Ancient Sources: History and Theology.

[rogue06]

I indicated previously indicated that I will be making extensive use of Loke's Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ A New Transdisciplinary Approach^[1] and thus thought I'd take an opportunity to post a relevant portion early on in the book that deals with one specific point

Why? You allege these four authors all knew one another.

At the very least by reputation. It was still a small community and it would be irrational to suppose otherwise. I mean, have you noticed how in Paul's letters he personally addresses various members of the community? When it came to the leaders and most prominent members, yes, they would have been familiar with one another.

Shifting from briefly discussing the Resurrection account in I Corinthians 15:3-11 Loke writes:

It should be noted that the early Christian movement (though geographically widespread) was a network of close communication, the early Christian leaders (which included the apostolic ‘eyewitnesses’) were quite mobile, and it is very probable that Jewish Christians would have travelled yearly to Jerusalem for festivals (Bauckham 2006, pp. 32, 306). Hurtado observes,

A well-attested ‘networking’ was another feature of early Christianity. This involved various activities, among them the sending and exchange of texts, believers travelling for trans-local promotion of their views (as e.g. the 'men from James' in Gal. 2:11, or Apollo's' travels to Corinth in 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:5–9; 16:12), representatives sent for conferral with believers elsewhere (as depicted, e.g. Acts 15:1–35), or sent to express solidarity with other circles of believers (as e.g. those accompanying the Jerusalem offering in 1 Cor. 16:3–4). After all, travel and communication were comparatively well developed in the Roman world generally, among wealthy and a good many ordinary people, for business, pilgrimage to religious sites/occasions, for health, to consult oracles, for athletic events, sightseeing, and other purposes. 'So', as Richard Bauckham observed, 'the context in which the early Christian movement developed was not conducive to parochialism; quite the opposite.' Indeed, in that world of frequent travel and communication, the early Christians particularly seem to have been given to networking, devoting impressive resources of time, money, and personnel to this, and on a wide translocal scale.

(Hurtado 2013, p. 454)

Given these considerations, contacts with the 'eyewitnesses' and hearing the traditional narratives from them would have taken place naturally, and investigative letters would not have been necessary (cf. Carrier 2009).

After this he returns to the discussion I Corinthians 15:3-11, specifically the "more than five hundred brethren" mentioned as eyewitnesses.

I guess this is also relevant wrt this exchange as well

How would he know what the others "had already covered"? Did they have an meeting prior to "going to papyri" in order to decide what to include and omit from their respective narratives?

Did you actually bother to think this snark through before writing it? Aside from the fact that Mark was already published and that Matthew makes use of it as a framework for his own account, given that this was largely a society that heavily relied on oral accounts, it is safe to presume there were a number of those circulating as well.

Moreover, it is further safe to surmise that the one thing that any Christian had heard about Jesus was the resurrection account (again, I Cor. 15), since without it there is no Christianity.

So, yes, others had already covered it.

1. Again tip hat.gif to Apologiaphoenix for the review and noting that it is downloadable for free. It most definitely is true, as he says

If I were to use one word to describe this book, it would be thorough

Everything in one place

[One Bad Pig]

Please provide detailed citations from both Brandon and Carter.

With regard to these “several scholars” please provided detailed citations from their respective works, [ideally with pagination].

Please provide detailed citations from both Feldman and Twelftree in support of that remark.

If you cannot, or will not, comply with these requests we can make no further progress.

And finally please note:

Caesarea Maritima was not “Pilate’s HQ”, it was the administrative capital of the province and where all governors would have been based during their term of office. Jerusalem was not the “capital” it was the cult centre of the Jewish religion.


If you had bothered to read the extract from Paul Winter you would know that Philo incorporated those comments about Pilate into his text from a letter written by Herod Agrippa I.

While Pilate was in office in Judaea Agrippa lived in Damascus, Alexandria and Rome. However, in 37 CE after Gaius released Agrippa from prison he gave him the former tetrachies of Philip and in 39 CE his territories were augmented with Galilee and Perea. He therefore was in the region and had excellent opportunities [including contact with those who had known Pilate] for information on the former governor’s activities and personal character. He was thus able to include these in the letter that Philo incorporated into his text following the Alexandrian riots of 38 CE.


On the contrary all of Justus’ writings are now lost to us. However, his Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews from Moses to Agrippa II was still extant in the ninth century when the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius [c.810-895] read it. Photius recorded, in his still extant Bibliotheca, a summary of its contents. In that he writes, “suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he [Justus] does not mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by him.”

How nice of you to demand detailed citations, all the while providing none yourself.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How nice of you to demand detailed citations, all the while providing none yourself.

Photius’ Bibliotheca is referenced in J.H. Freese, Library of Photius, Vol 7. MacMillan 1920. p.29.

With regard to Caesarea Maritima being the Roman provincial capital of Judaea:

Herod the Great's port of Caesarea was chosen as the Roman administrative capital and military headquarters and his palace there was taken over as the governor's residence. This city was more convenient than Jerusalem for sea communication with Rome, while at the same time within easy reach of the capital, and, being furnished with Greco-Roman cultural amenities, it had an atmosphere more congenial to Roman officials than Jerusalem. [E. Mary Smallwood The Jews under Roman Rule From Pompey to Diocletian. 1975. Brill. pp. 145-146.]

If you had actually bothered to read my earlier reply you would find that I gave a full citation for Paul Winter. His paper is entitled “A Letter from Pontius Pilate” and appears in Novum Testamentum, Mar., 1964, Vol 7. pp.37-43, Brill.

You are free to access and read these sources should you wish to do so, although you may need to avail yourself of a well stocked reference library.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I indicated previously indicated that I will be making extensive use of Loke's Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ A New Transdisciplinary Approach^[1] and thus thought I'd take an opportunity to post a relevant portion early on in the book that deals with one specific point

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPLY IS IN TWO PARTS AS THE SITE WILL NOT PERMIT A SINGLE POST OF THIS LENGTH

PART ONE


With regard to your enthusiasm for Loke’s work I find it rather unusual to use one source to justify your opinions [re your remark “will be citing from it extensively in the future “]. Loke has his own interpretations of these texts but they remain solely his personal interpretations. They are not established facts.

It needs to be remembered that all we have are these texts as they have come down to us and everything else regardless of scholarly competence is interpretation. Furthermore it must always be borne in mind that an interpretation may be wrong.

The fact remains that we have no extraneous contemporary corroborative evidence to support the internal narratives we find in these texts. Yes they reference real people and real places but then so does a wealth of fiction. Again, please note that I accept that a first century Jewish Galilean peasant holy man did exist but how far he resembled the depictions found in the canonical gospels is highly questionable.

