The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[TimOneill]

Appeal to motivation. We have no idea why including this detail may have been so important, I don't see why it indicates it is true.

Incorrect default position (in my opinion). The sceptical approach is not to believe anything without good reason.

That is not remotely like an "appeal to motive".  And I didn't say we know why the detail may be important, I simply noted that the idea that he was said to be from Nazareth because he was from Nazareth is the most parsimonious read of the text.  Any others depend on strings of suppositions invoked purely to make this element in the story go away, and for no other, valid reason.  Other than the fact it weakens the Jesus Myth thesis.

And no, "may not have existed" is most definitely not the default position.  In most cases in an ancient source, when someone is mentioned, it's because they existed.  Only in a tiny handful of cases do we have someone mentioned who may or probably did not.  So the default position is that, if someone is mentioned in a source, they most likely existed, unless we have some evidence-based indication they did not.  To immediately assume, as a default position, that everyone and anyone who is mentioned in a source "may not have existed" is patently absurd.

---

"Wow.... I didn't know we had a TimOneil around here, too!

Welcome!

Thanks.  But it's actually "O'Neill"

A catholic guy was just saying on another thread you debunked the possibility that part of the canonical life of jesus was... borrowed... from the Teacher of righteous described in the Dead sea scrolls.

I'm not sure what he's referring to, but I can't say this is something that can be "debunked".  Though I would say that any parallels between Jesus and the ToR from the Scrolls are pretty vague and most likely explained by the fact they were both Jews and both sect leaders.  I can't actually think of any specific parallels between them at all and can think of many significant differences between their respective sects.  So the idea that one is derived from the other is pretty weak.

He seems to think very highly of your knowledge of the ancient world, so I guess you are some sort of authority on the matter, huh?"

I've never claimed to be anything other than a reasonably well-read amateur.

In my ignorance, all I got going for the "claim of borrowing" is the wiki article on the teacher where a guy named Wise claims that the scrolls present a picture of a messiah that rattled the established religious leaders and got crucified as a result... there's also a mentioning that his followers expected that "the Teacher would return to judge the wicked and lead the righteous into a golden age, and that it would take place within the next forty years." This return never happened, obviously... but it is reminiscent of how christians are waiting for their messiah to return... at first, it would be within their lifetimes (close to the 40 years).... then it became "soon"... it's been "soon" for 2000 years, and counting.

I know of no evidence at all that the ToR was "crucified".  There is nothing in the Scrolls material that says anything about his death, let alone him being killed.  So this Wise guy is drawing a long bow.

How does your scholarship on the subject analyze this possibility of borrowing of a theme?

See above.  The game of "parallels = derivation" is usually not worth playing.

[robvalue]

Alright, well that's fine as I said. I didn't expect you to agree me since you didn't the last time.

I was argueing with someone and was getting rather frustrated with them and they pulled you as an appeal to authority. Without thinking, I wrote that because of the fallacies I remembered (according to me of course) and that frustration ended up being misplaced and aimed at you. I was writing about you the same way I'd write about any other well known person, in that my opinion isn't particularly important. Like you say I didn't expect to actually talk to you again, not that it's an excuse. Normally I am careful to be able to back up what I say, in your case I went over the top and it was me who overreached. I should have simply said, "He made some errors of logic, in my opinion." I was too dramatic in my frustration. Poor of me to let my emotions get the better of me in debate.

Anyhow welcome back Now I've gone through and read your posts agin, it's clear I had a very warped recollection. I'm about halfway through the mental self punishment ritual, I should be done by this afternoon.

[Mudhammam]

Hey Tim, I'm glad to see that you have returned. I kind of view your last visit and the trouncing you gave grouchy 'ol Min as one of the tipping points that nudged me from an agnostic position towards Jesus' existence, possessing a modicum of respect for the Mythicist thesis, to my current view which is basically what you and the overwhelmingly vast majority of historians hold. Welcome back. I hope our forum member Rhythm will try arguing his utterly dumb "Paul Mythicist" theory with someone more versed in the material and methods as I unfortunately ran out of patience trying to explain how the logic works when studying ancient sources.

[Randy Carson]

He...he does know that a dude named Jesus actually existing =/= the new testament is reliable, right?

Of course "he" does. 

However, if you actually READ what SOME posters in this forum write, you will observe that a fairly significant percentage of the members seem to be mythers.

