Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[TagliatelliMonster]

The ancient historian Josephus also reports miracles in his works......should we drop all his work .

The same is true with most ancient historians, if we where to drop documents just because they report miracles we would have to abandon 90%+ of ancient history....

Who said anything about dropping the complete documents?
Do you think historians take it seriously when it is reported of Ceasar's conquest in Gaul that Mars was fighting alongside them?

The myths are the supernatural bits.
Perhaps some of the surrounding things too. Extra independent corroboration of some type or another usually sorts that out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The ancient historian Josephus also reports miracles in his works......should we drop all his work .

The same is true with most ancient historians, if we where to drop documents just because they report miracles we would have to abandon 90%+ of ancient history....

Tsk, tsk. Back to the good old Black and White Fallacy again.

 

[Riders]

The reason I would argue that the Gospels are reliable from a historical point of view is because I belive that points 1,2 and 3 are ture:

1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

3 So if an author tries to be accurate and has reliable sources it follows (inductively) that his work is reliable.

if you disagree with ether 1,2 or 3 please let me know why you disagree.




1 the authors intended to report what actually happened

Given the literary genera of the text (Greco roman biography) and the fact that the gosspels are fool of embarrassing details* it seems probable that point 1 is true

2 The authors had access to reliable sources.

Given that most of the political, historical, demographic and geographical details** in the gospels are accurate … it seems probable that the authors had access to good sources, otherwise they would have not known those details.

---

*Embarrassing details: Jesus had a humiliating death, Peter denied Jesus, The empty tomb was discovered by woman, he was buried in the tomb of a Jewish Sanhedrin, Jesus had limited knowledge, etc. all these details represented obstacles for the early Christians, (things would have been easier without those embarrassing details)

** There really was a Pilate, there really was a Caiphas, the ratio of common names vs uncommon names are consistent, there really was a Jewish Sanhedrin that had some power and influence over the romans, they villages, towns cities etc. really excisted…………onlyh someone who was there or who had acces to reliable source could have known all these.

Number 3 is a repeat of 1 and 2. Embarrassing details? Those embarrassing details were true of a bunch of people who were crucified and we have written down details of them too. That's nothing, it was common to be crucified back then. There really was a Pilate? There really was a president Reagan from Superman too, is Super Man also true?

 

[Riders]

Embarrassing details mean that the story is more likely to be true, since if someone made it up they wouldn't want to cause embarrassment?

By that logic, Babylon 5 is a true account of actual events, since Lennier's abandonment of Sheridan in Objects At Rest was embarrassing and wouldn't have been included if it was all made up.

There are lots of folks and messiahs who were embarrassed and humiliated who had stories written about them, crucifixion was commonplace back then. I agree with you Babylon 5!

 

[lukethethird]

The ancient historian Josephus also reports miracles in his works......should we drop all his work .

The same is true with most ancient historians, if we where to drop documents just because they report miracles we would have to abandon 90%+ of ancient history....

No one is saying that Jesus could not have existed, he very well could have, what is being pointed out is that we have the myth.

 

[leroy]

Who said anything about dropping the complete documents?
Do you think historians take it seriously when it is reported of Ceasar's conquest in Gaul that Mars was fighting alongside them?

The myths are the supernatural bits.
Perhaps some of the surrounding things too. Extra independent corroboration of some type or another usually sorts that out.

Well then use the same criteria with the gospels, dismiss the miracles as “misinterpretations” “Legends” or “exaggerations”…….. but dont drop alllllll the document.

In fact in the context of this conversation (originated by @joelr ) all I am saying is that the gospels where likely correct when claiming that Jesus had a biological brother named James. (for the sake of this discussion you can reject alllll the gospels except for that particular point)

 

[leroy]

Number 3 is a repeat of 1 and 2. Embarrassing details? Those embarrassing details were true of a bunch of people who were crucified and we have written down details of them too. That's nothing, it was common to be crucified back then. There really was a Pilate? There really was a president Reagan from Superman too, is Super Man also true?

