John 3:16
I’m sure many of you recognize this as being held up at sports events etc., but don’t know what it is. Here you go (in context):
Jesus Teaches Nicodemus
3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]
9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[g]
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
I don’t have a problem with the signs but I would like to point out that the Bible did not come with chapter and verse numbers. This is worth knowing if, for no other reason, it eliminates short hand and encourages deeper reading.
“3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
Does this make sense? Would a Pharisee – Jews known for being strict – like Nicodemus (who is on the ruling council) go to Jesus and say something like this? Is this implying that all the Pharisees on the council knew Jesus was the Messiah and purposefully killed him? If Nicodemus acknowledges that Jesus is a teacher and miracle worker who comes from God and that “we [the Pharisees] know that” would it make sense for them to kill the Messiah?
This seems to be one of the verses that justifies anti-Semitism. “The Jews knew he was the Messiah and killed him anyway so let the blood be on them and their childrens heads” or whatever.
Are there any indications in the history of the Rabbinate that attest to Nicodemus being a Pharisee or on some ruling council? Was Nicodemus alone in his acknowledgement of Jesus as Messiah? If not who were the others? Did Nicodemus stand up for Jesus in council? If not, did Nicodemus vote with the others to condemn Jesus?
Knox, they praised Jesus here as well:
Matthew 22:15-17New International Version (NIV)
Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar
15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”
Nicodemus seems to be saying they thought he was a prophet. It says nothing about them believing he was the son of God.
Yeah, I don’t think that the Pharisees were acknowleding Jesus as the son of God either. Also, they may have just been saying those things to butter Jesus up, in an attempt to defeat him in an argument.
Thanks for the responses. I guess I need to be more clear.
First, I know what the gospels say the Pharisees said or did. I, for reasons that I’ve stated many times before, find the gospels to be unreliable. I am more interested in the contradiction between how the Pharisees are portrayed and the claims made about one of their own, Nicodemus.
Second, whether Nicodemus or the Pharisees characterize Jesus as the Messiah or as a prophet doesn’t really move away from the heart of the question which is whether or not the Pharisees would seek to kill either the Messiah or a prophet? For example, can we envision the Pharisees seeking to kill Elisha or Elijah, Moses or Daniel, or any of the minor prophets? I think the answer is obviously no, at least to me. If the Pharisees saw Jesus as Messiah or Prophet would they really seek to kill him? Let me be clear here. I’m not saying they wouldn’t want to get rid of a false Messiah or false prophet. The acknowledgement by Nicodemus of Jesus as a teacher and miracle worker gives him legitimacy as either a Messiah or prophet – not a false one. Would it make sense to kill someone with these acknowledged gifts or attributes? It just seems odd to me. Also, I never said that Nicodemus said that Jesus was the son of God – just that he was the Messiah which may be underinclusive given the potential category of prophet.
Third, there must have been someone else present to make a record of this conversation. How many were there? Who were they? What side were they on? When did they record this conversation? If there were neutral third-parties present were they convinced by Nicodemus that Jesus was a prophet?
Fourth, I always read the Pharisees statements as being earnest and not dripping with sarcasm or with some ulterior motive. I know they would approach Jesus with the “when did you stop hitting your kids?” kind of questions but I never perceived them as “gotcha” questions in the sense that if others heard them saying “you are a great teacher and miracle worker and we all know that” that it wouldn’t be interpreted in a negative way. In other words, when they call Jesus a great teacher and miracle worker the statements were being consumed by an audience and that audience would see the Pharisees true motives and discount them or see them legitimately praising Jesus.
“15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.”
How do we know this? Was the writer of Matthew a Pharisetical insider? Did he have a “deep throat” within the Pharisees? This highlights one of the problems with the gospels – the turning of guesses at motivations into facts. I won’t belabor the point by pointing out the forty year interval between Jesus’ death and the writing of Mark, Matthew and Luke being derived largely from Mark and therefore not being independent, and the outright contradictions between the synoptics and the synoptics and John. That doesn’t get any traction here even though it should.
Knox, you are bouncing around in this response. If we take the gospel accounts at face value, there is clearly no contradiction. It openly and plainly says in the passage I gave, that they were trying to trap Jesus. So clearly in that instance, they were insincere when they praised Him before setting the trap.
Now if you want to say, “Well I don’t believe the accounts” or “How could the narrator know those details?” OK fine, but you at first were saying the gospel accounts themselves were inconsistent on their depiction of the Pharisees.
Bob, do you think Nicodemus was also being insincere in John 3?
Also, out of curiosity what is your general opinion of Biblical source criticism? Do you think the four gospels were four independent inspired accounts of the life of Jesus, or do you accept modern scholarly analysis about the relative authenticity of the Synoptic Gospels vs. the Gospel of John and things like that?
Hi Keshav,
I’m not sure how Bob will answer this but there are scholarly critiques of source-criticism. One of the best is Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.”
You can find it on Amazon. Interestingly I just found this: https://lecturanarrativadelabiblia.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses.pdf
Bob,
The gospel accounts give a depiction of the Pharisees which is inconsistent. The Pharisees are the hardcore followers of the law. Would they hold a judicial proceeding and execute anyone on the Passover holiday? Would they be holding meetings, engaging in plots and otherwise working on the holiest of holidays? Would the Pharisees say things for public consumption which were contrary to the position they take on a matter, i.e., acknowledging Jesus as teacher and miracle worker when then want to deny that he is either?
I don’t believe the accounts. We could have a one-on-one conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus but how would that have been recorded? It is like the depiction of Jesus praying in the garden prior to his arrest. The disciples were asleep and Jesus went off alone to pray. How do we know what he said in his prayer? It seems clear to me that the authors are making, at least, the quotations up out of wholecloth.
How do you resolve the relating of conversations that were unwitnessed (the prayer in the garden) or potentially unwitnessed (Nicodemus and Jesus)? How do we know the content of the dialogues are accurate given that Paul makes no references to them in his writings from 55 on – roughly 20 years after the crucifixion? How do we know the content of the dialogues is accurate given that the earliest gospel, Mark, was written after 70 – roughly 40 years after the events depicted? It seems to me that the Pharisees are rendered in caricature and are mildly or wildly inconsistent in their portrayal. When I would read these portrayals as a child I viewed the Pharisees and the disciples as being roughly equivalent – being shown signs and wonders and not having a clue as to what they are witnessing. The disciples were confused constantly at what Jesus was doing but they were willing to drop their nets and go with him at the slightest bidding. Does that seem remotely consistent with most human behavior? Likewise, the Pharisees acknowledging Jesus but then being either too stupid to recognize what it all means or being willfully ignorant. It just seems odd.