Consequently, just getting to the baseline agreement that yes, Jesus really did exist, is a major task in itself.

However, one thing is for sure, if Josephus and Tacitus (whom O'Neill says are unimpeachable sources on this) are correct, then the NT was reliable about that.

But YOU try telling that to a few folks around here...

---

OK, suppose Jesus did exist and that he did run around the Middle East blabbling about this and that.  What did he say that was so important?  Based upon the dialogue countless other people have said far more important things about all kinds of issues.

Why not read what He said for yourself?

---

Why not?  Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  

Carl Sagan.

To whom I reply, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Let that sink in.

Were I to accept god on earth, miracles, and the resurrection on that basis I'd have no reason not to believe in UFO abductions, ghosts, big foot, Nessy, ESP, Mormonism, and a variety of other things that I'm pretty sure you don't believe in either.  I don't believe in Christianity for the same reason you don't believe in those things.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that we are agnostic about those things, because we simply don't know for sure whether they exist or not?

Which is not to say I think the gospels are pure fabrication.  I'm pretty sure a man named Jesus, lived, was born in Galilee (not Bethlehem) to a woman named Mary, was baptized by John the Baptist, preached, and was crucified.  I'm also sure his mother was not a virgin and did not think she had born the son of god (ask me why and I'll show you the gospel text).

Please show me.  

---

The bible and the New Testament in particular are history - Arguably one of the most influential books of all time... But historically reliable? No, that's the conclusion bible academicians have been reaching for decades.

Update:

That was the trend of scholarship in the first half of the 20th century, but more recently scholars have been moving toward acceptance of the historical reliability of the gospels.

[LastPoet]

Carl Sagan.

To whom I reply, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Let that sink in.

That doesn't even has anything to do with Sagan's quote. You never saw a black swan eh? Theists make the claim, indeed an extraordinary one.

Not only there is no evidence for your god or any other, there are contradictions with reality on all religious holy books, based on what we can demonstrate to eachother without a doubt.

It is up to you to demonstrate an infallibale method to meet this god of yours. ProTip: The bible and lame apologetics aren't going to cut it, but thanks for the laughs. That's what we have to sink in, lest we run out of air while laughing.

[pocaracas]

"Wow.... I didn't know we had a TimOneil around here, too!

Welcome!

Thanks.  But it's actually "O'Neill"

Ah... the double-consonant trick. Sorry I missed it.

A catholic guy was just saying on another thread you debunked the possibility that part of the canonical life of jesus was... borrowed... from the Teacher of righteous described in the Dead sea scrolls.

I'm not sure what he's referring to, but I can't say this is something that can be "debunked".  Though I would say that any parallels between Jesus and the ToR from the Scrolls are pretty vague and most likely explained by the fact they were both Jews and both sect leaders.  I can't actually think of any specific parallels between them at all and can think of many significant differences between their respective sects.  So the idea that one is derived from the other is pretty weak.

I wouldn't say one is derived... one may pick up on a few notions from the other.

In my ignorance, all I got going for the "claim of borrowing" is the wiki article on the teacher where a guy named Wise claims that the scrolls present a picture of a messiah that rattled the established religious leaders and got crucified as a result... there's also a mentioning that his followers expected that "the Teacher would return to judge the wicked and lead the righteous into a golden age, and that it would take place within the next forty years." This return never happened, obviously... but it is reminiscent of how christians are waiting for their messiah to return... at first, it would be within their lifetimes (close to the 40 years).... then it became "soon"... it's been "soon" for 2000 years, and counting.

I know of no evidence at all that the ToR was "crucified".  There is nothing in the Scrolls material that says anything about his death, let alone him being killed.  So this Wise guy is drawing a long bow.

This is the entry in the wiki about Wise's view:

the Teacher of Righteousness was the "first messiah", a figure predating Jesus by roughly 100 years.[9] This figure - who Wise believes was named Judah - rose to prominence during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, and had been a priest and confidant to the king. However, he became dissatisfied with the religious sects in Jerusalem, and in reaction, founded a "crisis cult". While amassing a following, the Teacher (and his followers) claimed he was the fulfillment of various Biblical prophecies, with an emphasis on those found in Isaiah. The Teacher was eventually killed by the religious leadership in Jerusalem, and his followers hailed him as messianic figure who had been exalted to the presence of God's throne. They then anticipated that the Teacher would return to judge the wicked and lead the righteous into a golden age, and that it would take place within the next forty years.