The claim would be that given that dead by crisifixtion is “embarrassing” the event is likely to be true

 

[leroy]

Eusebian was in charge of the TV text. This is not a Carrier issue. He wrote a paper on the Antiques but the Testimonium Flavium has been under scrutiny by scholars fro hundreds of years.
Recent findings include (scholar who wrote a paper on the subject is listed because you keep thinking it's all Carrier):

• The content, concepts, and sequence of the TF matches the gospel summary in Luke 24 (Goldberg 1995).
• The style of the TF is more Eusebian than Josephan (Olson 2013; Feldman 2012).
• And the narrative structure of the TF is not even remotely Josephan, but is a perfect match for Christian creedal statements (in respect to the treatment of time, story, emplotment, and apologetic: Hopper 2014).

A different scholar - Goldberg has a paper demonstrating that the TV passage contains far too many coincidences between the Emmaus narrative in Luke 24 that there has to be some connection.

Now if we find other passages in the TV that do not sound like Josephus then they also will be investigated. Church fathers had a mission to prop up the movement in any way possible. Hence the fake Epistles which mysteriously match the gospels. I imagine they felt it was a lie for a good purpose?


"In a published finding still commonly overlooked, G.J. Goldberg demonstrated so many coincidences between the Testimonium and a core segment of the Emmaus narrative in Luke 24 that accident is no longer a plausible explanation. I’ve written about this before. These coincidences include, Goldberg says, “detailed structural coincidences” that are “not found in comparable texts of the era,” and “coincidences at difficult textual points, the most peculiar being the participial form of the ‘third day’, unique [here and in] Christian literature,” and “a rare first person usage,” and “the presentation and terseness concerning Jesus’ deeds, the predictions of the prophets, and the sentencing.” All match the Emmaus narrative. None make sense coming from Josephus.

Goldberg also notes that “the vocabulary cluster [of the Greek words] ‘Jesus, man, deed’ … which are the first three major nouns of the Testimonium” is peculiar because “only [the Emmaus] passage of Luke shares this cluster” in all other literature. And “one finds this to be only the first indication of a series of location correspondences, nearly synonymous phrases occurring in analogous positions in each text.” On top of that, Goldberg says, “the Testimonium and the Emmaus narrative employ at” many points the same “odd or obscure form of expression,” like that strange way of saying “third day.”

Regarding the sequence match, as Goldberg puts it, “one can read[…] the text of Luke, halt[…] at each noun or each verb of action, and then look[…] to the Josephus text for a corresponding phrase at the same location.” He then shows there are 19 elements in the TF that are in the exact same order as the same 19 elements in the Emmaus narrative. As follows:

[Jesus] [wise man / prophet-man] [mighty/surprising] [deed(s)] [teacher / word] [truth / (word) before God] [many people] [he was indicted] [by leaders] [of us] [sentenced to a cross] [those who had loved/hoped in him] [spending the third day] [he appeared/spoke to them] [prophets] [these things] [and numerous other things] [about him]

There is a 20th element that also matches between them: identifying Jesus as the Christ. That is the sole element presented out of order from the Emmaus narrative. Goldberg also overlooks a 21st correspondence: both the matching part of Luke and the Testimonium begin with the same verb in the same position, “it comes to pass / it came to pass” (exact same verb, exact same place, just differing in tense).

Granted, The TF is controversial.

But the James quote is theologically insignificant, it doesn’t serve any theological purpose, if anything it makes the doctrine of perpetual virginity harder to support. So why would the church fathers fake it? …… if anything they would have been more ambitious and put more embellishment I the quote.

 

[leroy]

I don't reject either, let's seea historian who speaks the original Greek says:

"Likewise the “Brothers of the Lord” Paul references in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are, again, non-apostolic Christians—and thus being distinguished from Apostles, including, again, the first Apostle, Cephas."E]

YES We have 1 historian who claims that the quote is talking about “spiritual brothers” so what? Most historians disagree and even more important, given that the text implies that all the brothers had a wife, its more likely that he is talking about his 3 biological brothers, otherwise it would have been very unlikely that allllll the spiritual brothers would have a wife.