There is no doubt that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Even the most conservative apologist who knows anything about textual and source criticism will acknowledge that the gospels were not written by people many hands removed from the events depicted. Given that alone we are faced with very real problems as to the veracity of events depicted.
Knox
“were written” not “were not written”
“Even the most conservative apologist who knows anything about textual and source criticism will acknowledge that the gospels were [] written by people many hands removed from the events depicted.”
This is an odd place for this argument but like I said above, your assertions about conservative scholarship are simply wrong. Again, take a look at Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” – he isn’t even all that conservative and he makes a literary argument for Mark as eyewitness testimony.
https://lecturanarrativadelabiblia.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses.pdf
“How do you resolve the relating of conversations that were unwitnessed?” … really? Unwitnessed-Conversation is an oxymoron if there ever was one.
I said “You seem to have a really odd perspective on how the gospels were written” … of course this is phrased poorly. I should have said:
You seem to have a really odd perspective on how *I think* the gospels were written.”
“This is an odd place for this argument but like I said above, your assertions about conservative scholarship are simply wrong. Again, take a look at Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” – he isn’t even all that conservative and he makes a literary argument for Mark as eyewitness testimony.”
Actually, there not. Mark was written after 70. Jesus was crucified around 30. Mark was written in Greek and all of Jesus’ followers spoke Aramaic. In fact, they were illiterate. The author of Mark was not actually Mark and he was not an eyewitness. This is not even close to controversial. Bauckham runs counter to most scholarship. Here is a quote from friendly review on Patheos:
“In a word, the [Bauckham’s] book argues that the Gospels are books of oral history; in other words, that they are based on the direct accounts of specific, named eyewitnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus. This is contrary to the assumption of most New Testament scholarship, drawn from the form criticism of the early 20th century, that the Gospels are works of oral tradition, in other words collections of anonymous traditions passed down through many iterations between the actual witnesses and the writers of the Gospels.”
Bauckham may be correct – but I don’t think so.
“How do you resolve the relating of conversations that were unwitnessed?” … really? Unwitnessed-Conversation is an oxymoron if there ever was one.”
I’m not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. If the gospels claim that Jesus went off alone to pray in the garden how do we know what he prayed? If Jesus and Nicodemus had a one-on-one conversation how do we know the content of that conversation? Are you claiming that Jesus or Nicodemus wrote a transcript after the conversation? That seems odd. Unwitnessed in this context – and I’ll spell it out for you since it seems difficult for you to grasp – means unwitnessed by the person reporting the conversation to us such that we can take it to be true.
An oxymoron would be something like “fundamentalist critical scholar.” It would behoove us all for people to take a step back from the Bible and look at it critically and stop living in an echo-chamber.
Just so we are clear I am not saying Jesus and Nicodemus were alone – that was just an example drawn from the passage cited by Bob. A better example of what I’m talking about is this:
John 4:7 “When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)” (NIV)
Did the Samaritan woman or Jesus record this conversation? The passage clearly indicates that Jesus and the woman were alone at the well and that the disciples went into town to buy food. Who witnessed and/or recorded this conversation?
One more thing on this.
John 4:27 “Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, “What do you want?” or “Why are you talking with her?”
This reiterates my point. Jesus and the woman were alone and the disciples returned. It is clear from the verse that Jesus did not explain what was going on even though the disciples were surprised. The disciples didn’t ask and it appears that Jesus didn’t offer an explanation. How do we know what was said?
You said: “There is no doubt that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Even the most conservative apologist who knows anything about textual and source criticism will acknowledge that the gospels were not written by people many hands removed from the events depicted. ”
I pointed out this was false and amending it now to say “MOST” doesn’t change the falseness of the original statement. I could provide a more substantive list:
1) Richard Bauckham – New Testament literary scholar
2) Dan Wallace – New Testament Scholar
3) Jame White – Apologist w/ PhD specializing in NT criticism
4) Bruce Metzger – NT Scholar (and teach of Bart Ehrman – how disapointed he would be)
5) F.F. Bruce – NT Scholar
6) Carsten Theide – German Papyrologist that argues for an pre-70 AD date for Mat.
I could go on – these were off the top of my head.
Early criticism based on 19th century German rationalism concluded that theory of oral transmission and a late committal to writing based on modernist assumptions. Early on, rational criticism determined the Gospel of John, for example, was dated to the 3rd century and that all of the gospels were much later than they are considered today.
What changed? More and more early manuscript evidence kept coming up that forced the dates back further and further. Now, in the John Rylands papyrus we have a fragment of John, from Egypt, dated to 120AD. Remember, John is considered the last gospel written because of it’s apparent development over the others.
On the lower bound we have this sticky date of 70 AD. So we are to believe that the gospels were written consecutively, growing in development while spreading geographically, ultimately resulting in a fully developed gospel of John, that was THEN circulated until a copy landed in Egypt with such status that is was meticulously preserved, in a 50 year span. Maybe.
But why is this 70 AD date so sticky ? This actually has very little to do with theory’s of oral transmission or some aversion to accepting that maybe the gospels are eyewitness testimony or even undermining the current fadish support for the “Muti-Christianities” views of the likes of Bauer (early) or Pagels (recent).
No. The problem is, to admit the gospels predate 70 AD by even a couple years IMMEDITATLY overturns the entire set of presuppositions that modern biblical scholarship itself is built on. Scholars are dedicated to a Logical Postitist/Modernist perspective CANNOT let the dates drop below 70 AD. Why? Because if they accepted dates prior to the fall of Jerusalem the gospels would be prophetic.
“I’m not sure why [the fact that an absence of a witness to a conversation is problematic] is so difficult for you to understand.”
I can’t believe I need to point this out but an “unwitnessed conversation” is a logical impossibility because the participants of the conversation need to be there (as witnesses) in order for there to BE a conversation. So yes, “unwitnessed conversation” is EXACTLY an oxymoron because it’s deductively self refuting.
“fundamentalist critical scholar,” however, is almost tautological. “Fundamentalism” is simply an aversion to having presuppositions challenged that results in allowing ones views to be examined only from within a hermetically sealed echo chamber of similar opinions. This applies to the examination of evidence also. See the above description of the Logical Positivist presuppositions of modern scholarship and it’s affects on the lower bound of dating the gospels.