Looking through Loke’s text as well as one or two of the works he cites by Hurtado and Bauckham I cannot help but be aware that all three are bringing their own theological preconceptions into their writings. There also appears to be a tendency to present speculative conjecture as if it were acknowledged certainty.

With regard to your citation:

It should be noted that the early Christian movement (though geographically widespread) was a network of close communication, the early Christian leaders (which included the apostolic ‘eyewitnesses’) were quite mobile, and it is very probable that Jewish Christians would have travelled yearly to Jerusalem for festivals (Bauckham 2006, pp. 32, 306). Hurtado observes

A well-attested ‘networking’ was another feature of early Christianity. This involved various activities, among them the sending and exchange of texts, believers travelling for trans-local promotion of their views (as e.g. the 'men from James' in Gal. 2:11, or Apollo's' travels to Corinth in 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:5–9; 16:12), representatives sent for conferral with believers elsewhere (as depicted, e.g. Acts 15:1–35), or sent to express solidarity with other circles of believers (as e.g. those accompanying the Jerusalem offering in 1 Cor. 16:3–4). After all, travel and communication were comparatively well developed in the Roman world generally, among wealthy and a good many ordinary people, for business, pilgrimage to religious sites/occasions, for health, to consult oracles, for athletic events, sightseeing, and other purposes. 'So', as Richard Bauckham observed, 'the context in which the early Christian movement developed was not conducive to parochialism; quite the opposite.' Indeed, in that world of frequent travel and communication, the early Christians particularly seem to have been given to networking, devoting impressive resources of time, money, and personnel to this, and on a wide translocal scale.
(Hurtado 2013, p. 454)


Given these considerations, contacts with the 'eyewitnesses' and hearing the traditional narratives from them would have taken place naturally, and investigative letters would not have been necessary (cf. Carrier 2009).

That is not quite what Carrier writes. “Accordingly, we have no evidence of any investigative letters being sent by anyone, before or after converting to Christianity, in its first hundred years.”[See: Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn’t Need a Miracle to Succeed. Lulu.com, 2009 p.153]


I looked at the particular Bauckham work cited by Hurtado in that extract from Loke, and noted that Bauckham presents his own speculations.

For the major stage of my argument for the likelihood that Gospels would have been written for general circulation we must turn to a crucial feature of the general character of the early Christian movement. The early Christian movement was not a scattering of isolated, self-sufficient communities with little or no communication between them, but quite the opposite: a network of communities with constant, close communication among themselves. In other words, the social character of early Christianity was such that the idea of writing a Gospel purely for one's own community is unlikely to have occurred to anyone [...] Such a picture of isolated and inward-looking parochialism is both generated by and then serves to reinforce the notion that a Gospel has only a particular community in view. [see “For Whom Were Gospels Written?” in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, Ed, Richard Bauckham, William B. Eerdmans, 1998, p.25]

My response to those comments is “What is the evidence to support such conclusions”? He is making a statement entirely lacking in any supporting evidence that exists outside of the NT texts.

Bauckham then goes on to echo comments made by Lionel Casson in chapters 6 & 7 of his Travel in the Ancient World, George Allen and Unwin, 1974 and refers to the high incidence of travel in the ancient world among peoples of all social strata.

Quite ordinary people travelled to healing shrines, religious festivals, and games. Slaves and servants frequently accompanied their masters on journeys. Runaway slaves, freed slaves returning home, people in search of work, soldiers and sailors and brigands all travelled. Travel was usually by foot and so was cheap. Therefore people quite typical of the members of the early Christian churches regularly travelled. Those who did not, if they lived in the cities, would constantly be meeting people passing through or arriving from elsewhere. So the context in which the early Christian movement developed was not conducive to parochialism; quite the opposite. Frequent contact between the churches scattered across the empire was natural in such a society, but in addition to Christian participation in the ordinary mobility of this society, much communication was deliberately fostered between the churches. [Ibid, p.26.]

While of course travel was commonplace it must be asked was it necessarily so for the members of those early Christians communities in these two decades from 50-70 CE? As you have acknowledged, the early followers of this cult were drawn primarily from the lower orders, including women, and/or slaves.

Given Hurtados’ statement in your citation that “early Christians particularly seem to have been given to networking, devoting impressive resources of time, money, and personnel to this, and on a wide translocal scale” one has to ask how was this implemented? What resources and opportunities would many of these individuals have had access to in order to engage in such extended travelling?

Furthermore, and despite the network of good roads that were, at least in parts, reasonably well policed, long journeys still carried potential risks. We are informed in Acts that Paul experienced various dangers on his peregrinations including shipwreck and the risk of brigands [25.26]. Therefore, how many individuals would have wanted to make arduous journeys, even if they could do so? That does not discount the possibility that there were some intrepid souls who could find the means and were prepared to travel but the number of those inclined to undertake such ventures must remain always questionable and Bauckham provides no solid evidence in support of what appears to be little more than his own speculative opinion.

Furthermore, after 70 CE any member of a clandestine cult [regarded with hostility and deep suspicion owing to its known Jewish antecedents] who was travelling around the eastern empire meeting other like-minded individuals, often in secret, might find their situation even more precarious. Local magistrates were highly suspicious of such activities.

We should also remember that this new cult of Christianity was one among many other belief systems in the ancient world being disseminated by peripatetic teachers. As Richard Carrier has noted the ancient world hardly lacked for belief in resurrections of various kinds [Carrier ibid. pp77 -81]. Nor did the ancient world lack for respected and established religions, along with individuals promulgating their own new varieties. The satire The Passing of Peregrinus by Lucian of Samosata [c 125 –after 180 CE] mocks the credulity of kindly and rather gullible early Christians.

And again, Richard Carrier;

one thing should be apparent: the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety.[See Carrier, “Kooks and Cranks of the Roman Empire: A Look Into the World of the Gospels” https://infidels.org/library/modern/...ier/kooks.html

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

PART TWO

I would also take issue with Loke’s comment on the Corinthian community and their attitude to Paul’s letters [p.55] “In that case, Paul’s letters would have been discarded, rather than kept as divinely authoritative writings by the Corinthian Christians”. There is no evidence in any of the letters deemed authentic to Paul that he regarded any of his writing to various congregations as “divinely authoritative”. That notion was formulated by other people and at a much later period in the development of the religion and its canon of Scripture.

One also has to wonder why, if as Hurtado [and indeed others contend [see Michael B Thompson’s essay in Bauckham’s The Gospels for All Christians, “The Holy Internet Communication between Churches in the First Generation Christians”] this cult, despite engaging in “communication” and “networking”, was beset with internal dissention from the outset. In Paul’s authentic letters we see his antagonism and degree of contempt towards the Jerusalem Movement [i.e. those Messianic Jewish members of Jesus’ own group] and those who are “in opposition to the teaching that you have learned” [Romans 16.17-19]. We also know that only a matter of decades after his disappearance from history [the 60s CE] that there were various conflicting ideas within this fledgling cult such as those of Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides.

