The Bible Fraud

[Guest]

Can you quote the passage from Celsus?

 

No. As I said, my brain is not working clearly this morning, and even so, if my memory serves, we only have what Eusebius thought needed refuting, and one of those bullet points was the charge of plagiarism.

 

So anyway either this migraine is affecting my thinking today or I am wrong in my recollection of history. I looked all morning and could not find any early accusations of plagiarism. However, I’m still not ready to say I was mistaken, firstly because I couldn’t even find Paul’s comment in the NT that lying is OK as long as you lie for the lord, and I know that's there, but because I also found a bit to confirm half of what I remember. Basically, I knew that Eusebius is thought to be a liar for jesus, and even admitted to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius#Works

Some historians doubt the reliability of Eusebius' works because in his work "Ecclesiastical History" (book 12, Chapter 32), Eusebius writes, "We shall introduce to this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and after to prosperity." Eusebius is also reported to have written later that at times it is a "necessary medicine" that historians fabricate history.

 

But mostly that the attacks and criticism of early xtianity did not survive history, but are preserved through quotations in apologetics by Eusebius and/or Origen when he refutes them in his own works. I thought that Celsus was the one who made the objection, and that I could find it in Against Celsus, but a reading on his life or that work did not reveal accusations of plagiarism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus

 

Porphry is another who make claims against xtianity, yet I was unable to find the proper info on him, either. Anyway, I have not given up the search for details yet, but I did also come across this bit from Ehrman about textual “corrections”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_...tual_corruption

Within the wealth of Biblical manuscripts exist a number textual variants. The vast majority of these textual variants are the inconsequential misspelling of words, word order variations[21] and the mistranscription of abbreviations. [22] In his book Misquoting Jesus[23] Bart D. Ehrman discusses the idea that some of these textual variants and interpolations were theologically motivated. He argues, for example, that scribes added Luke 22:43-44 in an attempt to counter the arguments that Jesus was not fully human and did not have a body. Ehrman's conclusions have been challenged by conservative reviewers, including Daniel B. Wallace, Craig Blomberg and Thomas Howe.[24][25][26]

 

I actually think I may have read about this in either a Book by Ehrman or by Burton Mack. I have a tendency to write in the margins if something important comes up, so I will flip through my books by them later today or possibly tomorrow and see if I can find it there.

[RationalOkie]

I love it when these literalists bring up witnesses. Badger - Google "The Three Witnesses": Shortly after joseph smith announced his tablets, there were three men who signed a joint statement saying they had actually seen them. This statement is printed in every copy of the book of mormon. There is also a monument to them in salt lake city.

 

Some time after, they were joined by eight additional witnesses. All these guys solemnly attested to seeing those tablets.

 

Do you believe them? Why not? You need to apply equal skepticism to your own precious, infallible texts. Stop tormenting yourself. Your religion is just as crazy as all of the other religions. It's no more valid than the legends of King Arthur.

[mwc]

Well, I meant we have the Synoptic Gospels, Paul and non-canonical writings along with Josephus and Tactius.

So the synoptics gospels? Hearsay.

 

Paul? Definitely hearsay.

 

Non-canonicals? Hearsay.

 

Josephus? Forgery.

 

Tacitus? Hearsay.

 

This is some mighty strong evidence for "jesus" alright. Might as well toss in the "Church Fathers." (Also hearsay). And "Prophecy." (Hearsay before the fact).

 

This really isn't the strongest case. Now if I was looking to build a case on what some guys may have heard about some guy named "jesus" and/or one of the supposed "christ" figures then I'd come here. This looks intriguing. But that's all this is.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

However, I’m still not ready to say I was mistaken, firstly because I couldn’t even find Paul’s comment in the NT that lying is OK as long as you lie for the lord, and I know that's there, but because I also found a bit to confirm half of what I remember. Basically, I knew that Eusebius is thought to be a liar for jesus, and even admitted to it:

Was it 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 by any chance?

For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some. 23I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.

[Guest]

Was it 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 by any chance?

For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some. 23I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.

 

Actually, I believe the verse I was thinking of is found in Romans:

 

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"

Here are a few other admissions of lying from early church fathers I found yesterday as well. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...

For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... 

And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
(Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1).