So, in once point I agree with you completely. “It would behoove us all for people to take a step back from the Bible and look at it critically and stop living in an echo-chamber.” The fact that the majority positions supports those that uncritically accepts modernist presuppositions means the echo chamber is pretty large for those that take your perspecitve. I read Ehrman. I read Bultman, I read Bauer and Pagels. Have you read Bauckham, White, Bruce, Theide, Carson, etc. ? I wonder who’s actually in an echo chamber.
Please pardon grammar mistakes and word drops. I typed that on the fly at work.
“I can’t believe I need to point this out but an “unwitnessed conversation” is a logical impossibility because the participants of the conversation need to be there (as witnesses) in order for there to BE a conversation. So yes, “unwitnessed conversation” is EXACTLY an oxymoron because it’s deductively self refuting.”
So you are claiming that Jesus was his own stenographer in the garden and that he reported his conversation with the Samaritan woman to someone else? You are right to make the distinction between participant and witness but I don’t think you understand how damaging that is to your argument. John specifically says that even though the disciples were surprised they didn’t ask any questions. How does the author know what was said? Oh, I get it, Jesus pulled them all aside and told them without being asked. Where does it say that in the Bible? Nowhere. Although it is clear enough that the disciples weren’t informed based on their own questions. Was the author of John there to witness these events? Who was he? Are you claiming that the author of John was alive in 30 and 90-95? Since all of Jesus’ followers were illiterate according to Acts did they learn to write in Greek during the interval? Seriously, the questions raised by asking simple questions shows how ridiculous are the claims.
If you want to claim that Mark predates 70 you are going to need to prove it. Let’s assume you are right and it predates 70. When was it written – after 60? That is still 30 years after the events depicted and poses the same problems. Why doesn’t Paul go into detail like the gospels in Corinthians, for example? Nobody, of which I am aware, disputes the authorship of Corinthians as being in the mid-50s. Why no detail? Are Matthew and Luke expansions of Mark? Most scholars say yes. If that is so doesn’t that pose a problem because you really have one source and not three. And since that one source is decades after the events doesn’t that compound error rather than enhance truth?
“Now, in the John Rylands papyrus we have a fragment of John, from Egypt, dated to 120AD. Remember, John is considered the last gospel written because of it’s apparent development over the others.”
Most scholars place John in the 90s so dating it to 120 is a solution in search of a problem.
Jim,
When you get a second please identify with specificity the eyewitnesses to the events in the gospels.
Thanks,
Knox
(I think you are going to make history here).
Hi Knox,
You seem to have a really odd perspective on how the gospels were written. As if there were “stenographers” as ancient counterparts to modern tape recorders.
Are you telling me that Jesus WOULDN’T have talked about what went on between him and the Samaritan woman around the diner table one night? And this is BECAUSE the Bible doesn’t mention it? Really?
You think Nicodemus who ended up a follower after the crucifixion wouldn’t have talked the the apostles about it while enjoying wine and discussing what they all went through? Because the Bible doesn’t say it. This is just weird.
You also display hints of assuming you can apply modern literary standards (for example, the modern concept of a quotation) to ancient literature.
You ALSO seem to think that the gospels are exhaustive. You think every conversation was recorded? Look, Using your reasoning I can prove Jesus was divine because he never relieved himself. See, the Bible never mentions it.
Also, you ignore the internal claims of the Bible about its sources. For example, Luke says he interviewed eyewitnesses. He didn’t say he was there – yet, if he’s right, his accounts are still eyewitness testimony.
Which leads me to your next mistake. I didn’t claim the gospels were written BY eyewitnesses (though I think this is the case in Matthew and John – but NOT to every event recorded) but that they were “eyewitness testimony.”
Mark wrote Mark (as the case has been made by Bauckham and others) as Peters testimony – not from Peter’s hand. Mark wasn’t an eyewitness, he was Peter’s scribe.
I didn’t say John was written in 120. I said the Rylands Papyrus that was found in Egypt was dated to 120. THAT WHY John is now dated to 90. OTHERWISE John would still be dated to the 2nd or 3rd century.
Yes. John was alive in 30 and 90. He was the only Apostle not martyred and died in Ephesus either at the very end of the first century or even possibly the beginning of the 2nd. This is not controversial. Just google “when did the apostle John die.”
As a tax collector I’m not sure why you think Matthew couldn’t write.
Testimony of the very early church indicates John could write.
Mark was written in the 50s or early 60s. It’s based on Peter’s testimony as Bauckham has ably shown (which comports perfectly with early church historical accounts). Yes 30 years after the fact. Yes, based on first hand eyewitness testimony.
See above for a list of a few names that were eyewitnesses.
I said “You seem to have a really odd perspective on how the gospels were written” … of course this is phrased poorly. I should have said:
You seem to have a really odd perspective on how *I think* the gospels were written.”
Jim,
You are arguing against positions I didn’t take. I never said you said that John was written in 120. I was pointing out the fact that a post-100 copy of John proves nothing as most scholars agree it was written between 90-100.
Here’s the thing – you are making interpolations in the Bible in order to explain away problems. I was pointing out – that if we take the gospels at face value as Bob suggests – that it doesn’t solve problems.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If you can point to a credible scholar who claims that the authorship of those books is as advertised – and can prove it – I would be excited to see it. The disciples were illiterate Aramaic speakers as set forth and described in Acts. They did not read or write Greek. The gospels were written by well-educated authors fluent in Greek and were not witnesses to Jesus. You can believe that if you want but it is not what the evidence, or what scholars without an ax to grind, shows. Matthew was a derivation of Mark – he was not an eyewitness. Your claim that Peter is the eyewitness source for Mark is backed up by what? Seriously – where does that come from other than some argument from a scholar who is way outside the scholarly mainstream but which happens to accord to your faith. Is your faith dictating the outcome? Do you accept evidence which backs up your faith only? If not, what evidence do you accept which acts to discredit your faith?
Why would John say that the disciples were surprised but didn’t ask questions? Seriously. Why go out of the way to say that the disciples did not inquire? What purpose does that serve?
I never said there was a court reporter following them around and taking notes. I AM saying that there were no contemporaneous written accounts of what went on and you will not be able to provide them. When I say contemporaneous I mean that in the events and the writing occurred in the same period of time. No one would argue that Band of Brothers was written contemporaneously with World War II. I’m looking for authors within weeks or months or even a few years who wrote about what they themselves saw. There are none. Decades later doesn’t get anywhere. Paul doesn’t get you anywhere because he was given the knowledge by a vision not by an eyewitness or by witnessing it himself.
