every argument in the book, incidentally, EXCEPT the resurrection of an earthly Jesus or even of reputed people an HJ raised from the dead, or even of a heavenly figure):

“Therefore, do not be skeptical, but believe; for I myself also used to disbelieve that this [referring to human resurrection] would take place, but now, having taken these things into consideration, I believe. At the same time, I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened, just as they came to pass, and the things now occurring as they are now happening, and things future in the order in which they shall be accomplished. Admitting, therefore, the proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do not disbelieve, but I believe, obedient to God…"

There is absolutely nothing here about any OT predictions about Jesus, the Logos, or anyone else. This is a general, unspecific statement about God’s practice of predicting past, present and future through the prophets (we find a very similar statement in Barnabas 1:7). Not only has Carrier’s imagination run away with him, Don has seen fit to appeal to that runaway imagination, again either through ignorance or misrepresentation. Does he actually know the texts of the 2nd century apologists so abysmally, the ones he is constantly appealing to against my reading of them, and in support of extrapolations he would like to make from them on behalf of his reading of an HJ into the first century epistles?

On any scholarly forum, someone like Don would be barred (after being tarred and feathered). But this is the kind of strategy he has used here, year after year, misleading those ignorant of the facts (it’s hard to imagine that this is not deliberate), misrepresenting what I and others say, ignoring counter arguments as they though they don’t exist and haven’t been presented, misrepresenting the texts, deliberate falsification and deception (or would he rather plead to abysmal ignorance of the texts instead and a practice of not actually checking claims he makes about them?), and an assortment of other tactics which can legitimately be called disreputable, dishonest and fraudulent, though often delivered with a sweet smile and occasionally a deferential humility that, oh well, I’m only an amateur, people shouldn’t take anything I say too seriously (remember that one a few months ago?).

It’s easy to ignore someone like judge who rarely has anything substantial or coherent to say. Don, however, has a knack for creating an opposite impression, until he is exposed for what it is he is doing (as I did in spades in my rebuttal to his JNGNM review). But he sure has forced me to spend a lot of time and energy on him over the years (no doubt that’s been his intention). Someone recently recommended that I develop a thicker skin and simply let people like him rave on. But that’s easier said than done. I’ll keep trying, but I’ll draw the line on the other side of letting Don get away with such gross falsities, either in what I say or in what the texts say.

Earl Doherty

jgoodguy

I am flattered that you think that authors would write a book with me in mind. I appreciate that you put me in the outer darkness with the JMers. Nevertheless. Hoffman said:

In short all we have is the "tradition". All we can do is apply tools of varying accuracy against the "tradition". All get get back is probability that some hypothesis is true both in the "tradition" and in a naturalistic universe. "The historical Jesus is about as historically certain as anything else in the tradition." is as good as it gets.

GakuseiDon

Hi Earl. What date do you give to the Gospel of John? I can't find it in your book. You seem to favour it being after 1 John (p. 282 and 676) which you put at perhaps 80s or 90s CE (Page 17). But do you have any date range for the Gospel of John? I just want to see how it fits in.

Yes. Page 118 of Bruce Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance". You can read it on Google books.

I think Carrier means here "those same Gospels used by Tatian", focusing on the Gospels rather than on Tatian himself. It may be that Carrier is suggesting a reference to the Diatessaron (which is not suggested in Metzger though given the proximity of Tatian when he went back East and Theophilus in Antioch it's not such an unlikely occurrance), but we'd need to check with Carrier to make sure.

Metzger goes through Theophilus' letters, and summarizes them in this way, on p.119:

By way of summary, we may conclude that in Theophilus' time the New Testament at Antioch consisted of at least three of the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, a collection of Pauline Epistles, and possibly the Apocalypse. The holy Scriptures of the Jews are still pre-eminent; but the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul are also inspired, and Theophilus is able to present them in his apology to Autolycus as virtually on a par with the Scriptures of the Jewish canon.

If you read Carrier as "he routinely treats the Gospels as holy scripture, divinely inspired, on par with the Hebrew prophets" then that makes better sense. I reproduce Theophilus' references to the Gospels below.

Yes. Did you?

Sure. Water off a duck's back, Earl. I can't wait to see you use these over-the-top histrionics with Ehrman's book.

The link is in my post a few pages back. A post you responded to. It's the part where I refer to "Richard Carrier" and give a link. Here it is again:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

Very true! This is either strong evidence for your theories or strong evidence against your theories.

Very true! Still, obviously the prophets prophecized something. As Theophilus puts it:

I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened, just as they came to pass

And you are absolutely right: nothing here about any OT predictions about Jesus, the Logos, or anyone else. Only general, unspecific statements. This is powerful evidence for you or powerful evidence against you.

What do you think Theophilus believed was prophecized? Something "that had already happened"? Heck, let's throw the question open to Vork and the others. What did Theophilus -- who writes around 180 CE and calls himself a Christian -- believe was prophecized in the Hebrew Scriptures?

I humbly suggest that I know the Second Century literature very well indeed, though only in English translation, as I have no training and very little knowledge of Greek or Latin. I've also read quite a lot of scholarly secondary sources, e.g. Ehrman.

I see. Barred, tarred and feathered.

Hmmm...

Well, I wouldn't plead "abysmal ignorance", so I guess that leaves "falsification and deception".

Okay. "Disreputable, dishonest and fraudulent". Sure.

I AM only an amateur, but I do try to back up my points with references to sources.

