Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.
-Josephus, first century Jewish historian
It amazes me the logic used by even the brightest minds in Christianity regarding alleged evidence for the historicity of the (tall) tales found in the Gospels. Here is the issue in question: Just because first century Jewish historian Josephus made a very brief mention about Jesus as a miracle worker and healer, does that confirm every fantastical miracle claim story in the Gospels? Of course not. Miracle workers and healers came a dime a dozen in Antiquity. So including Jesus in this category does nothing to confirm his status as God, King of the Cosmos.
I can’t prove it but I suspect that first century Christian story tellers and authors knew this. They knew that to convince first century Jews, Romans, and Greeks that Jesus of Nazareth was the Creator, the Savior of all humankind, God Incarnate, they needed stories of Jesus performing BIG miracles! So they invented big miracles…walking on water, feeding thousands of people with a few loaves of Wonder Bread, raising people (and himself) from the dead…so that you might believe!
Here is an example of one modern, very intelligent Christian Bible scholar, apologist, and blog author trying to use this silly logic to convince himself and other Christians that Jesus’ reputation as a healer and miracle worker is sufficient evidence to believe in feats of water walking, turning water into wine, corpse regeneration, etc..
Joel Edmund Anderson: https://www.joeledmundanderson.com/im-back-lets-look-at-the-sign-of-jonah-matthew-161-4-and-1238-45-and-mark-811-13/
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Gary, one thing that almost all modern NT scholars, whether liberal, conservative or atheist take for granted, is that Jesus had a reputation for performing healings and exorcisms; even the Talmud takes for granted that Jesus did these kinds of miracles but argues that he used sorcery and the dark arts to them.
Obviously that doesn’t prove he did them; but it does argue that the authors of the gospels weren’t just making all of this stuff up.
As for Dr. Anderson’s blog, I’m not sure you understood his point about Jesus and Jonah.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
You, like Anderson, completely miss the point.
I am not arguing that Jesus did not have a reputation as a healer and miracle worker. I am arguing that having a reputation as a healer and miracle worker in the first century does not prove Jesus did the BIG miracles the Gospel authors claim he did. Why is that so hard to understand?
LikeLike
No, Josephus’ report doesn’t prove anything except that Jesus had a reputation for performing miracles.
My question is, where did that reputation come from? I submit it wasn’t PR by the disciples.
Because why would the authors of the gospels deliberately lie and invent these supposed miracles of Jesus knowing full-well that anyone interested could check and prove them wrong? The ancients weren’t stupid, after all. That argument has never made sense to me. If they were gonna invent miracles why invent “big miracles” anyone who checked could easily prove never happened? All it would’ve taken is one guy to stand up and say that he was with Jesus that day and he never saw Jesus feed anybody with fish, bread, dates or anything else.
Again, such conspiracy theories don’t stand up to serious inquiry and actually take more faith to believe than believing the miracles happened.
Yet again, it comes down to one’s worldview.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
What if the Gospel of Mark, the first Gospel written according to most scholars, was written in Spain, or Gaul, or northern Africa (Libya) in circa 65 CE? Who would have fact checked the story?
LikeLike
Especially if Mark was written 40 years after the alleged events in the story. The vast majority of the witnesses would already be dead by the time Mark was circulating. Decades later, how could “one guy” even prove that they were present with Jesus on the day in question?
LikeLike
True. Even if the Gospel of Mark was written in Jerusalem in 65 CE, why would anyone complain about fictional miracle stories? If you believe Jesus was a healer because you saw him pray for a child with a high fever and the next morning she was turning somersaults with her playmates, what is the big deal? You know Jesus CAN heal people and isnt that what matters?
LikeLike
BILL: Especially if Mark was written 40 years after the alleged events in the story. The vast majority of the witnesses would already be dead by the time Mark was circulating. Decades later, how could “one guy” even prove that they were present with Jesus on the day in question.
LEE: So nobody alive in AD 65-70 would remember or even have any way of finding out, events that had taken place in Jerusalem ca. AD 30? Even within a much more literate culture like Judaism, which valued accurate oral history and had a history of training certain people to remember important information accurately? Everyone living in AD 70 would’ve been a tot6al blank as to an events which allegedly took place a mere 40 years before? I can’t buy that.
That’s akin to making the claim that nobody alive in Dallas in 2003 could remember or even find out, any of the details of November 22, 1963.