It is therefore quite apparent that the consensus that Bauckham and Hurtado wish to present with regard to “networking” and “communities with constant, close communication” is not really borne out by what we know of events seventy years or so after 50 CE.

Moving to later scholarship; after WW1 the translations of the Mandaean texts were published.

Rudolf Bultmann discovered in these texts examples of a possibly pre-Christian Gnosticism; they later assisted him to reconstruct Gnostic sources as the basis of the revelation speeches in the Gospel of John. The primary impetus of these Mandaean texts, however, was a new departure for the study of possible Gnostic influences on early Christian writings. Gnosticism was thus seen for the first time as a possible “heresy” already in the first century rather than as a second-century aberration from early Christianity” [My emphasis https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psco/year...ster-bauer.pdf

In his Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, [1934] Bauer contended that in what came to be known in the ecclesiastical tradition as "heresy" was in fact the original manifestation of Christianity. For example, according to Bauer, the major figures in earliest Christianity at Edessa were the "heretics" Marcion, Bar Daisan, and Mani. In Egypt a gnostic form of Christianity appears to have been dominant before A.D. 200, and in Asia Minor "orthodox" leaders such as Ignatius and Polycarp waged only moderately success battles against gnosticism and judaising”. [See Daniel J Harrington, “The Reception of Walter Bauer's "Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity" during the Last Decade”. The Harvard Theological Review. 73. (1980) 289-298

It is clearly apparent that there was no accepted “orthodoxy” or indeed a consensus of belief within this Christian cult in its early decades.

With regard to the survival of particular Christian texts Moses Hadas and Morton Smith in their work Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity, [1965, Harper and Row] also made the point that almost all we know about Jesus is via the four canonical gospels that were accepted and handed down by the party that eventually gained overall dominance within the early Christian movement. However, those four gospels were by no means the only works written in the first and second centuries as extant Christian Apocrypha make clear. It is therefore highly probable that other such works existed that have now been lost and are therefore unknown. Furthermore, given the fragility of papyrus if regularly handled, the surviving Christian texts [including those in the Apocrypha] are those that were accepted by their relevant communities and then copied and recopied by particular parties. [See Morton Smith, “The Introduction to the Gospel According to Luke” pp.161-162.]

In chapter two of Loke the following section again raises serious questions.

Bauckham observes that the commonsensical idea of ‘checking out’ these important ‘eyewitnesses’ is implicit in 1 Corinthians, a letter which was intended for public reading in the churches. Paul is in effect saying in 1
Corinthians 15:6, ‘If anyone wants to check this tradition, a very large number of the eyewitnesses are still alive and can be seen and heard’ (Bauckham 2006, p. 308). Given the early date of 1 Corinthians 15:3–11, the Corinthians could check with the eyewitnesses of Jesus, the eyewitnesses of the author of 1 Corinthians, and even with the author (Paul) himself about what he preached to find out whether the message had been distorted or whether there were indeed ‘more than five hundred brethren’ who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus at once.p.50-51

Why is it assumed that the members of the Corinth sect could attempt to verify these individuals or the alleged event? These were generally people of primarily low status and limited financial means. Corinth is over 1300 km from Jerusalem and the journey would have included a sea voyage. There was no Skype or Zoom available despite the “networking” of the “Holy Internet”.

Furthermore, what was this “tradition? Paul was preaching his own ideas. These theological speculations were all quite new. That “tradition” would have been Judaism which Paul had completely rejected.

And finally, nor can we ever ignore the possibility that Paul imagined [invented] the entire incident in I Corinthians 15.3-12 in order to give himself and his new religion some kudos and authority. Despite the rather obsequious language in verses.7-9, the reality was that here was a man establishing a new cult with himself as that cult’s leader. Furthermore, the very basis of his soteriological belief was the resurrection. He therefore needed the “witnesses” of those other individuals to give his account some status and weight. Nor, it should be noted, have any of those other individuals left us their records of what they allegedly witnessed.

I also found the section on miracles rather partisan, despite references to Hume and Hawking. How does one define a miracle? It could be postulated that to a less technologically advanced community of people, an anti-biotic injection is a miracle, preventing what their experience would have shown them was the likely [inevitable?] outcome of blood poisoning. Nor should it be forgotten that a belief in magic and miracles underpinned the ancient world in both the Graeco-Roman and Jewish spheres and formed part of the contemporary socio-religious context. For a comprehensive survey of this subject see Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. Vol 2. Ancient Greece and Rome. Eds. Flint, Gorden, Luck & Ogden. The Athlone Press, London, 1999.

I have not had time to read Loke from cover to cover but I have examined certain sections and while I appreciate his academic credentials it is clearly evident from his own comments [and those of others he cites] that he is looking at these events through the lens of his own particular theological perceptions and not as an impartial and enquiring historian.

EDITED TO ADD: You will just have to live with my formatting I am afraid!

[rogue06]

With regard to your enthusiasm for Loke’s work I find it rather unusual to use one source to justify your opinions [re your remark “will be citing from it extensively in the future“]. Loke has his own interpretations of these texts but they remain solely his personal interpretations. They are not established facts.

Dear Lord, back to a wall of coding instructions with a few words between them

Of course it is his opinion just like it is the opinion for every scholar who defends or attacks a position.

Sort of like how this is an opinion

Contrary to your assumptions and theological beliefs the first century Galilean Jew we know as Jesus of Nazareth never founded any "new" religion. Nor was Paul his most prominent proselytiser of that "new" faith. As a Jew Jesus of Nazareth, merely sought to play an accepted role within the Judaism of his day.

Christianity was created by Paul as a separate cult that was premised on his own soteriological beliefs. He achieved this by merging existing Judaic and Hellenistic concepts into a powerful and all embracing system, this being, by its nature, both intelligible and acceptable to contemporary Graeco-Roman society.

that is nothing but opinion supported with not one scrap of evidence and yet one highly questionable assertion after another is presented as indisputable fact.

Compare the above, with Loke's well-researched, referenced and supported work and you will quickly see why some "opinions" are worth far more than others.

And yes I'm enjoying Loke. It is in effect "one stop shopping" in that he is so meticulous and covers the latest research by folks like Michael Licona and Gary Habermas. Moreover, while I'm old school in my preference for actual books (mine are typically dog-eared with copious notes added to the margins) there is something to be said for being able to find something using "find" and being able to copy pasta something than tediously write it out by hand.



I'll get to the actual "meat" of your posts (that is if you have finally decided to provide some for a change) later this weekend.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Dear Lord, back to a wall of coding instructions with a few words between them

Quite a lot words actually and not just mine.

