No.
If you want to know why, read on.
A reader emailed me a brief article by Darrell Bock called “Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared,” asking me to please point out the thousand things wrong with it. I don’t really have to, because (at least de facto) it’s already been done. But I’ll summarize Bock’s article and what I’ve said before about arguments like his. Plus I’ll point out the four articles by Matthew Ferguson that meticulously demolish claims and logic like Bock’s (Ferguson is a talented doctoral student in classics; Bock is a Christian fundamentalist with a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies; yet as we’ll see, Ferguson displays far more depth of knowledge on the subject of historical methods and ancient source comparison). I’ll also describe the places where I’ve written de facto rebuttals of many of the same points (I have a Ph.D. in ancient history).
Bock’s Argument
Bock wants to reject the proposition “the evidence for Caesar’s life is better attested than for Jesus’s.” As worded that looks like a con. Either Bock doesn’t realize this is not the same proposition as “the evidence for Caesar’s life is better than for Jesus’s” or he must think his readers won’t notice the difference. Because he never points that difference out, acts as if there is no difference, and after arguing the evidence (not the man) is better attested, concludes (fallaciously) “If we believe what the best sources say about Julius Caesar, then we should believe what the best sources say about Jesus Christ.”
Even if the evidence was better attested, that conclusion cannot follow. Because what we need to know is not whether the evidence is better attested, but whether it is as reliable. An urban legend can be superbly attested (we can collect thousands of primary source documents containing the legend), yet 100% bogus. Because even though the story is superbly attested, it’s still made-up. Bock does nothing to establish that the Gospels are as reliable as the sources he cites for Caesar (see below). Even if we had what the original Gospel authors said to 100% accuracy (and we don’t; I document several examples in Hitler Homer Bible Christ), that tells us nothing about their reliability as sources.
In other words, having an accurate text is of no use in comparing source quality. Bock shows no awareness of so basic a point, yet this is fundamental to any schooling as a historian.
Bock doesn’t just fail at the logic of his own argument. He also fails at the facts. His premises are thus false. And therefore his argument would be unsound even if it was logically valid.
Bock claims “in regard to Julius Caesar, the key sources are his own accounts of the Gallic Wars, the speeches of Cicero, Sallust’s account of Catiline’s War, Suetonius’s section on Caesar in Twelve Caesars, and Plutarch’s section on Caesar in Plutarchs’s Lives.” Um, no. First of all, we don’t trust all that they say, either, so by transitive logic Bock must agree the Gospels can’t be trusted any more than they are. But more importantly, we trust what those sources say mostly in respect to what we can externally corroborate in eyewitness and archaeological sources.
So take note: we have actual coins and inscriptions dating from Caesar’s time and the time of his contemporaries. None for Jesus. We also have several eyewitness accounts. Caesar’s own, as Bock mentions (although he omits the most important one, the Civil War) and Cicero’s and Sallust’s, as Bock also mentions (although he omits the most important one, Cicero’s Letters). But also Pompey (surviving collections of Cicero’s letters include letters from Pompey) and Augustus (Caesar’s adopted son and successor, who commissioned many inscriptions and coins). And Livy, a contemporary of Caesar, covers Caesar in his histories—and in their poetry, so do contemporaries Virgil, Ovid, and Catullus. The Gospels are not eyewitness sources, name no eyewitness sources, and have no verifiable eyewitness sources. There are no eyewitness sources for Jesus. There are at least nine for Caesar. Bock mentions but does not make anything of this crucial distinction. It seems to be irrelevant to him. But I’m here to tell you, it isn’t to historians.
At most Bock tries to claim the Gospels are eyewitness sources by just handwaving to the opinions of conservatives, and gullibly trusting the report of Papias, which we know is false because it contradicts all the data. Hence his attempts to assert the Gospels are eyewitness sources I refute, and document all mainstream scholars balk at, in Chapters 7.4 and 8.7 of On the Historicity of Jesus. He has no other arguments. He doesn’t interact with mainstream scholarship or the abundant refutations of this claim in the literature. He just vaguely alludes to the fact that his claims contradict the mainstream consensus, and with that fine confession, tries a Plan B by naming some books that argue the Gospels nevertheless must contain reliable oral tradition, even though other than books he wrote or co-wrote himself, the authors he names (e.g. Dunn) do not in fact come to that conclusion (they conclude, instead, that some of what’s in the Gospels might go back to eyewitness sources through considerably distorting lenses, a fact Bock seems not to know, or else suspiciously forgets to mention).
