A Christmas Story

It amazes me how often I hear that Jesus never existed or that scripture is just fiction.

So here are a few rather recently published books for the skeptic who claims to have never seen any evidence that scripture is not fiction or that Jesus ever existed.

Why Are There Differences in the Gospels

Biographies and Jesus

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

Merry Christmas

Showing both the strained harmonizations and the hasty dismissals of the Gospels as reliable accounts to be misguided, Licona invites readers to approach them in light of their biographical genre and in that way to gain a clearer understanding of why they differ.

  • Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?

This work is a careful and critical study of the biographical information about Jesus of Nazareth. The results of this work must be taken into account in future research into the gospels’ use of sources and historical reliability. Through careful comparative study of the relevant ancient sources, with which many contemporary interpreters are not adequately acquainted, this book shows that the gospels were competently and reliably written.

  • Biographies and Jesus

Questions about the reliability of the New Testament are commonly raised today both by biblical scholars and popular media. Drawing on decades of research, Craig Blomberg addresses all of the major objections to the historicity of the New Testament in one comprehensive volume. Topics addressed include the formation of the Gospels, the transmission of the text, the formation of the canon, alleged contradictions, the relationship between Jesus and Paul, supposed Pauline forgeries, other gospels, miracles, and many more. Historical corroborations of details from all parts of the New Testament are also presented throughout. The Historical Reliability of the New Testament marshals the latest scholarship in responding to New Testament objections, while remaining accessible to non-specialists.

  • The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

Study up Patrick. Argument from Ignorance is frowned upon here at “The Skeptical Zone.”

57 thoughts on “A Christmas Story

  1. It’s Christmas after all, I guess he had a case of I-better-do-a-bit-of-evangelization. Cut him some slack 🙂

  2. Lol, so if the scriptures are not fiction they must be fact.

    When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean. Leviticus 15: 19-20

    Is that a fact Mung?

  3. Mung on a different thread:

    I can’t be the only one here who would love to see your calculations. Have they been published? Peer reviewed?

    Funny how when it’s Jesus mere books are sufficient. Everything else is either peer reviewed or it does not count.

    Mung, if Jesus is real do you think he approves of your behaviour on this forum?

  4. OMagain: When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean. Leviticus 15: 19-20

    Is that a fact Mung?

    Clearly those are words inspired by the wisdom and love of a morally perfect supreme being.

    If you bleed from somewhere, everybody knows that your entire body is now filthy and unclean. It will magically wander from it’s point of origin and filthify every square-centimeter of your skin.

    After all, it’s blood… from the vagina. EEWWW!!

  5. Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?

    This work is a careful and critical study of the biographical information about Jesus of Nazareth. The results of this work must be taken into account in future research into the gospels’ use of sources and historical reliability. Through careful comparative study of the relevant ancient sources, with which many contemporary interpreters are not adequately acquainted, this book shows that the gospels were competently and reliably written.

    Whatever reasons there may be for the differences between one gospel and another. any truth lover around here can disclose to you that if there are differences they can’t all be true. Law of Non-contradiction, you know?

    Anyhow, it’s nice to know that some Bible scholars (finally) concede these obvious differences. I’m guessing the best book on that subject remains Butler’s The Fair Haven But, admittedly, it’s not a subject that has much interest for me.

  6. Try to get evangelical Christians to join you in reading each of the gospels straight through — four gospels, four sittings — in a single weekend. They think nothing of watching four football games or four movies in a single weekend. But consuming four gospels whole is unthinkable. Deep down, they know they can’t handle the straight dope.

  7. Tom English:
    That’s of course an overgeneralization. I have a few Baptist friends who would think it’s a great idea. But they are rare birds.

    And the life of the party. 🙂

  8. Such a thing as crying wolf. After thousands of years of bullshit, who is going to wade through more?

    I will call attention to Mormonism, which has the sworn testimony of twelve actual people as evidence. Not just rumors of people or assertions that someone said this.