Of course it is his opinion just like it is the opinion for every scholar who defends or attacks a position.

To rely solely on Loke leaves you with a rather blinkered viewpoint.

Sort of like how this is an opinion

Contrary to your assumptions and theological beliefs the first century Galilean Jew we know as Jesus of Nazareth never founded any "new" religion. Nor was Paul his most prominent proselytiser of that "new" faith. As a Jew Jesus of Nazareth, merely sought to play an accepted role within the Judaism of his day.

Christianity was created by Paul as a separate cult that was premised on his own soteriological beliefs. He achieved this by merging existing Judaic and Hellenistic concepts into a powerful and all embracing system, this being, by its nature, both intelligible and acceptable to contemporary Graeco-Roman society.

that is nothing but opinion supported with not one scrap of evidence and yet one highly questionable assertion after another is presented as indisputable fact.

In point of fact we have evidence of other known of Jewish Messianic claimants from the late first century BCE and the first century CE. Jesus of Nazareth was not the only man ever acclaimed as the Jewish Messiah over that period. Nor is the Jewish Messiah an anthropomorphic deity. He will be a man selected by the Almighty.

That Paul founded a new religion is widely accepted. What Paul was propounding was not the Palestinian Judaism as practised by Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples. It was something totally new that was acceptable and intelligible to the Graeco-Roman world. His was an esoteric soteriological cult. That is not Judaism. That is Paulinism.

Compare the above, with Loke's well-researched, referenced and supported work and you will quickly see why some "opinions" are worth far more than others.

I was not writing a book. I made an initial comment that could be expanded upon at much greater length, if necessary.

And yes I'm enjoying Loke. It is in effect "one stop shopping" in that he is so meticulous and covers the latest research by folks like Michael Licona and Gary Habermas.

All of whom are theologians with their own particular theological perceptions. They are not impartial historians.

Moreover, while I'm old school in my preference for actual books (mine are typically dog-eared with copious notes added to the margins)

Is that an attempt to impress? I might ask why you never bother to provide detailed citations [or even simply the page numbers and/or chapter headings] from these works you have to hand.

I'll get to the actual "meat" of your posts (that is if you have finally decided to provide some for a change) later this weekend.

Until you actually read my two posts you will not know what observations I have made and what sources I have cited, will you?

Do so and come to back to me.

[rogue06]

Quite a lot words actually and not just mine.

That doesn't excuse all of the coding. This isn't an issue for virtually everyone else.

To rely solely on Loke leaves you with a rather blinkered viewpoint.

Who said that I would only rely on his view? His book makes for an excellent starting off point but I'll still rely on my books by Licona and other sources as well.

Moreover, this is kind of ironic given how you use Carrier like a crutch, citing him over and over in your "Part One" post

In point of fact we have evidence of other known of Jewish Messianic claimants from the late first century BCE and the first century CE. Jesus of Nazareth was not the only man ever acclaimed as the Jewish Messiah over that period.

But He was the only one resurrected which kind of puts a seal of authenticity on His claim.

That Paul founded a new religion is widely accepted. What Paul was propounding was not the Palestinian Judaism as practised by Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples. It was something totally new that was acceptable and intelligible to the Graeco-Roman world. His was an esoteric soteriological cult. That is not Judaism. That is Paulinism.

Everyone please note how H_A exempts herself yet again from demands that folks provides names of those who said something, what book can it be found in, what page is it on (and in one case the edition of the book as well). Just naked assertion.

What a hypocrite.

I was not writing a book. I made an initial comment that could be expanded upon at much greater length, if necessary.

Funny that you did not expand on it but instead merely repeated uncorroborated statements that are very controversial to say the least as indisputable fact.

And guess what. Nobody here is "writing a book" either when they post, so you can drop the games you keep trying to play.

All of whom are theologians with their own particular theological perceptions. They are not impartial historians.

Arrogantly flaunting your ignorance yet again?

Again, from the very first page of the most cursory of searches:

From Wikiedia:

Gary Robert Habermas (born 1950) is an American historian and New Testament scholar...

From RationalWiki (hardly a sympathetic source):

Gary Habermas (1950–) is an American Christian apologist, historian, author, philosopher...

From ChristianPost.com:

Speaking at the Southern Evangelical Seminary's annual National Conference on Christian Apologetics, Christian philosopher and historian Gary Habermas shared historical facts that a vast majority of scholars, including even skeptics, do not dispute

It appears that at least in the case of Habermas, he is more of an historian than you are.

Btw, has it finally dawned on you that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies and not history books, and what that means?

Is that an attempt to impress?

Do you really think everyone is so anxious to impress you? Why would anyone ever bother?

I might ask why you never bother to provide detailed citations [or even simply the page numbers and/or chapter headings] from these works you have to hand.

As someone recently said, "I was not writing a book."

And here, even when you got called out on your double standard of demanding detailed citations while providing absolutely none for one of your assertions, how did you respond? With quotes and citations?

Not. Even. Close.

You merely repeated the same claims again free of any corroboration or citation.

Are you familiar with Matthew 7:3 oh Frau Heuchler?

Until you actually read my two posts you will not know what observations I have made and what sources I have cited, will you?

Do so and come to back to me.

I'll be dissecting those hot messes likely tomorrow.

[rogue06]

If you would drop all the superfluous coding instructions your two posts could have easily fit into one.

With regard to your enthusiasm for Loke’s work I find it rather unusual to use one source to justify your opinions [re your remark "will be citing from it extensively in the future". Loke has his own interpretations of these texts but they remain solely his personal interpretations. They are not established facts.

I've already addressed this is in post #126, but I'll reiterate that this is amusing coming from someone who relies so heavily on Carrier.

It needs to be remembered that all we have are these texts as they have come down to us and everything else regardless of scholarly competence is interpretation. Furthermore it must always be borne in mind that an interpretation may be wrong.

Actually we also have works such as the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, I II Clement, the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp and a few others, that while not canonical are considered orthodox and provide us with a great deal of information and context.

Further, your declaration here is just as true about any event in the past after those who lived through it are no longer around. So if you thought this was some clever way to disparage Loke or examining the Resurrection, well congratulations, you just disparaged all of history.

The fact remains that we have no extraneous contemporary corroborative evidence to support the internal narratives we find in these texts. Yes they reference real people and real places but then so does a wealth of fiction. Again, please note that I accept that a first century Jewish Galilean peasant holy man did exist but how far he resembled the depictions found in the canonical gospels is highly questionable.

In one post you'll acknowledge that the vast majority of ancient writings are lost to us but in another declare a lack of contemporaneous writings is evidence against "the internal narratives we find in these texts." You have absolutely no consistency.