Bock quickly drops that point and instead obsesses over the manuscript evidence and the implied question of custody and thus distortions in transmission (through deliberate or erroneous miscopying). That is disingenuous because (a) no one doubts there are copying errors in these sources for Caesar but (b) none are doctrinally motivated, since there was no massive Church dedicated to altering the history of Caesar to support its dogmas. So the effects on the manuscripts of Caesar are far less than on the Gospels (for which we have documented abundant efforts at inserting passages, changing passages, harmonizing passages, and deleting passages, at a pace unseen for the sources for Caesar).
But more importantly, this has nothing to do with historicity. We do not doubt the historicity of Jesus because his biographies have transcription errors in them (even deliberate ones). So that there are transcription errors in the biographies of Caesar isn’t relevant. Transcription errors (both accidental and deliberate: see my Drunk Bible Study video for examples) only matter if you wanted to treat the biographies of Caesar as guides to life, as the inviolate and inerrant Word of God. Rather than as a problematic lens granting only distorted knowledge of their subject in varying degrees of probability. Which is how historians treat those sources.
Bock doesn’t seem to realize that that isn’t, and cannot be, the same thing. To borrow a joke from my Debate with J.P. Holding on why the text of the New Testament can’t be trusted the way Bock needs to trust it (but that historians don’t), if the manuscripts of Cicero were instructions for building a rocket, I would not get on that rocket. So certain I am that the text just isn’t that reliable. It’s reliable enough for probabilistic judgments about what might have happened in the past, but you can’t trust those as a guide to life, much less the Inerrant Word of God.
Never mind that Bock seems to think having a papyrus fragment of a single sentence or two counts as having a whole text of a Gospel. Or his curious omission of the fact that the thousands of complete manuscripts we have of the Gospels all contradict each other in their wording and content. Or else are copies of earlier manuscripts that we already have and therefore don’t even count. You can’t make ten thousand xeroxes of one manuscript of Caesar’s Civil War and claim that then establishes it as more accurately preserved than the Gospels; and if you don’t get to do that for Caesar, you don’t get to do it for the Gospels either. Yet Bock includes thousands of copies of other copies we already have. Sorry, that doesn’t work. (See the comments of Seidensticker.)
Then Bock falsely claims that in antiquity “no one was arguing that the accounts of Jesus’s actions were fabricated or mythical.” Sorry, but, uh yeah, not only did Celsus claim that, and extensively, writing in the same time as Justin Martyr, but Trypho (the fake Jew Justin invented for his dialogue) argues the same point, too (he says the Gospel stories are just “unfounded rumor” and a Christian “invention,” Dial. 8). So when Bock cites Trypho as not making that argument, we know Bock sucks at basic homework. But that’s not the only example. 2 Peter attacks even a fellow Christian sect that was claiming the Gospels were “cleverly devised myths.” Ignatius also spends several letters attacking fellow Christians who were teaching that at least parts of the Gospels were mythical. And Irenaeus devotes books to the subject of other Christians claiming substantial portions of the Gospels were mythical. Indeed, the genealogies for Jesus are claimed to be mythical even in the New Testament itself! (1 Tim. 1.4; Tit. 3.9.)
Finally, Bock concludes that “Christ’s story is just as well attested as Caesar’s. You can accept or deny claims made about Jesus in the Gospels, but you can’t pretend they were never made.” Which is a wholly vacuous conclusion. Who was saying those claims were never made? That makes no sense. Worse, how does admitting that “claims were made” get you to “if we believe what the best sources say about Julius Caesar, then we should believe what the best sources say about Jesus Christ”? Bock presents no logical step from one to the other. Not surprisingly. As there isn’t one.
For Full Details on Why Bock Is Wrong
For my part, Chapter 7 of Not the Impossible Faith explodes Bock’s assumption that all sources are equal. There I show the tremendous difference in quality and sourcing and reliability-markers between even Suetonius, considered one of the less reliable historians of the era, and the book of Acts, which performs far worse on the relevant measures (and the Gospels do even worse still, as I summarized already in Sense and Goodness without God IV.1.2.6, pp. 246-47). Chapters 9 and 10 of On the Historicity of Jesus go on to demolish the reliability of Acts and the Gospels in thorough measure (and Chapter 11 eliminates any hope of recovering any clear evidence for a real Jesus from the Epistles, and Chapter 8 does so for the remaining evidence outside the Bible).
Update: Key additional material exposing Bock’s gullibility in over-trusting ancient sources, particularly religious ones, I collect in Elements 44 through 48 in Chapter 5 of OHJ. And my treatment of the “we have the same evidence for Socrates” and “Alexander the Great” arguments (which bear the same generic flaws as Bock’s use of Caesar to make the same inept argument) is in Chapters 2.2 (Alexander) and 8.2 (Socrates) of OHJ. Those in fact should be required reading on this mode of argument altogether.