Even in our modern culture a mere 40 years isn’t enough time for peoples’ memory or their ability to consult historical records to have faded. The JFK assassination was such a big deal that 50 years later my parents could remember precisely where they were and what they were doing when they first heard he’d been killed.
Certainly in a culture steeped in accurate memorization like Palestinian Judaism the idea that nobody would have a clue about mere 40-year-old history staggers the imagination.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
When did the Gospel of Mark first arrive in Jerusalem and when was it read in the church there?
LikeLike
GARY: When did the Gospel of Mark first arrive in Jerusalem and when was it read in the church there?
LEE: Nobody knows precisely and It doesn’t matter, anyway. The Early Church was a close-knit network of communities. It wouldn’t have been that large a network until long after Mark had begun to circulate; regardless, the individual churches would’ve known all of this stuff as oral history anyway.
You actually expect me to believe it’s realistic to think that one of the world’s largest religions evolved out of a tiny group of illiterate, a-political, a-historical Messianic Jews, with no clearly-articulated views for the first 200 years of its existence, and with no desire, much less ability to record any of its history or major beliefs? Where the leaders were subject to wild visions and hallucinations more bizarre than anything Timothy Leary ever saw dropping acid in the ’60s?
The miracle is that this “movement” managed to last longer than 15 minutes!
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Assumption, after assumption, after assumption. How quaint.
If you cannot prove that the Gospel of Mark reached Jerusalem before all the eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus living there had died, you cannot argue that eyewitnesses were alive to refute or endorse the historicity of the stories told in that text. Your thinking is completely irrational.
Your entire belief system is so dependent on assumptions that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you, Lee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
GARY: If you cannot prove that the Gospel of Mark reached Jerusalem before all the eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus living there had died, you cannot argue that eyewitnesses were alive to refute or endorse the historicity of the stories told in that text. Your thinking is completely irrational.
LEE: Again, we’re talking about probabilities. Your method of historiography is irrational because it demands certainties where for much of recorded history we can only posit probabilities.
And as I keep reminding you, even if it could be proved that Mark arrived in Jerusalem prior to the death of all the eyewitnesses (which is likely, as some of them would’ve been children in the 30s AD) you’d find a way to have that evidence, too, thrown out.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Nonsense. You demand special treatment for Christian claims. That is your problem.
If the Gospel of Mark did not arrive to Jerusalem until 90 CE, anyone who was 20 years old in 30 CE would be 80 years old. How many people lived to be 80 years old in the first century? Your ancient tall tale depends upon assumption after assumption to maintain its credibility. And one of the those assumptions is that eyewitnesses were still alive when the Gospels began to circulate among the churches; eyewitnesses who would verify that the stories in the Gospels were 100% historically accurate. And that is another assumption: Why would they care if there were fictional miracle stories in the Gospels if they believed that Jesus was the Christ and therefore capable of such miracles? You are thinking like a person in the 21st century not the 1st.
LikeLike
Lee: You actually expect me to believe it’s realistic to think that one of the world’s largest religions evolved out of a tiny group of illiterate, a-political, a-historical Messianic Jews, with no clearly-articulated views for the first 200 years of its existence, and with no desire, much less ability to record any of its history or major beliefs?
Gary: But they did articulate their views. The epistles of Paul and the Gospels/Acts are their articulations. The question is: Are their articulations historically accurate?
Since we have no contemporaneous, non-Christian sources corroborating the claims in these texts, we are left to speculate as to their historical accuracy. Is that so hard for you to comprehend, Lee? That is what we do for all other ancient texts. Why are you asking for an exception for Christian texts??
LikeLike
GARY: What if the Gospel of Mark, the first Gospel written according to most scholars, was written in Spain, or Gaul, or northern Africa (Libya) in circa 65 CE? Who would have fact checked the story?
LEE: Firstly, Gary, nobody seriously thinks Mark was written in Gaul or North Africa. As I keep reminding you, history doesn’t deal with every possibility but with the most likely probabilies.
Regardless, travel throughout the Roman Empire was widespread and a lot quicker than we sometimes assume. People travelled a lot in the Roman Empire. It was not uncommon for the ancient Romans to travel long distances all across Europe. Rome actually had a rather sophisticated (for the time) road network which extended from northern England all the way to southern Egypt. And while travelling from Rome to Naples on foot or horseback took about six days, that isn’t a huge amount of time. And of course, sea travel was even faster; for example, travelling from Brindisium in Italy to Patrae in Greece would only take over three days by ship, versus about one day today. Romans could also travel from Italy to Egypt in just a few days.
