Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by psstein View Post
    Mike Licona, plus a general impression from reading scholarly sources.
    ---The Oxford Annotated Bible says you and Mike Licona are wrong:

    The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels — Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee — are doubted among the large majority of mainstream New Testament scholars. However, the public is often not familiar with the complex reasons and methodology that scholars use to reach definitive and well-supported consensuses about critical issues, such as assessing the authorial traditions for ancient texts. To provide a good overview of the majority opinion about the Gospels, the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (pg. 1744):

    “Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk 1.4; Jn 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.”

    Source: https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...f-the-gospels/

    ---Biblical historian Gary Greenberg disagrees with you:

    "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels says biblical historian Gary Greenberg in his latest book, Who Wrote the Gospels? Why New Testament Scholars Challenge Church Traditions. At least, not the Matthew, Mark, Luke or John of Church tradition, he adds. Controversial as this view is, he notes that it is widely accepted among New Testament scholars. Yet few members of the lay public know about this modern scholarly consensus, let alone why scholars hold these views."
    Source: http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/bookpages/gospelspage.html

    ---Robert Funk, John Crossan, and Robert Eisenmann disagree with you:

    Tradition holds that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the Evangelist, as St. Peter's interpreter.[64] Numerous early sources say that Mark's material was dictated to him by St. Peter, who later compiled it into his gospel.[67][68][69][70][71] The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, which vary in form and in theology, and which tell against the story that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[72] Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.[73][74][75]

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...of_the_Gospels

    ---Burton Mack, JD Crossan, Robert Funk:

    "The first written account of the ministry of Jesus, the Gospel of Mark, was penned in about 65 to 80 CE, 30 or more years after Jesus was allegedly executed.

    Tradition has it that the author of Mark was John Mark, an associate of Peter the Apostle. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 323 CE) quotes Papias of Hierapolis (c. 130 CE) as hearing from one "presbyter" that Mark had written Peter's memoirs - something generally called "hearsay" in legalese, and not overly reliable, nearly 300 years after the fact. Also, several late second-century sources indirectly allude to John Mark's association with Peter. These claims have long been challenged by scholars, primary because John Mark was a known Palestinian Jew.

    Setting "tradition" aside, modern linguistic scholarship on the Gospel actually suggests that Mark has two sources/authors, one dating from the 60s, and a second, possibly an editor, dating from the 80s or 90s[5] It should be noted that one passage often cited as being added is the passage about Jesus' resurrection, suggesting that the original author of Mark may have been part of a church that had not yet invented the Resurrection Story[6][7][8]. The author of Mark has long been seen as a collector and compiler of stories and theological ideas.[8] Biblical scholars generally state that the author of Mark had not seen or heard his stories directly, but was compelled to include legend, rumor, and history in his work.[6][7][8][9] It is fairly well accepted among historians and biblical scholars that the errors regarding Palestinian geography and customs, as well as the author's need to explain Jewish law and ideas, indicate the author of Mark is not a Palestinian Jew.[6][8]

    The language, theology, and style of Mark suggest that Mark was written for the Gentile, not for practicing Jews.[6][9][8]"

    Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authors..._New_Testament

    Last edited by Gary; 09-12-2015, 10:05 PM.

    Comment


    • Oh look! I found one person on the internet who disagrees! You must be wrong!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
        Here is another thing about the "Five Hundred Witnesses" as evidence for the Resurrection:

        The Creed in I Corinthians 15 mentions appearances to Peter, James, the apostles, the five hundred, and to Paul. However, what details about any of these appearances do we find in this Creed? Is the body described? The locations of the appearances? The time of the appearances? The circumstances of the appearances?

        No. Nothing.