So, my headache is gone today, but I’m still having trouble finding accusations of plagiarism from first century opponents to xtianity. I don't know why I'm having such trouble finding this, it doesn't seem like it was too long ago I read about this. I haven’t looked at any of my books yet though, I’m just doing google searches. Although I haven’t found what I’m looking for, I did find a few interesting xtian forgeries. Although not exactly changed lines of text in historical records, it does highlight that xtians have lied, just about everywhere you look. Hopefully this will tide you over…

 

The Donation of Constantine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_constantine

 

The False Decretals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Decretals

 




[Guest]

OK, I believe I may have found it, although it is not exactly as I had stated. Apparently, Celsus did not accuse xtians of changing historical documents or plagiarizing paganism, but of altering their own texts, which isn't much better. Not only does Celsus accuse xtians of this, but Origen does not deny the practice, even laments it himself. Both of these quotes are from misquoting jesus, Bart Ehrman, page 52.

 

Against Celsus 2.27[/i]]

Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism

 

Here, church father Origen agrees

 

Against Celsus[/i]]

The difference among manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity og others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please

 

Well, I meant we have the Synoptic Gospels, Paul and non-canonical writings along with Josephus and Tactius.

 

Badger, we are trying to corroborate the existence of jesus as a real man, right? The only source of information we have on him is the gospels, and I thought we had discussed how you can not use a source to prove the validity of that source? Whether you are using the source documents of the gospels to verify the gospels or you are using the only information on jesus (said gospels) to try and prove jesus existed, it is still circular reasoning. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

The gospels speak of jesus, we all agree on that here. Josephus is hotly disputed and considered altered, and Tactius does not give us first hand info about jesus at all, only tells us that a group called Chrestians were blamed and executed for burning Rome, some 100 years after jesus supposedly died. Neither of these can be considered non-cannonical evidence for jesus, and neither of them can verify anything at all in the gospels. The only other person that you could possibly mention is Suetonius, but again, he mentions a group called xtians, not jesus, and the man he refers to as the leader is named Chrestus, and seems to be alive at the time.

 

Not to mention that on page 101 of misquoting jesus, Ehrman states that there are 30,000 places of variation in the NT manuscripts. That is not anything close to what I would call reliable sources.

 

I'd like to finish up by throwing in this other quote from Celsus to illustrate how the more things change, the more they stay the same...

 

(The christians) injunctions are like this. "Let know one educated, no one wise, no one sensible draw near. For these abilities are thought by us to be evils. But as for anyone ignorant, anyone stupid, anyone uneducated, anyone who is a child, let him come boldly."

 

In private houses also we see wool-workers, cobblers, laundry-workers, and the most illiterate and bucolic yokels, who would not dare to say anything at all in front of their elders and more intelligent masters. But whenever they get hold of children in private and some stupid women with them, they let out some astounding statements, as, for example, that they must not pay any attention to their father and school teachers...; they say that these talk nonsense and have no understanding...But, if they like, they should leave their father and their schoolmasters, and go along with the women and little children who are their playfellows to the wooldresser's shop, or to the cobbler's or the washerwoman's shop, that they may learn perfection. And by saying this they persuade them.

 

Ahem, sound like the 21 century evolution "debate" at all?

[Guest]

I kept reading and came across another exchange between Celsus and Origen...

 

And everywhere the speak in their writings of the tree of life...I imagine because their master was nailed to a cross and was a carpenter by trade...

 

And Origen replies by denying Mark 6:3!

 

...in none of the gospels current in the churches is jesus himself ever described as being a carpenter

 

So either that verse did nit exist at the time, or only in certain copies, or Origen just erased it out of his copy to ease his refutation of Celsus!

[Badger]

Badger, we are trying to corroborate the existence of jesus as a real man, right? The only source of information we have on him is the gospels, and I thought we had discussed how you can not use a source to prove the validity of that source? Whether you are using the source documents of the gospels to verify the gospels or you are using the only information on jesus (said gospels) to try and prove jesus existed, it is still circular reasoning. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I can't believe you. It is not circular reasoning to take historical documents (yes, the gospels are that) as a evidence of something (Jesus in this case). There is nothing circular here. Instead, the question is how reliable these sources are and can we trust them. I believe we can admit that the gospels are essentially theological documents, written around 70-90 AD, and still say there was a Jew named Jesus who came from Galilee and was crucified in Jerusalem.

[Neon Genesis]

So either that verse did nit exist at the time, or only in certain copies, or Origen just erased it out of his copy to ease his refutation of Celsus!

Didn't Dawkins mention in The God Delusion that carpenter is a mistranslation, so maybe Origen is referring to that?