Thus “fact-checking” the gospels would’ve been fairly easy to do. Esp. if Mark, as most believe, was written in Rome or Syria. In I Corinthians 15 when Paul references the 500 people who saw the resurrected Jesus, he’s basically reminding the Corinthian readers/hearers of his letter that many of these people were still alive in 55 AD and could be consulted.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
Where was the Gospel of Mark written? When did a copy arrive to the church in Jerusalem?
Thus “fact-checking” the gospels would’ve been fairly easy to do. Esp. if Mark, as most believe, was written in Rome or Syria. In I Corinthians 15 when Paul references the 500 people who saw the resurrected Jesus, he’s basically reminding the Corinthian readers/hearers of his letter that many of these people were still alive in 55 AD and could be consulted.
Do you know as a fact that Paul had met and interviewed some or all of these 500 eyewitnesses? Is it possible that Paul was simply repeating information that he had “received” but never verified?
LikeLike
And how do you KNOW all that you covered about travel in Rome? From one of your many apologists? Lee, no one alive today KNOWS what was happening in bible days. It’s all assumptions. Technically, the only “facts” about Jesus or Paul or any of the disciples is what is written/shared in the bible itself. Of course, this doesn’t stop folks from offering and writing about their personal opinions and interpretations.
LikeLike
I wasn’t aware that Stanford University’s Orbis, the Stanford Geopolitical Network Model of the Roman World is a mouthpiece for Christian apologists. I guess I missed that memo.
https://orbis.stanford.edu/
There are some things historians can know, with a fair degree of certainty, about life in the ancient world. Travel times are one thing. I’ve linked to the page which covers travel times.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
From your source: By simulating movement … . I trust you know the meaning of the word simulating. Again … it’s all hypothetical based on the attempts of “scholars” to reproduce ancient historical events.
The thing is, Lee, you simply CANNOT make some of the statements you do as if they are FACT. Suppositions, possibilities, likelihoods, perhaps. But NOT facts because you and the dozens of scholars who write about ancient times were not there and thus can only create “simulated” possibilities.
LikeLike
Nan, it’s called a “simulation” because it’s a computer-simulated model, not because the scholars who designed the program were blindly working with loose, random, untested data.
It isn’t as if they’re simply throwing darts at distances on a big map. Go to the “Learn More” page to see how they computed their models. They’re based on such measurable things as wave speeds at different times of the year, and trade-routes documented in ancient sources.
And over the past sixty years reproductions of ancient wooden ships have been built to spec and sailed without engines from Port A to Port B. Everything from Greco-Roman grain ships, to Viking longships, to the Pinta, to the Mayflower, to the USS Constitution. Just last year a Roman cargo ship was built by the Friedrich-Alexander University of Mainz and sailed up the Danube by a group volunteers.
And people still walk across Europe all the time, so walking distances aren’t that hard to compute, either.
So much as you’d seem to want everything in ancient history, thus by extension everything in the Bible, to be pure un-documentable guesswork, it just isn’t. Certainly in this case you can’t use ancient secular history to prop up your skepticism. There are lots of things we legitimately cannot know about ancient history however this is not one of them.
I’ve never met anyone so keen to paint everything in ancient history as one hundred-and-fifty percent total guesswork just so she could more easily maintain her religious skepticism when it comes to the Bible.
And you guys call me gullible and delusional?
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
As usual, you expand your responses to areas above and beyond the contents of the referenced comment in order to validate your personal perspectives on the bible.
Lee, the methods you and others use in your attempts to interpret and confirm and prove bible events is, at its core, nothing more than guesswork. Yes, the methods used today to explain ancient history are sophisticated and interested individuals spend beaucoup hours studying and examining “evidence” in their attempts to validate a particular position.
I question and challenge many of your remarks because, like so many others, in your attempts to “prove” your core beliefs, you draw from sources outside the bible. Why do you (and others) do that? IMO, it’s because there are things in the bible that don’t fit our modern way of seeing things … so we must “adjust” them to fit our core sensibilities.