For instance, the earliest mention we have for Hannibal, you know, the Carthaginian general who took elephants through the Alps to invade Italy where he utterly annihilated a couple Roman armies, comes from Polybius over a half a century after Hannibal's death. I mean, there had to be an awful lot of ink spilled about him, not just while he was active but for the next generation or so, and yet nothing for something like 50-60 years in spite of the fact that we should have a virtual library full of contemporary references and allusions to him.

And yet not having anything for half a century is perfectly understandable, but not having numerous references to Jesus -- who you've said had little impact during His lifetime -- is inexcusable.

Moreover, we do have Paul's letter, I Corinthians, which is typically dated as from 50 to 60A.D., which contains an earlier creed at 15:3-5, which as Gerald G. O’Collins states in his What Are They Saying about the Resurrection?, no scholar dates to after the mid 40s (see also Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony). And he records other extremely early pre-Pauline creedal statements in some of his other epistles (such as in Romans 1 as well as in I Thess. 4:14). IOW, we have references that date back to 10-15 years after Jesus' death, which is rather remarkable given the scarcity of written records from that time.

Looking through Loke's text as well as one or two of the works he cites by Hurtado and Bauckham I cannot help but be aware that all three are bringing their own theological preconceptions into their writings.

And folks who you champion like Carrier don't? Just when I start to think that you couldn't be any bigger of a hypocrite...

Of course everyone brings their own prejudices into any discussion of historical or religious matters. What matters is the level of scholarship and Loke's work is, which is, as AP described it in his review, "thorough." It is almost exhaustive.

There also appears to be a tendency to present speculative conjecture as if it were acknowledged certainty.

And the hypocrisy continues to get deeper still.

I can't help but notice that these are extremely generalized remarks, without even a hint of specificity. You don't provide even one example of "their own theological preconceptions into their writings" or "present speculative conjecture as if it were acknowledged certainty." Strange coming from someone who repeatedly demands such things from others. In fact those are just the sort of generic comments to be expected from someone merely providing their assumptions without actually reading any of it.

With regard to your citation:

Take a look at the drek posters have to deal with when responding to you:

606f7dbf-dc51-4764-905f-184ad004fc1e.jpg

This was from something you simply had to copy and paste from my post. There is no need to add all of this superfluous coding.

And I strongly suspect this was the only thing from Loke's book you actually read and only because I provided it.

That is not quite what Carrier writes. "Accordingly, we have no evidence of any investigative letters being sent by anyone, before or after converting to Christianity, in its first hundred years."[See: Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn’t Need a Miracle to Succeed.[/COLOR] Lulu.com, 2009 [COLOR=black]p.153]

After he points out why, which leads into Loke's point.

I looked at the particular Bauckham work cited by Hurtado in that extract from Loke, and noted that Bauckham presents his own speculations.

While you and Carrier only present unvarnished facts.

For the major stage of my argument for the likelihood that Gospels would have been written for general circulation we must turn to a crucial feature of the general character of the early Christian movement. The early Christian movement was not a scattering of isolated, self-sufficient communities with little or no communication between them, but quite the opposite: a network of communities with constant, close communication among themselves. In other words, the social character of early Christianity was such that the idea of writing a Gospel purely for one's own community is unlikely to have occurred to anyone [...] Such a picture of isolated and inward-looking parochialism is both generated by and then serves to reinforce the notion that a Gospel has only a particular community in view. [see “For Whom Were Gospels Written?” in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, Ed, Richard Bauckham, William B. Eerdmans, 1998, p.25]

My response to those comments is "What is the evidence to support such conclusions"? He is making a statement entirely lacking in any supporting evidence that exists outside of the NT texts.

Unintended irony is always the best.

From the opening sentence it is clear that Bauckham is making an opening declaration which he intends to support. Moreover, given the number of different sources in the New Testament that do cover the issue of travel and communication between Christian communities (Acts, Corinthians, Galatians etc.), if that were indeed the whole of the evidence in support of it then it is more than sufficient to verify it.

The fact is that early Christians were quite mobile, and Jewish Christians in particular would have travelled yearly to Jerusalem for festivals making communication between communities fairly frequent.

Bauckham then goes on to echo comments made by Lionel Casson in chapters 6 & 7 of his Travel in the Ancient World, George Allen and Unwin, 1974 and refers to the high incidence of travel in the ancient world among peoples of all social strata.

Quite ordinary people travelled to healing shrines, religious festivals, and games. Slaves and servants frequently accompanied their masters on journeys. Runaway slaves, freed slaves returning home, people in search of work, soldiers and sailors and brigands all travelled. Travel was usually by foot and so was cheap. Therefore people quite typical of the members of the early Christian churches regularly travelled. Those who did not, if they lived in the cities, would constantly be meeting people passing through or arriving from elsewhere. So the context in which the early Christian movement developed was not conducive to parochialism; quite the opposite. Frequent contact between the churches scattered across the empire was natural in such a society, but in addition to Christian participation in the ordinary mobility of this society, much communication was deliberately fostered between the churches. [Ibid, p.26.]

While of course travel was commonplace it must be asked was it necessarily so for the members of those early Christians communities in these two decades from 50-70 CE? As you have acknowledged, the early followers of this cult were drawn primarily from the lower orders, including women, and/or slaves.

Actually that is Hurtado not Baukham.

And while the majority of Christians came from the lower classes, not all did. Moreover, it is clear that Paul and the other apostles didn't have too much trouble traveling.

Given Hurtados’ statement in your citation that “early Christians particularly seem to have been given to networking, devoting impressive resources of time, money, and personnel to this, and on a wide translocal scale” one has to ask how was this implemented? What resources and opportunities would many of these individuals have had access to in order to engage in such extended travelling?

While an interesting question, for all intents and purposes here, not relevant given all of the evidence that they did indeed travel throughout the Empire spreading the Gospel message.

Furthermore, and despite the network of good roads that were, at least in parts, reasonably well policed, long journeys still carried potential risks. We are informed in Acts that Paul experienced various dangers on his peregrinations including shipwreck and the risk of brigands [25.26]. Therefore, how many individuals would have wanted to make arduous journeys, even if they could do so? That does not discount the possibility that there were some intrepid souls who could find the means and were prepared to travel but the number of those inclined to undertake such ventures must remain always questionable and Bauckham provides no solid evidence in support of what appears to be little more than his own speculative opinion.

Indeed. Jesus even told his disciples to get a sword for when they travel, likely due to the danger of bandits and the like.

But you're like someone who lists all of the challenges that Columbus faced when he set forth in 1492 and implying it couldn't be done because of all those challenges while conveniently skipping over the fact that it was done.