Now let's see what an apologist site will say:

I don’t understand why you keep saying that…. yes some apologetic sites reject the “brotherness” of James……….SO WHAT? Many atheists’ sites affirm the brotherness of James and they even “mock” Catholocs for that reason.

The word being used for brother here is "adelphoi" - A brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian. A brother near or remote.

adelphoi means brother

Like in the English language it means biological brother, but it can also be used to refer to “someone close”

All the quotes that have the word adelphoi refer to biological brother, except for the cases where the author clarifies or makes emphasis that he means something else.

 

[leroy]

And Jimmy was a common name then, so the invent claim is not justified either.

Well yes, but at this point you have to take a breath and consider all the mess that Richard Carrier (and @joelr made)

1 In order to avoid the argument of multiple independent attestation, you have to argue that Mark copied from Paul and that the other gospels copied form mark


2 Then you have to argue that Paul didn’t mean “biological brother”

3 But since Mark clearly and unambiguously meant “biological brother” in the gospel, you have to assume that this specific part was not copied from Paul but rather invented out of thin air.

4 Of all the names that Mark could have invented, he happened to invent “James” , the exact name that would cause all this chaos and confusion.

5 and on top of that you have to assume that crazy conspiracy theory where the church fathers supposedly edited Josephus and added the “James quote” for no apparent reason.

At what point would you say that “this is too much” ?...............isn’t it much simpler and pausible to simply say that there was an alleged miracle worker named Jesus who had a biological brother named James?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well yes, but at this point you have to take a breath and consider all the mess that Richard Carrier (and @joelr made)

1 In order to avoid the argument of multiple independent attestation, you have to argue that Mark copied from Paul and that the other gospels copied form mark

First off you need an attitude change. Someone that is wrong as often as you are should approach your attempts at refutation more humbly. Now there is no need to demonstrate that others copied from Mark, That is well accepted by practically all serious scholars of the Bible. You start off with shooting yourself in the foot by requiring something that has already been done. It seems that all you can contest at best is the claim that Mark copied from Paul. How would you counter that claim?

2 Then you have to argue that Paul didn’t mean “biological brother”

And he made a good case for that. But at any rate the "brother of Jesus" in the biological sense is pretty much a non-issue.

3 But since Mark clearly and unambiguously meant “biological brother” in the gospel, you have to assume that this specific part was not copied from Paul but rather invented out of thin air.

You do realize that they could have been referring to different Jimmy's there, don't you? The Bible times were a bit like the old south, You have Jimmy's all over the place.

4 Of all the names that Mark could have invented, he happened to invent “James” , the exact name that would cause all this chaos and confusion.

So what? by the way, aren't you the one claiming invention of names?

5 and on top of that you have to assume that crazy conspiracy theory where the church fathers supposedly edited Josephus and added the “James quote” for no apparent reason.

And you shoot yourself in the foot again. This is accepted as fact, at least on some of the writings of Josephus. Why not the other reference to Jesus? Once again you are ignoring refutations. They are still there. You are still wrong.

At what point would you say that “this is too much” ?...............isn’t it much simpler and pausible to simply say that there was an alleged miracle worker named Jesus who had a biological brother named James?

Since as usual there is no "there" there in your argument You have not even come close to finding "too much". Try again and do not forget your claims that have been refuted, and also remember that well supported claims that you have not been able to refute have been given to you.

You have quite a bit of work to do. Perhaps if you broke it down a bit.

 

[lukethethird]

Well then use the same criteria with the gospels, dismiss the miracles as “misinterpretations” “Legends” or “exaggerations”…….. but dont drop alllllll the document.

In fact in the context of this conversation (originated by @joelr ) all I am saying is that the gospels where likely correct when claiming that Jesus had a biological brother named James. (for the sake of this discussion you can reject alllll the gospels except for that particular point)

Yes, according to the gospels Jesus had a brother named James, not to be confused with the disciple James.

 

[Riders]

The claim would be that given that dead by crisifixtion is “embarrassing” the event is likely to be true

Oh well, yea as I said tons of people were crucified.

 

[joelr]

Granted, The TF is controversial.