I know you’re going to discount most of my remarks, but at least you know why I continue to challenge some of your claims (and assumptions). It isn’t because I’m trying to “prove” anything. I just believe the bible speaks for itself and trying to manipulate it to mean what a person wants it to mean is dishonest.
LikeLike
NAN: I question and challenge many of your remarks because, like so many others, in your attempts to “prove” your core beliefs, you draw from sources outside the bible. Why do you (and others) do that? IMO, it’s because there are things in the bible that don’t fit our modern way of seeing things … so we must “adjust” them to fit our core sensibilities.
LEE: Nan, did you ever use Cliff’s Notes in college? If so, why? Wasn’t Jane Eyre or Edwin Drood enough? Why do you need sources outside the text you’re reading?
Why do we draw on sources beyond the Gettysburg Address to help us understand it? To set into its historical, political and ethical contexts? Shouldn’t the text itself be enough?
As a former pastor was fond of saying, “The New Testament wasn’t written to us, but it was written for us.” Meaning that we don’t live in Ancient Roman Palestine and speak/read Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.
Extra-biblical sources serve the same purpose that Cliff’s Notes serve with classical literature (including the Bible)–they help us understand the people and cultures that produced the Bible. We do this, partly because skeptics like yourself seem to demand a higher standard of proof when it comes to anything associated with the bible, but primarily because Christianity does not demand blind faith or allegiance, but invites us to ask those kinds of questions.
So I’m not at all trying to read my views into the texts, but trying to let the texts speak to me. Just like I read up on Charles Dickens and Victorian England to help me understand Edwin Drood.
All these sources are are study aids. Christians have been using them for about 1700 years.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike
“Study aids” are just that. They help YOU learn more about and/or understand the topic/subject you are studying. They are not (generally) used to validate what has been written.
The way I see it is -IF- the bible is truly the “Word of God” then WHY-OH-WHY do believers like yourself feel it’s necessary to seek the opinions/thoughts of other believers to help them decipher/understand what the ULTIMATE source has (supposedly) shared with “his” creation?
Gary, as well as others, have asked some straight-forward questions, but you continue to wander off into the ionosphere of “biblical authorities” rather than providing him/them with straightforward, inmost responses.
LikeLike
Nan, study aids can and often do validate what is written. For example, the gospels claim that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate; “secular” sources like Philo, Josephus, and Tacitus confirm him as a real figure exactly when the NT places him, and two of the three sources confirm that Pilate did, indeed have Jesus executed.
Christian theologian Dr. Roger Olson says “the unexamined faith isn’t worth believing.” I agree. Christianity doesn’t ask you, I don’t ask you, to simply take Jesus or the Bible for granted on blind faith. If that’s what they told in Sunday School they were wrong.Asking questions is encouiraged. The apostle Peter wrote in I Peter 3 that Christians should be able to make a rational, reasoned argument for why they believe what they believe if anyone asks them. That includes scholars and study aids.
As I said, the gospels were written for us, but not, originally, to us. The gospels were first and foremost written to the first couple of generations of Christians bet. 60-90 AD to provide evidence those people in that culture would find persuasive to support the claim that Jesus was the resurrected Son of God. If you read ’em through the lens of a 21st century postmodernist skeptic you’ll be looking for modern answers to ancient questions.
The main threads of the Bible–creation, fall, redemption, new creation, anyone can understand without aids. But the details, the subtleties and nuances, you may need some help with.
At the end of the day, we study the Bible using the same criteria we’d apply to any other ancient compilation of religio-historical texts.
Gary typically demands simplistic answers to complex questions for which easy answers don’t always exist, then uses the absence of easy answers as more proof to bolster his skepticism. Take his rant about the Torah supporting pedophilia in another thread. Firstly, can you actually imagine him raising that issue with the Jewish scholar (I forget his name) he dragged into his other thread a couple of months ago to put me in my place? He only even raised the issue of pedophilia and the Torah to give the Old Testament, and by extension Christianity, a black eye. I don’t for one minute think he actually wants to discuss the nuances and complexities of what the Torah actually says about marriage seriously. He’s already got his mind made up and don’t bother him with facts, thanks very much.
May I humbly recommend the book Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense, by NT Wright? It’s only 175-200 pp and an easy read; you can get it for nothing on Amazon.com. Wright does a much better job of articulating what I’m trying to say.
Pax.
Lee.
LikeLike