The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Mudhammam]

Wyrd hasn't yet learned how arguments or rebuttals work, nor does he strike me as a person capable of processing evidence and rational thought, so I'll just address Min.

What's the point of engaging with you? You, like all conspiracy theorists, operate as follows:

1. I could offer the seven epistles of Paul that ALL scholars (including your beloved Richard Carrier) accept as genuine as evidence of the historical Paul, to which you would reject it by saying that "your fucking Bible is bullshit" (or some other moronic reply).
2. I might then make a remark about Clement's epistle to the Romans, dated to 90-95, or early second century "church fathers," or Luke's clearly mythological history of Paul's missions in Acts as (in the latter case, less reliable) testimony of a historical man named Paul, to which your reply would again be to just dismiss them.
3. The late first century/early second century pseudographa, such as Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, the Pastorals, etc., which by their very appeals presume that Paul was a name that carried authority to the early Christians---again, you would attempt nothing in reply but simply dismiss them.
4. The lack of a better explanation for who "Paul" in all of the above circumstances refers, to which you would then likely make up some absurd ad hoc theory about Marcion or an unnamed shadowy figure behind a curtain inventing everything that we think we know about Paul, or everyone else related to first century Christianity for that matter, for which you would provide zero evidence or logical reasoning but present your claims as dogmatic truth anyway.

There would just be no point in pursuing such a debate with you further than this. Instead I think I'll just sit back and enjoy you and Wyrd enlighten the atheist community with your combined vast store of "historical knowledge."

But to anyone actually interested in the historical information we have about Paul, and not simply some simple-minded apologetic argument that seeks to dismiss any mention of Jesus or the first Christian converts, this is a decent place to start: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...ical-paul/

[The Grand Nudger]

"Paul" the super apostle whose ripped jeans could cure illness-at-a-distance?  The globetrotting miracle man that manages to put christ himself to shame?  As with "Jesus" when you remove these things you remove "Paul".  The notion of the man is as much a vehicle as any legendary/mythological character in either the NT or the OT. These characters are, themselves, unimportant.... and so, -as human beings- underdeveloped in the narratives, nigh non-existent. I could offer the contention that with the above you seem to be attempting to establish:

-Paul was a name - granted
-The name carried/carries authority with a certain subset, and was talked about both within and without that subset(as it is today, conveniently.......for reasons?) - granted

Neither of those things rely on their actually having been a Paul, either -as- described in the narrative (ludicrous) -or- as an actual, mundane, man -or- as an amalgam of many men. Paul satisfies the narrative, it would be difficult to conclude much more than that about Paul...don't you think? I left out a bit about conspiracies, etc...mostly don't see the need to invoke conspiracy as an explanation, which I think we would both agree on, yeah?

[Mudhammam]

"Paul" the super apostle whose ripped jeans could cure illness-at-a-distance?  The globetrotting miracle man that manages to put christ himself to shame?  As with "Jesus" when you remove these things you remove "Paul".  

Ah, no. I don't recall Paul's epistles containing these globetrotting miracle boasts but perhaps you've been reading the secret material that Min is hiding from the historians who find claims such as yours completely ignorant and unserious.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, I also find those claims completely ignorant and un-serious.......I'm simply asking you what you think is left when all ignorant and un-serious claims are removed from paul and the periphery of paul?
(Acts, btw - no secrets there)

[Mudhammam]

I'm simply asking you what you think is left when all ignorant and un-serious claims are removed from paul and the periphery of paul?
(Acts, btw - no secrets there)

A pretty remarkable picture into the mindset of a first century Jewish Christian proselytizer who was very influential in the founding and maintaining of the earliest churches ... have you even read any of Paul's epistles? Lol.

[Randy Carson]

Willingness to die for a belief is proof the belief is strongly felt, but not that it is accurate.

The apostles did not accept death rather than deny a belief. People do that every day...just watch the news.

The apostles died rather than deny something they knew to be true. IOW, if the gospel is a lie, then why lose your life over something that started off as a fraternity prank?

If captured by ISIS, do you think Bobby Henderson would be willing to die for his beliefs concerning the Flying Spaghetti Monster which he created in 2005? Or is it more likely that knowing the FSM to be fictitious, he would admit the charade to save his skin?

Sufficient for what? To be coercive?