But online, Matthew Ferguson has four articles directly on point (and stay tuned, because this material might get expanded, perfected, added to, and published in what I already predict will be a must-buy book):
(1) “When Do Contemporary or Early Sources Matter in Ancient History?” (January 5, 2015)
This article exposes numerous faulty assumptions in arguments like Bock’s that betray Bock’s profound ignorance of how modern historians of antiquity use and understand sources. Sample quote:
[N]ot only do contemporary written sources exist for Alexander the Great (even ignoring archeological evidence, which is also vastly more abundant for Alexander than Jesus), but they are also better in every conceivable way than the written sources that exist for Jesus — both extant or lost. The apologist will now respond that we should not expect there to be better evidence for Jesus. … True. But this consideration does not eliminate the relevance of contemporary sources.
As such, appeals to a lack of contemporary or early sources are valid when arguing that such a lack impairs our ability to know about the person or event in question. We may never expect to have such evidence, since it may have never been produced. But it still affects what we can know about the past…
The evidence for Jesus is not extraordinary, despite apologetic exaggerations to the contrary. Nevertheless, there is a limited degree of evidence for the historical Jesus, and such evidence points towards [an] obscure, itinerant apocalyptic prophet… This figure, of course, was exaggerated and embellished by legendary accounts since not long after the time of his death. Such exaggerations inspired the legendary figure that is now worshiped in modern Christianity today. That Jesus, however, who is prayed to and worshiped in church, has not been proven by historical evidence.
(2) “Leveling a Mountain of Manuscripts with a Small Scoop of Context” (October 26, 2012)
This article exposes numerous faulty assumptions in arguments like Bock’s that betray Bock’s ignorance (or concealment?) of how modern historians of antiquity actually ascertain trust in a text built from variant manuscript evidence. Sample quote:
Once more, apologists have blown up a big number, divorced it from context, and created a misleading argument that can be torn down by three simple points of clarity.
[1] …let’s just say, however, for the sake of argument, that remarkably a fringe, radical religion had managed to produce more copies of their texts in antiquity than other authors at the time. So what? Do we trust books today based on the number of copies that we have of them? …
[2] …textual transmission only means that we have a fairly good idea of what the original authors wrote. If what the original authors wrote was non-historical, then accurately preserving their words still doesn’t make them true. I often give this analogy to illustrate this concept: if you have 10,000 early copies of the National Enquirer versus 1 late copy of the Wall Street Journal, which would be more factually accurate? … A late copy of a historian like Tacitus, even if it has missing sections and a few grammatical errors, is infinitely more historically reliable than several early copies of works that were never historical or factual in the first place. …
[3] …Often times apologists claim that the text of the New Testament is 99% accurately preserved. First, this would be impossible to prove, since we don’t have the original autograph manuscripts. But more importantly, … Simply stating that the whole New Testament is 99% textually correct takes attention away from key passages where there is clear theological redaction and not just mere grammatical errors.
[Plus]
When it comes to the “mountain” of 5,800 Greek NT manuscript copies, even conservative textual critic Dan Wallace acknowledges, “it should be pointed out that most of our manuscripts come from the second millennium AD, and most of our manuscripts do not include the whole New Testament.” … If one excludes later medieval manuscripts, Wallace notes that only approximately 124 manuscripts come within the 2nd-4th centuries CE, which is a considerably smaller number. [And, BTW, most of those are but fragments of a few sentences, not whole books–RC]
[Plus]
P46 [i.e. the earliest complete manuscript of any of Paul’s letters] is a case in point: it is the manuscript with the largest percentage of blunders on record!
(3) “Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament” (August 18, 2013)
This article exposes even more faulty assumptions in arguments like Bock’s that betray Bock’s profound ignorance of how modern historians of antiquity use and understand sources. Sample quote:
The genre of ancient historical prose has key features that are crucial to understanding which works belong to the category and why they are more trustworthy than sources that do not. It is not enough for a text to simply talk about things that took place in the past, even when the content deals with real people and locations. A historical text must investigate and probe these matters, discussing the research process involved, so that it does not merely provide a story, but a plausible interpretation of what took place. …
The main point to take away from [my] analysis of the [ten] criteria above is that the Gospels certainly do not measure up to the high historiography of antiquity. Many of my Classics professors who specialize in such texts, when they read the Gospels, comment on how much more rudimentary and story-like their narratives are compared to the researched and analytical characteristics of historical writing. Even Luke only has a few brief lines at the beginning that mimic historical prose, before jumping into pure hagiography like the other Gospels.
Ancient historical texts are some of my favorite works from antiquity for their sophisticated writing style, elaborate research, and intellectual rigor in investigating past events. I cannot say the same for the Gospels, although I do think they provide interesting symbolism and allegories as novels, and are also complex works of religious scripture. After analyzing the Gospels under the historiographical criteria that I discuss above, however, they must be placed in a different literary genre from the actual historical works of antiquity.