It doesn't say the guy was crucified, but, at this time, that Jannaeus in there seems to have crucified a lot of people... so... something in my head may have misfired towards that.... AH, no.. this is where I came across that idea:
http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/deadsea.htm

54 With the prevailing scholarship of the dating of the scrolls, the view came forth that the Teacher of Righteousness was the biblical Jesus. This caused a furor, and when Dupont-Sommer translated some scrolls, he claimed that the Teacher of Righteousness had been crucified! This needs to be looked at, as well as the concept of Messianism in the scrolls, as it perhaps is the crux of identity between the two.

The reference to crucifixion is in the Commentary of Nahum in the scrolls. G. Vermes notes that the Pharisees in Alexander Janneus’ time were crucified by Janneus for plotting against him "in collusion with the Syrian Seleucid King Demetrius Eucaerus, eight hundred Pharisees were condemned by Janneus, to die on the cross."55 The idea that the Teacher of Righteousness, who had been claimed to be a Messiah, was crucified has not died down yet. In fact, since this view came about, many scrolls have be reasssed as to their Messianic content, as well as the entire concept of Messianism in the scrolls and early Christianity, as well as Judaism.56 H. H. Rowley took exception with John Allegro’s contention that the Teacher of Righteousness was crucified, as well as that this was a unique event in Israel.57 Allegro identifies the "Lion of Wrath" with Alexander Janneus. This is speculative yet we are reminded that Janneus crucified eight hundred of his enemies, and was nicknamed Thrakidan. The link between Thrakidan and the "Lion of Wrath" is unknown.58 C. Rabin notes that the fragment speaks of hanging men alive, which seems to allude to Janneus executing 800 of his enemies by impaling or crucifying (anastaur sas) them

At least, I'm not going that crazy!

How does your scholarship on the subject analyze this possibility of borrowing of a theme?

See above.  The game of "parallels = derivation" is usually not worth playing.

yeah... like I told Carson in the other thread: Short of a time-machine, we'll likely never be sure of anything about what really happened.
But it's still fun to rattle their cages with doubts!
Things are not entirely as they (christians) claim.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hey Tim, I'm glad to see that you have returned. I kind of view your last visit and the trouncing you gave grouchy 'ol Min as one of the tipping points that nudged me from an agnostic position towards Jesus' existence, possessing a modicum of respect for the Mythicist thesis, to my current view which is basically what you and the overwhelmingly vast majority of historians hold. Welcome back. I hope our forum member Rhythm will try arguing his utterly dumb "Paul Mythicist" theory with someone more versed in the material and methods as I unfortunately ran out of patience trying to explain how the logic works when studying ancient sources.

LO< Can't argue it yourself..looking for relief?  The mans clothes healed the sick, at a distance.  End of.  I find it amusing that the way a person is forced to argue aganist the mythical and legendary paul is to dismiss the mythical and legendary paul in the text as not part of the Historical Paul™. The fact remains that no one can tell me who this historical Paul was with -any- confidence whatsoever, while it is trivially easy for me to show the mythical and legendary paul anytime a person asks.

Pro-tip....rather than attack the straw you consistently imagine and then attribute to me, you should just establish who this "historical paul" was. I haven't forgotten. I'm a paul mooter, you fucking moron, not a paul mythicist......as you'll find that each and every one of my interactions with you would attest to..if you'd pulled your head out of your ass and argued your own position rather than trying to imagine what mine was without simply accepting that I mean what I say and say what I mean. The paul -of the text- is mythical, legendary - regardless of what some "paul" - named used just for shits and giggles- may have been. It;s as if you're expecting me to argue that there weren't people in the world at that time, or somesuch...lol?

I think it's patently absurd to claim "Well, there was a historical paul" if, when asked who this historical paul was...the only tenable answer is "no clue". Let's try again "Was there a historical paul?" -"no clue".

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJO5HU_7_1w

---

[Jenny A]

Why not?  Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  

Carl Sagan.

To whom I reply, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Let that sink in.

That's not even relevant.  I'm not attempting to prove there was no resurrection, merely stating that there is insufficient evidence to believe that there was one.  To prove something is at minimum, to show that it is more likely than not.  Resurrection is extraordiarily unlikely, and therefore, no amount of eyewitness testimony would ever be sufficient to make it more likely than not as it will always remain more likely that the witness is lying or mistaken.  You don't even have eyewitness evidence.  