Sufficient to be remotely persuasive.  Are you sure you meant "coercive."  I have this silly picture running through my mind of a stack of Bibles holding someone hostage at gun point.

Once again, rational people don't believe UFO abduction reports based on eyewitness testimony for precisely the same reasons.   Other religions allege other miracles based on eyewitness testimony.  You believe in the Golden Tablets of Joseph Smith, the accuracy of the Prophet at Dephi, that Hindu priests can turn water into wine?  The evidence for those is the same as for the resurrection.  Claiming more for the Bible is just special pleading.

Have faith in it if you like, but it isn't proof.

Do aliens exist? I have no idea. I'm agnostic when it comes to aliens.

I have not nor can I investigate every claim of UFO sightings and alien abductions, but even if I could, would the lack of evidence be sufficient for me to conclude that aliens do not exist anywhere in the universe? Nope. Therefore, I must be agnostic about alien life.

I can evaluate the claims of Joseph Smith (and Mormonism is in trouble because, thanks to the Interweb, more people are doing just that) and the other phenomenon you list to make reasonable determinations about them.

But how will you determine that no god exists? There is no science whose methods, when used properly, show God does not exist. Therefore, an atheist must use principles in philosophy in order not only to refute theism but to prove atheism as well.

[Mudhammam]

 The notion of the man is as much a vehicle as any legendary/mythological character in either the NT or the OT. These characters are, themselves, unimportant.... and so, -as human beings- underdeveloped in the narratives, nigh non-existent.

I wouldn't say the character of Saul/Paul in Acts is unimportant. What's your basis for that claim? The whole point is to establish his credibility as a legitimate prophet.

I could offer the contention that with the above you seem to be attempting to establish:

-Paul was a name - granted
-The name carried/carries authority with a certain subset, and was talked about both within and without that subset(as it is today, conveniently.......for reasons?) - granted

Neither of those things rely on their actually having been a Paul, either -as- described in the narrative (ludicrous) -or- as an actual, mundane, man -or- as an amalgam of many men. Paul satisfies the narrative, it would be difficult to conclude much more than that about Paul...don't you think? I left out a bit about conspiracies, etc...mostly don't see the need to invoke conspiracy as an explanation, which I think we would both agree on, yeah?

What narrative? The Pauline epistles predate any narratives. They make it pretty clear that Paul was a convert to a movement that already existed in some infantile stage. The writing of at least seven of the epistles is the distinctive work of a single individual, who offers biographical details about his life, his obstacles in spreading his newfound theological perspective, and mentions dozens of personal acquaintances in the churches unknown anywhere else... But most importantly he calls himself Paul. So what motive would there be to create a "Paul" when no one in the church at that time was revered under any heading even remotely approaching "sainthood" with perhaps the exception of Jesus' inner circle, which Paul wasn't manifestly a part of as he almost has to plead with his audience and remind them of the literal pains he has endured following his mystical experience, in hopes of establishing his inclusion among the rank of apostleship?

[Randy Carson]

How do you know there were no independent witnesses?

---

Who was with Jesus and Satan when they were in the wilderness?  

Did anyone see Jesus pray in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36)?

Who was with Jesus and Satan when they were in the wilderness?  

Did anyone see Jesus pray in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36)?

And how could anyone but Mary possibly have known she was a virgin?

How difficult would it have been for Jesus to have told the disciples about his experience in the desert?

And the disciples were with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, so they knew he was in prayer. I would agree that there was no time for discussion after his arrest, but after his resurrection, Jesus was with the disciples for 40 days, and THE BIBLE SAYS:

3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 

I think it's pretty reasonable that they might ask, "Dude, what were praying about in the Garden? You were sweating blood!"

As for Mary's perpetual virginity, try this: Luke interviews Mary for background on a book he's writing on about her son, Jesus. So, Luke says, 

"Joseph died when Jesus was young, and you never had any other children." 

And Mary says, 

"When I was young, I consecrated myself as a perpetual virgin to the Lord. As I grew older, I couldn't stay in the Temple during my monthly period due to the laws concerning ritual cleanness. Therefore, it was necessary for me to marry as a protection from the unwanted advances of young suitors who might not have honored my vow. Joseph was a widower, much older than me, and he promised to take me into his home and protect my virtue. So, no, we never had any other children."

---

Ah, but Nestor, I'm not buying into your assertion that the authors used Jesus as their mouthpiece.