Furthermore, after 70 CE any member of a clandestine cult [regarded with hostility and deep suspicion owing to its known Jewish antecedents] who was travelling around the eastern empire meeting other like-minded individuals, often in secret, might find their situation even more precarious. Local magistrates were highly suspicious of such activities.

Again. You seem to be implying that travel for early Christians would have been all but impossible while ignoring the fact that it was done. And quite frequently. Unless you care to speculate that various communities just magically appeared over the course of the next century, stretching from Spain to India.

We should also remember that this new cult of Christianity was one among many other belief systems in the ancient world being disseminated by peripatetic teachers.

First you claim that Christians didn't travel due to a host of difficulties and now you say they did. Make up your mind.

As Richard Carrier has noted

So is this where I sneer how Carrier "has his own interpretations of these texts but they remain solely his personal interpretations"? And how he interjects his own "theological preconceptions into their writings" as well as "present speculative conjecture as if it were acknowledged certainty"? I just want to make sure I do this right.

the ancient world hardly lacked for belief in resurrections of various kinds [Carrier ibid. pp77 -81]. Nor did the ancient world lack for respected and established religions, along with individuals promulgating their own new varieties. The satire The Passing of Peregrinus by Lucian of Samosata [c 125 –after 180 CE] mocks the credulity of kindly and rather gullible early Christians.

Carrier looks to be engaging in a form of what Samuel Sandmel called "parallelomania," which is when someone tends to perceive apparent similarities and thus construct parallels and analogies without historical basis -- something other NT scholars have become increasingly wary of (see The Hidden Story of Jesus by Gerald G. O’Collins).

Now, for my first citation from Loke in this post. He cites an example and explanation provided by McDowell and McDowell in their Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth For a Skeptical World

What if we told you about a British ocean liner that was about eight hundred feet long, weighed more than sixty thousand tons, and could carry about three thousand passengers? The ship had a top cruising speed of twenty-four knots, had three propellers, and about twenty lifeboats. What if I told you that this ocean liner hit an iceberg on its maiden voyage in the month of April, tearing an opening in the starboard side, forward portion of the ship, sinking it along with about two thousand passengers? Would you recognize the event from history? You might say, 'Hey, that’s the Titanic!' Well, believe it or not, you would be wrong. It’s the Titan, a fictional ship described in Morgan Robertson’s 1898 book called The Wreck of the Titan: or Futility. This book was written fourteen years before the disaster took place, and several years before construction began on the Titanic! (Robertson, WT, website). Here is the point: just as the fictional account of the Titan does not undermine the reality of the sinking of the Titanic, fictional accounts of dying and rising gods would not undermine the historical reality of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The presence of parallels alone proves nothing about borrowing or the historicity of Jesus.

(McDowell and McDowell 2017, p. 311)

Another interesting factoid, is that many of the things that we used to think that Christians co-opted from other religions around at the time are now being shown to be the reverse. That pagan's were at least as often borrowing things from Christianity. The whole Christmas was a pagan holiday immediately comes to mind.

And again, Richard Carrier;

Again, he is providing nothing more than "his personal interpretations" interjecting his own "theological preconceptions into their writings" and "present[ing] speculative conjecture as if it were acknowledged certainty."

Did I do that right?

one thing should be apparent: the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety.[See Carrier, “Kooks and Cranks of the Roman Empire: A Look Into the World of the Gospels” https://infidels.org/library/modern/...ier/kooks.html

[/FONT][/SIZE]

Again 15 different coding commands in just that wee bit when all that was needed were the "box" and "url" commands.

And nice scholarly source there.

I'll note that every "era [is] filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause" so that is hardly anything new. Perhaps he can next astound us by declaring that water is wet.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That doesn't excuse all of the coding. This isn't an issue for virtually everyone else.

I have often found coding in replies from other people.

Who said that I would only rely on his view? His book makes for an excellent starting off point but I'll still rely on my books by Licona and other sources as well.

I ask again if you have such an extensive library in your own home, why do you never quote titles and/or chapters/page numbers from these "other sources" you have to hand? Why do you always use quotes from various authors that may be found freely available on the internet?

Moreover, this is kind of ironic given how you use Carrier like a crutch, citing him over and over in your "Part One" post

I referenced precisely the same work by Carrier that Loke referenced, and I also included a short passage from an online essay by Carrier. Perhaps Loke was also using "Carrier like a crutch".

I also cited Bauckham's work that was referenced by Loke and even mentioned a chapter in that work, edited by Bauckham, which was written by Thompson. Do you think I am also using those authors as a "crutch"?

But He was the only one resurrected which kind of puts a seal of authenticity on His claim.

That is a theological belief. It is not an attested historical event.

Do you really think everyone is so anxious to impress you? Why would anyone ever bother?

Oh I think you are very eager to impress your coterie of friends and admirers.

Btw, has it finally dawned on you that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies

Why do you present interpretation and opinion as if it is attested fact?

Again, from the very first page of the most cursory of searches:

With regard to Haberman's writings he brings no objective and dispassionate inquiry into his works. He. like various other evangelical theologians looks at the historical events of the first century through the lens of his own theological preconceptions. Other academics who have religious beliefs of varying degrees are able to differentiate between those beliefs and their inquiries.

I'd also ask how many freethinkers, rationalists, or religious sceptics are on the academic staff at Liberty University. I suspect there are none.

Everyone please note how H_A exempts herself yet again from demands that folks provides names of those who said something, what book can it be found in, what page is it on (and in one case the edition of the book as well). Just naked assertion.

What a hypocrite

Please do make your mind up. When I do not provide citations you get cross and when I give detailed citations I am accused of playing games.

Here, as demanded, are some works that examine Paul's influence and beliefs. You may peruse them at your leisure, although you may need to access a reference library! If you want detailed citations I am happy to oblige.

Geza Vermes, Christian Beginnings. From Nazareth to Nicaea. Yale University Press, 2012

Gerd Lüdemann, Paul the Founder of Christianity, Prometheus Books, 2002

David Wenham, Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? William B. Eerdmans, 1995

Hyam Maccoby:

Paul and Hellenism, Trinity Press International, 1991
Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Barnes & Noble, 1986

S. G. F. Brandon:

"Saint Paul the Problem Figure of Primitive Christianity" in, Religion in Ancient History: Studies in Ideas, Men, and Belief. George Allen and Unwin, 1973
Jesus and the Zealots: A Study in the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity, University of Manchester Press, 1969

Entries on Paul may be found in:

Evans, C.A. The Routledge Encyclopaedia of the Historical Jesus, Routledge, New York & London, 2010
Cross, F.L. and Livingston, E. A. [eds]. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 1997

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

rogue06 Edited: I should add that I am "happy to oblige within reason". I am not typing out entire chapters from any of those works [or others]. If you want that, you can obtain the works and read them for yourself.