But the James quote is theologically insignificant, it doesn’t serve any theological purpose, if anything it makes the doctrine of perpetual virginity harder to support. So why would the church fathers fake it? …… if anything they would have been more ambitious and put more embellishment I the quote.

You are confused here. Let's fix this.

The Christian interpolation is in the T.V.

The James passage is in Antiques and is believed and demonstrated to most likely be a scribal error. The section speaks of a high priest Jesus Ben Damnieus then says he has a brother James killed. At some point during Eusebius control over the documents it was transcribed as the wrong Jesus. The evidence for this is extremely persuasive.

 

[joelr]

YES We have 1 historian who claims that the quote is talking about “spiritual brothers” so what? Most historians disagree and even more important, given that the text implies that all the brothers had a wife, its more likely that he is talking about his 3 biological brothers, otherwise it would have been very unlikely that allllll the spiritual brothers would have a wife.

Um, no. I posted the opinion of biblical scholars who say we cannot know what is meant in that passage. From an apologetics site?
Forget Carrier, the Christian scholarship says the passage is ambiguous.

I don’t understand why you keep saying that…. yes some apologetic sites reject the “brotherness” of James……….SO WHAT? Many atheists’ sites affirm the brotherness of James and they even “mock” Catholocs for that reason.

Because we have Carrier, an actual historian saying he meant brothers in the lord.
Apologists saying we cannot know.
It's clear that this cannot be determined.

adelphoi means brother

Like in the English language it means biological brother, but it can also be used to refer to “someone close”

All the quotes that have the word adelphoi refer to biological brother, except for the cases where the author clarifies or makes emphasis that he means something else.

No that is demonstrably not true. I went to Bible Hub and looked up the meaning of the word in Gal (from last post) and they clearly DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE, if it was brother, brother-in the lord or even ANOTHER use????
So your statement is wrong. There is no clarification, it has to be interpreted and they do not know for sure.

However Carrier, who speaks the original Greek is sure that in that passage they mean brothers in the lord.

The word is used 145 times and many times the English translation is "brethen" showing the word is used as "brothers in the lord" often.
Greek Concordance: ἀδελφοὶ (adelphoi) -- 145 Occurrences

 

[joelr]

Well yes, but at this point you have to take a breath and consider all the mess that Richard Carrier (and @joelr made)

You have failed to show any such "mess" but did show a lack of understanding of what is being said.

1 In order to avoid the argument of multiple independent attestation, you have to argue that Mark copied from Paul and that the other gospels copied form mark

Mark copying from Paul has nothing to do with avoiding multiple attestation. There are dozens of examples of Mark using Paul and changing the meanings to fit his story.
Like the last supper which Paul told as a metaphor Jesus said. Mark turned it into an actual supper with other people present. Mark created all sorts of Earthly events right up to a crucifixion. He also used exact lines from Psalms and other narratives. As well as incredibly dense mythic devices which are only used in fictional narratives. None of which have to do with James and avoiding multiple attestations.

2 Then you have to argue that Paul didn’t mean “biological brother”

No one know what Paul meant for sure.

3 But since Mark clearly and unambiguously meant “biological brother” in the gospel, you have to assume that this specific part was not copied from Paul but rather invented out of thin air.

Yes because Mark also invented a family, miracles, all Earthly events, a crucifixion, empty tomb while using Psalms, Kings, Jesus Ben Anniaus and other stories to create text. The fact that he created a brother is hardly worth mentioning?

4 Of all the names that Mark could have invented, he happened to invent “James” , the exact name that would cause all this chaos and confusion.

What confusion? It actually makes it seem more life-like that an apostle and his brother have the same name. There is no confusion? For Christians you just believe the story as told, no problem. For historians we see it's mythology written from many sources. No confusion.

5 and on top of that you have to assume that crazy conspiracy theory where the church fathers supposedly edited Josephus and added the “James quote” for no apparent reason.

