Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

toejam wrote:Alter seems a unique kind of character. A Jewish apologist who also publishes books on gymnastics.

It's not as colorful as it sounds (for better or worse). He seems to have settled on a retirement hobby of countering Christian apologetics. The other book is now decades ago.

^I didn't mean that as a slant against him, I should clarify.

I understand that the Bible has plenty of potential discrepancies. But sometimes it seems critics may be overzealous in finding them. Further, I have an overall criticism, which I think you mentioned, that Judaism has plenty of discrepancy issues as well, like the morality of Moses' military decisions or whether his miracles happened or whether circumcision is a crucial ritual from God. So when someone singles out Christianity and supports instead a religious system with a comparable number of discrepancies, it seems like they are being overly harsh on Christianity.

Thank you for quoting:

Peter Kirby wrote:
This (emphasis original):

John 20:31 declares that the primary purpose of his writing was to convince his audience that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and thus they could obtain life in his name. Luke 1:3-4 reports on the agenda of its author: “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” Finally, the author of Mark 1:1 declares that he was writing the good news. And his good news was that Jesus was the Christos, the Messiah and the Son of God: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” This agenda of Mark is repeated at least four times when he used the word Christos; four are followed by the title in apposition: Son of God/Blessed (1:1; 14:61), son of David (12:35), and King of Israel (15:32).

The pertinent question is whether or not the Christian scriptures permit pious fraud to achieve this goal. Writing approximately twenty to thirty years prior to the synoptic Gospels, none other than the apostle Paul unequivocally declares that it was permissible to employ virtually any method to win converts and gain souls:

• Rom 3:7-8 For if the truth of God hath more abounded though my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Isn't this misinterpreting the verse? Doesn't the part in parentheses suggest that Paul is not supporting pious dishonesty?

According to Lopukhin, Paul is saying here that if he were saying a lie, then it would still help show God's truth, because his lie would be disproven openly, If you go back to the beginning of the chapter, you find out that the reason Paul is talking about this is to explain why even if the Jews are in error, they still have a blessing from God, because even if they fail to accept Christ, God's truth remains. Verse 7 is not about proving that lying is itself fine, but to show that God's truth is still shown from these debates.

• 1 Cor 9:20-23 And unto the Jews I become as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak become I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might partaker thereof with you. (Refuted by Brown 2000, 14-15)

Paul is not saying that he is lying. It's like a US missionary to South America saying that he lives like the Indians to convert them. He is not saying that being deceitful is a general good thing.
"I became a weightlifter to the weightlifters, and a librarian unto the librarians." It does not mean that the person is an all round liar.

• Phil 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

This last reading is awkward and somewhat arcane. However, this verse is much easier to understand in the NIV rendering: “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” Unequivocally, the Christian scriptures advocate and promote pious fraud.

This is hard to say that it actually advocates pious fraud, as opposed to sincere teaching. In the gospels, Jesus says that He will not recognize some people who claim that they preach and do works in Jesus' name.
Paul is saying that he is glad that Jesus is being preached, even if not sincerely. But he does not say he is happy about the lack of sincerity or that this is the right way to preach.

There are rulers who preach democracy but don't practice it in really because they are dictators. Yet I am still glad that they preach democracy. Does that make me a pious fraud as to democracy?

Peter Kirby wrote:
Speculation #167 Paul’s Source That Jesus Was First Seen by Peter 559
...

Speculation #209 James, Jesus’s Stepbrother, as a Witness 681

So what does he have to say on this topic, Peter?

rakovsky wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:
Speculation #167 Paul’s Source That Jesus Was First Seen by Peter 559
...

Speculation #209 James, Jesus’s Stepbrother, as a Witness 681

So what does he have to say on this topic, Peter?

It would be wrong for me not to suggest the possibility of acquiring the text for yourself.

http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Crit ... 00UT328CQ/

I read some sections in the google-preview of the book and I had to smile at myself.