 

I can't believe you. It is not circular reasoning to take historical documents (yes, the gospels are that) as a evidence of something (Jesus in this case). There is nothing circular here. I

How is this much different than saying Harry Potter is evidence of Hogwarts existing?

[RationalOkie]

Badger - I'll ask you again to - Google "The Three Witnesses": Shortly after joseph smith announced his tablets, there were three men who signed a joint statement saying they had actually seen them. This statement is printed in every copy of the book of mormon. There is also a monument to them in salt lake city. Some time after, they were joined by eight additional witnesses. All these guys solemnly attested to seeing those tablets.

 

Do you believe them? Why not? There are approximately 5 million mormans in the U.S. alone. Are they all wrong? Why? They've got witnesses.

[Guest]

Badger, we are trying to corroborate the existence of jesus as a real man, right? The only source of information we have on him is the gospels, and I thought we had discussed how you can not use a source to prove the validity of that source? Whether you are using the source documents of the gospels to verify the gospels or you are using the only information on jesus (said gospels) to try and prove jesus existed, it is still circular reasoning. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I can't believe you. It is not circular reasoning to take historical documents (yes, the gospels are that) as a evidence of something (Jesus in this case). There is nothing circular here. Instead, the question is how reliable these sources are and can we trust them. I believe we can admit that the gospels are essentially theological documents, written around 70-90 AD, and still say there was a Jew named Jesus who came from Galilee and was crucified in Jerusalem.

 

Can't believe me on what? I'm not asking you to believe me, check it out yourself. I'm supplying links wherever I can.

 

Sigh, one more time. I'll try one more time.

 

Claim: The bible speaks of a man named jesus, who is thought to have actually lived. We know of jesus through the gospels and letters of Paul. The NT is claimed to be a collection of historical documents.

 

Is this a fair paraphrasing of your position? I will continue:

 

The NT are obviously religious documents that include within his life's history a bunch of miracles and other happenings that are impossible for a normal man to do. In addition to these impossibilities, the four gospels plus the letters of Paul do not agree with each other on many important points where they should, if accurate history was really the aim of the writers. On top of this, there are many things in the NT that can be verified easily, like geography of the area or when rulers lived/died etc., and in many of those cases the bible does not check out with secular records of the same events.

 

Thus a reasonable person may wish to look for corroborating evidence outside of scripture to see if this miraculous person existed or not. Fair? So we need to find something outside of the bible to confirm that what the bible says is true. The bible can be shown to be wrong in many, many places, so it can not be taken as a credible source until it is verified by outside means. Claims made in the bible need to be checked if you expect anyone to accept that the said thing happened. Do you understand what is meant by corroborating the NT now?

 

So let's look into history and see what we can find to validate anything about jesus that is in the gospels and/or the letters of Paul. What do we have? By badgers own admission, we only have Josephus and Tactius, and both have been shown to be unreliable at best. Like I said above, the only one left that I am aware of is Suetonius, and he speaks of a group of

Jews who follow someone named Chestus, and seems to imply that Chrestus is alive at the time of writing.

 

If what you are really saying is that the NT is enough evidence to prove that a man named jesus really was behind xtianity, then that is a huge stretch. If that is the case than you must also believe that Mythras was a real man, and that Hercules, or Krishna, or any of the other gods of antiquity actually lived and were real, because the evidence for them is no better than your evidence for jesus.

 

The accusation of circular reasoning is because I ask what else is there besides Tactius and Josephus and you say the gospels. Yet we were discussing Tactius and Josephus in an effort to verify the gospels. Do you see the circle now?

[Guest]

So either that verse did nit exist at the time, or only in certain copies, or Origen just erased it out of his copy to ease his refutation of Celsus!

Didn't Dawkins mention in The God Delusion that carpenter is a mistranslation, so maybe Origen is referring to that?

 

I can't believe you. It is not circular reasoning to take historical documents (yes, the gospels are that) as a evidence of something (Jesus in this case). There is nothing circular here. I

How is this much different than saying Harry Potter is evidence of Hogwarts existing?

 

I don't know if Dawkins mentioned it, but I read in Ehrman today that the word used more closely translates as "one who works with his hands". But the verse in question actually has many different renderings, as some manuscripts say that jesus is the son of a carpenter, and not a carpenter himself.

[mwc]

So either that verse did nit exist at the time, or only in certain copies, or Origen just erased it out of his copy to ease his refutation of Celsus!