Thank you, Earl.

So, what is the big deal about Theophilus of Antioch? First, let me stress something so there is no mistake. I agree completely with Earl about the weirdness of Theophilus not referring to "Jesus", "Christ", etc, etc. It isn't what we would expect. So, whatever we take from Theophilus, it is powerful evidence for Doherty's theories or powerful evidence against them.

Some basics:

• Theophilus of Antioch wrote around 180 CE, though Earl believes it may be several decades earlier. (Earl, you can jump in there if you like.)
• He calls himself a Christian, though never refers to "Christ". He doesn't appear to have any knowledge of any other Christians with different beliefs.
• He believes the prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures prophecized something that came to pass.
• He refers to "Gospels" a number of times.
• He converted to Christianity upon reading the Hebrew Scriptures and realised that they had prophecized what had come to pass.
• Eusebius mentions other writings by Theophilus which are no longer extant: a work against the heresy of Hermogenes, another against Marcion, and a few books for the instruction and edification of the faithful.

Here are some snippets from Theophilus:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lus-book1.html

At the same time, I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened, just as they came to pass, and the things now occurring as they are now happening, and things future in the order in which they shall be accomplished. Admitting, therefore, the proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do not disbelieve...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lus-book2.html

And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

Note that Doherty believes the reference to John is a marginal gloss (JNGNM, page 478), though this appears to be his view alone. If I understand Doherty correctly (Earl, feel free to comment), it's because Theophilus doesn't refer to "Jesus", but I hope Earl will correct me on that. The "place" referred to by Theophilus seems to be Eden rather than Galilee or Calvary.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lus-book3.html

Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh. But further, they say that our doctrine has but recently come to light, and that we have nothing to allege in proof of what we receive as truth, nor of our teaching, but that our doctrine is foolishness...

Moreover, concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God...

And concerning chastity, the holy word teaches us not only not to sin in act, but not even in thought, not even in the heart to think of any evil, nor look on another man's wife with our eyes to lust after her. Solomon, accordingly, who was a king and a prophet, said: "Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee: make straight paths for your feet." And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: "Whosoever looketh on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."...

And that we should be kindly disposed, not only towards those of our own stock, as some suppose, Isaiah the prophet said: "Say to those that hate you, and that cast you out, Ye are our brethren, that the name of the LORD may be glorified, and be apparent in their joy." And the Gospel says: "Love your enemies, and pray for them that despitefully use you. For if ye love them who love you, what reward have ye? This do also the robbers and the publicans." And those that do good it teaches not to boast, lest they become men-pleasers. For it says: "Let not your left hand know what your right hand doeth."...

All very interesting, especially how Theophilus uses the Hebrew Scriptures to back up the Gospels.

But no mention of Jesus, Christ, nothing about miracles, no sayings attributed to Christ, no sense of a recent origin of his doctrine (a denial of it, in fact.)

All this is very powerful evidence for Doherty, or very powerful evidence against him.

judge

Apparently you have found it impossible though

You cant seem to stop "ad homming" me. As we see here in your last exchange.

Apparently you cant stand the heat..even in here.

I'm sure you are probably a nice old man, so its nothing personal, but your theory is kooky , in fact its absurd , meaning wildly unreasonable.
No one in 2000 years has ever seen your theory about the sub lunar realm, but now, you suddenly see what no one else has seen.
Cant you just stop for a minute, breathe and see how absurd this is.
There is not even a hint of anyone ever thinking of a jesus who existed in your sub lunar realm....except...er...you

Solo

You are right, Michael. Judas is Mark's invention, specifically to fulfil Paul's Jesus 'delivery - btw Weeden's book was a great discovery for me, as was James G. Williams 'Gospel against Parable' where I learned about him and Norman R Petersen.


Rom 4:25 ....who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Rom 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?

Mar 14:21 For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."

----------------------

all bolded verbs are 'paradidomi' = deliver up.

Ehrman, for all his erudition is intellectually small fry, just where you would expect a graduate of an evangelical seminary to land in mid-American academia. He has very little reach beyond his area of specialization. He sure is good with the text, but strikes me as having little insight into it. He is not as sharp as I thought he was initially. For one, in the video of his debate with Craig Evans, he was criticizing people who read the gospels by "smashing them together". Now what is he doing with the Judas tradition ?

Where is the guarantee of multiple attestation ? Wasn't there one editor of Luke and the Acts ? Does Ehrman not see that 1 Cr 11:23-26 is a dumbass copy of Luke 22:19-20 ? Why should it be believed that John was not familiar with the tradition ? Is it proven by simply assuming it ?
John knew the twelve, didn't he ? Not twelve apostles, or twelve disciples - he knew the twelve. He knew Mark.

Ehrman is clueless about the 'gnostic' lingo deployed by Paul and the way Mark adapted it because he does not understand the 'oracular' nature of the scripts. He does not know where the oracle comes from and to what it speaks to. To paraphrase Alan Watts: he has no idea there is a difference between eating a 'steak' and eating a page of the menu with the word 'steak' printed on it.

Here is my take on the Twelve in the original design of Mark (taken from a larger essay) :


I had an exchange of e-mails with him trying to get him talk to us at JesusMysteries about his certainty that Paul knew Jesus' family. He strikes me as one who likes to talk down to people. His line was "I am the expert - you know bugger all !". Of course, he does not grasp that his PhD is in a "science" which tries to figure out a village idiot who outsmarted all the biblical scholars of his age.

Jiri