Steven Carr

I had asked Professor Montgomery

I was reading your article http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar1.htm

You write

'How good are these New Testament records? They handsomely fulfill the historian's requirements of transmissional reliability (their texts have been transmitted accurately from the time of writing to our own day), internal reliability (they claim to be primary-source documents and ring true as such), and external reliability (their authorships and dates are backed up by such solid extrinsic testimony as that of the early second-century writer Papias, a student of John the Evangelist, who was told
by him that the first three Gospels were indeed written by their traditional authors). '

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html is the writings of Papias ,

Eusebius writes 'Thus wrote Irenaeus. Moreover, Papias himself, in the introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he was not himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but he tells us that he received the truths of our religion from those who were aquainted with them....'

Surely Papias was not told anything by John the Evangelist.

And Papias never mentions 'Luke' or 'Gospel', so how did John the Evangelist that the first three Gospels were indeed written by their tradional authors?

You also write '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.'

Surely Philo's mentions of Pilate are not in connection with the death of Jesus?

Can you name anybody who expressed doubt as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate?


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

Here is Montgomery's reply

PLEASE SEE EUSEBIUS, Hist. Eccl. III, 39 AND V, 20; ALSO IRENAEUS, Adv. Haer. III, 1. THE "ELDER JOHN" = THE APOSTLE JOHN (AS ESTABLISHED BY, e.g., THEODOR ZAHN IN HIS AUTHORITATIVE Kommentar (Commentary) on the Gospel of
John, ETC., ETC. I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS IN MY BOOK, History and
Christianity--NOW AUGMENTED AS History, Law and Christianity (Canadian Institute for Law, Theology and Public Policy--www.ciltpp.com). SEE ALSO F. F. BRUCE AND GARY HABERMAS ON THE SUBJECT.


IF YOU ARE PUTTING SUCH SUPERFICIAL, INCOMPLETE, AND UNSCHOLARLY SUGGESTIONS AS EXPRESSED ABOVE ON WEBSITES, PLEASE MAKE APPROPRIATE CORRECTION--AT LEAST
INSOFAR AS YOU INVOLVE ME IN YOUR CRITICISMS.

AS FOR PILATE, YOU YOURSELF SHOULD BE WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE FREETHINKING HIGHER CRITICS OF WHOM I SPEAK. I AM NOT GOING TO DO YOUR RESEARCH FOR YOU.
THE IMPORTANT POINT, OF COURSE (WHY DON'T YOU SEE IT??), IS THAT ARCHAEOLOGY CONFIRMS THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS ON SUCH POINTS AS THE HISTORICITY OF
PILATE.

I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO ENGAGE IN INDIVIDUAL E-MAIL DISCUSSIONS ON SUCH POINTS. PLEASE SIMPLY CONFIRM THAT YOU HAVE CORRECTED YOUR MISSTATEMENTS AND DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH ME PERSONALLY IN THE FUTURE.

JWM



-----------------------
To nobody's astonishment, Montgomery gives no words of Papias to back up his claims, refers people to other books (which will refer you to other works, which will refer you to ther works, which will then not support what is claimed)

Montgomery clammed up when he was nailed on the subject of pagan historians only mentioning Pilate in connection with the death of Jesus.

And when it comes to sceptics denying the historicity of Pilate, he thinks we should do the research for his book.

Is Larmore seeing what Christian apologetics is all about?

Steven Carr

Here is part of Eusebius III, 39 ,which Montgomery recommends sceptics to read

'But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.'

and as far as I can see, Eusbeius Book V does not mention Papias.


You have to love Christian apologetics. Montgomery gives two references, one which destroys his case, and one which is irrelevant...

The Commentary by Zahn is now 100 years old- cutting-edge stuff....

According to F.F.Bruce, 'Thus the Great German scholar Theodor von Zahn held that Matthew first composed his Gospel in Aramaic, that our Greek Mark was then composed in partial dependence on the Aramaic Matthew, and that the Aramaic Matthew was then turned into Greek with the aid of the Greek Mark.'

This is what Montgomery refers to ???