Or G.Mark wasn't considered gospel.

 

Or maybe it wasn't properly understood:

But Celsus is not acquainted with the doctrines of the members of the Church,

which very few have been able to comprehend

, even of those who have devoted all their lives, in conformity with the command of Jesus, to the searching of the Scriptures, and have laboured to investigate the meaning of the sacred books, to a greater degree than Greek philosophers in their efforts to attain a so-called wisdom.

The more things change...

 

mwc

[mwc]

To follow-up my own post it seems G.Mark was considered gospel by Origen:

Now the Gospels are four.

...

And Mark, knowing what he writes...

mwc

[Guest]

So either that verse did nit exist at the time, or only in certain copies, or Origen just erased it out of his copy to ease his refutation of Celsus!

Or G.Mark wasn't considered gospel.

 

Or maybe it wasn't properly understood:

But Celsus is not acquainted with the doctrines of the members of the Church,

which very few have been able to comprehend

, even of those who have devoted all their lives, in conformity with the command of Jesus, to the searching of the Scriptures, and have laboured to investigate the meaning of the sacred books, to a greater degree than Greek philosophers in their efforts to attain a so-called wisdom.

The more things change...

 

mwc

 

Actually, Ehrman seems to think that Origen didn't have that verse in his copy of Mark. I don't have the book in front of me now, but I think I remember reading that Origen does quote from Mark in other places.

[mwc]

Actually, Ehrman seems to think that Origen didn't have that verse in his copy of Mark. I don't have the book in front of me now, but I think I remember reading that Origen does quote from Mark in other places.

He does because I looked up the quote you posted and then I read through some of the other things Origen had to say. He mentions G.Mark for certain in his book on G.John (which is where I got my little snippets from). I'm sure he does elsewhere.

 

I imagine Ehrman doesn't think that verse was in his copy because when you check the list of variants you get:

Mark 6:3:

TEXT: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary"

EVIDENCE: S A B C D K L W Delta Theta Pi f1 28 892 1010 1241 Byz most Lect some lat vg syr(p,h) most cop

TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV

RANK: A

 

NOTES: "Is not this the son of the carpenter and Mary"

EVIDENCE: p45vid f13 33vid 565 700 a few Lect some lat some cop(north)

TRANSLATIONS: NEBn

 

OTHER: "Is not this the son of Mary"

EVIDENCE: syr(pal)

 

COMMENTS: Some copyists changed the text to be like the parallel in Matthew 13:55, probably in order to reduce the ridicule from pagans for following a lowly "carpenter."

It's a pretty even mix. Not all variants go this way. But combined with the idea of "embarrassment" it could be a cause to remove it (which I find kind of weak because what constitutes "embarrassing" is hard to say...dying on a cross would be worse than being a carpenter but the overcoming death and sort of "shoving it in their faces" kind of more than balances that out if you catch my drift...so the idea of being a carpenter could serve a similar purpose).

 

It does make more sense, to me, that it would be changed to have it be in-line with G.Matthew. I don't see any known variants on that verse. But it's hard to say why anyone was changing anything. I just think that if it was just so difficult to deal with a "carpenter" that it would have fell out of use altogether. Apparently not everyone was bothered by it and it remained in the manuscripts (almost defiantly...considering Origen's attitude that no current church copy had such a thing).

 

mwc

[Guest]

I left my book over at my folks house this morning, but I seem to remember Ehrman saying something about being a working man, i.e a carpenter, may have reduced his creditability in some circles, as if you had to be a learned man to be the savior of mankind or something. So changing it so he was just the son of a working man would make it more palatable to some? I won't have time to go back there tomorrow, so I'll have to wait till sunday to flip through it again. But I think that was the jist of it.

[mwc]

It's on pp201-203 of Misquoting Jesus. I'm looking at it right now. He raises the point of "jesus" not being allowed to be a god-man due to his being a tekton. Then he cites Contra Celsus (which we've looked at) and then he says so that's why it changed. I'm not seeing it. Maybe I'm slow?

 

I take that back. I do see it. This is the historian at work. There are no earlier "witnesses." So the "split," as it were, begins at this point in time. Fair enough from a certain point of view.

