Roger Pearse wrote:

Sean McHugh <smchugh@shoal.net.au> wrote in message
news:<406BF7E7.C36F9A86@shoal.net.au>...

Roger Pearse wrote:

<snip>

==================================================================

Roger's question:

I am unclear why the gospels and epistles, all written within the
lifetime of Jesus' disciples, are so dismissed. [Roger]

==================================================================

Hi Roger,

I would suggest the following. They are the reasons that I don't
take the gospels very seriously:

Well, I didn't think this was the point at issue, but rather a
question of dates and documents.

Cannot any document be rubbished in the manner that follows?

Do you mean, "Couldn't any documents be rejected on the basis of the
objections that _previously_ followed?"?. You have snipped many of
them. To answer, if those documents had all those problems, then yes,
they could/should be suspected as not providing historical fact. The
degree of doubt should be proportional to the problems and to the
extraordinariness of the report.

I know that atheists have spent two centuries contriving what used
to be quaintly called 'bible difficulties' but we need not consider
such artefacts seriously. Only a few comments:

"[C]ontriving what used to be called 'bible difficulties'"? Well,
Roger, this is most interesting and needs to be explored. Your
statement implies, that over two centuries, detractors haven't been
able to find any real problems in the Bible. That would presumedly
also cover the matter of gospel 'contradictions', which I included in
my list of problems. I believe that I am able to infer that you are
espousing inerrancy, however, just to be certain . . . .:

Do you maintain that the gospels are without any contradictions?

Do you maintain the Bible to be inerrant?

I believe that those questions are pretty clear and are pertinent,
given your original question and your last comment.

(ii) The gospel stories of the god Jesus borrows elements from the
stories of pagan gods. Even the early Church Father Justin Martyr
(AD. 110-165) tried to justify the Jesus Christ on the grounds that
similar claims are made of other gods (Justin's First Apology).

This misrepresents Justin, I'm afraid!

Don't think so.

The gospels do not borrow pagan material as far as I know. Why
should they?

I'll take that question as, "Why _would_ [as opposed, "should"] the
gospels borrow pagan elements?". I would suggest that it was simply a
case of religious evolution. Christianity was aiming itself at a pagan
society. If you are asking for evidence of this, then the possibly a
good place to start would be Justin's own citing of the similarities
in chapters 21 and 22 of his First Apology.

Paul quotes Menander.

I suspect you mean that Justin quotes Menander, whose mention appears
once at the end of the 20th chapter of Justin's First Apology. Your
argument fails for the following reasons:

First, your proposal would require a quote of two chapters! Second,
after mentioning Menander views favourably, nowhere in the next two
chapters is there any negativity expressed toward Menander or his
views. Actually there is no further mention of Menander. Your
objection would require that even if he were quoting Menander, Justin
was quoting something with which he didn't agree. But Justin said, "we
say the very things which have been said by the comic poet Menander,
and other similar writers. . ". The third reason it fails is that the
beginning of the 20th chapter starts with, "And we also say that . ."
The second person plural identifies Justin and his peers and
independence to any outside views. In fact, it doesn't even require
that Menander, who is no longer mentioned, would agree with what
follows.

I think that this statement makes it perfectly clear that Justin was
not quoting Menander and was not expressing disagreement with the
views that followed:

~ And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God,
~ was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our
~ Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into
~ heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe
~ regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter [Justin Martyr,
~ First Apology, chap 21].

There is plenty more. Anyway, readers can examine chapters 21 and 22
for themselves and see whether what I said is correct, that the early
Church Father Justin was citing parallels between pagan gods and
Jesus, in order to defend the latter. The reader should keep in mind
that it represents a perspective of Christianity that predates the
espousal/promulgation of the gospels by the Church:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm

Roger, I find it astonishing that you would try to pass off Justin's
comments as quoting (in disagreement) Menander. To do so is to defy
language and communication. It is becoming obvious that these chapters
are embarrassing to you.

(v) There were more than just the four NT gospels available for
selection. The NT gospels are just an arbitrary compilation, chosen
on their religious merit.

I refer you to the introduction to M.R.James, Apocryphal New
Testament, (1924) which deals rather well with this idea. It isn't
true.

Thanks for the information but it doesn't constitute an answer.

(viii) Very often the apologist, who will appeal to the gospels as
being historical documents, will at the same time appeal to their
being inerrant due to their being the word of God.