However, let's pursue this for a moment. You've read the thread and know my positions, but I need to know yours.

1. Who are the authors of the gospels?
2. When were they written approximately?
3. What was their motivation for writing?

Mark - Unknown, 65 - 75 AD
Matthew - Unknown, 75 - 90 AD
Luke - Possibly someone named Luke who knew Paul, 75 - 90 AD
John - Someone in the "Johannine community," a network of churches in Asia Minor, 90 - 100 AD

I usually go with a dating that is somewhere in the middle of conservative and liberal scholars, as that seems to be a safe bet considering the arguments for and against earlier or later dates.

While all of the questions you posed admit of only speculative guesses, determining motivation is probably the most uncertain, but I see the purpose of the Gospels as primarily setting forth the theological ideas circulating amongst the early churches, with an eye to the virtuous life as embodied by the ideal godly man, whom they believed was exemplified by Jesus. Like myths that came before them, they use allegories and miraculous signs to convey their beliefs about the relation between man and deity, with a sort of Herodotean view of history, employing a narrative structure as a means to express their conceptions of truth in a manner that the average first-century listener will remember when the story is being read in front of a private audience.

---

I should also note that Mark is almost certainly the earliest, as all of the other Gospels (with the greatest exception in John) adhere to a similar format and often expound on ideas in that gospel, Matthew and Luke borrowing entire sections as well as mirroring each other to a substantial degree that one must have either been correcting the other's work (such as in placement or ordering of events and sayings) or they were both using an earlier common source (the Q hypothesis).

Well done, Nestor. You are one of the few shining lights in this forum.

I disagree with your bit on the motivations, but that's to be expected, no? 

My only question would be this: Why would all four of the gospels and the book of Acts omit the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the deaths of Peter and Paul (ca. AD 64-65)? Acts ends sort of awkwardly with Paul languishing in prison...

---

Long post!

---

OK Randy, this is the second time you've brought up an exact same argument that I already addressed and debunked. This means I can only conclude you are either just messing with us, or you're hoping to repeat yourself endlessly until we give up argueing so you can declare victory. You're trying to use the courtroom analogy for the third time now, after I ripped it to shreds twice. And you brought up that McVeigh guy, after I posted information about what other evidence there was and asked you to show me how there was only hearsay evidence against him. You ignored me and continued anyway.

Here is the problem, in my opinion. I think you don't believe in Christianity for any of these reasons. What we have here are rationalisations. You already believe in Christianity before we even start the discussion, for other reasons. Maybe they are emotional reasons. Maybe indoctrination. Maybe personal experiences. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. The ease with which you slip between the bible being the claim and then talking like you've actually seen evidence of God stoning false prophets to death gives this up.

Maybe it would be better if you told us the real reasons you believe in Christianity. Because it's become very clear to everyone here that it's not due to simply analyzing the bible. You may have convinced yourself of that, but I'm afraid I don't believe it.

It would be like me trying to make the case Lord of the Rings actually happened. I'd say, "Well, Aragorn killed like 1,000 orcs by this point in the story! So I think he's not your average guy, so when he says the ring of power needs to be destroyed, we should listen to him!" What I have done is exactly what you're doing, assuming the story is true to try and prove the story is true. When called out on this, I fall back on "What I know about Aragorn", which is what points to the fact that I have other reasons to believe the story other than just reading it. Maybe I think I've really met Aragorn, maybe I had a powerful dream about it. Maybe everyone has always told me he is real. Do you see the comparison?

So would you be prepared to share the real reasons you believe? The things that convince you. I would guess you have had personal experiences which count far more than words on a page.

If I'm being presumptious, I apologize. You know better than me, I'm only trying to assess the situation. But if there are no other reasons, that leaves you trying to make this case without referring to what you "know" about God and Jesus etc.

Regarding God: according to the bible, he used to actually talk to people directly. He had no problem doing this. He even walked around the earth where he could be clearly seen. If God was walking around, there would be no argument from me that he is real. If I could hear him talking to everyone, I would believe he was real. I wouldn't necessarily believe he is exactly as described in the bible or any other book, but at least I'd know we're actually dealing with something existent. What you are saying is that my determination to not believe in God is more powerful than god's ability to provide evidence. I think you flatter me too much. I'm open minded. Provide me evidence, and I'll change my mind. But just pointing to a book and telling me it's true is not new evidence, it's still the claim. If you communicate with God, maybe you could ask him why he's unable or unwilling to convince atheists he even exists, or to convince other theists they are worshipping the wrong God. He used to get real angry about that, false gods! Now he does nothing, he even lets people run around killing in a false god's name. (This is putting forward the hypothetical consequences of believing Yahweh is real.)