  9. Acartia: And the life of the party. 🙂

    One of the guys I had in mind was kicked out of school along with me. We had these “radical” ideas about equality of women and men in education, and we put them in print. Students and faculty protested, and drew a lot of press coverage. We were soon readmitted. My friend’s now a minister, very much into social action. He has done a great deal of good for people in need. He’s a gregarious, intelligent, honest, and engaging guy. Folks love him.

    As for the party… I was the one who organized a street dance outside my dorm. It was the first time students had danced on campus in 30 or so years.

    So, what can I say? I’m all for a weekend of Gospel reading and dancing, with a few beers at the end of the day — even though I’ve grown thoroughly irreligious. (Each time I return to the Bible, I’m more amazed than before to see how different it is than what I was raised to think it was. I don’t do it often. But it’s an important part of understanding where I began, and how far I’ve come. I enjoy documentaries about Bible scholarship, not that there are many of them.)

  10. Richardthughes,

    First I’d heard of the Bacon number. I’ve never seen Footloose. But I just looked over the plot, so I get the connection you’re making. There may be “worked with” links connecting Bacon and me, because I was in a TV commercial (1980) directed by a guy who did a lot of work in Hollywood movies. But I’m pretty sure that we’re not connected by “acted with” links. Poking around, I just learned that a classmate of mine in existential philosophy — very bright gal — had a career in soaps!

  11. As Rafael Lataster pointed out (using a whole book to do so), these disputes about the gospels are for believers. The dispute for atheists is whether there exists sufficient evidence, however indirect and hazy, for any Jesus to have existed on earth at all. Paul certainly didn’t think so.

    Parading a list of contortions believers must put themselves through to rationalize a preposterous set of beliefs they can’t reject, isn’t going to persuade anyone not already beyond rational analysis. If you are among their numbers, bless you and may your faith support you until death.

  12. Flint: The dispute for atheists is whether there exists sufficient evidence, however indirect and hazy, for any Jesus to have existed on earth at all.

    Are some atheists concerned about that? I find whether a historical Jesus or composites that added up to the Biblical versions quite interesting but the idea of supernatural events such as turning water into wine just a bit silly.

  13. Flint: As Rafael Lataster pointed out (using a whole book to do so), these disputes about the gospels are for believers.

    The actual facts on the ground though show otherwise. Why don’t we just agree to live in the word of facts and go from there?

  14. Mung: The actual facts on the ground though show otherwise. Why don’t we just agree to live in the word of facts and go from there?

    Mostly because facts about ancient times are very thin on the ground. The closest we can come is a sort of consensus among scholars, but when most of the scholars are Christians, we’re looking much more at a consensus of beliefs than a consensus of facts.

    Here are some examples: Do we know of any eyewitnesses to Jesus? Well, no. Did Paul ever meet Jesus? Only in visions. Are there any extra-biblical verifications of biblical materials? Amazingly few, and most of those are either subject to interpretation or suspected of being forgeries. SHOULD there be such material? Actually, there ought to be TONS of it, since there were dozens of Jewish cults all writing about one another. There were Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians writing about them all. NONE of which survives (and the “holes” in the accounts of several historians are highly suspicious).

    So what do we have that qualify as facts? We have Jewish scriptures from before the NT, we have a few historical documents written by non-Christians, and we have the bible. But scriptures aren’t themselves facts, it’s only a fact that copies of some scriptures survived in some form.

    Scholarly opinion holds that the gospels (which are all anonymous and cite NO sources) were written well after the events they variously describe, and far away, and in a different language. In no way are the NT materials history, nor were they ever intended to be. Such are the facts.

  15. Alan Fox: Are some atheists concerned about that? I find whether a historical Jesus or composites that added up to the Biblical versions quite interesting but the idea of supernatural events such as turning water into wine just a bit silly.

    Yes, atheists also find these tales of miracles silly. Not to mention that there are supposed to have been thousands of witnesses to some of them, none of whom ever bothered to record them. Nobody thinks the Jesus of the gospels was a composite (though even Christian historical scholars concede that the gospel Jesus did derive in part from the cultural fad for dying and rising gods, and nothing the gospel Jesus did was original).

