Answering William P. Lazarus

Article

William P. Lazarus : The Bible as (Non) History
https://williamplazarus.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-bible-as-non-history.html

This will now be analysed, sentence by sentence for a good portion, quasi as a dialogue between us:

William P. Lazarus

For the past few days, several of my religious Facebook friends have climbed back on the old warhorse by claiming that the Bible is historically accurate.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I'll reduce the diversity of topics by sticking to historical.

History involves a human observer of the facts. Genesis 2 account of Adam's and Eve's creation can be history, from the point on when Adam is there. Genesis 1 is, very rarely for the historical books of the Bible, mostly not even purported history, normal sense, since it involves, up to verse 27 or 28, no human observers. It is revelation, given to Moses on Mt Sinai.

Compare how much in Greek paganism is involved in the Theogony, much of which (whether Uranos and Gaia or birth of Apollon and Artemis) is in this sense not history.

However, in a larger sense this also is history, as in known facts from the series of events, since they were revealed by God, they are known, even if not having human observers.

Also, historical accuracy is not affected by scientifically inaccurate terminology or beliefs of those recording it. A Hittite account of Battle of Kadesh is not affected by Hittites probably believing in Flat Earth. So much less is an account affected by simply another terminology being used than the now current one.

Note, historical accuracy is not always tied to inerrancy. Inerrancy also requires accuracy of endorsed beliefs.

William P. Lazarus

Scientific research on chemicals found on Earth, in moon rocks and in meteors clearly shows a consistent result of about 4.6 billion years.

Hans Georg Lundahl

This is about pre-human "history". Scientist's rivalling God on Mt Sinai or Nine Muses to Hesiod.

It is ALSO a very blanket statement of full confidence with overdone wording when it comes to uniformitarian science.

William P. Lazarus

Such evidence from folds in the Earth ...

Hans Georg Lundahl

I am not sure how folds are supposed to be related to deep age. Details could be welcome.

William P. Lazarus

stratification such as visible in the Grand Canyon

Hans Georg Lundahl

Grand Canyon is very unique in its succession of diverse biotic strata.

It is also almost entirely marine (like other successions, the one in Bonaparte Basin involving trilobites below elasmosaurs).

On "land", meaning on what was land at the relevant time or times, you simply do not find strata above each other.

I particularly researched Karoo on this one, you don't find a Triassic fossile and then dig deeper and find a Permian one a bit lower same spot, but Triassic and Permian fossils are in different "assemblage zones" - so the near surface finds of Karoo form a map, which uniformitarians explain as lower strata cropping out in relation to more recent ones not completely covering them, but which can also be simply the map of the bio-zones in the moment when the Flood hit what is now Karoo.

Since Flood is Biblical history, this is important for Global Flood argument.

William P. Lazarus

and multiple geological studies

Hans Georg Lundahl

Translates as : "someone else has argued, I don't bother to go into details, I just trust them, because many conclude the same thing".

If he had lived in Germany in 1937, would he have said that too?

William P. Lazarus

demonstrate the vast number of years needed to develop today’s environment.

Hans Georg Lundahl

We Creationists know very well what Evolutionists try to demonstrate. We just don't agree they succeed very well.

William P. Lazarus

Simply adding up biblical years is pointless and completely refuted by scientific study.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Where do I start?

Well, adding up years in a source you don't trust on chronology is pointless to you, adding up years in a source you do trust on chronology is not so.

Instead of telling us what he trusts, WPL might try to find out how we argue about what he is trusting, and try to refute that (no such chance so far).

William P. Lazarus

In the beginning, the order of creation starts with the Earth and places stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, as well as flowering plants ahead of animals. Science has easily demonstrated that’s the reverse of reality.

Hans Georg Lundahl

We agree on rejecting Theogony by Hesiod.

My choice for sth better is Genesis 1, his choice is evolutionist ideology, mislabelled as "science", which is about as gross a mislabelling as mislabelling following an antibirth policy (of state or company you work with) is by some mislabelled "responsibility".

What WPL choses to label things is not a valid argument for them actually being so. And, SO FAR, he has been content with showing a blanket trust in evolutionism rather than entering into what was rightly called "the scientific detail".

William P. Lazarus

On the first day, God created light, but the sun and moon don’t arrive until the fourth day: “the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night.” However, the moon has no light.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Except the Sun, by which it is a light to us. Here on the centre of the universe.

William P. Lazarus

It only reflects the sun.

Hans Georg Lundahl

As I just mentioned. Which makes it a light source, second hand, but still so to us.

William P. Lazarus

Nevertheless, repeated biblical writers in the Old and New Testament somehow think the moon creates its own light

Hans Georg Lundahl

A clear reference would be very nice.

William P. Lazarus

and that the stars are incredibly close by.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Again, a clear reference would be very nice.

My own point (stars created on day 4 including fix stars and being visible to Adam and Eve on the evening of day 6) would perhaps be labelled as "incredibly" by WPL, but perhaps you had sth else in mind?

William P. Lazarus

Vegetation, created on the third day, would have no sun, based on the biblical version.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Since light was already created, that is no problem. Vegetation needs light with a spectrum close to sunlight, not that the actual source of it be the actual sun. As I already mentioned in the FB debate where he brought it up.

This starts looking like a standard list of arguments which WPL seems unable to discard even one of even when it has been refuted just a few days ago (and he tried no refutation of my refutation).

Demonstration : in Amsterdam in cellars, illegal marijuana growers do cultivate plants that have never in their lives been exposed to one ray of sunlight. (Source : The Botany of Desire). Why? Bc they are 24 by 24 exposed to halogen lamps.

If halogen light is good enough for plants (and marijuana hemp has no different chlorophyll from all other green plants), why should a light God Himself is supernaturally shining not be good enough for them?

Btw, I am not recommending cultivating marijuana hemp, I mentioned the fact because it proves that total lack of sunlight can be replaced by other light sources.

William P. Lazarus

Noah’s flood is impossible, not just from all the geological evidence to the contrary.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I think I just mentioned my viewpoint on "geology" or palaeontology. You know, Grand Canyon context. I gave exempla of Karoo and of Bonaparte Basin.

William P. Lazarus

Scientific research into DNA shows that, for humans to be as diverse as we are, the population had to contain a minimum of 1,500 unrelated individuals, not just a single family on a floating zoo.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Considering the number of alleles on each gene and considering some alleles are mutations arisen after the Flood (bleeder's disease or hemophilia, probably even white skin), I would like to know what that is supposed to be based on.