Again, you are constructing straw men. I never said the gospels were exhaustive – a minute by minute or hour by hour account. I am saying that there are problems with the gospels which you don’t either want to acknowledge because your faith won’t allow it or because you lack basic reasoning skills.
You acknowledge that Luke was not an eyewitness and that he interviewed eyewitnesses. Who were they? What did they see? Were they actually present at the events described? Are they credible? Did they make contemporaneous records of what they saw? When you start asking these questions you realize that Luke claiming he interviewed eyewitnesses is a claim without evidence.
I used to be a believer and when I saw evidence that didn’t comport with my beliefs I changed my views. Is there anything which would ever move you off your position? I’m guessing the answer is “no” and that leads you to search out some bizarre explanation for the way things turned out and thank goodness for it – finding an explanation, however implausible, is better than having to revisit my beliefs.
If person A told person B that they saw a winged horse carrying a man take off and fly would you believe it? You trust person B, he has never lied to you, but you don’t know person A. Is person A reliable? Is there any other evidence which corroborates A’s story? Well, it turns out that A told two other people and C and D report the same thing. What makes their claims any more reliable than A’s and by extension B’s?
Here’s the problem. If A told B that he went to McDonald’s and got a Big Mac for lunch it wouldn’t matter. If A told B that he went to McDonald’s on Pegasus with Bigfoot riding side saddle we have a problem. The gospels are the equivalent of the Pegasus/Bigfoot story – your belief in the veracity of the story notwithstanding. There is no evidence supporting the “eyewitness” testimony of the events of the gospels. Was Joseph Smith correct about his revelation from Moroni and Nephi? Did Muhammad really fly from Jerusalem on Buraq as depicted in the Night Journey story? If you say “no” why? Those stories are just as credible, or incredible, as the gospel stories.
“You are arguing against positions I didn’t take. I never said you said that John was written in 120.”
Perhaps you didn’t mean what this says at face value then: “Most scholars place John in the 90s so dating it to 120 is a solution in search of a problem.”
In any case, as I’ve repeatedly said, it’s BECAUSE of the discovery of this papyrus that scholars are forced to date it as early as they do.
“Here’s the thing – you are making interpolations in the Bible in order to explain away problems.”
This is almost humorous. When reading the Bible to understand what the text says, I treat it as simple ancient literature, NOT as something ‘magical’ … oooo. Unlike what you need to do to maintain your position, I don’t do anything different when I read Luke than I would when I read, say, Josephus or even Thucydides. When Josephus give accounts of things that happened in his time, I don’t create some imaginary problem that requires “interpolating” how he might have gotten some of this information. I assume he was told by a witness (actually, in his case, he doesn’t always use primary sources but hopefully you get my point).
It’s the fact that the Bible makes claims that are contrary to your presuppositions that you need to make up “problems” that you wouldn’t think twice about when reading any other historical accounts.
“I was pointing out – that if we take the gospels at face value as Bob suggests – that it doesn’t solve problems.”
You’re not taking the Bible at “face value” because you wouldn’t have the same complaints about any other ancient historical account. You’d simply assume the account was collected by the historian through whatever means available.
“Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If you can point to a credible scholar who claims that the authorship of those books is as advertised – and can prove it – I would be excited to see it.”
No you wouldn’t be excited. In fact, I did point you to several. And, surprise, surprise, you weren’t excited. Why? Because your definition of “credible” has nothing to do with a scholars capabilities or CV. It has to do with a scholars conclusions. I listed 6 of them in an earlier response. Have fun.
“The disciples were illiterate Aramaic speakers as set forth and described in Acts. They did not read or write Greek.”
Ho hum … you’re repeating yourself and I dealt with this. I specifically listed who was literate and who wasn’t based on what we know. Peter wasn’t, his scribe and non-eyewitness, Mark, was. Matthew would have been in order to be a tax collector. Luke was a historian and physician and traveled with Paul. His gospel was a letter to Rome. You look foolish when you just repeat yourself. John was only originally thought to be written by someone else because of it’s late date. But that was PRIOR to the dating of the Rylands Papyrus. Now, since the date for the writing of John was pushed back BY EVERYONE into his lifetime, I’m not sure what the problem is.
“… or what scholars without an ax to grind …” Wow. Like I said Bauckham isn’t even conservative and along with others like F. F. Bruce, and Bruce Metzger (and many others), and the uniform testimony of the ancient church. Unlike yourself, I’ve read those that I disagree with. You clearly haven’t. So you tell me, Is your faith dictating the outcome? Do you accept evidence which backs up your faith only? If not, what evidence do you accept which acts to discredit your faith? Honestly. Read something.
“I never said there was a court reporter following them around and taking notes. I AM saying that there were no contemporaneous written accounts of what went on and you will not be able to provide them. …”
This is dumb and is EXACTLY why I accused you of requiring a stenographer. There’s virtually NOTHING in ancient history that we would know by this standard. Nothing. Some major conquests of well known leaders would be about it.
“Again, you are constructing straw men. I never said the gospels were exhaustive”
Make up your mind. On the one hand you accuse me of an error in “interpolating” where the accounts of certain events came from, like even you would do for ANY other historical narrative, modern or ancient. And on the other you claim you don’t expect them to contain all of this information (like no other ancient history does).
“I am saying that there are problems with the gospels which you don’t either want to acknowledge because your faith won’t allow it or because you lack basic reasoning skills.”
Yeah. I’m sure it’s MY faith or reasoning ability that’s at issue here. I’m not sure how you would know Aristotle existed if you applied the same reasoning to any other sources but hey, blind faith can overcome any methodological inconsistency when needed, eh knox?
“Who were they? What did they see? Were they actually present at the events described? Are they credible? Did they make contemporaneous records of what they saw? When you start asking these questions you realize that Luke claiming he interviewed eyewitnesses is a claim without evidence.”
Again. Completely ignorant of ancient historiography, you’re looking for footnotes in Luke. Of course, there isn’t another example of this anywhere in the ancient world – but it’s only a problem for Luke. How convenient for you.
“I used to be a believer and when I saw evidence that didn’t comport with my beliefs I changed my views. ”
No you didn’t. When your views lost the temporally limited (to right now) popularity contest, you changed them. No examination of community precommitments, no examination of contrary views, no consistent application of principles across genus or disciples. Hey, I bet you also have a tattoo so you can be different just like everyone else. 🙂
Please ignore the above.