---

Were I to accept god on earth, miracles, and the resurrection on that basis I'd have no reason not to believe in UFO abductions, ghosts, big foot, Nessy, ESP, Mormonism, and a variety of other things that I'm pretty sure you don't believe in either.  I don't believe in Christianity for the same reason you don't believe in those things.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that we are agnostic about those things, because we simply don't know for sure whether they exist or not?

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.  Atheists come in gnostic and agnostic. Agnostics to no believe there is no god, the lack belief in god. Atheism includes the unproven position.  And yes that is my position concerning god and the items mentioned above.  That does not, however, mean I think them even remotely likely.

Which is not to say I think the gospels are pure fabrication.  I'm pretty sure a man named Jesus, lived, was born in Galilee (not Bethlehem) to a woman named Mary, was baptized by John the Baptist, preached, and was crucified.  I'm also sure his mother was not a virgin and did not think she had born the son of god (ask me why and I'll show you the gospel text).

Please show me.  

I'm so very glad you asked.  Mark, as we both know, if the first of the gospels in the Bible to be written.  Mark does not include a birth story.  It starts instead with Jesus preaching.  That it is only in later gospels that the virgin birth is mentioned is suggestive.  But when Jesus does begin preaching in Mark, people accuse him of being possessed by the devil.  And his family, think he has taken leave of his senses.

Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat.  When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”

 Mark 3:20-21

If Mary had been a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, and been told by an angel that he was to be the son of god, would she have thought he was crazy when he started preaching?  I don't think so.

[Mudhammam]

LO< Can't argue it yourself..looking for relief?  The mans clothes healed the sick, at a distance.  End of.  I find it amusing that the way a person is forced to argue aganist the mythical and legendary paul is to dismiss the mythical and legendary paul in the text as not part of the Historical Paul™. The fact remains that no one can tell me who this historical Paul was with -any- confidence whatsoever, while it is trivially easy for me to show the mythical and legendary paul anytime a person asks.

Pro-tip....rather than attack the straw you consistently imagine and then attribute to me, you should just establish who this "historical paul" was. I haven't forgotten. I'm a paul mooter, you fucking moron, not a paul mythicist......as you'll find that each and every one of my interactions with you would attest to..if you'd pulled your head out of your ass and argued your own position rather than trying to imagine what mine was without simply accepting that I mean what I say and say what I mean. The paul -of the text- is mythical, legendary - regardless of what some "paul" - named used just for shits and giggles- may have been. It;s as if you're expecting me to argue that there weren't people in the world at that time, or somesuch...lol?

I think it's patently absurd to claim "Well, there was a historical paul" if, when asked who this historical paul was...the only tenable answer is "no clue". Let's try again "Was there a historical paul?" -"no clue".

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJO5HU_7_1w

---

Lol. It's funny how butt hurt you are. But actually if your dumb ass could read, I said I ran out of patience explaining how logic works to a fucking idiot, which you once again confirmed by posting statements one could only think if a) they ignored everything I already said up to this point, or b) their brain is literally physically damaged. I think I'll opt for b.

Good luck, Tim.

[Pyrrho]

...
I'm so very glad you asked.  Mark, as we both know, if the first of the gospels in the Bible to be written.  Mark does not include a birth story.  It starts instead with Jesus preaching.  That it is only in later gospels that the virgin birth is mentioned is suggestive.  But when Jesus does begin preaching in Mark, people accuse him of being possessed by the devil.  And his family, think he has taken leave of his senses.

Then he went home; and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat.  When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”

 Mark 3:20-21

If Mary had been a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, and been told by an angel that he was to be the son of god, would she have thought he was crazy when he started preaching?  I don't think so.

It is this kind of thing that shows that not only is Christianity not true, it can't be true.  The Bible is an incoherent mess that could not possibly be true.

As I am sure you know, there is a similar story in Luke 2:


41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.

45 And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.

46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.


That, too, does not fit the virgin birth/God is the father of Jesus story.  There is no way they would forget the virgin birth and being told that God is his father, so if that were true, then this story in Luke 2 could not be true.

I am reminded of the words of David Hume:


So that, upon the whole, we may conclude, that the Christian Religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity: And whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_264


It would, indeed, take a miracle to get a reasonable person to believe in Christianity.