Here is a CMI study on this very question:

Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics
by Dr Robert W. Carter | Published: 11 May 2010 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
And a shorter summing up in a feedback:

Is there enough time in the Bible to account for all the human genetic diversity?
Published: 17 September 2011 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/bible-time-human-genetic-diversity

Note, we are 2018, WPL is ignoring answers which were already there in 2010 and 2011.

William P. Lazarus

Sodom and Gomorrah, two large and prosperous cities supposedly destroyed by God, are phantoms. No other culture mentioned the cities despite voluminous records, and no trace of them has ever been found.

Hans Georg Lundahl

As far as I have mainly heard, both were in the Dead Sea.

Note, while they were in fact sunk somewhat more recently than 1935 BC, close to or in 1916 BC, St Jerome's chronology, as 1935 BC carbon dates to 3200 BC, and as even Joseph in Egypt carbon dates to c. 2600 BC (Djoser being obviously Joseph's pharao, see Egyptian memory of Joseph as Imhotep), and since "extensive records" are from at least recently carbon dated 2400 BC (after Joseph) - except the original records behind Moses' Genesis and some other records also revalorised in contexts now labelled as "mythical" (Ramayana and Mahabharata), this means it is very clear why Sodom and Gomorrah are not mentioned. IN Greek myth, Abraham and Sarah and also Lot and his daughters are reworked as family situation of Deucalion and Pyrrha, transferring them to Flood avoided direct mention of Sodom and Gomorrah, since people with similar vices might not care to recall a divine punishment on these.

But as to records from the neighbourhood and from the time, back when this happened the burial of Djoser was still some centuries off and this means we don't have records for this time.

Here it can be noted, for Greek and Roman and Hebrew chronologies, we have continuous record (though its early stages in each is disputed as to historicity by modern scholars), and that continuous record reaches to us.

For Ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, excepting Manetho and Berossus, Hittite, Minoan, etc records, we are piecing together a scrap here and a scrap there. This means that we cannot go to a calendar to check when Ebla tablets date from, but it is more like carbon dating one bit about them, or more, and relating the rest to that or those carbon dates.

This means, knowing when Ebla tablets are from by adding up years in records is as impossible as knowing distance of stars by angle of reflected sunlight.

Wiki says:

They all date to the period between ca. 2500 BC and the destruction of the city ca. 2250 BC.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Tantalisingly, I have no full assurance whether real date for 2250 BC is actually fall of Jericho date (1470 BC or years just after, which is how my friend more or less such Damien Mackey would like to identify the layers of Jericho - he eschews even mentioning carbon dates) or rather before Moses was born (if Sesostris III was the Pharao just at beginning of Exodus, as I tend to think, since his burial ship is like carbon dated 1715 BC for a real date close to 1590 BC).

I also do not know if the date "2500 BC" is done by adding up years up to "2250 BC" (whether 1470 BC or between 1730 and 1590, so 1720 or between 1980 and 1830) or whether "2500 BC" is derived from another carbon date (in which case it would normally be squeezed in between 1730 BC and 1590, see previous discussion).

But I do know that a Biblically recalibrated carbon dating opens up for Ebla tablets being later than destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

William P. Lazarus

The tiny bit of ruins today erroneously called Sodom shows no sign of the “fire and brimstone” and contained maybe six homes in contrast with the biblical account.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I am not sure what you are talking about.

I would tend to think Sodom as a city is now under Dead Sea and I have not seen any reference to Mount Sodom even containing any ruins. But if it actually does contain six houses, so what? It would still not be the Biblical city of Sodom in its entirety.

William P. Lazarus

The story of Jewish slavery doesn’t match known history. For starters, Egypt did not use forced labor to build anything.

Hans Georg Lundahl

That is a very sweeping statement.

Next, Gulag archipelago is probably unhistorical too, since Soviet authorities don't record all cruelties done in Gulag - and therefore the story is undocumented, unsupported by "real" documents.

What you are actually talking about is Egypt's normal relations between Egyptians.

You are also talking as if every monument in Egypt (I don't think Israelites were involved in any Pyramid by the way) was well known as to how it was built, much like the building of Versailles.

No, 17th C AD is a tiny bit better recorded than 1590 to 1510 BC in Egypt (whatever the Egyptological dates for this, I'd go on between Sesostris III and Hyksos invasion).

William P. Lazarus

Moreover, documented evidence, including archaeological, written language and other finds from the region, shows that Jews lived in what is now Israel the entire time period of their supposed sojourn in Egypt.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Probably involves some carbon misdating, among other things.

I'd like to know the details of the case being made, though.

William P. Lazarus

Moreover, many of the cities cited in the text did not exist until centuries later.

Hans Georg Lundahl

A city can have a rotation of existence and non-existence. Ramesses might be what you are referring to.

And Ramesses can be a name given that city in the time of Ramses II, but it existed earlier, and priests made a linguistic update in the Torah by changing the name to Ramesses - or it could be quite another origin to the name.

Patterns of evidence: Exodus. A review
A new film shows evidence of the Hebrew occupation of ancient Egypt
by Gary Bates | Published: 15 January 2015 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/patterns-of-evidence

According to this, it could seem "Ramesses" was Avaris.

Some others have identified it with Ain Shams, for which I don't know the carbon dates. Avaris seems to have been occupied mainly by Hyksos, who I think were Amalekites.

It could of course be also the case that Avaris was first the Ramesses of Exodus 1:11 and later also served for Hyksos (carbon date 1783 seems to be previous to Exodus).

Wiki says

It was occupied from about 1783 to 1550 BC, or from the Thirteenth Dynasty of Egypt through the second intermediate period until its destruction by Ahmose I, the first Pharaoh of the Eighteenth dynasty.

William P. Lazarus

Scholars now think the Exodus account was a fabrication to justify a war with Egypt in the 8th century B.C.E., when the first texts were written down.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Anti-Christian and Anti-Torahic ones, yes ...

William P. Lazarus

Yes, that’s an interpretation, but it matches the complete lack of evidence of any wandering in the Sinai Desert or Jewish presence in Egypt.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Desert wanderings are easily lost track of.

Complete lack of Israelite presence in Egypt?

I must admit, I was searching for a CMI article which at the moment I do not find.

William P. Lazarus

In Leviticus, we are told that hares and coneys (akin to a rabbit) are unclean because they “chew the cud” but do not part the hoof. However, those animals are ruminants; they don’t have cuds.

Hans Georg Lundahl

You mean are NOT ruminants.