I typed it out in another app so I wasn’t constrained to a 4 character column and lost the formatting when I pasted it. I’m going to reformat it and post it at the bottom to get some width.
John Oliver had a brilliant piece on his show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg
Just belief in him?
That is enough for me, but not for many others. Among many weird things, some Christians of the past, and of the present, seem to find more joyous the belief that many people will suffer eternally, than the joy that gives believing that they will have eternal life.
Michael, if you’ve never even heard of anyone you’d wish eternal damnation on you’re either divinely forgiving or you’ve had the odd fortune of never having heard of truly awful people.
I’m either impressed or jealous, depending upon which.
Hi Bob,
As an Australian, I have never seen John 3:16 on any sporting ground, so the culture must be quite different in the USA if this is common. Even so, I fail to see the significance for sport of this verse or its context.
Given that you are a pacifist and a libertarian, I kind of see how you might see Jesus in this light, If the kingdom of God is God’s reign of shalom (peace, well-being, harmony and wholeness) but (as many Christians allege and Jesus seems to allege) can only be entered into by a “new birth”. I hope this doesn’t rule out Buddhists like the Dalai Lama and others, including atheists and agnostics who support the principle of non violence and non aggression?
Warm regards,
John Arthur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollen_Stewart
Here’s some information on the guy who either started the trend or made it popular. As you can see, he’s mentally very healthy.
“You are arguing against positions I didn’t take. I never said you said that John was written in 120.”
Perhaps you didn’t mean what this says at face value then: “Most scholars place John in the 90s so dating it to 120 is a solution in search of a problem.”
In any case, as I’ve repeatedly said, it’s BECAUSE of the discovery of this papyrus that scholars are forced to date it as early as they do.
“Here’s the thing – you are making interpolations in the Bible in order to explain away problems.”
This is almost humorous. When reading the Bible to understand what the text says, I treat it as simple ancient literature, NOT as something ‘magical’ … oooo. Unlike what you need to do to maintain your position, I don’t do anything different when I read Luke than I would when I read, say, Josephus or even Thucydides. When Josephus give accounts of things that happened in his time, I don’t create some imaginary problem that requires “interpolating” how he might have gotten some of this information. I assume he was told by a witness (actually, in his case, he doesn’t always use primary sources but hopefully you get my point).
It’s the fact that the Bible makes claims that are contrary to your presuppositions that you need to make up “problems” that you wouldn’t think twice about when reading any other historical accounts.
“I was pointing out – that if we take the gospels at face value as Bob suggests – that it doesn’t solve problems.”
You’re not taking the Bible at “face value” because you wouldn’t have the same complaints about any other ancient historical account. You’d simply assume the account was collected by the historian through whatever means available.
“Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If you can point to a credible scholar who claims that the authorship of those books is as advertised – and can prove it – I would be excited to see it.”
No you wouldn’t be excited. In fact, I did point you to several. And, surprise, surprise, you weren’t excited. Why? Because your definition of “credible” has nothing to do with a scholars capabilities or CV. It has to do with a scholars conclusions. I listed 6 of them in an earlier response. Have fun.
“The disciples were illiterate Aramaic speakers as set forth and described in Acts. They did not read or write Greek.”
Ho hum … you’re repeating yourself and I dealt with this. I specifically listed who was literate and who wasn’t based on what we know. Peter wasn’t, his scribe and non-eyewitness, Mark, was. Matthew would have been in order to be a tax collector. Luke was a historian and physician and travelled with Paul. His gospel was a letter to Rome. You look foolish when you just repeat yourself. John was only originally thought to be written by someone else because of it’s late date. But that was PRIOR to the dating of the Rylands Papyrus. Now, since the date for the writing of John was pushed back BY EVERYONE into his lifetime, I’m not sure what the problem is.
“… or what scholars without an ax to grind …” Wow. Like I said Bauckham isn’t even conservative and along with others like F. F. Bruce, and Bruce Metzger (and many others), and the uniform testimony of the ancient church. Unlike yourself, I’ve read those that I disagree with. You clearly haven’t. So you tell me, Is your faith dictating the outcome? Do you accept evidence which backs up your faith only? If not, what evidence do you accept which acts to discredit your faith? Honestly. Read something.
“I never said there was a court reporter following them around and taking notes. I AM saying that there were no contemporaneous written accounts of what went on and you will not be able to provide them. …”
This is dumb and is EXACTLY why I accused you of requiring a stenographer. There’s virtually NOTHING in ancient history that we would know by this standard. Nothing. Some major conquests of well known leaders would be about it.
“Again, you are constructing straw men. I never said the gospels were exhaustive”
Make up your mind. On the one hand you accuse me of an error in “interpolating” where the accounts of certain events came from, like even you would do for ANY other historical narrative, modern or ancient. And on the other you claim you don’t expect them to contain all of this information (like no other ancient history does).
“I am saying that there are problems with the gospels which you don’t either want to acknowledge because your faith won’t allow it or because you lack basic reasoning skills.”
Yeah. I’m sure it’s MY faith or reasoning ability that’s at issue here. I’m not sure how you would know Aristotle existed if you applied the same reasoning to any other sources but hey, blind faith can overcome any methodological inconsistency when needed, eh knox?
“Who were they? What did they see? Were they actually present at the events described? Are they credible? Did they make contemporaneous records of what they saw? When you start asking these questions you realize that Luke claiming he interviewed eyewitnesses is a claim without evidence.”
Again. Completely ignorant of ancient historiography, you’re looking for footnotes in Luke. Of course, there isn’t another example of this anywhere in the ancient world – but it’s only a problem for Luke. How convenient for you.
“I used to be a believer and when I saw evidence that didn’t comport with my beliefs I changed my views. ”
No you didn’t. When your views lost the temporally limited (to right now) popularity contest, you changed them. No examination of community precommitments, no examination of contrary views, no consistent application of principles across genus or disciples. Hey, I bet you have a tattoo so you can be different just like everyone else. 🙂
“… no consistent application of principles across genus or disciple…”
should have been:
“… no consistent application of principles across genus or disciplines.”
And the smiley was at the very end.
BTW, just so I am not misunderstood, I don’t see it as particularly important the the author of Luke was a guy named Luke, or that he was the Luke mentioned as Paul’s companion. I do see it as the most plausible identity but it’s not particularly important.
It does claim to incorporate eyewitness testimony compiled by a historian and that is what’s at issue.