        So it is very possible that all the appearances mentioned in First Corinthians 15 were exactly the same as the appearance to Paul: a bright light.
        Only in La La land does repeating a weak argument make it stronger by repetition. I corinthians is a letter to a church that chapter 15 says had already received the gospel and in particular the resurrection component. the remarkable thing about it is not that it has details about the appearances (why would it since this was not the first time they were said to be hearing it)but that the writer refers to the figures as known quantities. The other remarkable thing is it shows a historical sequence of resurrection witnesses was already understood by the church even as early as the book is held to have been written

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
          Only in La La land does repeating a weak argument make it stronger by repetition. I corinthians is a letter to a church that chapter 15 says had already received the gospel and in particular the resurrection component. the remarkable thing about it is not that it has details about the appearances (why would it since this was not the first time they were said to be hearing it)but that the writer refers to the figures as known quantities. The other remarkable thing is it shows a historical sequence of resurrection witnesses was already understood by the church even as early as the book is held to have been written
          The fact that the church in Corinth knew about the Eleven, Paul, and James, the bishop of Jerusalem, is not surprising.

          Paul obviously hadn't discussed the identity of the Five Hundred or he wouldn't have told the Corinthians to take a 1,500 mile boat trip to verify their testimony.

          Comment


          • I dare say that the list of scholars which Gary gave do not believe Jesus is God's Christ (1 John 5:1; John 3:3).
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
              Do you at least know what a urologist does? Or a rheumatologist does? Neurologist is pretty easy. I'm sure most know what a cardiologist is also. But, maybe you're just a general practitioner and not an awesome specialist.
              I'm guessing that Gary's a proctologist, and specializes in inspecting himself.

              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                ---The Oxford Annotated Bible says you and Mike Licona are wrong:

                The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels — Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee — are doubted among the large majority of mainstream New Testament scholars. However, the public is often not familiar with the complex reasons and methodology that scholars use to reach definitive and well-supported consensuses about critical issues, such as assessing the authorial traditions for ancient texts. To provide a good overview of the majority opinion about the Gospels, the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (pg. 1744):

                “Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk 1.4; Jn 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.”

                Source: https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...f-the-gospels/

                ---Biblical historian Gary Greenberg disagrees with you:

                "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels says biblical historian Gary Greenberg in his latest book, Who Wrote the Gospels? Why New Testament Scholars Challenge Church Traditions. At least, not the Matthew, Mark, Luke or John of Church tradition, he adds. Controversial as this view is, he notes that it is widely accepted among New Testament scholars. Yet few members of the lay public know about this modern scholarly consensus, let alone why scholars hold these views."
                Source: http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/bookpages/gospelspage.html

                ---Robert Funk, John Crossan, and Robert Eisenmann disagree with you:

                Tradition holds that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the Evangelist, as St. Peter's interpreter.[64] Numerous early sources say that Mark's material was dictated to him by St. Peter, who later compiled it into his gospel.[67][68][69][70][71] The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, which vary in form and in theology, and which tell against the story that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[72] Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.[73][74][75]

                Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...of_the_Gospels

                ---Burton Mack, JD Crossan, Robert Funk:

                "The first written account of the ministry of Jesus, the Gospel of Mark, was penned in about 65 to 80 CE, 30 or more years after Jesus was allegedly executed.

                Tradition has it that the author of Mark was John Mark, an associate of Peter the Apostle. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 323 CE) quotes Papias of Hierapolis (c. 130 CE) as hearing from one "presbyter" that Mark had written Peter's memoirs - something generally called "hearsay" in legalese, and not overly reliable, nearly 300 years after the fact. Also, several late second-century sources indirectly allude to John Mark's association with Peter. These claims have long been challenged by scholars, primary because John Mark was a known Palestinian Jew.

                Setting "tradition" aside, modern linguistic scholarship on the Gospel actually suggests that Mark has two sources/authors, one dating from the 60s, and a second, possibly an editor, dating from the 80s or 90s[5] It should be noted that one passage often cited as being added is the passage about Jesus' resurrection, suggesting that the original author of Mark may have been part of a church that had not yet invented the Resurrection Story[6][7][8]. The author of Mark has long been seen as a collector and compiler of stories and theological ideas.[8] Biblical scholars generally state that the author of Mark had not seen or heard his stories directly, but was compelled to include legend, rumor, and history in his work.[6][7][8][9] It is fairly well accepted among historians and biblical scholars that the errors regarding Palestinian geography and customs, as well as the author's need to explain Jewish law and ideas, indicate the author of Mark is not a Palestinian Jew.[6][8]