The Hebrew verb is so unspecific it need not always refer to rumination.

ALSO you have strayed from the stated topic of historical accuracy. This is terminology. And no, "chewing the cud" in Biblical sense is not the same thing as being in modern zoological sense a "ruminant."

William P. Lazarus

In Daniel, the author doesn’t know the name of the king. He identifies Belshazzar as the king. Here’s actual history: Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE. His son, Awil-Marduk (who the Bible calls "Evilmerodach") followed him on the throne, but was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur, in 560. The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. Belshazzar was a son of Nabonidus, but not king or a relative of Nebuchadnezzar.

Hans Georg Lundahl

One problem is taking fairly fragmentary Mesopotamic accounts or even Herodotus as more reliable than the Bible just because it is not the Bible. A bit like a very unfair policeman or shrink could find anyone more reliable than his suspect or patient.

Another one is not checking whether certain names can refer to same person. Nabonidus is NOT an Akkadian or Hebrew form of anything, but is Herodotus.

This opens the question on what he would be in Hebrew?

Well, Damien Mackey goes for Nabonidus = Nebuchadnezzar.

Which obviously would make Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar.

Here are the equations in dynastic series:

• Nabu-apla-usur
• Labashi-Marduk
• Nabu-kudurri-usur II = Nabonidus
• Amel-Marduk = Neriglissar = Belshazzar

The Bible doesn't specify that Belshazzar and Evilmerodach are different persons.

Damien gives the etymologies for Belshazzar and for Neriglissar as Belsharezer and Nergalsharezer - which is basically same name except for difference of theonym in the theophoric name. So, if Belshazzar was fond of theophoric names why not add Marduk to Nergal and Bel, which means he could easily also be Evilmerodach.

Here is his paper:

If King Belshazzar madeDaniel 3rd, who was 2nd?
by Damien F. Mackey
http://www.academia.edu/23063639/If_King_Belshazzar_made_Daniel_3rd_who_was_2nd

William P. Lazarus

Not one to stop there, the author then makes Darius the successor to Cyrus. Actually, that was Cambyses.

Hans Georg Lundahl

It is actually even more complicated. Citing Cambyses involves relying on Herodot.

Here is an actual phrase in Daniel:

"Now Daniel continued unto the reign of Darius, and the reign of Cyrus the Persian."
[Daniel 6:28]

Seems Cyrus could even be successor of Darius?

I'd trust Daniel over Herodotus, who did not even pretend to have been personally involved in Persia back then, but was writing a retrospect about prequels to Greco-Persian wars.

Messy things are likely to later get tidied up a bit. Not saying tradition is unreliable as totally NOT reliable at all, but tidying things up that are complicated would be one of the turns it naturally takes.

William P. Lazarus

The census described in Luke took place, in 6 C.E., 10 years after Herod the Great died. However, Matthew said Jesus was born when Herod was in power. According to Luke, Emperor Augustus ordered the whole world registered. Not true. In fact, the census was held only to determine taxable property in Judea, which had been placed under Roman control.

Hans Georg Lundahl

There seem to be two problems with one solution.

The 6 AD census (if from then) limited to Judaea is another one than the one ordered by Augustus for the whole world (a census which could have been of loyalty rather than property).

It would involve retranslating a phrase as "before Quirinus etc".

William P. Lazarus

No one had to return home, such as Joseph from Galilee to Bethlehem.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Any census I have heard of, one usually registers at one's hometown.

THEN I also think Joseph took a polemic liberty with that wording.

Suppose he had lived in Nazareth all the time up to then, except brief hospitalities (including in Bethlehem).

Suppose he then hears an order about registering in "his" city. Well, ancestrally, Bethlehem was his. This was also potentially a move to underline Messianic connections of his family, as the Messiah had not come yet, but as Mary was exspecting under circumstances which on the angel's words were - suspiciously like Messianic ones.

William P. Lazarus

Luke just wanted to get Jesus to Bethlehem for polemic purposes. So did Matthew; he just used a different device that contradicted Luke.

Hans Georg Lundahl

No contradiction. In Matthew, nothing is said of how JOseph came to Bethlehem. In Luke there is nothing saying Nazareth was not also a point of return after Egypt.

William P. Lazarus

Mark and John are sure Jesus was born in Galilee.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I think the wording was often "from Galilee" or "from Nazareth". Or nouns or adjectives meaning inhabitants or people born somewhere. Not always identic to actual birth place. I'm Viennese by birth and Malmowite by upbringing from pre-teens to adult (and remained there a while too).

Neither of these other two Gospels has any account of His birth, both start the story when John is baptising. In other words, they are not specific enough to warrant such a conclusion as WPL's.

William P. Lazarus

There was no murder of the innocents as described in Matthew. Josephus, who left us a detailed history of the time period, hated Herod and yet knew nothing about this supposed slaughter.

Hans Georg Lundahl

How much text did Josephus dedicate to Herod?

Had murder of innocents become a taboo subject on which Josephus could have had scarce access to the facts (he wrote far later than St Matthew).

William P. Lazarus

One of my favorites in the New Testament is where Paul was bitten by a snake on Malta. The pagans there decided Paul must be a god because he didn’t die. Except there are no snakes on Malta. Never have been. (That’s true in Ireland, too, despite stories of Patrick.)

Hans Georg Lundahl

Unless St Paul drove the snakes out of Malta ... recent changes in legislation and attitudes are likely to bring snakes back to both places.

Or unless another ship with a transport of snakes had previously stranded there.

Or, why not go to a Catholic resource on this one:

SNAKES OF THE MALTESE ISLANDS
http://www.shadowservices.com/nature/Maltese/biology/snakes.htm

Telescopus fallax fallax, Elaphe situla leopardina, Coluber florulentus algirus, Coluber viridiflavus carbonarius.

William P. Lazarus

Close examination of records from the time of Pontius Pilate show that the description of the trial of Jesus bears no resemblance to documented Roman trials.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"records from the time of Pontius Pilate" = Gospels (unless you consider Acts of Pilate as genuine or unless you consider last chapter of Velleius Paterculus as "records" - it's a panegyric on Tiberius).

William P. Lazarus

For one, judges were never seen.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I'd like to know the source for that one. "Never" is also a big word implying a uniform routine which could never have been varied for whatever reason.

For one, it's not totally a Roman trial, it's a Jewish trial followed up by a Roman validation.

William P. Lazarus

There was no “tradition” of freeing anyone on Passover.

Hans Georg Lundahl

In Rome? Certainly not. In Holy Land? Very possibly as an accomodation to local tastes.