It’s also not particularly important that John wrote John but it’s so obviously the case from the testimony of history and the current dating of John that many (but not most) scholars have accepted it. It was originally only rejected due to the edifice built on the faulty presuppositions mentioned above and the conclusions (unfortunately, not the presuppositions) that were overturned by physical evidence leaving no reason not to accept the traditional conclusions.
“Yeah. I’m sure it’s MY faith or reasoning ability that’s at issue here. I’m not sure how you would know Aristotle existed if you applied the same reasoning to any other sources but hey, blind faith can overcome any methodological inconsistency when needed, eh knox?”
We can evaluate the arguments of Aristotle irrespective of whether or not he existed. It is wholly irrelevant because nothing hangs on the proposition that he existed. You get that right? Whether or not Newton existed is irrelevant – it is the truth of this theories which matters. Nobody claims Aristotle rose from the dead and worked miracles. The same cannot be said for Jesus. Consequently, we have to examine the historical data and use the principle of analogy. Have people before or since done the things Jesus is claimed to have done? No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence – other than the gospels themselves – which corroborates the gospel accounts. It’s very convenient isn’t it?
If you read the Melian dialogue from Thucydides History of the Peloppenisian War do you think it is an accurate portrayal of events? I don’t. We have other evidence supporting the war itself but we have no evidence of the dialogue. There was no court reporter. Do you think that is a verbatim transcript? Why not? You think the gospel accounts are accurate portrayals of conversations.
Matthew 26:36 “Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, “Sit here, while I go over there and pray.” 37 And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch[a] with me.” 39 And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” 40 And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, “So, could you not watch with me one hour? 41 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 42 Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” 43 And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. 44 So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again. 45 Then he came to the disciples and said to them, “Sleep and take your rest later on.[b] See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”
Here we have Jesus praying in the garden. The disciples fell asleep and therefore could not have heard the things Jesus was praying. How do we know what occurred? The Bible gives no indication that Jesus stopped down to tell them “Hey guys, when you were asleep this is what I did.” Jesus is arrested and we know the rest of the story (it is just a story by the way).
I wish my views were winning the popularity contest.
On the principle of analogy here is a great and funny example. If you walk into a room and see the TV showing a giant lizard smashing Tokyo into bits do you think you are watching Fox News or a Godzilla movie? We have never seen a real Godzilla but we have seen the movies. The same is true with Jesus. Nobody has ever done what the Bible claims he did. As a result, we must make a probabilistic statement about whether or not it occurred. It probably did not.
I’m not ignorant of ancient historiography – I am aware of its manifold problems. You appear to be refusing to acknowledge those problems because you are deeply embedded in Freudian wish fulfillment. First and second century Christians thought Jesus’ return was imminent. Here we are nearly 2,000 years later and we are still waiting. As we say here in Texas, “S*** in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first.”
You didn’t respond to the below from above so I pasted it here. Answer this.
If person A told person B that they saw a winged horse carrying a man take off and fly would you believe it? You trust person B, he has never lied to you, but you don’t know person A. Is person A reliable? Is there any other evidence which corroborates A’s story? Well, it turns out that A told two other people and C and D report the same thing. What makes their claims any more reliable than A’s and by extension B’s?
Here’s the problem. If A told B that he went to McDonald’s and got a Big Mac for lunch it wouldn’t matter. [Aristotle] If A told B that he went to McDonald’s on Pegasus with Bigfoot riding side saddle we have a problem. [Jesus] The gospels are the equivalent of the Pegasus/Bigfoot story – your belief in the veracity of the story notwithstanding. There is no evidence supporting the “eyewitness” testimony of the events of the gospels. Was Joseph Smith correct about his revelation from Moroni and Nephi? Did Muhammad really fly from Jerusalem on Buraq as depicted in the Night Journey story? If you say “no” why? Those stories are just as credible, or incredible, as the gospel stories.
The sign in cutoff my handle/name:
“Yeah. I’m sure it’s MY faith or reasoning ability that’s at issue here. I’m not sure how you would know Aristotle existed if you applied the same reasoning to any other sources but hey, blind faith can overcome any methodological inconsistency when needed, eh knox?”
We can evaluate the arguments of Aristotle irrespective of whether or not he existed. It is wholly irrelevant because nothing hangs on the proposition that he existed. You get that right? Whether or not Newton existed is irrelevant – it is the truth of this theories which matters. Nobody claims Aristotle rose from the dead and worked miracles. The same cannot be said for Jesus. Consequently, we have to examine the historical data and use the principle of analogy. Have people before or since done the things Jesus is claimed to have done? No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence – other than the gospels themselves – which corroborates the gospel accounts. It’s very convenient isn’t it?
If you read the Melian dialogue from Thucydides History of the Peloppenisian War do you think it is an accurate portrayal of events? I don’t. We have other evidence supporting the war itself but we have no evidence of the dialogue. There was no court reporter. Do you think that is a verbatim transcript? Why not? You think the gospel accounts are accurate portrayals of conversations.
Matthew 26:36 “Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, “Sit here, while I go over there and pray.” 37 And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch[a] with me.” 39 And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” 40 And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, “So, could you not watch with me one hour? 41 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 42 Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” 43 And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. 44 So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again. 45 Then he came to the disciples and said to them, “Sleep and take your rest later on.[b] See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”
Here we have Jesus praying in the garden. The disciples fell asleep and therefore could not have heard the things Jesus was praying. How do we know what occurred? The Bible gives no indication that Jesus stopped down to tell them “Hey guys, when you were asleep this is what I did.” Jesus is arrested and we know the rest of the story (it is just a story by the way).
I wish my views were winning the popularity contest.
On the principle of analogy here is a great and funny example. If you walk into a room and see the TV showing a giant lizard smashing Tokyo into bits do you think you are watching Fox News or a Godzilla movie? We have never seen a real Godzilla but we have seen the movies. The same is true with Jesus. Nobody has ever done what the Bible claims he did. As a result, we must make a probabilistic statement about whether or not it occurred. It probably did not.
I’m not ignorant of ancient historiography – I am aware of its manifold problems. You appear to be refusing to acknowledge those problems because you are deeply embedded in Freudian wish fulfillment. First and second century Christians thought Jesus’ return was imminent. Here we are nearly 2,000 years later and we are still waiting. As we say here in Texas, “S*** in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first.”
You didn’t respond to the below from above so I pasted it here. Answer this.