 

I can also see that, based on what is being said, there is another view. Celsus says "Your man is a tekton." Origen says "Not according to the official church texts." So by this time both versions are floating around. Who changed them? I don't know. Some scribes obviously. Why? I don't know. Maybe to bring them in-line with G.Matthew. Maybe to answer this "embarrassment" issue. Maybe both. Maybe neither. When? I don't know. Just some time prior to this writing by Origen. I might be more specific if I did some digging into the subject but a quick search shows few hits on the whole "carpenter" thing (in relation to G.Mark 6:3 at least).

 

It does seem plausible that Origen may be telling the truth that his copies of the texts may not have had that "jesus" was a tekton and that Origen's copies did. There was a 70-80 year time span between the two works after all (from when Origen would have written and when Celsus responded). Plenty of time for new texts to come into the church, and as I said above, who knows who changed what, when and why during that time. I have no idea if anyone prior to this tried to dispute "jesus" being a tekton or not. If G.Matthew "borrowed" from G.Mark here (or another source for that matter) then there's a reason he didn't make him a carpenter. This could be the first "correction." And depending on how you choose to solve the synoptic problem this begs other questions which are better left alone here.

 

mwc

[Guest]

Exactly. This problem only serves to highlight that the NT has never really been solidified, and can not be reliably considered a "historical" document, as that was not the aim of the authors. I don't think Origen was lying abot what his gospels said either. I find it perfectly understandable that there must have been multiple versions floating around. That is exactly why Jerome was ordered to compile an "official" bible by Constantine, right?

 

A minor point, but I think you mixed up the 2 names in your last post. Celsus wrote first, and then Origen responded some years later, right? The first work was Against christians, which is lost. We have Origen's reply's (and Celsus' preserved attacks) only in the later Against Celsus.

[mwc]

A minor point, but I think you mixed up the 2 names in your last post. Celsus wrote first, and then Origen responded some years later, right? The first work was Against christians, which is lost. We have Origen's reply's (and Celsus' preserved attacks) only in the later Against Celsus.

Celsus wrote first (~180 or so...I'd have to look) and then Origen responded some 70/80 years after.

 

No one preserved the pagan side so we only have the quotes from the xians (which is the norm) with which to understand the line of argumentation.

 

I think it would interesting to find one of these pagan documents (or a good chunk of one) in a garbage heap somewhere so we can see if they were fairly portrayed or if their arguments were picked over and misrepresented in these responses. It happens today so I'm just curious if this is a new thing or a long standing tradition (I have an idea which it is). I mean if you're writing a "response" 70/80 years after the fact it's obviously not for the original author to read but for your own group and so fairness to your opponent isn't probably at the top of your list. This is now more likely a propaganda item.

 

mwc

[Guest]

Good point, and something I hadn't considered. My money is on at least 50% of them being altered or strawman arguments...

[Badger]

How is this much different than saying Harry Potter is evidence of Hogwarts existing?

Harry Potter is not historical document, and to claim otherwise would be a contradiction in terms. It's a fantasy novel.

[Guest]

How is this much different than saying Harry Potter is evidence of Hogwarts existing?

Harry Potter is not historical document, and to claim otherwise would be a contradiction in terms. It's a fantasy novel.

 

And if the authors of the NT aim was to write history, they did a piss poor job of it, because a lot of stuff is not accurate. You personally may consider it historical, but very few historians do. They are religious documents, not history.

[Badger]

And if the authors of the NT aim was to write history, they did a piss poor job of it, because a lot of stuff is not accurate. You personally may consider it historical, but very few historians do. They are religious documents, not history.

I think it would be wrong to claim they wrote history for its own sake, like ancient historians did. Not even the author of Luke-Acts who is generally considered as historian. These documents are essentially theological. However, as far as I know, it seems that classical historians hold the gospels and Acts in higher esteem than many New Testament scholars or Internet sceptics, and are incline to criticize their over skeptical attitude.

[Badger]

Badger - I'll ask you again to - Google "The Three Witnesses": Shortly after joseph smith announced his tablets, there were three men who signed a joint statement saying they had actually seen them. This statement is printed in every copy of the book of mormon. There is also a monument to them in salt lake city. Some time after, they were joined by eight additional witnesses. All these guys solemnly attested to seeing those tablets.

 

Do you believe them? Why not? There are approximately 5 million mormans in the U.S. alone. Are they all wrong? Why? They've got witnesses.

What's your point? That Joseph Smith existed? Why not...

 

Oh, wait a minute! Why I'm not mormon, right? That's simply. Because the Bible is true and anything else wrong.