William P. Lazarus

Romans never “wash hands” to free themselves from guilt. That was a Jewish custom.

Hans Georg Lundahl

And no British official in Pakistan ever said "Inshallah" and as to Nelson saying "Kismet" it is probably faked, he really must have been saying "kiss me" ... I sense a total, but very, very total incomprehension of how colonisers deal with natives (perhaps because Zionists are not as sensible about Palestinian sensibilities?).

Of course a coloniser picks up some local habits. He doesn't want to show himself off as a complete foreigner in all and every detail.

And suppose he had never used that gesture before or after, he would have known it. He would have been using that in a non-Roman, since very Jewish, context.

William P. Lazarus

The Sanhedrin didn’t meet on holidays;

Hans Georg Lundahl

There is some doubt on the precise chronology. It could also have made an exception.

William P. Lazarus

there’s no record of any earthquake in that time.

Hans Georg Lundahl

By what Institute of Seismology?

William seems to imply we have about as complete a record of that decade - fourth decade of AD - as we would have of any decade of 19th C, where some press museum certainly would preserve some newsclip for an event which happened at least in any big place.

Also, the circumstances of that earthquake are such that it could very easily have become taboo because of the Christian implications, directly after Matthew published his Gospel in Hebrew (or Aramaic) original. If so, that would explain why subsequent Gospellers don't mention it.

"The mountains tremble at him, and the hills are made desolate: and the earth hath quaked at his presence, and the world, and all that dwell therein."
[Nahum 1:5]

Oh, an OT prophecy fulfilled in that quake ... and one involving even Adonai.

Guess why that earth quake would have become taboo among Jews VERY quickly, except those who were Christians.

(This line of thought obviously argues for Matthean priority.)

William P. Lazarus

Having written several books detailing many – but not all – of the textual problems, I see no reason to continue a familiar recitation.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Reminds me, I should continue the refutations of his The Gospel Truth: Where Did the Gospel Writers Get Their Information, which he graciously sent me ...

William P. Lazarus

[the rest]

Hans Georg Lundahl

[diatribe, not much to refute]

The Gospel Truth, William P. Lazarus, part 3

The Gospel Truth, by William P. Lazarus : part 1 · part 2 · part 3
William Paul Lazarus reacted to: part 1 of above · [Meme on Eucharist, so] Willam P. Lazarus Pretended the Eucharist was known in BC times · Same William P. Lazarus on "Any Competent Researcher"

I was planning to make a post about obvious blunders in William P. Lazarus' book.

I will instead gratify his itch to infirm defenses of Christianity (supposing he can do so), by giving a somewhat hazardous hypothesis or conjecture of mine.

When WPL argues for a movement with forgotten origins getting completely rebooted ones via a novel writer talented Gospeller under pen name Mark and three of his rip offs, he is arguing for a Yeshu from c. 100 years before the one we worship having been the real founder of a sect called Notsri.

This is a very hazardous claim. I will make one myself.

There was a Yeshu c. 100 years before Our Lord, he made himself conspicuous by looking at women he was not married to, he left a rabbi who would otherwise have forgiven him, he went to Egypt and learned magic. He founded a sect which was idolatrous - in Sweden. In Ynglingatal and Ynglingasaga and in Saxo, he is known as Odin.

Pharisees retained the memory. So did other future enemies of Our Lord.

When about 100 years later they rejected Our Lord Jesus Christ, they decided to conflate the account of Him with the memories of Odin's pre-Swedish carreer.

The result of this conflation is a blasphemous book known as Toledot Yeshu.

Betrayal by a disciple called Ischarioto was added from the Christian story, a disciple named Mattai were added from it, execution by Jews was added from it (bypassing their use of Romans). The conflation with an earlier character allowed them to forget Jesus was crucified by Ethnics, by Goyim, because Jews in the time of Pilate had already lost the right to execute death penalties.

It also allowed them to explain the Divine Miracles of God made Man as dark magic, learned by Egyptian magicians.

Note, by the time that Toledot Yeshu is composed ... by the way, when is it composed?

It is certainly attested much later than the canonic Gospels.

A recent study reports that more than 100 manuscripts of the Toledot exist, almost all of them late medieval (the oldest manuscript being from the 11th century).[10] The earliest stratum of composition was probably in Aramaic. There are recensions extant in Hebrew, and later versions in Judeo-Persian and Arabic as well as Yiddish and Ladino (Judeo-Spanish).[11]

The date of composition cannot be ascertained with certainty and there are conflicting views as to what markers denote dates. For instance, the Toledot refers to Christian festivals and observances that only originated after the 4th century.[12][13] However, in his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man Robert M. Price states that the Toledot Yeshu is "dependent on second-century Jewish-Christian gospel",[14] and Alexander argues that the oral traditions behind the written versions of the Toledot Yeshu might go all the way back to the formation of the canonical narratives themselves.[15]

It is unlikely that one person is the author, since the narrative itself has a number of different versions, which differ in terms of the story details and the attitude towards the central characters. Even individual versions seems to come from a number of storytellers.[1]

Some scholars assert that the source material is no earlier than the 6th century, and the compilation no earlier than the 9th century.[16] Although the individual anecdotes that make up the Toledot Yeshu may all come from sources dating before the sixth century, there is no evidence that their gathering into a single narrative is that early.[17] Some scholars, such as Jeffrey Rubenstein, favour a late composition date, posterior to the seventh century.[18]

The earliest known mention is an oblique mention by Agobard, archbishop of Lyon, circa. 826, and then another mention by his successor, Amulo, circa 849.[3][19] [20] However, since Agobard does not refer to the source by name it cannot be certain that this is the Toledot.[21]

from Toledot Yeshu, wiki cited today
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu

So, my conjecture is very tenuous indeed. The Toledot could be very late, and so could the material from Mishna and Gemarah where certain hints come from.

Instead of there being a real man c. 100 years before Jesus from Nazareth, one who is remembered in Toledot Yeshu for the purpose of denigrating Our Lord, and one better known in his idolatry from Norse myths and the historic legends of his arrival in Uppsala region, the person described could be purely fictitious, invented as a parady of Our Lord.

By the time the Toledot is composed or its Talmudic very partial sources are composed (except if some should refer to a real pre-Christian false prophet), one is very much further away from the times when the supposed or real Yeshu would have existed, and already at some distance from the life of Our Lord whom the Jews rejected, also, and therefore, with description of an extraneous community, Jewish intellectuals were free to make conflations in denigrating purposes.