If person A told person B that they saw a winged horse carrying a man take off and fly would you believe it? You trust person B, he has never lied to you, but you don’t know person A. Is person A reliable? Is there any other evidence which corroborates A’s story? Well, it turns out that A told two other people and C and D report the same thing. What makes their claims any more reliable than A’s and by extension B’s?
Here’s the problem. If A told B that he went to McDonald’s and got a Big Mac for lunch it wouldn’t matter. [Aristotle] If A told B that he went to McDonald’s on Pegasus with Bigfoot riding side saddle we have a problem. [Jesus] The gospels are the equivalent of the Pegasus/Bigfoot story – your belief in the veracity of the story notwithstanding. There is no evidence supporting the “eyewitness” testimony of the events of the gospels. Was Joseph Smith correct about his revelation from Moroni and Nephi? Did Muhammad really fly from Jerusalem on Buraq as depicted in the Night Journey story? If you say “no” why? Those stories are just as credible, or incredible, as the gospel stories.
“We can evaluate the arguments of Aristotle irrespective of whether or not he existed. It is wholly irrelevant because nothing hangs on the proposition that he existed. You get that right? Whether or not Newton existed is irrelevant – it is the truth of this theories which matters. Nobody claims Aristotle rose from the dead and worked miracles. The same cannot be said for Jesus.”
So what? He’s talking about how the study of history is done for ancient times, and you bring up how that is irrelevant for studying philosophy or physics? No kidding.
DId Socrates exist? He is a character in Plato’s dialogues and Aristotle was a student of Plato’s. This is interesting as far as it goes but it is ephemera given that we don’t evaluate the truth claims of these historical figures based on whether or not they existed. In other words, the validity of Aristotle’s laws of logic, for example, are not rendered moot by the uncertainty of his existence. That’s the point – which is hidden under your hat. Who wrote Shakespeare’s plays? It is an interesting question but one that is tangential to the literary value of the plays themselves. No one is claiming that Shakespeare walked on water, rose from the dead, turned water into wine, etc. The gospels claim these things and we need evidence in support.
Claims are made about Jesus which are unverifiable. We must go to the historical record to determine whether or not they are probably true. Given that the gospels are not good history and are written by biased people we need outside, unbiased corroboration for their truthfulness. Finding none we must render a verdict that the “history” depicted in the gospels is just a story and nothing more.
Matthew 27:51 “Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”
This is my favorite. Where are the contemporaneous accounts of the walking dead? Where are the references to the walking dead in Josephus? What happened to the walking dead? Did they re-die? Seriously. Don’t duck the questions. Let us know what happened to the zombies and give a source and not mere speculation.
Okay, this happened twice (needed to enable javascript):
Anyway, like I tried to say above, I responded but the blog software inserted my response above.
I’ll reiterate the end of the post:
I’d love to continue this conversation over a beer if you’re ever in the Philly area. As it is I’ll let the discussion above stand and if you choose to reply to this, you can have the final word.
Peace.
Jim
JIm,
I’m not expecting to change anyone’s mind – I just like engaging in the debate on these issues. They are endlessly fascinating.
I live in Dallas – if you are ever down here the same offer stands.
Knox
Knox, the question is whether you are applying the same standards that are used to study ancient history that you apply to studying the historical record of the bible. That was one of the points Jim made, and that you haven’t dealt with. You can act like the methods to determine whether Aristotle or whoever existed is irrelevant for whatever reason you want, but to me it just seems to confirm that Jim is right, and that you are talking about the study of ancient history without even understanding how the study of ancient history is done.
Dan, knoxharrington is saying that we need to apply a higher standard to questions about Jesus compared to questions about Aristotle because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Keshav, maybe this is true but it’s strayed quite far from the original issue which was whether or not “eyewitness” testimony was incorporated into the account of John 3:16 and, in answer to that, how to apply literary standards of the day (rather than of today) to the accounts.
(wow, Bob needs new software that allows edits – I’m repeating another misplaced comment):
… and if you’ll notice, that’s pretty much the conversation I’ve tried to stick to, ignoring other comments.
I do think they are answerable but it doesn’t help the conversation to have multiple book length explanations for too wide a range of topics.
And I’m saying that based on the comments I’ve read it doesn’t appear that Knox really understands how scholars study ancient history. I think that knowledge is necessary to even begin to determine what the proper standards are for studying the historical content of the bible.
Dan,
Historical method must be consistent. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nobody questions whether or not Jerusalem exists or existed at that time. That is not an extraordinary claim and is proven by ordinary evidence.
The problem with the gospels, in particular, should be clear. They make extraordinary claims and the only evidence is the gospels themselves. QED
Keshav and I are on the same page. The conversation drifted because that is what happens when Christians defend what is essentially undefendable. Letting me also be clear – I am NOT saying that these things never took place, I am saying that there is insufficient evidence showing that these things took place. We will never know and the Christian can only offer biased, interested “witnesses” as proof. That is all. It is just an inherently weak case.
“Keshav and I are on the same page. The conversation drifted because that is what happens when Christians defend what is essentially undefendable.”
I’m not a Christian, or a follower of any other religion, and never have been, but it appeared to me that the conversation drifted because you were out of your depth. It appeared to me like you were completely missing points that Jim was making.
Dan,
Jim didn’t address the points at all. Is the Bible history or literature? Perhaps both. How do we delineate the two? Is all the stuff that is verifiable history and the stuff that is not literature? If that is the case then the miracles are literature and of no more import than The Odyssey or Star Trek.
You seem to think that we need a much less rigorous standard for ancient history than we do for modern history. I guess we just have to disagree on that. In either case, we must return to the principle of analogy and make probabilistic judgments. On that basis I don’t think we can say with any certainty that Jesus walked on water, fed 5,000, or resurrected from the dead.
If the standards of ancient history argue in favor of the Bible then are the miracles in the Quran true as well? Zeus? Thor? Isis and Osiris? I guess I’m out of my depth by showing that Christians want to say that all others are false but their’s is true even though they came forth from the same circumstances.
Christians head for the tall grass when you ask them to resolve contradictions or to explain the really bizarre events in the gospels. If the retreat is always to some looser, less strict standard of proof then I guess we need to believe Joseph Smith, Heaven’s Gate and so on. Again, there is no evidence outside of the gospels for any of this and wishing harder or loosening standards does not make it so.
I’m sure Jim is a nice guy and we are just talking past each other.
Knox
“You seem to think that we need a much less rigorous standard for ancient history than we do for modern history.”
This is what I’m talking about. You don’t seem to understand what is being said. It’s not that we need a more rigorous or less rigorous standard. It’s that the study of ancient history isn’t done the same way as historians study modern history and it can’t be done the same way.