                The language, theology, and style of Mark suggest that Mark was written for the Gentile, not for practicing Jews.[6][9][8]"

                Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authors..._New_Testament

                John P. Meier provides an example in which the author of Mark shows himself to be dependent on oral tradition. The story of the feeding of the multitude is found twice in Mark and once in John. Meier writes (A Marginal Jew, v. 2, pp. 965-6): "This suggests a long and complicated tradition history reaching back to the early days of the first Christian generation. Prior to Mark's Gospel there seems to have been two cycles of traditions about Jesus' ministry in Galilee, each one beginning with one version of the feeding miracle (Mk 6:32-44 and Mk 8:1-10). Before these cycles were created, the two versions of the feeding would have circulated as independent units, the first version attracting to itself the story of Jesus' walking on the water (a development also witnessed in John 6), while the second version did not receive such an elaboration. Behind all three versions of the miracle story would have stood some primitive form." (Gary: Would John Mark, the close associate of Peter, have made such an error? Seems hard to believe.)

                The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

                ---Randall Helms:

                Helms goes on to argue that the reference to the messianic pretenders in 13:21-22 suggests that the author of Mark wrote shortly after 70 rather than a few years before. Josephus tells us about Menahem, the son of Judas, as well as Simon, the son of Gioras, "both of whom were striking messianic pretenders." Helms states, "As far as Mark was concerned the Jewish War was over; there remained only the cosmic disorder and the Second Coming."

                ---Eisenman:

                Eisenman comments (op. cit., p. 56): "There are, in fact, several veiled references to events of this kind in the Gospel of Mark, for instance, in the introuduction to the Little Apocalypse, where Jesus is made to predict the utter destruction of the Temple (13:1-2) and in the Apocalypse itself, when the Pauline Mission is anticipated (13:9-10) - but, even more importantly, in the depiction of the rending of the Temple veil at his death (Mark 15:38 and pars.). This veil was more than likely damaged in the final Roman assault on the Temple or in the various altercations and the turmoil preceding this. Josephus specifically refers to it, along with its replacement materials, as having been delivered over to the Romans after the assault on the Temple. It was doubtless on display in Rome, damaged or otherwise, along with the rest of the booty Josephus describes as having been paraded in Titus' Triumph."

                ---Many scholars see another historical allusion in Mk 5:8-13 to a 'Legion' which had a pig as its emblem and which Josephus tells us remained in Jerusalem in the war's aftermath (Wars of the Jews 7.1.3). William Harwood writes in Mythology's Last Gods: "Since the fall of the city a few months earlier [in 70 C.E.], Jerusalem had been occupied by the Roman Tenth Legion [X Fretensis], whose emblem was a pig. Mark's reference to about two thousand pigs, the size of the occupying Legion, combined with his blatant designation of the evil beings as Legion, left no doubt in Jewish minds that the pigs in the fable represented the army of occupation. Mark's fable in effect promised that the messiah, when he returned, would drive the Romans into the sea as he had earlier driven their four-legged surrogates."

                Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
                Last edited by Gary; 09-12-2015, 11:52 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  People involved in the game "Telephone" do not usually intentionally change the original story. The original story changes because people remember hearing what was passed on to them differently from what was actually told to them.

                  I don't think Christians intentionally embellished the story (except for the possibility of the author of Matthew). I think what happened was what happens in any oral story that is passed around from person to person.
                  In an oral culture, in which people heard the same story again and again? Hardly.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mikeenders View Post
                    Oh Ye of great faith. I know of no active physician with the time Gary has and I know of none that think so poorly. I am just amazed given his many flops and flounders you guys are still reading his posts. Collective boredom?
                    And herein you have the answer. (well, my answer, anyway)

                    Occasionally, very occasionally, atheists deliver a gem that makes all the aggravation of investigating their claims worthwhile. Here we have a salutary example of just such an occasion.