The only falsehood they make about their own one is pretending it is a straight on continuation of pre-Jesus and pre-Caiaphas Judaism. By the time the Temple was destroyed it was already not so.

Before making comments on other obvious blunders, I think it is appropriate to comment on this one, making the possibly real person of Sanh 103a/b; Ber 17b, Sanh 107b; Sot 47a (I checked "Jesus in the Talmud" for the references) the key in understanding the Christian community is a heavy overreliance of Jewish sources, and notably of the conflation between this man and Jesus in Sanhedrin 43 (same source, I am obviously not an expert in Judaica).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris III, la Mairie
All Hallows' Eve
31.X.2017

Wikipedian references

to the quote above:

10

Ben Ezra, Daniel Stokl, An Ancient List of Christian Festivals in Toledot Yeshu, Harvard Theological Review, vol. 102, nr. 4 (Oct. 2009) pages 483-484.

11

Gero, Stephan (1988). "Apocryphal Gospels: A Survey". Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (in German and English). Teil II (Band 25 (5 Teilband)): 3991f. ISBN 978-3-11-011893-3.

12

Ben Ezra, Daniel Stokl, An Ancient List of Christian Festivals in Toledot Yeshu, Harvard Theological Review, vol. 102, nr. 4 (Oct. 2009) p. 488; also, Leiman, Sid Z., The Scroll of Fasts: The Ninth of Tebeth, Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. n.s. 74, nr. 2 (Oct. 1983) p.186-188, p.195. See also Van Voorst, ‘’op. cit.’’, p.122, 127.

13

Maas, Michael (2005). The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. Cambridge University Press. p. 406. ISBN 0-521-81746-3.

14

Price, Robert (2003) Incredible Shrinking Son of Man pg 40

15

Alexander, P. ‘Jesus and his Mother in the Jewish Anti-Gospel (the Toledot Yeshu)’, in eds. C. Clivaz et al., Infancy Gospels, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, 2011, pp. 588-616.

1

Dan, Joseph (2006). "Toledot Yeshu". In Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 20 (2nd ed.). Detroit: Gale Virtual Reference Library. pp. 28–29. ISBN 978-0-02-865928-2. Retrieved August 4, 2011.

16

Worth, Roland H., Jr., Alternative Lives of Jesus: Noncanonical accounts through the early Middle Ages (2003, NC, McFarland & Co.) pages 49-50; also, Dan, Joseph, "Toledot Yeshu" in Encyclopaedia Judaica (2nd ed. 2007, Farmington Hills, Mich., Macmillin Reference USA) page 29; "The complete narrative, which could not have been written before the tenth century, used earlier sources ....".

17

Klausner, Joseph, Jesus of Nazareth: His life, times, and teaching (orig. 1922, Engl. transl. 1925, London, George Allen & Unwin) pages 52-53 ("The present Hebrew Tol'doth Yeshu, even in its earliest form, ... was not composed before the tenth century").

18

effrey L. Rubenstein, Stories of the Babylonian Talmud’’ (2010), p 272: "There is not one shred of evidence that Toledot Yeshu existed in written form in Babylonian in the seventh century, as Gero claims it did, nor that the Bavli knew it."

3

Schäfer, Peter (2002). Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah. Princeton University Press. pp. 211f. ISBN 0-691-09068-8.

19

Agobard of Lyons, De Iudaicis Superstitionibus, cited in Van Voorst, op. cit. [Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. WmB Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 122 ff. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9.]

20

Schonfield, Hugh J., According to the Hebrews (1937, London: Duckworth) pages 29-30.

21

See Klausner, Joseph, Jesus of Nazareth: His life, times, and teaching (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1925), page 53 note.

The Gospel Truth, William P. Lazarus, part 2

The Gospel Truth, by William P. Lazarus : part 1 · part 2 · part 3
William Paul Lazarus reacted to: part 1 of above · [Meme on Eucharist, so] Willam P. Lazarus Pretended the Eucharist was known in BC times · Same William P. Lazarus on "Any Competent Researcher"

"In other words, Peter Parker is a hack who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a newsroom, much less receive the industry's highest possible award."

Read More: Peter Parker is a terrible journalist
List item 1 on / Things about Spider-Man comics you only notice as an adult (Looper)
http://www.looper.com/74106/things-spider-man-comics-notice-adult/sl/peter-parker-is-a-terrible-journalist

This is a bit reminding of the journalism of William P. Lazarus. At times.

For one, can he really honestly miss that Reimarus could quite as easily be a pseudepigraphon by Lessing as any Gospel really by a hypothetic non-Mark, non-Luke etc?

But Reimarus' main contribution to theological science was his analysis of the historical Jesus, Apologie oder Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes ("An apology for, or some words in defense of, reasoning worshipers of God" — only read by a few intimate friends during his lifetime), which he left unpublished. After Reimarus' death, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing published parts of this work as "Fragments by an Anonymous Writer" in his Zur Geschichte und Literatur in 1774-1778, giving rise to what is known as the Fragmentenstreit.[4] This had a deep impact as the beginning of critical research of the historical Jesus Reimarus pointed out the differences between what Jesus said and what the apostles said, identifying Jesus as a Jewish preacher. Jesus, according to this view, was an apocalyptic prophet preaching about a worldly kingdom soon to come. This view is current in modern scholarship. Reimarus also considered Christianity to be a fabrication. The disciples, he said, stole Jesus’ body to fake his resurrection and found a new religion. This explanation is now considered erroneous, as first demonstrated by another great critic in Jesus scholarship, D. F. Strauss.

WPL says so, as well, and misses the implication. Papias and Irenaeus are at least not claiming to themselves have discovered any hitherto un-published four Gospels. As far as anyone can tell, they were very fine thanks with Gospels coming from the named authors well before they said so, and knowedly to everyone concerned so.

When X claims to publish a hitherto unpublished piece of writing, precisely as when Y claims to open up a hitherto even more esoteric society to interested initiates, they are in a position to make and even fake the product, as much as Joseph Smith to fake gold plates, or fake Nephitic content of non-extant gold-plates or even fake translation of non-extant Nephitic content.

Especially as Lessing on his part is extremely well known adherent of another tenet of Deism, as examplified by his "ring parable", as examplified by Nathan the Wise, in which you find it, namely of making "three Abrahamic religions" (roughly) equivalent (with tacit preference for Judaism) and therefore any specific content of any of the three diverse from others very moot. In other words, had he wanted to fake Reimarus, he had a motive as well as an opportunity.