    As I mentioned to Mung, the sheer paucity of surviving documents about the early Christian church is a serious problem. That paucity does not exist for contemporary cultures (most of the Jews, the Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians, etc.) Indeed, what survives looks exactly like what you’d see if the early Church, having negotiated a compromise fable, decided to “disappear” anything that refuted it, including (alas) even indirect references to what refuted it.

  16. Flint: So what do we have that qualify as facts?

    It is a fact that people here commonly attack the gospels because in doing so they think it supports their atheism and their lack of belief in the historicity of Jesus.

    So when you claim that the Gospels are not important, well, the facts say otherwise.

    As Rafael Lataster pointed out (using a whole book to do so), these disputes about the gospels are for believers.

    Then the unbelievers should shut up about the gospels, don’t you think?

  17. Mung: So when you claim that the Gospels are not important, well, the facts say otherwise.

    They’re not remotely plausible. Assign that whatever importance you will.

    Mung: these disputes about the gospels are for believers.

    Not at all. If one of the reasons I wish to dismiss an assertion is internal consistency, I’m allowed to do that. Look at me destroy a book in one sentence.

    Mung: Then the unbelievers should shut up about the gospels, don’t you think?

    No, because believers certainly won’t shut up about them.

  18. Mung: It is a fact that people here commonly attack the gospels because in doing so they think it supports their atheism and their lack of belief in the historicity of Jesus.

    So when you claim that the Gospels are not important, well, the facts say otherwise.

    As Rafael Lataster pointed out (using a whole book to do so), these disputes about the gospels are for believers.

    Then the unbelievers should shut up about the gospels, don’t you think?

    I certainly never said the gospels were not important. I said they were FICTION. Fiction can be very important. But today, few of any Christian historical scholars regard the gospels as recording history, or even trying to. The distinction I’m drawing is that Christian historians all necessarily agree there WAS a Jesus, and they attempt to extract the “real” Jesus from all of the embellishments and fictional enhancements. This is not a debate for atheists.

    Atheist historians shouldn’t “shut up” about the gospels, because quite a few are interested in various aspects of the gospels – which existing scriptures the gospel writers were trying to cause to “come true”, what Jewish and pagan cultural influences can be found there, etc.

    To address the thread topic specifically, different Jewish sects at the time interpreted various prophecies out of existing scripture. One school of thought said the messiah would be born in Jerusalem, another said Bethlehem. So we have two distinct stories. The Bethlehem story involves a census (there was never any such census, but the author needed SOME excuse to place Mary and Joseph there because they thought scripture SAID this). The Jerusalem story involves the star in the east and the three kings/wise men. Note that Paul never said word one about the birth of Jesus.

    So could it be that there were competing sects, each with their own Jesus gospel? We can’t know, because (except for a bit of Paul) ALL records for the first 80 years C.E. failed to survive. So it SEEMS that there was a political compromise in compiling the NT, and the most powerful sects got THEIR version in (though Matthew copies much of Mark, and Luke copies most of both).

    Now, none of this says anything about the historicity of Jesus. It says a great deal about the authors, the surrounding cultures, the earlier scriptures, etc.

  19. Flint: I certainly never said the gospels were not important.

    You quoted a source. Your source was wrong. Even Richardthughes agrees with me.

    As Rafael Lataster pointed out (using a whole book to do so), these disputes about the gospels are for believers.

    That’s just wrong. The disputes are for unbelievers. They would be nowhere without them.

  20. Mung: You quoted a source. Your source was wrong. Even Richardthughes agrees with me.

    What source? Even Lataster says the gospels are important, they simply aren’t history.

    That’s just wrong. The disputes are for unbelievers. They would be nowhere without them.

    Sigh. There are two different disputes here. Believers dispute the veracity of the various tales of Christ. Atheists dispute the EXISTENCE of Christ.