This objection seems very strange to me.

It's a matter of the apologists wanting to have their cake and eat it
too. By deeming them as divinely dictated, the apologists themselves
designate these documents as religious/mystical revelations rather
than history from human eyewitnesses. It's a bit like the homicide
investigators getting their reports from the medium John Edward. This
is probably an unfair argument because the gospels don't declare
themselves to be divinely inspired or inerrant. Only the apologists
make those claims of them.

(ix) The NT gospels are very contradictory, especially in the areas
critical to the main religious tenets.

Not in the opinion of those who consider them critical to their main
religious tenets, so I suggest that we would be wise to take their
word for it, on religious matters.

Thanks, but I suspect that I have examined the matter a lot more than
most believers so I won't be requiring their advice. A contradiction
is a contradiction, period. That the true believer may try to
rationalise it to himself - if he/she is even aware of it - doesn't
make it less so.

Probably the most critical area to Christian believers is the
resurrection. This is also where the biggest contradictions occur in
the gospels. Apologists like to think they can provide reasonable
solutions but they can't. Let ANYONE try to come up with a reasonable
single account of the post-resurrection period from the gospels (and
Acts). It should contain the relevant details from those books.
Actually, that isn't my challenge; it was issued by Dan Barker.

Though it only occupies a tiny area in the gospels, the
post-resurrection becomes an impossible tangle for anyone who tries to
harmonise all the account and create a single chronology.

(x) The synoptic gospels indicate that Jesus' ministry started in
his thirtieth year and lasted about a year. John (the gospel)
indicates that Jesus ministry lasted about three years. The early
Church Father Irenaeus (120-202) tells us that Jesus lived till his
fifties.

No, this is an inference from the text, iirc.

So? What is inferred from text is usually what it says. That's the way
communication works. Anyway, it wasn't only my opinion. In the
introduction to Irenaeus, on "The Master Christian Library" CD, the
commentator takes exception to Iraeaeus' statements regarding Jesus.
I'll quote it for you:

~ But at times he gives expression to very strange opinions. He is,
~ for example, quite peculiar in imagining that our Lord lived to be
~ an old man, and that His public ministry embraced at least ten
~ years.

Don't you find it fascinating, that the closer one gets to Jesus, the
more obscure his history becomes? Justin Martyr, for instance, tells
us that Jesus was born in a cave.

BTW, Iraneus is just as clear as the commentator. I'll save it till
next time - that's if you continue with your denial of what Justin
says.

Keep in mind that these issues presented to us by Irenaeus and
Martyr, were being argued even before we hear of the four gospels
being named.

Irenaeus is the first to list the four gospels by name. Both write
well after composition, of course.

This tells us that the four gospels weren't identified and promulgated
in the Church till about 150 years after the time of Jesus. This is
very significant, for regardless of when the gospels were written -
and they were unduly late - the gospels would have escaped close
scrutiny during the period when objections might be raised regarding
their veracity. By the time the gospels were promulgated, the alleged
eyewitnesses would have been dead twice over. There was the added
obfuscation provided by distance, plus the fact that Jerusalem had
been destroyed over a hundred years earlier and its populace
scattered. By the time the gospels were promulgated, Jerusalem had
been in a historical vacuum for over a century.

Then there remains the question of why the Church would wait so long
to promote these documents. The earlier the gospels' composition, the
more strange and problematic this delay becomes.

(xi) Outside fundamentalism, the gospels are considered to be
anonymous.

I rather doubt this is true. I know some people assert this sort of
thing, but how do you know? I know that some secular NT scholars
also say this, but then this is the sort of thing which explains why
I don't pay any attention to secular NT studies.

I went looking for some real-world stuff to show you, that even in
Christianity (excluding fundamentalism), the gospels are considered to
be anonymous. Then I remembered that I have presented evidence to you
before.

Here is what Mary Rose D'Angelo who teaches New Testament at St.
Thomas Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado. says in the footnotes
of the following "Spirituality Today page":

<http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/843633angelo.html>

~ 1.The authors of the Gospels are anonymous; the traditional names
~ will be used here for convenience, but I shall avoid the pronoun
~ "he" to refer to the authors.

Does a theological seminary sound secular to you? This is by no means
an isolated example. As I said, outside fundamentalism/inerrancy the
gospels are considered to be anonymous.