Now, WPL is, all through several chapters, arguing that whoever wrote the Gospels were people who had both motive (namely to give the sect some content of doctrinal type, thitherto inadequate) and opportunity. The scenario is this:

The early Church of Jerusalem got quite lost. It was eradicated when the Romans came. Therefore, the one faction of several which could have been a corrective, could have given some real tradition from Christ, is as lost as original openly existing order of Templars and men like Jacques Molay were when Scottish Rite Freemasons claimed to represent the Templars.

To be fair, I can buy that Templars did contribute to Speculative freemasonry after infiltrating the operative lodges, just as I can buy that Reimarus actually wrote things which Lessing then published. I don't like any of these, so I can consider them as morally equivalent in badness. Therefore possibly identic in fact. But the point is, with Freemasons impersonating "survived Templar order" or with Lessing finding an unpublished manuscript of Reimarus, we have a historically known, attested in narrative, certain opportunity and at least with reference to Templars a nostalgic motive.

What WPL is saying about the lost Church of Jerusalem is the equivalent of all this, BUT without any historic evidence for it, either implied or presented.

Yes, the Church in Jerusalem was in Jerusalem before AD 70. Yes, Jerusalem was destroyed and those found in it were mostly butchered in year 70. That part is historically correct. What is not correct is to imagine that the Church in Jerusalem remained to be butchered. Heeding the prophecies (yes, the traditional scenario does say they had been made by Christ beforehand), they left Jerusalem in time. What is more, they fled to Pella, in a region which to Isaiah would have been known as "Edom, Moab and Ammon", now Jordan. This means, they were perhaps less consultable for a time, but they survived. They could be consulted again. What is more, they started the Christian Church in Edom, Moab and Ammon, meaning these tribes (with some admixtion of later arrivals) were Christians, under the leadership incoming (invading if you like) from Jerusalem.

WPL also imagines that "the Christian Church" was such a chaos of competing factions that one could not know how close or not close any other Church in any other city was to that in Jerusalem. Like, the Church in Jerusalem never thought of any mission outside Jerusalem, no ... well, Samaria, of course (Acts 8), meaning that there was a Christian population in Judea and Samariah as well as in Galilaea, recruited from Samarian as well as from Jewish religions. And when St James became bishop of Jerusalem, it was because St Peter left to Antioch, from where he later went to Rome.

In other words, the first Church in Jerusalem had not only survived, but also disseminated before having to leave the place for some time.

Wait, there is a little pattern here. Isaiah 11 first says sth midway about "His sepulchre shall be glorious" and then continues to tell us what the Messiah will accomplish (apparently post mortem) after being laid in a sepulchre which was glorious (or became so by the Resurrection). Re-Union of Judah and Israel (Judah and Ephraim, to be precise)? Check, first Church in Jerusalem, second in Samariah. Conquest of Edom, Moab and Ammon? Check, when Church of Jerusalem fled to Pella, they converted these peoples to Christianity.

How do we know these things happened?

They are in Acts. Acts was accepted as a valid self account by the Church. It was an officially approved account. That is what a canonic book of the NT means : officially approved, from start, by the officials of the Church. So, in the last resort, I know this because of the tradition of the Catholic Church.

What does WPL or any late offshot of Lessing-Reimarus type of scholarship against this?

• Self accounts of communities seen with undue suspicion (unless of modern Western state type) - an ironic reference on whether the Catholic accepts Rome was founded by Romulus (we do, St Augustine considered he was made a god by his followers because they loved him), whether we agree the Spartan dynasty has ruled in Sparta since grandsons of Hercules (we do, another Church Father said "Hercules was a strong man, not a god"), whether we accept Yngling dynasty started with Odin and his stepson Frey (Snorri did and I do, with some hesitation, since Saxo considered immediate Swedish successors to Odin were non-Ynglings - but that could have been another region); WPL seems to take this suspicion (again, except to modern Western state type of community) so for granted, he does not even say so, in the chapters I have so far read - but he implies it in also not believing self account of Israelites previous to King David;
• The fact Jerusalem was destroyed - but rather than say our explanations why the doctrine from original Church survived is wrong and tell us why, he simply ignores it exists : either he is not aware or does not think it is worth mentioning, in the chapters I have so far read;
• The fact there were sects rival to "what became" Catholic Christianity (or orthodox, if you prefer) - presented as splinters on an equal footing with each other and with the Church. The funny part is, he claims to know about these sects because of the Church Fathers denouncing it, but he is deaf to what they (notably St Irenaeus and St Ignatius) have to say on continuity of the Church - this he does mention;
• Silence about the relevant facts of our claim in such and such writers which, according to him, would have been very well equipped to and motivated to mention the facts if they had been true - on his estimation. This also he does mention.

Now, let's deal first with what he does mention, since he thought that most important.

He or Carrier or, I suppose, the late Marcus Borg, would argue or would have argued:

• We know that Ebionites, Gnostics, Marcionites and a few more existed, since Church Fathers spent so much time arguing against them;
• We know of the canon of Marcion before we know of any Christian canon;
• Therefore we are free to imagine, once Jesus had died, all these groups came from him, and some from Paul, and the one coming from Paul managed to subsume the others and absorb them by gradual doctrinal compromse till Christianity as we know it had emerged.

I would on the other hand argue:

• We know several groups existed because the Church Fathers spent so much time arguing against them, but from the same source we also know, the heretical groups did not remain the same. By the time when Montanists "emerged", i e were clustering around the charismatic figure Montanus, an anti-Pope, probably Ebionites were already gone, either taking Judaism or taking Christianity without Jewish rites, as the Temple fell, and we see no trace of Ebionites rejecting John (which was written by the Apostle against them) but keeping Synoptics (which they were abusing) - in other words, the Catholic Church has been a constant since Christ, and sects, but no one sect, have been constantly rivalling it (no one sect except Judaism, that is);
• While Marcion's canon is older than Muratorian fragment, we can well imagine that each book finally making it into NT had at least a good backing from many Churches, it is at least certain they are very different from Marcion's canon;
• We must conclude, the rival groups were not of an equal type, but later derived imitations and split-offs - precisely as Utah and Texas and California free states and Confederation never were exactly the same as United States.

The point is not that WPL is arguing forcefully against this, the point is, he is ignoring it - even while most of what I said is there in the source material (Church Fathers) from whom they claim to derive it.

Next, silence. Or conspicuous silence.