It's known 100% that the TV is a late Christian interpolation. You cannot get around that. /The James passage is Antiques is a mistake. The high priest was actually Jesus Ben Damnieus who had a brother killed as explained in Goldbergs paper.
Christian interpolation is not a "conspiracy theory"? The TV was changed by Christians looking to prop up the historicity of the religion. No one doubts this. Modern scholarship since 2014 has demonstrated the entire passage is a forgery
The fake Epistles were looking to do the same. They got caught.

But the James quote is in a different Josephus text. During Eusebius' time, him or a scribe mistook a "Jewish high priest" for Jesus. We now know it was most likely Jesus Ben Damnieus.

At what point would you say that “this is too much” ?...............isn’t it much simpler and pausible to simply say that there was an alleged miracle worker named Jesus who had a biological brother named James?

At no point because every single point you just made is based on incorrect information or information you have failed to understand.

But, I brought up another clear point last time to which you ignored or failed to comprehend.
Another paper by Goldberg shows clear evidence that the TV is reporting information taken from LUKE!?!?
So yet again, we have a late church father/source mentioning Jesus and it's from that person reading the information from the GOSPELS?!

So it means nothing. It doesn't "add" credibility, it's just another person reading myths from the gospels and reporting what they read. It doesn't support anything except that there were gospels.

We already know that. So this entire line of thinking is completely useless to establish anything.
This is what happens when you investigate Christian historicity, it all falls apart.

Paper showing the TV matches the gospel narrative in Luke:

The content, concepts, and sequence of the TF matches the gospel summary in Luke 24 (Goldberg 1995).


Paper showing the style is not Josephian but Eusebian.

• The style of the TF is more Eusebian than Josephan (Olson 2013; Feldman 2012).
• And the narrative structure of the TF is not even remotely Josephan, but is a perfect match for Christian creedal statements (in respect to the treatment of time, story, emplotment, and apologetic: Hopper 2014).

So, the most logical and simplest thing is to realize the Josephus passages were forgeries, followed the gospels, were Eusebian in style and the James passage is an error mistaking Jesus with Jesus Ben Damneius. Since all the evidence takes us here, there is no confusion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well then use the same criteria with the gospels,

I do.

dismiss the miracles as “misinterpretations” “Legends” or “exaggerations”…….. but dont drop alllllll the document.

Who said I drop "all" of it?
Could it perhaps be that this is just you again claiming I do?

In fact in the context of this conversation (originated by @joelr ) all I am saying is that the gospels where likely correct when claiming that Jesus had a biological brother named James. (for the sake of this discussion you can reject alllll the gospels except for that particular point)

Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't.

There isn't exactly good corroboration for it.
Either way, it doesn't matter much to me.

I'm happy going forward assuming it is true (without actually accepting it as fact).

 

[leroy]

You are confused here. Let's fix this.

The Christian interpolation is in the T.V.

The James passage is in Antiques and is believed and demonstrated to most likely be a scribal error. The section speaks of a high priest Jesus Ben Damnieus then says he has a brother James killed. At some point during Eusebius control over the documents it was transcribed as the wrong Jesus. The evidence for this is extremely persuasive.

The James passage is in Antiques and is believed and demonstrated to most likely be a scribal error.

So there was an other James, who also had a brother named Jesus and who also was stoned to death because he did something that the Jewish leaders didn’t like. ? Sounds like an amazing coincidence to me.

The James describes in Josephus was stoned to death just like the brother of Jesus as can be confirmed by other surces……….so ether this is the same James, or we are facing another amazing coincidence.

As I said before, this is too much effort to try to deny the obvious “Jesus had a biological brother named James”

 

[leroy]

U}
Yes because Mark also invented a family, miracles, all Earthly events, a crucifixion, empty tomb while using Psalms, Kings, Jesus Ben Anniaus and other stories to create text. The fact that he created a brother is hardly worth mentioning?




.

The issue is not that Mark invented brothers and a family, the issue is that he happened to invent the exact name that would cause confusion,

 

[lukethethird]

The issue is not that Mark invented brothers and a family, the issue is that he happened to invent the exact name that would cause confusion,

There's no confusion at all. Jesus' brother James does not play a role in any of this. The John gospel states that Jesus' brothers are not believers.