    From the atheist perspective, you must FIRST establish the historical existence of Jesus (or Paul Bunyan, or Pecos Bill, or Sam Patch, or John Frum). Only then can you attempt to ferret out the wheat from the chaff.

    From the Christian perspective, the existence of Jesus is taken for granted, and the task is to rectify the clearly mutually inconsistent versions in the gospels.

  21. petrushka:
    So nonbelievers in Scientology should shut up about it? Muhammad? Moroni? Baal? Zuul?

    I suspect Mung misunderstood here. Christians cannot dispute Christ’s historical existence, and Muslims cannot dispute Muhammad’s existence, and Mormons cannot dispute Moroni’s existence. And they can’t because even the thought of these characters being fictional is disallowed by their beliefs. They KNOW better, they might fake a devil’s advocate position, but they KNOW better.

    Only those completely outside the confines of any given faith, can honestly dispute the fundamental belief-requirements of that faith.

  22. Flint: Atheists dispute the EXISTENCE of Christ.

    If they are morons. But not all atheists are morons. So all atheists do not dispute the existence of Christ.

    And for those who do, they rely on the gospels. So the gospels don’t only matter for believers. They matter for unbelievers as well.

  23. Mung: If they are morons. But not all atheists are morons. So all atheists do not dispute the existence of Christ.

    And for those who do, they rely on the gospels. So the gospels don’t only matter for believers. They matter for unbelievers as well.

    You yourself dispute the existence of Christ. Because Jesus is material, so he can’t be God. Remember?

  24. dazz, the historical Jesus could be a real person yet not have been God. It does not follow that if Jesus was not God that he was not a historical person.

  25. Mung:
    dazz, the historical Jesus could be a real person yet not have been God. It does not follow that if Jesus was not God that he was not a historical person.

    I couldn’t care less about the historicity of Jesus TBH.
    You know exactly what I meant

  26. Although some atheists dispute the existence of Jesus, the preponderance of evidence suggests to me that we should be about as confident in the existence of a historical Jesus as we are about any lots of other people from antiquity.

    Socrates, for example.

    Whether Jesus was the Messiah is a different question altogether.

  27. dazz: You know exactly what I meant

    Yes, and your conclusion that I must dispute that Jesus existed didn’t follow.

  28. Kantian Naturalist: Whether Jesus was the Messiah is a different question altogether.

    Absolutely. his own disciples believe he existed yet questioned whether he was the messiah. That is, If the gospels are to be believed. 🙂

  29. Mung: Yes, and your conclusion that I must dispute that Jesus existed didn’t follow.

    Note that I said Christ. Jesus could exist and not be Chrst, Messiah, God or whatever

  30. Same error in reasoning dazz. One can believe that Jesus is the Messiah without believing that Jesus is God. It still doesn’t follow that I must dispute that Jesus was the Messiah or that he [the Christ] existed.

  31. Mung:
    Same error in reasoning dazz. One can believe that Jesus is the Messiah without believing that Jesus is God. It still doesn’t follow that I must dispute that Jesus was the Messiah or that he [the Christ] existed.

    True that.
    But it’s you who said that air couldn’t be God, being material.
    All I’m asking is if you agree that Jesus, being material, also couldn’t be God

  32. walto:
    But he’s THREE*THREE* THREE things in one!(Wasn’t that a gum commercial or something?)

    three things in one while full of number two. Beat that, evolutionists, who lack a mathematical model!

  33. walto:
    But he’s THREE*THREE* THREE things in one!(Wasn’t that a gum commercial or something?)

    Just to note, a pregnant woman who is the sole owner of a corporation is also three persons in one being.

  34. Mung: If they are morons. But not all atheists are morons. So all atheists do not dispute the existence of Christ.

    And for those who do, they rely on the gospels. So the gospels don’t only matter for believers. They matter for unbelievers as well.

    Maybe we still can’t communicate. Atheists do not believe that there ARE any gods, so there are no offspring of gods. What atheists dispute, then, is whether the Jesus of the gospels was ever an actual person.

Leave a Reply