                    In Gary's citation of the wikipedia entry, Historical Reliability of the Gospels, there is a small paragraph that should make even atheists themselves sit up and take notice (not that it will):

                    The church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (264 – 340) cited a statement of the 2nd-century pagan chronicler Phlegon of Tralles that during the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (AD 32/33) "a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea".[167] In the same passage, Eusebius cited another unnamed Greek source also recording earthquakes in the same locations and an eclipse. Eusebius argued the two records had documented events that were simultaneous with the crucifixion of Jesus. Tertullian, in his Apologetics, tells the story of the darkness that had commenced at noon during the crucifixion; those who were unaware of the prediction, he says, "no doubt thought it an eclipse".[168] Though he does not mention the claims of others, he suggests to the church's critics that the evidence is still available: "You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives."[169] The early historian and theologian, Rufinus of Aquileia wrote of the apologetic defense given by Lucian of Antioch, around 300 AD.[170] Lucian, like Tertullian, was also convinced that an account of the darkness that accompanied the crucifixion could be found among Roman records. Ussher recorded Lucian's words on the matter, presumably also to church critics, as “Search your writings and you shall find that, in Pilate’s time, when Christ suffered, the sun was suddenly withdrawn and a darkness followed.”[171]


                    Independent records, it seems, existed into the late third century.
                    Last edited by tabibito; 09-13-2015, 01:46 AM.
                    1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      I dare say that the list of scholars which Gary gave do not believe Jesus is God's Christ (1 John 5:1; John 3:3).
                      The point is that several sources say that the majority of scholars do NOT believe that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        And herein you have the answer. (well, my answer, anyway)

                        Occasionally, very occasionally, atheists deliver a gem that makes all the aggravation of investigating their claims worthwhile. Here we have a salutary example of just such an occasion.

                        In Gary's citation of the wikipedia entry, Historical Reliability of the Gospels, there is a small paragraph that should make even atheists themselves sit up and take notice (not that it will):

                        The church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (264 – 340) cited a statement of the 2nd-century pagan chronicler Phlegon of Tralles that during the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (AD 32/33) "a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea".[167] In the same passage, Eusebius cited another unnamed Greek source also recording earthquakes in the same locations and an eclipse. Eusebius argued the two records had documented events that were simultaneous with the crucifixion of Jesus. Tertullian, in his Apologetics, tells the story of the darkness that had commenced at noon during the crucifixion; those who were unaware of the prediction, he says, "no doubt thought it an eclipse".[168] Though he does not mention the claims of others, he suggests to the church's critics that the evidence is still available: "You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives."[169] The early historian and theologian, Rufinus of Aquileia wrote of the apologetic defense given by Lucian of Antioch, around 300 AD.[170] Lucian, like Tertullian, was also convinced that an account of the darkness that accompanied the crucifixion could be found among Roman records. Ussher recorded Lucian's words on the matter, presumably also to church critics, as “Search your writings and you shall find that, in Pilate’s time, when Christ suffered, the sun was suddenly withdrawn and a darkness followed.”[171]


                        Independent records, it seems, existed into the late third century.
                        Not so fast, Tabby:

                        From Matthew Ferguson's blog (I just discovered this guy. He is one smart cookie. He is a PhD student in the Classics. Very interesting articles.)

                        https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...source-slogan/

                        "So far we have only received a catalog of late Christian authors, which Habermas and Licona misleadingly represent as early, reliable sources. But Habermas and Licona’s next list of 9 “secular” sources for Jesus is highly questionable. To start with, the term “secular” is misleading, since these are really just “Pagan” authors (or in the case of Josephus, “Jewish”). But what is more noteworthy is that many of these authors never directly mention Jesus. Here is the list provided:

                        “Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus.”

                        First off, Phlegon is an author who may have written in the 2nd century CE, most of whose works are lost. References to his lost works only survive in quotations of later authors, one of which is a quote from Julius Africanus (a lost 3rd century source), which itself is preserved in a second quote from the 9th century author Syncellus (that’s right, a quote of a quote seven centuries later!). After all this word of mouth Africanus claims that Phlegon wrote about the alleged three hour darkness at Jesus’ execution (described, or invented rather, in Mt. 27:45, Mk. 15:33, and Lk. 23:44). Phlegon’s quote, however, is preserved verbatim in Eusebius where no connection to Jesus is made, and instead Phlegon merely refers to an eclipse during Tiberius’ reign. There is another possible quote (unrelated to the eclipse) in Origen (Against Celsus 2.14) where Phlegon supposedly wrote about Jesus, but his words are not preserved verbatim, so it is difficult to ascertain. Regardless, Phlegon cannot be used as a source for the darkness at Jesus’ execution, and his verbatim quote about the unrelated eclipse may completely undermine Thallus as a source.