• Josephus is silent on Nazareth;
• Very Early Church Fathers (St Clement I of Rome, St Ignatius of Antioch) don't quote the Gospels;
• Paul ("our earliest preserved Christian writer" - since he denies Matthaean origin of Matthew) is silent on this and that and sundry, including Jesus having a real body and really walking among us.

Here my answers would be:

• Josephus was arguably, as already conjectured, refraining from mentioning the Church;
• Does WPL have ANY idea of how short the combined text of Sts Clement and Ignatius would be? I checked : 32 p. on a printout, 39 p. on a "libre office writer" document, 29 037 words. I came to 13 717 words on 19 chapters of Genesis - and considering the prolix rhetorical epistle style of the episples, "I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God" is less than first of thirteen lines of captatio benevolentiae, which does quote St Paul's Epistle to same Ephesians, btw, considering this, the 13 717 words might be roughly equivalent - also, OT is cited in Clement;
• St Paul clearly does mention a bodily resurrection in more than one place.*

Another favourite of WPL is silence or absence or inaccessibility of "official records". This means those of the Maccabaean-Jewish authorities as well as those of the Romans.

The word official actually means "on duty". Officium means duty. A judge who writes a letter to his wife is writing off-duty, not officially as to his capacity as judge, but a judge writing a verdict is writing officially, on-duty, as to his capacity as a judge. Obviously, the verdict is equally unofficial and off-duty in his relation to his wife and his letter to his wife is equally official, on-duty, in his capacity as a husband. There is no specific thing about being a judge which makes a man more truthful and reliable in it than in his duties to his wife. A man may be cheating, and therefore lying to his wife. A judge may be corrupt, for money or to suppress opponents, and therefore lie in his verdicts. A wife may be tolerant of inattention and confusion in his letters, but a well reputed judge will often not be challenged as to inattention and confusion in his verdicts.

However, modern historiography arose very lately, in what was then technically Prussia : the kingdom of the Brandenburg dynasty.** Just a bit before it became II Reich. Judges and other administration in Prussia were proud of not being corrupt. Prussian prejudice was for religious tolerance, and therefore against reliance on religious documents. Therefore, logically, the historiography born in Prussia will set more value on official documents of state administration (unless the state is too obviously unlike Prussia, like Iroquois federation for having oral records and not keeping up administration, or Spanish one in admitting miracles and Catholic dogma), than on religious officials.

I do not advise WPL to stay with this ideology, it can't be replicated successfully when arguing for the Holocaust and deaths in gas chambers. I don't know any person whose death in a gas chamber was officially recorded as such by the administration of camps, arising in the Prussian tradition. A code 6, Sonderbehandlung, was officially recorded, it is now thought to mean "death by gas chamber", but that is not what the official documents directly say. If we have any reasonable knowledge of anyone actually dying in a gas chamber and not in any other way nor surviving, it is from the kind of factors this type of historiography deems hopelessly inadequate : personal memory, collective memory of a community with victim status. There is one official document from Israel, from a court, in which 50 people swear on oath having seen and survived seeing gassings. There are obviously official documents from Nuremberg trials implying this was done, by investigating who was most culpable for it. Again, these are not official documents from the administration in place when this was - at least supposedly - happening.

You consider it proven gas chambers were used to kill people, I might (perhaps risking prison or mental hospital for saying so, perhaps something else***) disagree. I do NOT disagree that this or that or sundry survivor was badly treated. Like Marcel Cling. Or that at least one person is known to have been going into a gas chamber, but getting out of it alive, namely Jo Wajsblat. I do not disagree, because I do consider personal testimony of Marcel Cling and Jo Wajsblat as proof, even while it is not in the Prussian sense an official document. So, you want to prove camp guards were (often enough to hurt) the extreme brutal equivalent of school yard bullies, you also do not wish to stay with this ideology of historiography.

So, you might want to reassess your criteria for historic reliability a bit.

If you do, one of the things you will notice is that apologias are sometimes private ventures (as in Justin Martyr), sometimes more like official responses (when by men like Origen writing Against Celsus on demand). Either way, them not being state administration type of official does not mean that they can't be used as historic proof.

The real answer to the challenge given in this type of argument, over more than one chapter, is that the Catholic Tradition on Church history is reliable self record of a community. The fact that Gnostics and Marcionites are not giving their version in it is irrelevant (except to a hopelessly Prussian mind). If we had had the self record of these sects, we would not see them going straight back to all of the apostles. Cerinthus would have needed some kind of excuse for the real disciple of Our Lord, St John, shunning him to the point of very quickly leaving a bath where he was entering, and explaining the gesture by saying a house where Cerinthus enters is more at risk than other houses of fallin victim to the wrath of God. We don't have the Church history of Cerinthus' Church. It might be interesting, but I don't think we need it to assess that of the Catholic Church as correct.

Now, I said I have read several chapters after that first on which I made, there was more in them than just this. This time, I am not going chapter by chapter, but taking certain thematics across chapters. Next thematic will be a few obvious blunders in WPL's work, after that I will go to a few real difficulties (I will admit the archaeological difficulty on Nazareth is one I have no full solution to - except the general one, not everything is preserved in archaeology).

The silence of Josephus, on the other hand, I have no problem in explaining.

• 1) It could be a "wait and see" type of silence, as I suggested previously;
• 2) it could also be that apart from briefly mentioning Christ Jesus among the portents and calamities in the days of Pilate, Josephus thought the Christian Church outside his scope, because, unlike what WPL contents, it was already markedly something different from Judaism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of Sts Simon and Jude°
27.X.2017

Notes:

* I enumerated quotes from Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians and Philippians in this earlier response:

Twelve Pieces of a Doherty Puzzle (it's Too Early to Dismiss Historicity)
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2014/04/twelve-pieces-of-doherty-puzzle-its-too.html

** I presume the Weibull school of Sweden is somewhat later.

*** I seem to have been pretty clearly silenced as far as others recognising me as a writer is concerned, in their writings. For instance.

° Yesterday, it was St Evaristus, a Pope of Rome who was martyred under Emperor Hadrian.

The Gospel Truth, by William P. Lazarus, part 1

The Gospel Truth, by William P. Lazarus : part 1 · part 2 · part 3
William Paul Lazarus reacted to: part 1 of above · [Meme on Eucharist, so] Willam P. Lazarus Pretended the Eucharist was known in BC times · Same William P. Lazarus on "Any Competent Researcher"

The author after a brief intro on his personal history sets himself to the task of exploring what sources where available to St Mark when he wrote after AD 70.