A final note about modern historical methodology is that the ancient authors of these historical prose [works], who demonstrate their research, have independent corroboration, discuss their methodology, and reach conclusions through critical investigation, should generally be trusted, until proven otherwise. In contrast, ancient novels and religious texts, such as the Gospels, that are packed full of legends and religious propaganda, should not be given the benefit of the doubt, until there is good reason for overcoming their overall unreliability in order to trust a specific detail. I do think that there are some precious kernels of truth in at least the Synoptic Gospels, but they are few and far between.
(4) “Ten Reasons to Reject the Apologetic 10/42 Source Slogan” (October 14, 2012)
Simply a classic in the genre. Though dealing with Tiberius Caesar instead of Julius Caesar, everything this article says in general about Tiberius is equally true of Julius, and again exposes the faulty assumptions in arguments like Bock’s that betray Bock’s profound ignorance of the enormous number and quality of sources we actually have for men like Julius Caesar. Resulting in their foolishly claiming we have the same evidence for Jesus. In fact, we don’t even come close.
Just an observation to return to the attestation issue. We are now 20 plus years out from the end of the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. That approximates, I believe, the time lapse between common dates for the death of Jesus and the first preserved writings of Paul. I wonder what could be “attested” in a documentary of Ronald Reagan’s term, produced and promoted by the Fox News channel, if the writer(s) could remain anonymous, if no primary sources for information had to be referenced, if the average viewer had no access to other historical data, and if people old enough to remember did not take action to raise a challenge? I like your urban legend analogy.
Thank you for the time and thoughtful effort you expend on each post.
I first heard that argument (there is as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Caesar) in 1963 when I was eighteen. Unfortunately I didn’t have the education to refute the argument and had to just walk away. Thanks to the Internet and writers like yourself, that doesn’t happen anymore.
I’m really glad that Richard and I could help debunk that fraudulent claim you were exposed to over 50 years ago. I was first exposed to the “more evidence than Caesar” apologetic when I was about 17 years old in 2005. At the time, I didn’t know how to debunk it either, but I later studied Classics when I was in college. So, when I heard apologists Cliffe Knechtle repeat this old claim again in 2010, I was ready to fact check all of his data (which he merely plagiarized from apologist Mike Licona, btw).
Having been raised for the first 10 years of my life in a desert Christian cult, I especially work to help other people that have been misinformed by apologists. Another guy on my blog thanked me for debunking this claim, because he had once been told about it in a home-school science textbook (I know, a science textbook!):
https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/ten-reasons-to-reject-the-apologetic-1042-source-slogan/comment-page-1/#comment-3198
Hearing about helping him was likewise encouraging.
“it should be pointed out that most of our manuscripts come from the second millennium AD, and most of our manuscripts do not include the whole New Testament.” … If one excludes later medieval manuscripts, Wallace notes that only approximately 124 manuscripts come within the 2nd-4th centuries CE, which is a considerably smaller number. ”
Was this supposed to be “second CENTURY” AD?
Nice post, and interesting points from Ferguson. I’ll have to read more of those specific articles of his. Cheers!
Ah, nevermind. Second millennium makes more sense. Brain fart.
I was quoting, and the person I was quoting used CE, which is technically equivalent to AD. The other quote comes from someone else being quoted, who prefers AD. I myself prefer AD as well, although the editorial requirements of some publishers often force me to use CE. As I explain in Chapter 4 of Hitler Homer Bible Christ.
And yes, he meant second millennium, as in after 1000 A.D.
I’ve only read the last one of those four links in full so far. Based on it, I do indeed hope the man writes a book. My favorite points made in the argument was that three of the Gospels mention Tiberius, and yet those references aren’t on their list!
Caesar’s hair alone is better attested than anything about Jesus.
One thing that stands out to me about early Christianity is the avalanche of forgery and plagiarism. I am aware that forgery was a problem in antiquity, but I don’t know how widespread it was. How do the early Christians compare to other groups in terms of the amount of forgery they engaged in?
Also, the Caesar’s messiah stuff is obviously bullshit, and I’m aware that the Old Testament is where the Gospel writers got most of their material. But, is there anything in the bible that rips off Julius Caesar’s life? I don’t have any specific examples in mind, but I’m curious since it seems like it would have been fertile ground for the Gospel writers to mine.
Forgery and fakery were common in all genres. But religious literature by far more so. And Christianity appears comparable in its mass production of forgery to other religious literature. Per Element 44 (Chapter 5) of On the Historicity of Jesus.
Yes, Caesar’s Messiah stuff is crank.