Alter wrote

In error, Mark 14:12 identifies that “the first day of unleavened bread,” the fifteenth of Nisan, is the time when the priests sacrifice (“killed” in the AV) the Passover lamb. In actuality, the slaughtering would have occurred on the fourteenth of Nisan. Here it must be understood that, according to the Hebrew Bible (Gen 1:8, 13, 19, 23, and 31), a new day starts at sunset. Therefore, the “first day of unleavened bread” started at sunset from our modern perspective. Second, the lamb was eaten on the fifteenth, not slaughtered on that day.

I read routinely Mark 14:1 and 14:12 in such a way, that Mark wished to connect passover (blood) with the days of unleavened bread (bread), working towards the last supper: Do not care about chronological errors, when the theological goal is reached!

I no longer even notice these so called "errors". It's not wrong to do so again.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I read some sections in the google-preview of the book and I had to smile at myself.

Alter wrote

In error, Mark 14:12 identifies that “the first day of unleavened bread,” the fifteenth of Nisan, is the time when the priests sacrifice (“killed” in the AV) the Passover lamb. In actuality, the slaughtering would have occurred on the fourteenth of Nisan. Here it must be understood that, according to the Hebrew Bible (Gen 1:8, 13, 19, 23, and 31), a new day starts at sunset. Therefore, the “first day of unleavened bread” started at sunset from our modern perspective. Second, the lamb was eaten on the fifteenth, not slaughtered on that day.

I read routinely Mark 14:1 and 14:12 in such a way, that Mark wished to connect passover (blood) with the days of unleavened bread (bread), working towards the last supper: Do not care about chronological errors, when the theological goal is reached!

I no longer even notice these so called "errors". It's not wrong to do so again.

the Passover Lamb, is the sacrifice that the Torah mandates Jews to ritually slaughter on the eve of Passover, and eat on the first night of the holiday with bitter herbs and matzo.
... The animal was slain on the eve of the Passover, on the afternoon of the 14th of Abib,[2] after the Tamid sacrifice had been killed, i.e., at three o'clock, or, in case the eve of the Passover fell on Friday, at two.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_ ... he_Sabbath

So the animal was killed on the day of the 14th and eaten the night of the 15th, by Hebrew counting.

By Roman counting, this all happened on one day, because the Romans measured days from midnight to midnight, didn't they? So the Roman Day on which the 15th of Nissan - the feast of unleavened bread - began was the same day on which the lambs were sacrificed. Besides, Mark was writing for a gentile audience in Greek, so he could use Roman counting.

The first day of the feast of unleavened bread by the ROman calendar is the same day on which the lambs are killed, which is what Mark wrote.

Like I said, I think that there are potential discrepancies in the accounts, but sometimes opponents from competing religions can be overzealous in finding issues where on deeper inspection they aren't necessarily.

It seems to me that an investigator could go to check Paul's and the gospels' claims. He could ask the Romans if guards were at the tomb, and could go around asking about the appearance to the 500. Maybe this was not a simultaneous appearance to 500, but an appearance to 500 individually at different times.

matthew ferguson says that the early christians were not investigative journalists.

theterminator wrote:

It seems to me that an investigator could go to check Paul's and the gospels' claims. He could ask the Romans if guards were at the tomb, and could go around asking about the appearance to the 500. Maybe this was not a simultaneous appearance to 500, but an appearance to 500 individually at different times.

matthew ferguson says that the early christians were not investigative journalists.

Counter-apologetics largely consists of mentioning the obvious that the argument wishes us to ignore.

(And harmonizations often consist of obscure attempts to conjure up 'explanations' that have less than zero evidence.)

theterminator wrote:

It seems to me that an investigator could go to check Paul's and the gospels' claims. He could ask the Romans if guards were at the tomb, and could go around asking about the appearance to the 500. Maybe this was not a simultaneous appearance to 500, but an appearance to 500 individually at different times.

matthew ferguson says that the early christians were not investigative journalists.

Many regular modern Christians are not investigative journalist either. But if they heard these claims they could go to Jerusalem and check out some basic facts: Were guards posted at the tomb? Can you introduce me to some of these 500 brethren? Did Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea have involvement with Jesus' burial?

Indeed, if I were a 1st century Christian believer, I might easily want to do this even if it did not involve any skepticism.