Yeah, the bible is a book of atrocities. When I referred to Jesus telling people to murder someone, you said "It's still murder". Well, God orders not just individual murders but the deaths of whole towns right down to the babies and and animals. Is that "still murder" or is it OK because God ordered it?

I think for this to go anywhere, we need you to do some introspection and share with us your real reasons. Because if you're not messing with us, you've already run out of arguments and are repeating ones I've already addressed.

I can see you making real efforts to engage with us, and I appreciate that. But if you repeat yourself again, going back over things we already debunked, then I'm going to have to leave the discussion. I made my challenge informally back on page 2, then much more formally later. It hasn't been met, in my opinion.

---

Rob-

I'm honestly at a loss as to what I have failed to address. Maybe I'm just an idiot...we can't discount that possibility...or maybe there are like 30 of you and only one of me so I'm not as focused as I should be on any one train of thought. My apologies for that.

But each time you have said, "My posts are still unanswered", I have gone back to look at what I have missed. And each time, I have tried to address them again.

Now in this post, you claim that you have debunked the courtroom analogy. "Ripped it to shreds twice", have you? Not that I've seen. And what I'm trying to get you to understand is that if you talked with a police detective or an attorney, you would come away with a greater appreciation for indirect or circumstantial evidence than you seem to have at the moment.

We have no direct, empirical evidence of the resurrection, Rob, but that's okay. We don't NEED it to make the case for Christianity. There are many things in science that cannot be proved empirically, but scientists propose hypotheses based upon what provides the best explanation for observed phenomena.

Now, the circumstantial evidence I posted in the OP as well as in #270 suggests that it is not only plausible but probable that the gospels contain accurate information about Jesus because they can be objectively evaluated and determined to be historically reliable. Can I go line by line and PROVE that Jesus spoke every single word in every single parable in precisely the order presented? Of course not. But what I can do is to demonstrate that the authors were knowledgeable and reliable in the details which we can verify - and this gives us the overall impression of general reliability. IOW, we can say with some confidence that the authors were probably telling the truth about the significant details of Jesus' life because they were clearly telling the truth about those things which we can verify.

The historical reliability of the NT is the best explanation of ALL the facts (as opposed to theories about late dating, anonymous authorship, editorial bias, etc.).

The resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of ALL the facts (which must include the multiple attestation provided by the historically reliable authors of the NT).

[robvalue]

OK, I'm going to have to sign off then. I've made my case several times and we're just going in circles. I'll only be repeating myself at this point. Clearly you think you have addressed things when as far as I'm concerned you have not, and vice versa.

Thanks for the debate Maybe I at least gave you a little food for thought. Possibly a nibble. I appreciate the effort in addressing my posts, I enjoyed the challenge.

[Randy Carson]

Paul created the Jesus character after suffering from heat stroke on the road to Damascus to beat up on the members of the Way cult.  Paul was the first one to preach about Jesus and he was the first one to write about him.  

Peter preached the resurrection of Jesus in Acts 2.
Stephen preached the resurrection of Jesus in Acts 7.
Saul wasn't even converted until Acts 9.

Tell us again how Paul was the first one to preach about Jesus...now THERE is a fairy tale in the making. 

---

OK, I'm going to have to sign off then. I've made my case several times and we're just going in circles. I'll only be repeating myself at this point. Clearly you think you have addressed things when as far as I'm concerned you have not, and vice versa.

Thanks for the debate Maybe I at least gave you a little food for thought. Possibly a nibble. I appreciate the effort in addressing my posts, I enjoyed the challenge.

A pity. But before you go, would you please comment upon this (which I wrote previously):

Can I go line by line and PROVE that Jesus spoke every single word in every single parable in precisely the order presented? Of course not. But what I can do is to demonstrate that the authors were knowledgeable and reliable in the details which we can verify - and this gives us the overall impression of general reliability. IOW, we can say with some confidence that the authors were probably telling the truth about the significant details of Jesus' life because they were clearly telling the truth about those things which we can verify.


Thanks.