Several comparative studies have been done between Caesar and Christ, and everyone agrees political usurpation exists (e.g. the very idea of a “gospel” of a “savior son of God” that begins a “new era” comes from pre-Christian Imperial propaganda, e.g. the Priene inscription). But that’s just the borrowing of concepts and ideas, for political-religious symbolism that’s entirely plausible and actually quite expected. The best attempt rather to show that the life of Jesus is modeled symbolically on the life of Julius Caesar (that I know; there may well be others) is that of a talented amateur, Gary Courtney, Et tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus! (2004), which I mention in OHJ. I am not convinced by his thesis, but it’s at least plausible in context (that Mark was originally a play, designed by the early Christians to mimic and transvalue the Caesar narrative in application to Jesus as a superior examplar).
I have an idea, Richard. I know of a way that Bart Ehrman will debate you; simply apologize to him. Apologize for being a jerk to him and for completely trashing his book. Maybe, then *maybe* he will have a debate with you. He was nothing but professional when he wrote a response to you. But you are ever the vicious attack dog. So if he doesn’t debate you, you have only yourself to blame.
I will not apologize for telling the truth.
And you should be ashamed of asking me too.
Richard could have used a gentler tone, sure, but nonetheless, is there anything factually inaccurate about what he said in responding to Ehrman? I’m honestly curious–I’ve looked, and so far as I can tell, Carrier said nothing incorrect.
And frankly, much as I like Bart Ehrman–and I do–if he refuses to defend his book against Carrier’s criticisms, then he deserves scorn. Ehrman could very simply have gone through Carrier’s review, disagreed when he had cause, and admitted fault when he was mistaken. He didn’t do that, so far as I can tell. He cherry-picked a few points, and then went mute.
But maybe I’m wrong, Kenny. Why don’t you point out where you think Carrier was wrong or has cause to apologize?
Dr. Carrier, I need some help. I have a brother that has gone off the deep end on biblical prophecy. He constantly brings up The book of Daniel and of course Revelation. Is there a definitive book you can recommend that critically looks at this topic from a secular vantage point?
I don’t know what you are looking for. If you want to talk him out of ink-blot-reading those books against modern events, I’m not up on that debunking literature if there is any.
Hey Richard,
Thanks again for plugging my material! As always, I am in your debt as both one of my teachers and one of my colleagues.
I am definitely going to make a book out of the content on the blog (assuming that I don’t get struck by lightning before then), some of which is already being published. That said, it will have to be a secondary project after my dissertation and finishing my PhD program. I have 3 more years of fellowship left, and I hope to finish it during that time (though, no promises).
It’s the kind of book that will be better slow cooked, rather than rushed. Honestly, the quality and depth of content is already extensive enough on my blog to publish much of it as it already is. However, I want to make the book even better. I am hoping that it will become a classic of counter-apologetics. I’ll be running a bunch of drafts and ideas by you, so stay tuned 🙂
Hi Richard,
I have come to know that at least two academic profs, Matthias Klinghardt and Markus Vinzent, argue now that the earliest written Gospel was the Evangelion used by Marcion, on which all the others were based.
According to Klinghardt, the sequential order of writing of the Gospels would be this:
Mcn —> Matthew —> Mark —> Luke —> John
He concludes (in link given above translated from German):
”…we must start from the fact that everything we think we know certain and provable of Jesus, is hardly sustainable.“ (my bold)
Assuming the priority of Mcn (the gospel used by Marcion & marcionites) , how do you would change your view about Christian origins? Do this would bestill in favor of mythicism or of historicity?
How would be it possible that the writers of the earliest Gospel were believers in identity YHWH==Demiurg against the same Jewishness of Paul the Apostle?
Very thanks for any answer and excuse my disturb.
Giuseppe
All too complicated. But I suspect this would cast into doubt historicity even more, or at least as much, because then you have a very late date for the first Gospel, from a far more obvious Joseph-Smith-style fabricator.
This note comes from an external commenter:
Kenny Sharp: “I know of a way that Bart Ehrman will debate you; simply apologize to him. Apologize for being a jerk to him and for completely trashing his book.”
Anonymous: You’ve got to be kidding? Actually Bart Ehrman owes many of the mythicists he wrote about in his mythicist hit-piece, “Did Jesus Exist” an apology, not the other way around. Here’s just how bad Errorman really is: Bart Ehrman caught in lies and libel?
—
I concur on one point at least: Ehrman has lied, several times, and never admitted it or apologized for it; and he has defamed mythicist authors. He has made false claims about Earl Doherty, and in a lesser way about me; the latter is the only one he has ever apologized for. And he definitely defamed D.M. Murdock in his book DJE and elsewhere (he claims now he meant the opposite of what he said; I’ve shown that’s almost certainly a lie). For which he has never apologized. These are far more serious offenses for a professional to commit and not correct or apologize for, than using the word “sucks” in place of “was terrible” in a book review.