[One Bad Pig]

Photius’ Bibliotheca is referenced in J.H. Freese, Library of Photius, Vol 7. MacMillan 1920. p.29.

Thanks. I tracked down Photius' entry on Justus.

With regard to Caesarea Maritima being the Roman provincial capital of Judaea:

Herod the Great's port of Caesarea was chosen as the Roman administrative capital and military headquarters and his palace there was taken over as the governor's residence. This city was more convenient than Jerusalem for sea communication with Rome, while at the same time within easy reach of the capital, and, being furnished with Greco-Roman cultural amenities, it had an atmosphere more congenial to Roman officials than Jerusalem. [E. Mary Smallwood The Jews under Roman Rule From Pompey to Diocletian. 1975. Brill. pp. 145-146.]

If you had actually bothered to read my earlier reply you would find that I gave a full citation for Paul Winter. His paper is entitled “A Letter from Pontius Pilate” and appears in Novum Testamentum, Mar., 1964, Vol 7. pp.37-43, Brill.

Which is nice and all that, but doesn't provide exact page numbers for what you wrote here, though you've demanded that of rogue06.

You are free to access and read these sources should you wish to do so, although you may need to avail yourself of a well stocked reference library.

We have a program here called "Inter-Library Loan" which gives access, often free, to books from around the world. I don't have the budget to acquire many books from Brill, and my personal library is rather haphazard. I tend to put books on my Amazon wish list, and only buy them when I can snag a used copy on the cheap.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Which is nice and all that, but doesn't provide exact page numbers for what you wrote here, though you've demanded that of rogue06.

Do you not understand the meaning of pp.145-146 and pp.37-43?

It means that if you find E Mary Smallwood's book as published by Brill you will find that quote appearing at the end of page 145 and continuing on to page 146. Likewise if you access Vol 7 of Novum Testamentum, from March 1964 you will find Paul Winter's paper on pages 37-43,

It's really very elementary.

We have a program here called "Inter-Library Loan" which gives access, often free, to books from around the world.

I think you will find that is a standard library practise in many countries. And of course university staff can access other university libraries and electronic sites very easily. It is a regular procedure.

I don't have the budget to acquire many books from Brill, and my personal library is rather haphazard.

I do and mine isn't.

I tend to put books on my Amazon wish list, and only buy them when I can snag a used copy on the cheap.

There is nothing wrong in acquiring good second hand copies. I have plenty of my own. Not to mention finding a "bargain" in a remainder section now and again.

Edited to add: I have been accused of playing games when I give detailed citations.

Hence I offered rogue06 such information [within reason] if he required it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

but I'll reiterate that this is amusing coming from someone who relies so heavily on Carrier.

Please do not make things up. It adds nothing to your credibility. I also provided other [and longer] citations and references from several other sources.

Actually we also have works such as the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, I II Clement, the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp and a few others, that while not canonical are considered orthodox and provide us with a great deal of information and context.

These are all pastoral works. They tell us nothing about the man Jesus of Nazareth. They are all from a later Christian perspective and reflect the teachings of their various early Christian communities and/or individuals.

As to your usual canard about other people from ancient history we have a wealth of other corroborative evidence for individuals such as Julius Caesar and Hannibal apart from the literary sources.

We have nothing about this first century Galilean Jew outside of later Christian writings. No contemporary accounts [i.e. from pre 40 CE] mention him. And why would they? Another messianic agitator in a minor province was of little interest to anyone.

And yet not having anything for half a century is perfectly understandable, but not having numerous references to Jesus -- who you've said had little impact during His lifetime -- is inexcusable.

Apart from the Testimonia Flaviana in Josephus [one of which is highly contentious] there is no mention in any near contemporary non Christian sources. Our other non-Christian references are not about a man called Jesus but refer to the followers of this new cult. Those sources are Pliny the Younger’s letters to Trajan, Suetonius’ reference to “Chrestus” [who may have been a completely different character] and the section in Tacitus’ Annals [XV.44]. That latter has been questioned as to its complete authenticity.

Moreover, we do have Paul's letter, I Corinthians, which is typically dated as from 50 to 60A.D.

Yes but he is in the process of creating a new religious cult. As for these other alleged pre-Pauline sources, the short answer is we have no evidence of them. The later sectaries known as Ebionites may, or not have been, a lineal descendant of the early followers of Jesus of Nazareth. This group was persecuted as heretics by the then dominant Christian group.

Nothing from the Jerusalem Movement i.e. those men who followed a Galilean ascetic Jewish teacher we know as Jesus of Nazareth has come down to us. The cataclysmic events of 66-70 CE saw to that.

There is also a tendency to speculate that some gospel writers e.g. Luke were accessing earlier pre-Pauline sources. We can never actually know if that is indeed correct until any such written evidence is in fact discovered.

BTW what specific evidence is O’Collins presenting in support of his contentions regarding these “ extremely early pre-Pauline creedal statements”?

You would also do well to stop exaggerating. I am no more championing Carrier than is Loke. However, Carrier is a reputable academic. I do not agree with all of his theories however, just as I do not agree with all of Bart D. Ehrman’s, or indeed those of some other individuals.

Of course everyone brings their own prejudices into any discussion of historical or religious matters. What matters is the level of scholarship and Loke's work is, which is, as AP described it in his review, "thorough." It is almost exhaustive.

It is nowhere near “almost exhaustive”. Two hundred plus pages hardly constitutes an “exhaustive” study. A study constituting two or three volumes could be described as such, but not a work of less than 300 pages.

All you and I can do is read these later works by various academics, consider their interpretations and opinions, assess the ancient sources [as we have them] and form our own conclusions about this first century Galilean Jew.

All our conclusions will be premised on what is known about Jewish Messianism and Messianic claimants from the late first century BCE and through the first century CE [indeed even up to Bar Kochba in the early second century CE]. We also need to consider the known political, social, and religious situation in Judaea in the first forty years of the first century; the various different “philosophies” [to cite Josephus] of Judaism that existed at that time, and what constituted Second Temple Judaism.

We must then consider the Hellenistic influences on Judaism over the previous two hundred years or so, the prevalence of various Hellenistic and other religions that existed in the region, and assess what we can deduce regarding the possible background of the man we know as Paul. Who was he? Where did he come from? How did he arrive at his new theology? We can then arrive at our own determination.

It is clear that you believe Paul was the chief proselytiser of a new religion founded by this man you know as Jesus of Nazareth.

However, based on the available evidence [including all the above] I do not. I see the real man behind the gospels’ depictions of Jesus in an entirely different light.

And I strongly suspect this was the only thing from Loke's book you actually read and only because I provided it.

Given that I referred to his section on miracles and other pages in his work you either did not read what I wrote or are being wilfully mendacious.