                        Thallus, like Phlegon, is a lost historian who only survives in later quotations and whose date is largely uncertain, but he probably wrote during the 2nd century CE. None of the later quotations of his works that include his own words mention Jesus. Instead another quote of Africanus, who does not record Thallus’ own words, claims that Thallus also wrote about the great darkness at Jesus’ execution, but once more this is only preserved by the 9th century author Syncellus. Given Africanus’ previous error, where he claimed that Phlegon wrote about Jesus, when his actual words did not, it is highly likely that Africanus misrepresented Thallus as well (there is also the possibility that Eusebius anonymously quotes Thallus in his Chronicle where no reference to Jesus is made in regard to the Tiberian eclipse). Lacking Thallus’ works or even a quotation of his own words that mentions Jesus, he cannot accurately be regarded as “an account that now exists concerning Jesus,” like Habermas and Licona claim, and thus including his name on the list is misleading.

                        For more information about how there is no outside corroboration of the darkness at Jesus’ execution, despite being an event that would have been documented worldwide, here is a valuable article from ancient historian Richard Carrier:"

                        http://www.jgrchj.net/volume8/JGRChJ8-8_Carrier.pdf
                        Last edited by Gary; 09-13-2015, 02:38 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                          Not so fast, Tabby:

                          From Matthew Ferguson's blog (I just discovered this guy. He is one smart cookie. He is a PhD student in the Classics. Very interesting articles.)

                          https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...source-slogan/

                          "So far we have only received a catalog of late Christian authors, which Habermas and Licona misleadingly represent as early, reliable sources. But Habermas and Licona’s next list of 9 “secular” sources for Jesus is highly questionable. To start with, the term “secular” is misleading, since these are really just “Pagan” authors (or in the case of Josephus, “Jewish”). But what is more noteworthy is that many of these authors never directly mention Jesus. Here is the list provided:

                          “Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus.”

                          First off, Phlegon is an author who may have written in the 2nd century CE, most of whose works are lost. References to his lost works only survive in quotations of later authors, one of which is a quote from Julius Africanus (a lost 3rd century source), which itself is preserved in a second quote from the 9th century author Syncellus (that’s right, a quote of a quote seven centuries later!). After all this word of mouth Africanus claims that Phlegon wrote about the alleged three hour darkness at Jesus’ execution (described, or invented rather, in Mt. 27:45, Mk. 15:33, and Lk. 23:44). Phlegon’s quote, however, is preserved verbatim in Eusebius where no connection to Jesus is made, and instead Phlegon merely refers to an eclipse during Tiberius’ reign. There is another possible quote (unrelated to the eclipse) in Origen (Against Celsus 2.14) where Phlegon supposedly wrote about Jesus, but his words are not preserved verbatim, so it is difficult to ascertain. Regardless, Phlegon cannot be used as a source for the darkness at Jesus’ execution, and his verbatim quote about the unrelated eclipse may completely undermine Thallus as a source.

                          Thallus, like Phlegon, is a lost historian who only survives in later quotations and whose date is largely uncertain, but he probably wrote during the 2nd century CE. None of the later quotations of his works that include his own words mention Jesus. Instead another quote of Africanus, who does not record Thallus’ own words, claims that Thallus also wrote about the great darkness at Jesus’ execution, but once more this is only preserved by the 9th century author Syncellus. Given Africanus’ previous error, where he claimed that Phlegon wrote about Jesus, when his actual words did not, it is highly likely that Africanus misrepresented Thallus as well (there is also the possibility that Eusebius anonymously quotes Thallus in his Chronicle where no reference to Jesus is made in regard to the Tiberian eclipse). Lacking Thallus’ works or even a quotation of his own words that mentions Jesus, he cannot accurately be regarded as “an account that now exists concerning Jesus,” like Habermas and Licona claim, and thus including his name on the list is misleading.

