Are the gospels reliable historical documents? // YES

[Subduction Zone]

Ok why would you reject the first?

Of the two the first is the worst.

The text only tells us that some of the brothers have wives at the very least. It does not imply anything.

 

[leroy]

To make the Jesus story seem more believable. There have always been skeptics, and to combat skeptics dishonesty is sometimes used. Have you never read Christian apologist sites? They tend to be so dishonest that I do not trust any of them. At this point for me they are Liars for Jesus until proven otherwise.

Ok and how does the fraudulent "James Quote" helped the Church to fight against skeptics

Why would you think that they distorted all of them? Obviously we throw out the bad. There is no reason to assume that all of his work was corrupt.

Well it's seems too convinient to say that the Church only modified the text that contradicts Richard Carriers view.


If they had both the means and the intent to change Josephus to fit their agenda, shouldn't we drop alllllll Josephus?...........maybe the Church Fathers didn't like for example the original stuff about Herod the grate found in Josephus and they change it for a version that they liked .

Oops, I messed up on that. I was supposed to say "If Mark copied Paul there would be no need for him to "invent" James, now would there be?'

[/QUOTE]
Ohhhh but the ",invent" part doesn't come from me, @joelr is the one who made the claim.

He would argue that there are two James
1 the alleged" spiritual brother" mentioned by Paul (this is the James that later became an important líder of the early Christian Church) this was not supposed to be a biological brother

2 a fictional James invented by mark and who was suppose to be the fictional biological brother of Jesus.

I simply pointed the fact that it would have been unlikely for mark to invent a name that happens to correspond to the same James that Paul mentions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok and how does the fraudulent "James Quote" helped the Church to fight against skeptics

Because that enabled them to argue as you do. This should be obvious to you.

Well it's seems too convinient to say that the Church only modified the text that contradicts Richard Carriers view.

Not at all. This is another unjustified conclusion on your part. Now you appear to be using an inability to understand as a refutation. That does not work.

If they had both the means and the intent to change Josephus to fit their agenda, shouldn't we drop alllllll Josephus?...........maybe the Church Fathers didn't like for example the original stuff about Herod the grate found in Josephus and they change it for a version that they liked .

No. Already explained why not. Try again.

Ohhhh but the ",invent" part doesn't come from me, @joelr is the one who made the claim.

He would argue that there are two James
1 the alleged" spiritual brother" mentioned by Paul (this is the James that later became an important líder of the early Christian Church) this was not supposed to be a biological brother

2 a fictional James invented by mark and who was suppose to be the fictional biological brother of Jesus.

I simply pointed the fact that it would have been unlikely for mark to invent a name that happens to correspond to the same James that Paul mentions.

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

 

[joelr]

Ohhhh but the ",invent" part doesn't come from me, @joelr is the one who made the claim.

He would argue that there are two James
1 the alleged" spiritual brother" mentioned by Paul (this is the James that later became an important líder of the early Christian Church) this was not supposed to be a biological brother

2 a fictional James invented by mark and who was suppose to be the fictional biological brother of Jesus.

I simply pointed the fact that it would have been unlikely for mark to invent a name that happens to correspond to the same James that Paul mentions.

I am not "arguing" that there are 2 James. It is a fact that cannot be disputed.
There is a James who is an apostle in the synoptic gospels, his name is:

The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee,

This James is the son of Zebedee. His parents are Salome and Zebedee.

The brother of Jesus James is a different person according to the story:

The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew also mention a James as Jesus' brother: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

James, Joses, Juda, Simon, and sisters are the siblings. This James is not the son of Zebedee and Salome but of Joseph and Mary.

James is not an uncommon name, especially when you have 4 brothers to name the fact that one has the name of an apostle is not weird at all.

 

[joelr]

From Corinthians


1 the text implies that all the brothers had wife's

2 it's unlikely that all his spiritual brothers had wife's. (Implying that he was talking about biological brothers)

Which of these 2 points do you reject

I don't reject either, let's see what a 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."


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

"It's unclear exactly who Paul means in his reference to "brothers of the Lord." Perhaps he means Jesus' actual half-brothers, born to Mary. Or this might mean "brothers" in the same sense as general Christian brotherhood. Or, it might be some other group entirely. In any case, Paul's main point is that he is not claiming his "right" to be supported by those he serves"
What does 1 Corinthians 9:5 mean?

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.
1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we no right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?


So the historian says - it's non-apostolic Christians
Apologists - we don't know, either brother, brother-in-the-lord or even another group?
actual Greek word - brother-in-God

 

[joelr]

Why would the Church Fathers falsify that quote from Josephus?

Given that supposedly the documents from Josephus where controlled by the corrupt and dishonest church fathers. Should we drop all Josephus as a historical source? .....or should we drop just the stuff that has theological implications that Richard Carrier doesn't like?

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).

 

[leroy]

Because that enabled them to argue as you do. This should be obvious to you.


]

So the Church Fathers predicted that internet atheist (and 3 scholars) from the 21st century where going to deny the historical existence of Jesus, so they decided to insert the "James the brother of Jesus" quote in Josephus so that apologetics could refute the "Jesus never existed claim"?

Or do you have a better explanation? Why did the church fathers inserted the James quote?