I presented more to you here:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=8guiy7g&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=3F8C2863.42090126%40shoal.net.au&rnum=1>

The evidence is to the contrary.

Isn't it strange then, that the various theological bodies would
relinquish the comfy notion of having the gospels being written by
eyewitnesses and written by the persons whose book titles bear their
names?

(xii) The first time we hear of any gospels being named, is about
100 years after the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived.

(xiii) The first time we hear of all four gospels being named and
cited is about 150 years after the time of Jesus.

Both points attempt to get us to infer something from the statement.
Why should we infer whatever it is, if the author (is this Earl
Doherty, perhaps?) doesn't feel able to make it? (The reason the
inference is not made explicit is that it is probably unable to
withstand examination).

Good grief man! You are trying to have the reader reject an
unspecified inference (of yours) using an assumption that I am quoting
someone without crediting. Why don't you deal with what IS there? The
point is that the indications are that familiarity with the gospels
came very late. This point is very relevant to the traceability and
historical reliability. Don't you remember the question of yours that
I am answering? It's at the top of this post.

Roger, why do you keep bringing Earl Doherty into it? Last time, you
implied that I plagiarised from him and you hint at it here. I was not
using Doherty and I am not using him now. Also, when I quote someone,
I identify it as a quote and name the author. So I'll again ask you to
please lose this fixation, ploy or whatever it is.

Though I have read some of Earl Doherty's stuff, I can't actually
remember him raising these issues. He probably did though, assuming he
was being thorough. Hell, even while doing a search on Tryhpo today I
came across this from Louis W. Cable (Earl in disguise?). Louis says:

http://home.inu.net/skeptic/gospels.html

~ The earliest listing of the canonical gospels by name, Matthew,
~ Mark, Luke, and John, occurs in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyon in
~ his Against Heresies written around 1806. Before that lies a
~ perplexing historical void in which there has been found hardly any
~ reliable evidence of the gospels and their authors.

Are you getting the idea now? Remove Doherty and the problem remains.
Make out your opponent has plagiarised and the problem still remains.
Roger, don't worry about who let it out of the bag; worry about the
fact that it is out of the bag.

(xv) The testimony to Jesus life/impact is so poor,

I'm not sure that scholars consider it poor.

that the best piece of outside 'historical' corroboration, offered
by apologists, is a short passage that has the apologists pleading
that it is valid but has been corrupted!

I would only ask what is the comparable evidence for comparable
figures?

Will a lesser figure do? If so, I don't have to look far. The best
outside historical corroboration to Jesus' life is a very short
uncomfortable passage to which apologists appeal as being legitimate
(ie. from Josephus) but corrupted. By comparison, Josephus provides a
significantly longer and much more natural looking account of a
traditionally considerably lesser figure, John the Baptist.

In his second apology, Justin Martyr tells us that Trypho the Jew
said to him, "

Trypho is not arguing that Jesus does not exist. He is arguing that
he is not the messiah. It's in chapter 8 (one of the few references
I remember, since I have seen Quentin repeat this so often).

Actually, I didn't even mention the matter of existence. It is telling
that you inferred it just from my quote from Justin (which you
snipped). Trypho was doing more than just arguing that Jesus was not
the messiah. He was telling Justin that no one, presumedly in
Palestine, was even aware of this supposed Christ. This suggests
massive exaggeration even before one considers the matter of Jesus'
very existence. It also raises the question of why Justin didn't
appeal to the supposed 'eyewitness' testimony of the gospels, had they
been available to him as official Church texts. After all, Trypho
charged Justin and Christians with following a groundless rumour. Keep
in mind that this dialogue would not have occurred too much before AD
155 and even at this late stage Justin didn't seem able to cite the
gospels.


Best Regards,


Sean McHugh

Though I have read some of Earl Doherty's stuff, I can't actually
remember him raising these issues. He probably did though, assuming he
was being thorough. Hell, even while doing a search on Tryhpo today I
came across this from Louis W. Cable (Earl in disguise?). Louis says:

http://home.inu.net/skeptic/gospels.html

~ The earliest listing of the canonical gospels by name, Matthew,
~ Mark, Luke, and John, occurs in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyon in
~ his Against Heresies written around 1806. Before that lies a
~ perplexing historical void in which there has been found hardly any
~ reliable evidence of the gospels and their authors.