                          For more information about how there is no outside corroboration of the darkness at Jesus’ execution, despite being an event that would have been documented worldwide, here is a valuable article from ancient historian Richard Carrier:"

                          http://www.jgrchj.net/volume8/JGRChJ8-8_Carrier.pdf
                          Ferguson called out Mike Licona on some erroneous claims in his book on the Resurrection. Licona was man enough to concede to Ferguson that he had erred. From the same article above:

                          [As of April 2nd, 2013, one of the authors of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Mike Licona, has acknowledged factual errors in the book’s section dealing with the 10/42 apologetic (pg. 128). I have revised the article in places to modify some of my criticisms in light of Licona’s respectful admission.]

                          [As of June 20th, 2013, I have just learned that apologist Cliffe Knecthle has acknowledged errors in the 10/42 apologetic. I apologize for not mentioning Cliffe’s admission sooner, since he appears to have written it in 2012, but I just now learned of it. In his reply, Cliffe asks me a series of questions about the historical reliability of the Gospels, to which I reply.]

                          Comment


                          • ---Many scholars see another historical allusion in Mk 5:8-13 to a 'Legion' which had a pig as its emblem and which Josephus tells us remained in Jerusalem in the war's aftermath (Wars of the Jews 7.1.3). William Harwood writes in Mythology's Last Gods: "Since the fall of the city a few months earlier [in 70 C.E.], Jerusalem had been occupied by the Roman Tenth Legion [X Fretensis], whose emblem was a pig. Mark's reference to about two thousand pigs, the size of the occupying Legion, combined with his blatant designation of the evil beings as Legion, left no doubt in Jewish minds that the pigs in the fable represented the army of occupation. Mark's fable in effect promised that the messiah, when he returned, would drive the Romans into the sea as he had earlier driven their four-legged surrogates."
                            Eisegesis much. 2 000 is not the number in a Roman legion - there were 5 000 foot soldiers alone. The story is not written as a parable, but as an actual event. The early Christians (post resurrection) were fully aware that the Christ would not return to restore Israel - his return marks the end of times.

                            John P. Meier provides an example in which the author of Mark shows himself to be dependent on oral tradition. The story of the feeding of the multitude is found twice in Mark and once in John. Meier writes (A Marginal Jew, v. 2, pp. 965-6): "This suggests a long and complicated tradition history reaching back to the early days of the first Christian generation. Prior to Mark's Gospel there seems to have been two cycles of traditions about Jesus' ministry in Galilee, each one beginning with one version of the feeding miracle (Mk 6:32-44 and Mk 8:1-10). Before these cycles were created, the two versions of the feeding would have circulated as independent units, the first version attracting to itself the story of Jesus' walking on the water (a development also witnessed in John 6), while the second version did not receive such an elaboration. Behind all three versions of the miracle story would have stood some primitive form." (Gary: Would John Mark, the close associate of Peter, have made such an error? Seems hard to believe.)
                            Mark records two occasions because there WERE two occasions.

                            Mark 8:19-20
                            19 “When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments did you take up?” They said to Him, “Twelve.”
                            20 “Also, when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?” And they said, “Seven.”


                            Matthew 15:33-34
                            33 Then His disciples said to Him, “Where could we get enough bread in the wilderness to fill such a great multitude?” 34
                            Jesus said to them, “How many loaves do you have?” And they said, “Seven, and a few little fish.”


                            Matthew 14:16-18[indent]16 But Jesus said to them, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.” 17 And they said to Him, “We have here only five loaves and two fish.” 18 He said, “Bring them here to Me.”
                            Last edited by tabibito; 09-13-2015, 03:02 AM.
                            1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                              Not so fast, Tabby:

                              From Matthew Ferguson's blog (I just discovered this guy. He is one smart cookie. He is a PhD student in the Classics. Very interesting articles.)

                              https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...source-slogan/

                              "So far we have only received a catalog of late Christian authors, which Habermas and Licona misleadingly represent as early, reliable sources. But Habermas and Licona’s next list of 9 “secular” sources for Jesus is highly questionable. To start with, the term “secular” is misleading, since these are really just “Pagan” authors (or in the case of Josephus, “Jewish”). But what is more noteworthy is that many of these authors never directly mention Jesus. Here is the list provided:

                              “Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus.”