Ok if the manuscripts are coming from the 2nd century and are not complete then how come “Early Church Fathers are quoting” them. Well, you did not address on early church fathers. So, please can you take some time to refute the early church fathers who were so confident that the quoted the very own Gospels.
I’m not sure I understand your question.
Church father quotations of the Gospels in the 2nd century are quite sparse actually; more so the epistles (and still sketchy even in the 3rd century), and run the problem that they would be reflecting changes already made to those mss. after 150 A.D., being only from the deliberate editioning of the anti-Marcionite canon around that time. They therefore don’t give us access to almost a century of manuscript editioning history, and reflect a specific sectarian edition of the texts. Worse, medieval scribes often “back corrected” the manuscripts of ancient church fathers to agree with the Gospel text as it read in the Middle Ages, thus eliminating the original textual testimony of that church father (and no, we often can’t tell when they did this, rendering the church fathers a very unreliable source for the text of the Bible).
Nevertheless, quotations by church fathers are all still considered in standard critical editions of the Greek text I and all other scholars employ. I even sometimes reference their testimony myself in my work. They just are not highly trusted sources by the experts who reconstruct the text (e.g. in the standard Aland edition).
That said, this only helps us with the text of the Gospels (and not very much). You seem to be confusing the text (what the Gospels say) with the historical facts (whether what the Gospels say is true).
The church fathers are of exactly zero help in determining the latter. They had no sources of information whatever, outside the Gospels. And only used their own sectarian revision of the Gospels assembled forty to eighty years after the Gospels were originally composed.
This latter fact is most concerning in the case of John, whose text has been edited so much, it’s now out of order, missing sections, and has had new sections inserted (all of which I discuss in my section on that Gospel in Chapter 10 of OHJ). Luke-Acts is also problematic, as there are two versions, one 20% longer than the other, and the canon only contains the shorter text, yet there are several places where the shorter text does not appear to be the original (and vice versa), a problem still to this day not resolved (I discuss this in Chs. 7 and 10 of OHJ). Paul’s letters likewise have been highly edited, with missing sections, interpolations, even whole missing letters (I discuss several examples throughout OHJ: cf. e.g., pp. 280 and 511, w. notes).
So I don’t have to “refute” anything in the church fathers. They say nothing that’s not already coming from the Gospels. They have no other sources. They are thus just like all other extrabiblical evidence: of no use in deciding the matter. All we have are the Gospels (and Epistles). To which I devote extensive chapters in OHJ. I nevertheless discuss some of the earliest church fathers and their relevance in Ch. 8 of OHJ (e.g. Papias and Hegesippus). And explain why they are pretty much useless in Ch. 7.7 of OHJ.
No i am not confusing the text (what the Gospels say) with the historical facts (whether what the Gospels say is true). Ok, please be more clear on the statement you made, with that said you only wrote about Acts what about Pauline letters which predates Gospels. Clement of Rome is the most early church father and he says quite a lot.
KITĀB AL-MAGĀLL
OR THE BOOK OF THE ROLLS.
ONE OF THE BOOKS OF CLEMENT.
More to this Sir David Dalrymple (1726 – 1792AD) a Scottish judge and historian who wrote three volumes on early Christian Church history called, “Remains of Christian Antiquity”. Proved that we can reconstruct the entire New Testament only going through the lectionaries by early church fathers. So, please address the points in detail
First, the lectionaries are Medieval. Indeed late Medieval (here is a list). Not even early, much less ancient. What people were writing in the late Middle Ages was of no help in finding out what really happened in antiquity. And even with respect to solely the text (not the truth) of the Gospels, the lectionaries are indeed included in the reconstruction of the Greek text I and all mainstream scholars rely on. So it’s already covered.
Second, I have a whole section on 1 Clement (Ch. 8.5 of OHJ). I show that was probably written before the Gospels, and that it never refers to any Jesus ever being on earth. It is therefore actually evidence against historicity, not for it.
Third, I did not ever say I “only wrote about Acts what about Pauline letters which predates Gospels.” I have an entire chapter, over a hundred pages, on the Gospels; my chapter on the Epistles covers many other Epistles besides the authentic Paulines (e.g. Hebrews and 1 Peter; also, IMO, pre-Gospel letters, which again do not place Jesus as ever being on earth); and an entire chapter on extrabiblical evidence, treating there everything from the pagan sources to 1 Clement, Papias, and Hegesippus.
Please just read my book. I wrote it for that very purpose.