That St Mark could have taken down dictation from St Peter, who was reading alternatively from Gospels of Matthew and Luke (skipping some and adding some from own memories), as Clement the Stromatist tells us, seems not even worth a mention. That this happened before St Peter was killed in Rome under Nero, therefore well before AD 70, seems totally foreign to William P. Lazarus. That Sts Matthew and Luke could have been on one hand recalling correctly (Matthew being trained as a scribe before being one of the twelve disciples, like any other Levite) could perhaps be considered as a myth by William P. Lazarus, though he does not tell us on what grounds he dismisses historicity thereof.

In other words, WPL, as I will abbreviate him, is giving a scenario which I consider as free fantasy novel. So far, my resumé of chapter 1.

Now, WPL is unlike his "Mark" (the one who set out to write down what wasn't written down until it was too late) known as to his source, the myth is set up by modern scholars. WPL is trying to fill in the details.

He does mention Tacitus as getting his information from Christians. However, Tacitus writes about Christians martyred under Nero. He was himelf 8 years old when this happened. He is for this period citing historians the full texts of which are lost to us. WPL argues, Tacitus could have heard the details from Christians well after "Mark wrote after AD 70". I argue, the historians in question could have heard these from Christians at the time when Nero was persecuting these, they could be lost to us, because too close to the Christians.

This means, Tacitus' words are presumably proof not just of what Christians believed in his time of writing, but of what they had believed in the times of Nero. I note, there is a doubt on this, Tacitus could have had the information when writing Annals, and this could, with a much more remote possibility, have been something other than back then - a possibility so remote as to be practically unbelievable, we'll get back to that later.

Then WPL goes to some length in dealing with Josephus.

His proof for Testimonium Flavianum not being genuine is (citing verbatim from page 9):

Unfortunately, prior to that time [of Eusebius, who mentioned TF], at least 16 church fathers [sic!] are known to have commented on Josephus without mention of this paragraph. If it had existed, they would not have overlooked it or complained, as they did, that Josephus overlooked Jesus.

Now, we have a problem. WPL gives no footnote. I cannot check which 16 Church Fathers* [!] WPL means, nor how many of them were commenting on the Jewish War rather than on Antiquities, nor how many complain of him overlooking Jesus and in what terms.

I know Richard Carrier mentions Origen or Clement or both in this context. That is 1 or 2. One of them could be depending on the other who could have had a faulty manuscript or done a sloppy reading - or the complaint was not meant as "overlooking" in the sense of not mentioning, but a lament that Josephus had not acknowledged Him as the Messiah.

Speaking of Messianic claims, WPL very freely swings around with Jesus not being politically a Messiah equating with Jesus not being the Messiah tout court. I get details of two failed Messiah's. WPL thinks it significant Josephus mentions them, but not Jesus. So do I : recall the test of Gamaliel in Acts?

Acts 5 : 34 But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, by name Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while.

35 And he said to them; Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves, what you are about to do with these men.

36 For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be some body, whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined; who was slain: and all who believed him, were dispersed, and brought to nothing.

37 After this man rose up Judas, of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished: and all who adhered to him, were dispersed.

38 And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel, or this work be of men, it will come to nothing:

39 But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they agreed with him.

The reason why Josephus gives no longer account than the TF could be that Christianity in his eyes, according to this criterium, was not yet tested. He was not satisfied it was of God (for whatever pilpul reason), but also satisfied it had not gone down the sink like Theodas. It seems Theodas mentioned by Gamaliel in Acts and the Theudas mentioned by Josephus could be the same person (WPL expressly says he is mentioned by both Josephus and Bible), however, here is an account:

Theudas died in about 45 A.D. Apparently, he was trying to recreate the Exodus, possibly by crossing the Jordan River. The Judean procurator of the time, Fadus, promptly sent troops who massacred them. Theudas' head was then displayed in Jerusalem (Ant:20.5,1, ver. 97-98) [my emphases]

As far as I can see, we have a problem. The apprehension which is shown in Acts 5 is in AD 33. This means, Gamaliel cannot have heard of anything in AD 45 yet. The Theodas he is talking about must be way earlier. There are diverse possibilities:

• the Bible account could be anachronostic (which as a Christian I will not accept);
• Josephus could have been misquoted, but was not (I just checked);
• Theudas in Josephus and Theodas in Acts could be different persons;
• they could be same person, but Gamaliel looking back to a previous, less dramatic event;
• Josephus could have been heir to a deliberately anachronostic tradition, misplacing Theodas from times of Pilate or before to times of Fadus;

... this last could have been made in order to discredit Acts as anachronistic. It could also be, Fadus committed another massacre in which Christian Jews were victims, and the démise of Theodas could have been attached to the story so as to remain patriotic while at the same time not attaching memories of loved ones to THAT sect, the one of Theodas being of course less objectionable. But either way, considering that Josephus' silence (relatively) on Jesus and open reference to full story of sect of Theodas (vanishing when his head is displayed in Jerusalem), proves Josephus knew very few facts about Christians because there were very few to know in the first place is totally moot.

Josephus could exactly just as well have kept quiet because he was not yet sure of what to say in the last resort, the story of Christianity not having been over yet in his time, nor is it over in ours.

Before I end, I cannot really take seriously how William P. Lazarus claims basically that inconsistencies between Gospels prove at least some of them are not historic and therefore probably none of them. On page 1 he refers to his daddy teaching in Sunday school and getting a Bible. On page 193, we learn he grew up in a Jewish family. I mean, why would Jews give their sons a whole Bible including New Testament? And why would a Jewish person teaching children religion be referred to as teaching in Sunday School? Wouldn't it be Sabbath school? Oh, of course, later editors have tried to harmonise this by on p. 193 adding the totally spurious reference "by age 13, he was teaching Sunday School at a Conservative synagogue" implying that Jews in his time had taken over the Evangelical vocaublary of "Sunday School" and equally, on page 1, the same very fraudulent editor tried to hide WPL's father being Evangelical by adding a passage about "the 'Old' Testament or the Jewish Bible; and the 'New Testament' or the Christian Bible" - but that is obviously a very clear smokescreen to obfuscate a screamingly clear contradiction between the sources of this compilation ... unless of course, the harmonisation happens to be the exact truth, in which case William P. Lazarus could have some humility about attempted and sometimes perhaps successful harmonisations between the Gospel accounts as well!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Chrysantus and his
wife, Daria, martyrs
25.X.2017

* Church Father, like Blessed, Doctor of the Church, Venerable, is a title for a deceased person, only the last one can be used for living ones. Titles are capitalised.