The people who try to impose the kind of standards you want from Christians are the types that doubt the existence of all kinds of historical figures. It’s like when I run into people that doubt things like the Boston bombing even happened. They insist on these standards of proof that are impossible to live up to, and then run victory laps when you refuse to play that game.
I don’t know whether the Christian story is right or not. I’d be a Christian if I believed it, but at this point I simply think it is possible, but I’m not convinced so I’d be lying to myself to pretend otherwise. Still, I find myself siding with Jim in these comments because I think he is being the more rational person in this discussion, and I think you are trying to impose impossible standards on Christians. It’s not that he convinced me that Christians are right, it’s that he has convinced me that he has a better grasp on how to approach these topics.
I hate how these dialolgue boxes collapse into a singularity.
Regarding Mormon revelations, Scott Alexander has a good post on them:
http://squid314.livejournal.com/330728.html
It argues that if we accept Jesus being resurrected on ths basis of eyewitness testimony from the Apostles, then we have equally compelling reason to convert to Mormonism.
Exactly. For the Christian to say that all these other religions – past and present – are wrong and mine is right is special pleading. They contain the same type of claims. If one is right then why not all? Islam is much newer and contains some wild stories that are no wilder than those in the Bible. Why are the false and the Bible true?
It is roughly equivalent to saying that Spider-Man and the Flash aren’t real – but Batman is real and Gotham exists as a real place.
“Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.”
DId Socrates exist? He is a character in Plato’s dialogues and Aristotle was a student of Plato’s. This is interesting as far as it goes but it is ephemera given that we don’t evaluate the truth claims of these historical figures based on whether or not they existed. In other words, the validity of Aristotle’s laws of logic, for example, are not rendered moot by the uncertainty of his existence. That’s the point – which is hidden under your hat. Who wrote Shakespeare’s plays? It is an interesting question but one that is tangential to the literary value of the plays themselves. No one is claiming that Shakespeare walked on water, rose from the dead, turned water into wine, etc. The gospels claim these things and we need evidence in support.
Claims are made about Jesus which are unverifiable. We must go to the historical record to determine whether or not they are probably true. Given that the gospels are not good history and are written by biased people we need outside, unbiased corroboration for their truthfulness. Finding none we must render a verdict that the “history” depicted in the gospels is just a story and nothing more.
Matthew 27:51 “Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”
This is my favorite. Where are the contemporaneous accounts of the walking dead? Where are the references to the walking dead in Josephus? What happened to the walking dead? Did they re-die? Seriously. Don’t duck the questions. Let us know what happened to the zombies and give a source and not mere speculation.
Knox,
While you seem to feel comfortable repeating statements that are nothing more than a-priori deductions from your starting points, I’m getting a bit tired of repeating myself since I can pretty much cut-n-paste things I’ve already said to answer each one of your points. So I’ll simply leave you with one example and let you have the last word:
>If you read the Melian dialogue from Thucydides
> History of the Peloppenisian War do you think
> it is an accurate portrayal of events? I don’t.
“You [] display hints of assuming you can apply modern literary standards (for example, the modern concept of a quotation) to ancient literature.”
Of course, I could elaborate: Whether or not it happened depends on the literary standards of the time Thucydides wrote. Was the point of that literary genre to provide a quote of the speach? Would someone from the time familiar with the genre he was writing within assume it actually happened or would they assume it was inserted as a communication device?
You said you used to “believe” and the more I read you the more I think you were probably a fundamentalist evangelical who viewed the Bible with 20th century literary standards and when you realized some of the conclusions you needed to reach were absurd, you jettisoned the Bible rather than your naïve modernist hermeneutical methodology. As a sceptic you continue to employ that methodology and so you think you have an airtight argument against people that don’t – or you wouldn’t repeat bumper sticker assertions that have no effect on your interlocutor (especially after he explained the error in your assumptions/methodology).
I’d love to continue this conversation over a beer if you’re ever in the Philly area. As it is I’ll let the discussion above stand and if you choose to reply to this, you can have the final word.
Peace.
Jim
Okay. That was weird. Anyway, I responded but the blog software inserted my response above.
I’ll reiterate the end of the post:
I’d love to continue this conversation over a beer if you’re ever in the Philly area. As it is I’ll let the discussion above stand and if you choose to reply to this, you can have the final word.
Peace.
Jim
… and if you’ll notice, that’s pretty much the conversation I’ve tried to stick to, ignoring other comments.
I do think they are answerable but it doesn’t help the conversation to have multiple book length explanations for too wide a range of topics.
Hi All,
If anyone is interested, here’s a brief bibliography.
1) John Walton in “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament” which is an in depth exercise in comparative literature applied to the Old Testament.
2) There is a great popular presentation of this work as it applies to the first chapter of Genesis in “The Lost World of Genesis One” also by Dr. Walton.
Apparently there’s a new one that covers chapter 2-3 but I didn’t realize these existed until now (so I haven’t read it).
3) Another great work is Meredith Kline’s “Treaty of the Great King” or the expanded “The Structure of Biblical Authority” where he works out the literary form of the Pentateuch as an ancient Mediterranean suzerain treaty.
4) Almost anything by G.K. Beale on the New Testament. His theme is usually a cross of comparative literature, and the Old Testament context of New Testament writings.
I’m not sure if this in referenced in Beale but an oft-repeated example would be Matthew as a parallel between Israel as a nation and the person of Jesus (e.g. Israel in Egypt/Jesus in Egypt, Israelites cross the Red Sea/Jesus baptized in the Jordan, Israel tested in the wilderness for 40 years/Jesus tested in the desert for 40 days, etc).
Understanding this actually explains some of the odd references to OT texts in Matthew, texts that interpreted anachronistically with modern eyes just scream “foul” specifically in places where he attributes OT texts that are clearly for Israel and applies them to Jesus. So, for example, interpreting Matthew as a chronology and then finding inconsistencies with other accounts ignores what Matthew was attempting to do in his context and for his audience.
5) A good non-scholarly popular introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament is, believe it or not, James White’s “The King James Only Controversy” since he needs to cover all this ground to make his points.
6) I already mentioned Richard Bauckham and his “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.” This is (to me) an unbelievably tight literary argument that explores the internal evidence that Mark was written as Peter’s first hand testimony utilizing other sources to, for example, understand certain contemporary linguistic idioms used in Papias, and how that applies to first century historiography, in order to make the arguments.