You also failed to speak on Pauline letters Epistle to the Galatians and First Epistle to the Thessalonians which predates Gospels. So, if the Gospels are unreliable then how about Pauline letters and Early Church Fathers. Please address
No, I did not fail to speak on those Epistles. I address them extensively in Ch. 11 of OHJ. Indeed, I regard the Epistles as the only useful evidence worth debating on the question of whether Jesus existed. The Gospels are pedagogical myths and propaganda tracts, with no known sources, and no plausible reliability, written in a foreign language, in a foreign land, and so far as we can tell when no one who was there was any longer alive. But in any case, I address them extensively in Ch. 10 of OHJ (and Acts in Ch. 9).
Paul never questioned the authenticity of the Gospel, stating it is myth. Please be kind enough to address what is myth in Gospel and why do you say so.
Paul never refers to and never shows any knowledge of any Gospel.
I think you are confusing Gospel with gospel. A Gospel is a book that recounts the travels and adventures of Jesus. A gospel is a kerygma, a creed (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:3-8 and Phil. 2:6-11 are gospels, not Gospels). Paul’s gospels never place Jesus on earth. Only the Gospels do. But the Gospels were written long after Paul was dead. He never heard of them. They didn’t exist when he was alive.
Yes Gospels are written after the Pauline letters but Paul was still living. If take a note Acts is written after the synoptic Gospels. But the Pauline letters are written before the Gospels. And Paul gave much importance to James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, (Gal 2:9). Proving that Epistle to Galatians is written much before. And it is the Gospel writers who were inspired by Paul. One such example is 2nd Thessalonians 1:7-8 Paul quotes Daniel 7:13-14. It the Gospel writers that quote Daniel but none of them raise doubts on Paul. (Mk 13:26/ Mt 16:24/ Mt 25:31/Lk 21:27). It does note end here Paul also quotes Ex 13:22/Ex 19:16. So, the Gospel writers quoted Paul and the Gospels are written by the pillare of church who were noted by Paul. So, concluding its not Myth. Please answer my claims.
There is no evidence Paul was alive when any Gospel was written.
There is no evidence any Gospel was written by any Pillar (or any witness at all).
That the Gospel writers used Paul does not tell us anything about the historicity of Jesus.
And 2 Thessalonians is universally agreed by all mainstream scholars to be a forgery.
You did not refute Sir David Dalrymple (1726 – 1792AD) claim, and yes Clement did refer about Jesus he is mentioned in Philippians 4:3. So, i do not know what sources you are referring to. You gave a link on lectionaries but those are of manuscripts and not writings. The early church fathers wrote and quoted the gospels which is recorded by Sir David Dalrymple here’s what (Matt Slick is the President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.) https://carm.org/early-church-fathers-scripture. So, your argument is just not good enough…Early Church fathers are eyewitness, Paul knew the eyewitness and the companions and you are just making accusations. And you did not address about kitāb al-magāll or the book of the rolls. one of the books of clement. Please do so. Thanks
Clement did not write Philippians. And Philippians never says Jesus was on earth.
I have no idea what you are thinking here.
You are also confusing early with late church fathers and texts. You have no sense of chronology. And you are citing scholarship so defective and obsolete it predates almost the entirety of United States history. Everything before 1950 is suspect. Because its methodology was poor. This is standard knowledge in the field of history today.
Ok, accepted that Gospels are myth and reliability of early church fathers are uncertain, Pauline letters are forgery ok agreed how about historians of the 1st century such as Josephus, Thallus and many others who claim that Jesus was crucified,,,,and people who believed in a man named Jesus were known has Christians. The historians are not nutcase….at a point of time i can agree that you cannot trust the Bible, but what about the historians…are they reliable. Please, answer….
Thallus never mentioned Jesus. That’s a modern myth. Nor was he a first century author (that is also a modern myth). See my peer reviewed article proving both points in Hitler Homer Bible Christ.
Josephus never mentioned Jesus either. The paragraph on Jesus is a forgery and the line about Jesus later is an accidental interpolation. See my discussion of the scholarship and evidence on both points in Ch. 8.9 of On the Historicity of Jesus. That section is devoted entirely to Josephus. And see my summary of the latest scholarship on Josephus here.
But even if we are gullible and believe Josephus wrote those things, the paragraph comes from the Gospels (as has been proved under peer review), and all Christians were brothers of Jesus (in fact Brothers of the Lord appears to have been the original word for “Christian”: OHJ, Element 12, Ch. 4), so we can find no evidence in Josephus that he had any other source of information than the Gospels, and unsourced Christian lore. Neither of which gets us to a historical Jesus.
There are no other first century historians that even allegedly mention Jesus. Zero is not “many others.” Second century and later historians also only have the Gospels as a source. So they are useless too. All we have are the Gospels. All they had were the Gospels. And the Gospels are unreliable. Full stop.