While you and Carrier only present unvarnished facts

Carrier offers his opinions and interpretations and they are as valid as those of Loke or Habermas. Furthermore, like Loke and Habermas, Carrier is a reputable academic. That you do not agree with his opinions and interpretations is another matter entirely.

The fact is that early Christians were quite mobile, and Jewish Christians in particular would have travelled yearly to Jerusalem for festivals making communication between communities fairly frequent.

Why would Pauline Christians be travelling to Jerusalem for major Jewish festivals? Paul had rejected Judaism and so had his adherents.

Actually that is Hurtado not Baukham.

No it is not. It is from page 26 of Bauckham’s The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, as I stated. Hurtado may have cited it in one of his works, but it comes from Bauckham.

And while the majority of Christians came from the lower classes, not all did.

In the 50s-60s CE most of these people would have been from the lower social orders. These congregations met in private houses, and in secret, possibly at night, thereby possibly incurring the suspicion of the authorities. You should bear in mind the fact that only elected Roman magistrates were authorised to organise meetings.

Moreover, it is clear that Paul and the other apostles didn't have too much trouble traveling.

Well from that statement I am led to wonder if you have actually read Acts.

In that narrative Paul has a remarkable amount of "trouble". He receives death threats from “the Jews”, he is driven out of Antioch by “the Jews”. In Iconium the Gentiles have their minds poisoned against him by “the Jews” and he narrowly avoids a stoning. In Lystra he ends up actually being stoned by “the Jews” from Antioch. In Philippi he is arrested, beaten with rods, and thrown in jail, and he later survives a shipwreck. He makes reference to some of those experiences in II Corinthians 11.24-28.

On what specific evidence did the other apostles not have “too much trouble traveling”[sic]”? You make these speculative remarks and expect them to be accepted unquestioningly as veracious.

While an interesting question, for all intents and purposes here, not relevant given all of the evidence that they did indeed travel throughout the Empire spreading the Gospel message.

Where are Peter’s autographed and dated personal accounts of his travels? Where are those of James? Or indeed any of the others?

Indeed. Jesus even told his disciples to get a sword for when they travel, likely due to the danger of bandits and the like.

The reference to buying swords comes from Luke 22.35-38 and is just before the arrest, where two swords are produced and Jesus replies “It is enough”. Were they all planning on leaving to start their missionary work that evening? If so it completely contradicts what Jesus tells his disciples in Matthew 10.8-10.

In point of fact it seems far more plausible that [in reality] something a little more physical might have been being planned.

The presentation of a pacific Jesus in the four canonical gospels is a later [post 70 CE] depiction of this figure, and for all the necessary contemporary political reasons.

Again. You seem to be implying that travel for early Christians would have been all but impossible

Not “impossible” but was it necessarily likely or feasible for many of them? Read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

First you claim that Christians didn't travel due to a host of difficulties and now you say they did. Make up your mind.

Again you appear to have problems with comprehension. There were numerous characters wandering the roads with their own various beliefs and ideas and Paul and his companions were simply another collection of such peripatetic teachers.

So is this where I sneer how Carrier "has his own interpretations of these texts but they remain solely his personal interpretations"? And how he interjects his own "theological preconceptions into their writings" as well as "present speculative conjecture as if it were acknowledged certainty"?

He is right about the variety of beliefs in the ancient world [including various tales about resurrections] as well as the prevalence of a belief in magic and the supernatural. As I also noted a belief in magic and miracles underpinned the ancient world in both the Graeco-Roman and Jewish spheres and formed part of the contemporary socio-religious context.

Now, for my first citation from Loke in this post. He cites an example and explanation provided by McDowell and McDowell in their Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth For a Skeptical World

What if we told you about a British ocean liner that was about eight hundred feet long, weighed more than sixty thousand tons, and could carry about three thousand passengers? The ship had a top cruising speed of twenty-four knots, had three propellers, and about twenty lifeboats. What if I told you that this ocean liner hit an iceberg on its maiden voyage in the month of April, tearing an opening in the starboard side, forward portion of the ship, sinking it along with about two thousand passengers? Would you recognize the event from history? You might say, 'Hey, that’s the Titanic!' Well, believe it or not, you would be wrong. It’s the Titan, a fictional ship described in Morgan Robertson’s 1898 book called The Wreck of the Titan: or Futility. This book was written fourteen years before the disaster took place, and several years before construction began on the Titanic! (Robertson, WT, website)

And? That work has been widely circulated. I understand that some credulous souls [after 1914] regarded it as a forewarning/portent for the actual event.

The opening pages of E.M. Forster’s The Machine Stops [1909] are also remarkably prescient for some aspects of our own computer age. Then there are some of H.G.Wells’ “predictions”. For example the Martian’s Heat Ray in War of the Worlds [1898] a weapon that had some of the qualities of the much later invention of the laser. Or When the Sleeper Awakes [1899] that has a future of aeroplanes, “babble machines” [television/radio?] and where everything is mechanised and automated. Or Men Like Gods [1923] where, in a future society, people communicate exclusively using wireless systems. Or The World Set Free [1913] where a global atomic war has been fought.

Even in Douglas Adams The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy the book of the same name and which “supplanted the great Encyclopaedia Galactica as the repository of all knowledge and wisdom” presaged the internet which we all can now access via our tablets or smartphones. Although I do not think there is [as yet] a tablet or smartphone with the advice "DON’T PANIC" on its home screen.

Life sometimes can, and does, imitate Art.

Here is the point: just as the fictional account of the Titan does not undermine the reality of the sinking of the Titanic

There is a wealth of extraneous contemporary evidence for the sinking of the Titanic. The wreck has also been discovered. There is nothing outside of Christian texts about the resurrection of Jesus and, unlike the final resting place of the Titanic, we’ve never found his grave.

fictional accounts of dying and rising gods would not undermine the historical reality of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The presence of parallels alone proves nothing about borrowing or the historicity of Jesus.

(McDowell and McDowell 2017, p. 311)

The dying and resurrected god Jesus is as fictional as the other dying and resurrected gods. Why believe one fiction and none of the others?

The whole Christmas was a pagan holiday immediately comes to mind.

All of what you have written in your post on that thread is complete nonsense.

I note that in this reply to me you have concentrated on two small passages from Carrier and totally ignored all the other references and citations I provided. Why is that?

I’d also remark that Infidels.org is no less reputable than your favoured scholarly site of Wikipedia.

So are you going to comment on Harrington, Hadas and Smith, Koester, and indeed Bauer? Or can you not find anything you can use on the web?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Erratum: "I understand that some credulous souls [after 1914] regarded it as a forewarning/portent for the actual event." Should read "I understand that some credulous souls [after 1912] regarded it as a forewarning/portent for the actual event."