                              First off, Phlegon is an author who may have written in the 2nd century CE, most of whose works are lost. References to his lost works only survive in quotations of later authors, one of which is a quote from Julius Africanus (a lost 3rd century source), which itself is preserved in a second quote from the 9th century author Syncellus (that’s right, a quote of a quote seven centuries later!). After all this word of mouth Africanus claims that Phlegon wrote about the alleged three hour darkness at Jesus’ execution (described, or invented rather, in Mt. 27:45, Mk. 15:33, and Lk. 23:44). Phlegon’s quote, however, is preserved verbatim in Eusebius where no connection to Jesus is made, and instead Phlegon merely refers to an eclipse during Tiberius’ reign. There is another possible quote (unrelated to the eclipse) in Origen (Against Celsus 2.14) where Phlegon supposedly wrote about Jesus, but his words are not preserved verbatim, so it is difficult to ascertain. Regardless, Phlegon cannot be used as a source for the darkness at Jesus’ execution, and his verbatim quote about the unrelated eclipse may completely undermine Thallus as a source.

                              Thallus, like Phlegon, is a lost historian who only survives in later quotations and whose date is largely uncertain, but he probably wrote during the 2nd century CE. None of the later quotations of his works that include his own words mention Jesus. Instead another quote of Africanus, who does not record Thallus’ own words, claims that Thallus also wrote about the great darkness at Jesus’ execution, but once more this is only preserved by the 9th century author Syncellus. Given Africanus’ previous error, where he claimed that Phlegon wrote about Jesus, when his actual words did not, it is highly likely that Africanus misrepresented Thallus as well (there is also the possibility that Eusebius anonymously quotes Thallus in his Chronicle where no reference to Jesus is made in regard to the Tiberian eclipse). Lacking Thallus’ works or even a quotation of his own words that mentions Jesus, he cannot accurately be regarded as “an account that now exists concerning Jesus,” like Habermas and Licona claim, and thus including his name on the list is misleading.

                              For more information about how there is no outside corroboration of the darkness at Jesus’ execution, despite being an event that would have been documented worldwide, here is a valuable article from ancient historian Richard Carrier:"

                              http://www.jgrchj.net/volume8/JGRChJ8-8_Carrier.pdf
                              Yup ... now pagan sources, hostile to Christianity, are considered to not be independent sources. Just how many well respected atheist sources can be found from the First Century AD? Almost everything of the Roman world from the time and still extant will have been written by Christians, Jews, or Pagans.

                              Until now, I had assumed that if such an event had occurred, it would have been local to Israel. The thing I found surprising is reference to the existence of Roman records regarding a darkening of the sun during the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad which some assume was an eclipse. The writer accepts darkening of the sun, but rejects the cause as being an eclipse. He tells people to search their own records and they will find it. .... It takes a really weird mindset to assume that the people addressed could conduct a search and return to say "no, nothing exists."
                              The fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad ... AD 33-34. What prompted the author to write that do you suppose? Attention is directed to the time of Pilate's term in Judea.
                              Last edited by tabibito; 09-13-2015, 03:35 AM.
                              1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                                Ferguson called out Mike Licona on some erroneous claims in his book on the Resurrection. Licona was man enough to concede to Ferguson that he had erred. From the same article above:

                                [As of April 2nd, 2013, one of the authors of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Mike Licona, has acknowledged factual errors in the book’s section dealing with the 10/42 apologetic (pg. 128). I have revised the article in places to modify some of my criticisms in light of Licona’s respectful admission.]

                                [As of June 20th, 2013, I have just learned that apologist Cliffe Knecthle has acknowledged errors in the 10/42 apologetic. I apologize for not mentioning Cliffe’s admission sooner, since he appears to have written it in 2012, but I just now learned of it. In his reply, Cliffe asks me a series of questions about the historical reliability of the Gospels, to which I reply.]
                                and of course you being you didn't go on to read that the "errors" were in reference to missing documentation on augustus and tiberias which does little to dispute what Tabibito was talking about.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X