Montgomery refers to F.F.Bruce as support, but even Bruce is very doubtful

see
http://www.worldinvisible.com/librar...i/ntdocc04.htm where Bruce writes 'Some difficulties and inconsistencies in statements made by writers of the early Christian centuries may be due to a confusion of the two Johns; but it is highly unlikely that Irenaeus was guilty of such a confusion, and thought that his master Polycarp was speaking of the apostle when in fact he was speaking of the elder.'

So Montgomery's references are junk.....

Vinnie

I told you all this guy was a monkey!!!! You just don't wanna listen to me

Was the response in all caps like that? Seriously? This isn't a spoof?

Vinnie

Haran

Hmm... With support no better than that and an attitude like that, he would not be someone I would ever intentionally quote...

Haran

At some point I might check up on some of his other references. I do know however, that 100-year old works like Zahn's are still used because no one has bothered to update particular information or because there is nothing to update... I have seen Zahn's name in the books of many modern Bible scholars.

Doctor X

Steve:

At the danger of having The Powers that Be inundate my PM box, I suggest the proper conclusion drawn from the response you received is:

Fuck him.

For what it is worth, I have had some e-mail conversations with scholars with far more academic weight than this self-absorbed prat can pretend--and I would wager other posters here have as well. In all cases, they have been polite even when I questioned a conclusion they had.

Since this knave cannot behave as a gentleman, he need concern us no longer.

I would not respond to his e-mail; if he should send you a "follow up" demand you can then inform him you do not reply to unruly children.

Feh!

--J.D.

Steven Carr

You want to know if it was in all caps?

Do your OWN research!

(Yes, it was in all caps)

I liked the etc, etc, in his references. Perhaps Haran would like to chase up these references :-)

Zahn might still be used (and 1903 was the start of when his commentaries appeared , not the end), but few people think his account of Gospel origins at all realistic.

Doctor X

In that case:

FUCK HIM

--J.D.

Bede

I think we need to accept that what Monty said can be challenged but is a valid interpretation. I don't much like his attitude but given the tone of Steven's email, it does't surprise me. When I sent sceptic hero, Robert Price, an email asking him why he was using Freke and Gandy as reading for his NT course, he ripped me a new arsehole. These guys are touchy and should be approached with care. Richard Carrier also gets touchy if you point out his errors to him as does Earl Doherty who stormed off in a huff when Nomad whacked his arse.

It is now clear that Monty takes the view, in common with some others of respectable and learned background, that the first three Gospels are Mark, Matthew and John. Papias vouches for Mark and Matthew - you may not believe him but he does. He also was a disciple of John the Elder that Monty believes, again incommon with some learned and respectable opinion, is one and same as John the Apostle. Monty takes the view that as Papias knew John the Apostle, and also accepts the traditional authorship of Mark and Matthew then it is likely he recieved this from John. Furthermore, Iraeneus says that Polycarps preaching from the same John is consistant with the scriptures (Eusebius HE V, 20) which may be felt to include the Gospels by this time.

So, Monty may be making one or two inferences too many, but he is not lying and frankly, Steve should pipe down and show some respect. Compared to the dishonesty of Freke and Gandy, Monty is being very straight and narrow. Also, just because he can't find Pilate deniers on the net does not mean they never existed. Personally I'm sure they did on the grounds that there is no idea so stupid that no-one has thought of it.

Incidently, Steve, as you suggest Philo is a pagan, I expect Monty thought you were an ignoramus - or should that be liar?

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

I'd like to read that !

On the contrary, Richard asks for errors.

On the contrary, Doherty stormed off when he decided that Nomad was too amateurish to waste his time over.

Isn't it funny that you assume those you agree with are honest in their errors and those you don't agree with are not?

Just because you can't find an invisible pink unicorn in your attic does not mean it doesn't exist.

But the charge is not that some village idiot thought that Pilate did not exist, but that a critical scholar thought that Pilate did not exist. If you can find someone, please let us know.

I had to parse what was written to figure out where the suggestion was that Philo was a pagan. Monty wrote that "he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death". I think that two Jewish historians who mention Pilate other than in connection with Jesus' death makes that statement false. If "even" had been omitted from the original statement, the Jewish historians would have been irrelevant, but the original statement would have been meaningless.