And “Christian” just means “Messianists,” people who follow or believe in a messiah. That doesn’t get us anywhere. Least of all because that’s not what Christians originally called themselves. Paul implies they were originally called Brothers of the Lord (all becoming a brother of the Lord by adoption by God through baptism, as Paul meticulously explains). Acts says they were originally called Nazorians (a word we don’t actually know what it means; it is not the word for a person from Nazareth, for example) and that they acquired the name Christians from outsiders decades later. But Acts lies about chronology repeatedly and fabricates probably most of its content so it’s not a reliable source on these points (see Ch. 9 of OHJ). If 1 Peter is authentic, he uses the word, and may have coined it, but we can’t tell when. But since all it means is “follower of the messiah,” it doesn’t help us determine whether that meant earthly or celestial messiah. 1 Peter never mentions an earthly messiah.
http://www.oclarim.com.mo/en/2017/11/10/daniel-baird-wallace-on-the-study-and-textual-criticism-of-the-new-testament-in-greek-works-of-the-fathers-would-suffice-to-reconstruct-entire-new-testament/ this is DANIEL BAIRD WALLACE had to say. So, please do address when major scholarship says the positive attitude and on the other hand you are just making accusations. Thanks
I fail to see the relevance of that to anything I said.
He is using late church fathers. The church father manuscripts are known to be unreliable for this purpose. And knowing what the text was is useless for knowing whether the text is saying anything that’s true.
Ok, please support your allegations that the church fathers manuscripts are known to be unreliable. You did not address about Sir David Dalrymple, who spoke about lectionaries of early church fathers. And Clement of Rome is mentioned in Philippians 4:3….just saying Gospels are myth and cannot be trusted, and the early church fathers manuscripts are unrealiable proves nothing. Why you say so? is you need to provide evidences or it will be considered as a frustrated attack. So, please be kind enough to give evidence and proves attacking will not solve the issues.
That the church father manuscripts are unreliable is not my allegation. It’s standard knowledge in the field. I cite the mainstream scholarship on this and give examples of the problem in my book Hitler Homer Bible Christ (e.g. pp. 290-91; w. pp. 295-300). It was most famously demonstrated by Bruce Metzger, the most renowned Christian textual critic in history.
Lectionaries (that we have) date to the 800s AD and later. They are late medieval texts (most in fact actually Renaissance era). Not ancient. Useless
We have no way of knowing Clement of Rome is mentioned in Philippians 4:3. Clement was a common name. And no mention is made there that Clement is a congregation leader or in Rome. Nor would this help us determine what Clement knew about Jesus. That we can only get from 1 Clement itself. Which never places Jesus on earth.
Knowing the Gospels are myth and late medieval texts derivative does prove something: that we can’t use them to argue Jesus existed (or anything at all). All we can use them to argue is what the people writing them believed or wanted others to believe. Not how those beliefs were formed, or on what evidence. That’s why they are useless.
I have already given extensive evidence that the Gospels are myth and not historically usable in On the Historicity of Jesus. That the late medieval lectionaries are only of use in reconstructing the text, and not of very great use even in that, is well established in standard critical editions of the text of the Bible. See the introductions to the Aland text for instance.
Ok, if i agree with what you say then how about first century historians like Josephus, Thallus and so, who recognized who Jesus was and wrote about his crucification. You also said lectionaires date back to 800 years hold on those are copies and not written down, there is difference between something been written down and a copy you should know that. Clement knew Jesus’s apostle has he was in the 1st century. http://www.ewtn.com/library/patristc/anf1-1.htm#Return (link for Clement). Thanks please address about the historians too. Thanks
You aren’t making any sense now.
I already answered you on first century historians. Thallus wasn’t a first century historian; and he never mentioned Jesus. Neither did Josephus; the two passages there are interpolations by later Christians—and even if they had been authentic, he’s just repeating the Gospels and post-Gospel Christian lore, not corroborating them. Useless. And there are no other first century historians who mention Jesus.
The earliest lectionary was written in the 800s AD (800 years after Christianity began; and 1200 years ago), and only a handful; most are centuries later than even that (e.g. 13th-15th century, 1300-1500 years after Christianity began). They are highly derivative of the aftermath of long chains of copying and heavily edited to “agree” with what Medievals wanted or expected the text to look like then. They are of minimal use in reconstructing the text (and yet, fully used in my work, as I rely on the Aland text which employs them in its reconstruction). And of no use in establishing anything in the Gospels is historical.
The author of 1 Clement says he knew Peter and Paul. But he never says they told him Jesus was a person on earth, as opposed to a celestial being who only communicated by revelation. To the contrary, 1 Clement uniformly writes as though that’s all Jesus ever was. The author of 1 Clement also has no knowledge of the Gospels or any story in them. See my analysis in OHJ. Like I told you to.