 

[lukethethird]

So the Church Fathers predicted that internet atheist (and 3 scholars) from the 21st century where going to deny the historical existence of Jesus, so they decided to insert the "James the brother of Jesus" quote in Josephus so that apologetics could refute the "Jesus never existed claim"?

Or do you have a better explanation? Why did the church fathers inserted the James quote?

Perhaps to find a place for Jesus in the history books. More likely a different Jesus and James, a Jesus, son of Damneus

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the Church Fathers predicted that internet atheist (and 3 scholars) from the 21st century where going to deny the historical existence of Jesus, so they decided to insert the "James the brother of Jesus" quote in Josephus so that apologetics could refute the "Jesus never existed claim"?

Or do you have a better explanation? Why did the church fathers inserted the James quote?

Where do you get these strange leaps into fantasy from?

 

[lukethethird]

Where do you get these strange leaps into fantasy from?

It all starts from reading the gospels.

 

[leroy]

Where do you get these strange leaps into fantasy from?

Ok given the lack of an answer, I will take for granted that you accept that adding the James quote had no theological benefit

If I am wrong and missrepresenting your view you can always correct me and explain the motive you think for why would the Church Fathers invent that quote .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok given the lack of an answer, I will take for granted that you accept that adding the James quote had no theological benefit

If I am wrong and missrepresenting your view you can always correct me and explain the motive you think for why would the Church Fathers invent that quote .

Once again, you were given answers. You ignored them or did not understand them. After a while all that one can do is to point out your errors.

 

[leroy]

Perhaps to find a place for Jesus in the history books. More likely a different Jesus and James, a Jesus, son of Damneus

Perhaps to find a place for Jesus in the history books. More likely a different Jesus and James, a Jesus, son of Damneus

Think about it.

Richard Carrier is already assuming that

1 the church fathers had control over the books of Josephus (they could add and remove any text that they wanted)

2 the church fathers where corrupt and dishonest, and would make any fraudulent edition in Josephus to fit their agenda.


Given 1 and 2 , dont you think that they could have done something more cleaver and ambitious that just afirming that James was the brother of Jesus?

 

[leroy]

Once again, you were given answers. You ignored them or did not understand them. After a while all that one can do is to point out your errors.

Anyway I appreciate your 2 o3 replies from last week where you did serous and honest engagement.

But it seems that the old @Subduction Zone is back......you know the guy that refuses to provide direct and unabigous answers,

 

[leroy]

After a while all that one can do is to point out your errors.

Then do it, point my errors

 

[lukethethird]

Think about it.

Richard Carrier is already assuming that

1 the church fathers had control over the books of Josephus (they could add and remove any text that they wanted)

2 the church fathers where corrupt and dishonest, and would make any fraudulent edition in Josephus to fit their agenda.


Given 1 and 2 , dont you think that they could have done something more cleaver and ambitious that just afirming that James was the brother of Jesus?

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, is far more ambitious, whereas the James quote might be referencing Jesus, son of Damneus, who, coincidently, had a brother named James. Sometimes people see the names are the same and jump to assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then do it, point my errors

Been there, done that, bought the tee shirt. So have others. Countless times. You have yet to learn from them so I expect that you will be repeating them. Again, and again, and again.

 

[joelr]

Think about it.

Richard Carrier is already assuming that

1 the church fathers had control over the books of Josephus (they could add and remove any text that they wanted)

2 the church fathers where corrupt and dishonest, and would make any fraudulent edition in Josephus to fit their agenda.


Given 1 and 2 , dont you think that they could have done something more cleaver and ambitious that just afirming that James was the brother of Jesus?

And again,

Nothing to do with Carrier. It's a consensus opinion that the Testimonium Flavium was tampered with by Christians. The motive was simply to make Jesus and Christianity look more historical. In case you hadn't noticed there is a serious lack of evidence for this movement and even the church fathers knew this.

It is known that Eusebius was in fact in charge of the Jospehus text.

"All extant manuscripts derive from the single manuscript of Eusebius; evidently everything else was decisively lost."

A peer reviewed article by G.J. Goldberg that proved the TF was, as a whole unit, based on the Gospel of Luke (and thus even if Josephan, not independent of the Gospels. There are several papers also demonstrating that the style of the passage is Eusebian rather than Josephian.

So it doesn't matter who wrote it, it's just based on a gospel and doesn't demonstrate anything.

I don't understand why you are playing off Christian Interpolation as if it's not already a known thing?


"In textual criticism, Christian interpolation generally refers to textual insertion and textual damage to Jewish source texts during Christian scribal transmission, but may also refer to possible interpolation in secular Roman texts, such as the case of Tacitus on Christ."

In these days there were no books or copy machines. When someone wanted a copy of a text a scribe had to write a new version. Altering text to favor a religion/political movement (they were equal) was very common.
This sums up motivation perfectly:

"Yet modern Christian scholars are almost unanimous in considering the passage on Jesus in the Greek texts of “The Antiquities of the Jews” by Josephus to be “too Christian”—that is, a forgery by church leaders of the third and fourth century designed to bolster the historical legitimacy of their faith."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

what evidence suggests that they are myth?

All the supernatural bits.

 

[leroy]

All the supernatural bits.

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....