Who was James the brother of Jesus?

[rjh4 is back]

rjh4 said: "Maybe so. Why do you suppose then there are many Biblical scholars who think that the history portrayed in the NT is accurate?"

I am shocked that you even used this argument lol. So I will tell you why I am shocked. What makes you think that a biblical scholars opinions are as authoritative as that of a scientists? Not to mention that the so called accurate history you talk about is not so accurate at all. There are many holes in Christian history that have yet to be reconciled outside of the scriptures by historians. Outside of the N.T. Jesus is practically non existent and no historian of his time even bothered to write about him so that says alot about his importance.

Oh I almost forgot one last thing about your question, biblical scholars are biased and their goal is to prove the truthfulness and accuracy of the bible which to date they have failed miserably at that endeavor. But the start from the bible and try to make everything else fit nice and neatly but in reality it doesn't fit so neatly at all.

If you look at my post, I did not make an argument. I asked a question.

If it is your position that Biblical scholars are biased, do you also think that those scholars that take a position opposite to the Bible are not?

[chatpilot]

"If it is your position that Biblical scholars are biased, why do you think that those scholars that take a position opposite to the Bible are not?"

Because at least in my case I have studied the bible and worshiped your god and practiced Christianity devoutly. It was my search for truth that led me away from the bible. It is my opinion that any intellectually honest individual that reads that bible from an objective point of view will come away believing in it less. Most of the science in the bible has been proven wrong, strip away the miraculous and the histories related in scripture are skewed and in many cases unverifiable.

[rjh4 is back]

Some of it is accurate Rjh, in other instances there are glaring contradictions with more reliable contemporary sources for these historic events.

Which parts do you think are accurate?

---

"If it is your position that Biblical scholars are biased, why do you think that those scholars that take a position opposite to the Bible are not?"

Because at least in my case I have studied the bible and worshiped your god and practiced Christianity devoutly. It was my search for truth that led me away from the bible. It is my opinion that any intellectually honest individual that reads that bible from an objective point of view will come away believing in it less. Most of the science in the bible has been proven wrong, strip away the miraculous and the histories related in scripture are skewed and in many cases unverifiable.

Sorry about that, my question was not really accurate so I edited it but you responded before I finished.

Do you think that those scholars that take a position opposite to the Bible are not biased?

[chatpilot]

not a problem my friend

[rjh4 is back]

not a problem my friend

Thanks.

Could you please answer the question:

Do you think that those scholars that take a position opposite to the Bible are not biased?

[chatpilot]

If those scholars are using the conventional methods of research namely historical documents, archeology, and objectivity then they are not biased. But of course there are some that are hell bent on proving or rather disproving the bible, those are certainly biased.

[theVOID]

not a problem my friend

Thanks.

Could you please answer the question:

Do you think that those scholars that take a position opposite to the Bible are not biased?

Do you think the ones that take a position supporting the bible aren't?

There are Atheist and Christian scholars on either side of the debate of the historicity of the NT. Certain atheists believe it is fairly accurate, most would not agree - It's the opposite with Christian scholars, some who do not regard it as a very accurate historical source while the majority to believe it is reliable and accurate.

At the end of the day it's all about weighing the evidence for and against the arguments, i'm happy to listen to either side of the debate as long as it is a well supported and factual argument.

[Minimalist]

When Livy recounts the reasons for the Second Punic War he has characters give "speeches" outlining the issues involved. But when he writes that "Fabius Maximus mounted the rostrum and addressed the Senate as follows...." we can be certain that Fabius said no such thing. Livy, writing two centuries later did not have access to a verbatim account of any discussion in the senate. No such records were kept. Even worse, he will have a member of the Carthaginian war party addressing Carthage's senate on the reasons for starting the war! Certainly there were no Roman spies sitting there taking notes of what was said.

We have no original documents written by any of these "people" including James and Paul. They are characters to be manipulated by later power brokers.

Do we have any original documents of Livy? If not, how old are the earliest?

No, but since you asked a really good question I exerted myself to dig out a copy of Rome and The Mediterranean and in the introduction, Prof. Henry Bettenson notes:

" ...the discovery of Latin manuscripts extended the study of Livy. In 1328 Petrarch at Avignon, using a copy of a Chartres manuscript, introduced Books XXXI-XL. "

I checked for data on a Chartres manuscript of Livy but found only references to the manuscript not to the date of copying. It has been associated with Fulcher of Chartres who was a chronicler of the First Crusade which probably means that the manuscript existed c 1080 although we do not know how long it before that date.


It seems unlikely that parchment copies of anything would last very long in the moist climate of France without frequent re-copying. Egypt was a much better climate for preserving documents.

---

35 are extant (Books I-X, XXI-XLV).

But 'extant' in this case does not mean in Livy's own hand. We are lucky to have copies of copies.

[chatpilot]

Thanks for clarifying that up Min I thought that the paragraph was referring to the original writings. Here it is in its entirety.

His life work was the History of Rome from its founding in 753 BC The narrative comes to an end with Drusus (9 BC). Of the original 142 books of the work (published in sections) 35 are extant (Books I-X, XXI-XLV).

That "of the original 142 books....35 are extant" meant to me that they were making a distinction between copies and originals, and that 35 were still in existence. I did some digging and found that you are correct. It's still more than I can say for the bible since we know who the author of these works was, as opposed to the slew of anonymous authors of the bible.

[rjh4 is back]

Do you think the ones that take a position supporting the bible aren't?

There are Atheist and Christian scholars on either side of the debate of the historicity of the NT. Certain atheists believe it is fairly accurate, most would not agree - It's the opposite with Christian scholars, some who do not regard it as a very accurate historical source while the majority to believe it is reliable and accurate.

At the end of the day it's all about weighing the evidence for and against the arguments, i'm happy to listen to either side of the debate as long as it is a well supported and factual argument.

I think there is a certain degree of bias on either side of the issue.

I also think there are those on each side of the issue that try to put their biases aside and analyze Biblical manuscripts in the same manner as any other ancient historical document.

What bothers me here is the allegation of many here that there is no evidence whatsoever for the historicity of the Bible or the historicity of Jesus, Himself. Such allegations do not seem credible at all given that some atheists even think it is acccurate. Now I know that this does not prove that the Bible is true and I am not trying to do this, I am just trying to point out the weakness of arguing that there is no evidence whatsoever for the Bible.

@Min

Thanks for your post, Min. You clearly have quite an extensive knowledge history and historical issues.