Discussion Bible’s Historical Reliability

[Whitepill]

one thing i’ll apologize for is making you think that just because i write decent threads, i’m some clueless saint who doesn’t recognize when i mess up. like, fault? WHAT fault?

thats not the main point, just an extra part. but ur at fault for attacking me and calling me a "pup" when I did nothing against you

obviously, it wasn't towards you. wtf.

it was just towards the person that i agree with in many scenarios who chose to add his input but received harsh feedback from your insults

 

[holy]

Tbf nothing about him signals any form of intelligence

"Tbf, I love sucking your cock for that extra validation" God I love this community.

 

[Whitepill]

Tbf nothing about him signals any form of intelligence

he seems intelligent to me, it depends

 

[Pavel]

Ah guys, don't quarrel

 

[holy]

thats not the main point, just an extra part. but ur at fault for attacking me and calling me a "pup" when I did nothing against you

"did nothing against you" after accusing me of using artificial intelligence on one of my replies. even so, it wasn't that deep. and, I didn't take it there.

it was just towards the person that i agree with in many scenarios who chose to add his input but received harsh feedback from your insults

once again, wasn't towards you. doesn't matter who it is, you can speak for yourself.

 

[Nihilus]

"Tbf, I love sucking your cock for that extra validation" God I love this community.

Just quit being a keyboard warrior man , warning fuel

 

[Whitepill]

"did nothing against you" after accusing me of using artificial intelligence on one of my replies. even so, it wasn't that deep. and, I didn't take it there.

i didnt accuse u of using AI. i accused u of dragging stuff out using your own wording

once again, wasn't towards you. doesn't matter who it is, you can speak for yourself.

I can speak for myself but being demeaning to a person I know is not the best move

 

[holy]

Just quit being a keyboard warrior man , warning fuel

You ducked my response by the way. Until then, you're beneath me in terms of debating about theology.

 

[Nihilus]

You ducked my response by the way. Until then, you're beneath me in terms of debating about theology.

Whatever floats your boat buddy

 

[holy]

i didnt accuse u of using AI.

"summarized by chatgpt" you're basically throwing shade by implying that their words weren’t original and that they had to rely on AI to put things together for me. just.. admit it. it's literally RIGHT THERE. It's like saying, "hey, you couldn't even come up with that on your own, so you needed some machine to help you." even though it might be an innocent observation, it carries the underlying accusation that i'm not capable of thinking or crafting responses without the crutch of AI.

 

[Whitepill]

"summarized by chatgpt" you're basically throwing shade by implying that their words weren’t original and that they had to rely on AI to put things together for me. just.. admit it. it's literally RIGHT THERE. It's like saying, "hey, you couldn't even come up with that on your own, so you needed some machine to help you." even though it might be an innocent observation, it carries the underlying accusation that i'm not capable of thinking or crafting responses without the crutch of AI.

i used chatgpt to summarize to show how easily your arguments could have been shortened down
ur assuming too much

 

[holy]

I can speak for myself but calling being demeaning to a person I know is not the best move

the person you know called me emotional. so...

 

[holy]

i used chatgpt to summarize to show how easily your arguments could have been shortened down
ur assuming too much

then that's my fault. I apologize

 

[holy]

Whatever floats your boat buddy

 

[sigma]

This is such a historically illiterate take.

First, those dating ranges you're throwing around are LATEST possible dates from the most skeptical scholars, and even those are getting pushed back by recent scholarship. But let's run with your dates for a second.

40-65 years is NOTHING in ancient historiography. We accept most ancient historical accounts written centuries after events without batting an eye. Tacitus wrote about events 80+ years prior. The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great came centuries later. And we still consider those historically reliable.

But here's what makes your argument even more embarrassing:

1. You're completely ignoring the pre-Gospel tradition. Paul's letters, written in the 50s AD, contain early creedal material dating to within MONTHS of the events. 1 Corinthians 15 preserves a creed scholars date to within 2-5 years of the crucifixion. That's contemporary historical material by any standard.
2. The Gospels draw on earlier written and oral sources. Mark didn't just sit down in 70 AD and make shit up. He's compiling and organizing existing tradition. We can see this in the literary layers, the Aramaic substrata, the preservation of embarrassing details - all markers of early, authentic material.
3. The "Jesus spoke Aramaic but Gospels were in Greek" argument is fucking laughable to anyone who understands ancient Mediterranean culture. Palestine was multilingual. We have clear evidence of widespread Greek usage. Many Jews were bilingual. The Gospels preserve Aramaic phrases and show clear signs of Aramaic sources. This actually SUPPORTS their authenticity.
4. Your hapax legomena argument shows you don't understand basic linguistics or textual criticism. Unique words are EXPECTED in any large text corpus. The percentage in the Bible is actually NORMAL for ancient literature. Many hapax are just rare words we understand perfectly well from context or cognate languages.
5. The "900 translations" argument is possibly the dumbest of all. We don't rely on English translations for historical analysis, you absolute walnut. We work from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. And guess what? The textual variation between manuscripts is minimal and doesn't affect any major historical or theological points.

The fact that you think these are serious arguments against biblical reliability just shows you're regurgitating internet atheist talking points without understanding the actual scholarship.

You're not even wrong in an interesting way - you're wrong in ways that first-year biblical studies students learn to avoid.

Want to talk about ACTUAL textual criticism? Let's discuss the manuscript traditions. Let's analyze the various text types. Let's look at the development of the Gospel traditions. But this surface-level "gotcha" bullshit? It's fucking embarrassing.

But please, tell me more about how multiple translations somehow undermine historical reliability. I could use another laugh

I notice that in your posts you tend to insult people and their ideas. In your threads you call people "retards" and "fucking idiots". Why do you always find a way to belittle people and assert yourself in this way? It really shows a reflection on who I am, calling my takes embarrassing, illiterate, a walnut, and good for a laugh.
That I am just a surface level regurgitating internet atheist.
Its easy to try and use ad-hominem against me and insult me and others, as if it makes your argument any more superior.
What is this supposed to do? Make me break and cave, "Oh holy, please forgive me, I'm nothing but a narrowminded retarded peanut-brain, oh please you're such a rational genius and I will be cast into hell while you laugh at me from the heavens!"
I am trying to study and challenge religions for a long time now. I didn't wake up, click on this thread, and copy paste stuff from the internet I saw moments after. I want to consider many perspectives.
My intention is never to disrespect you, yet you do the same upon me, attempt to demoralize me. I have never started with my post calling you a walnut or a r****d.

Additionally, may I inquire that you reply to the rest of my reply? Thank you in advance. @Slicer did not reply when I asked him about the Biblical contradictions video, instead only "Hmm"'d me.
I feel like I am being dismissed by both of you, and I think it is reasonable of me to think this way.

That aside, I do plan on continuing this conversation.

I want to say that I appreciate you taking your time and effort into making these replies and showing your opinions. Thank you for trying to address these criticisms of the Bible I have encountered.

You're completely ignoring the pre-Gospel tradition. Paul's letters, written in the 50s AD, contain early creedal material dating to within MONTHS of the events. 1 Corinthians 15 preserves a creed scholars date to within 2-5 years of the crucifixion. That's contemporary historical material by any standard.

So you argue that the ancient recorded historical events are recent and reliable.
However, methods of historical verification used today were not known by ancient scholars. For example, people may have made things up + used real things, and other people based that source material for their own writings.
As for Paul's letters, they don't give a detailed historical account of Jesus' life. Paul's not one of Jesus' 12 apostles. He only claimed to have a vision of Jesus on a road.
There are also contradictions within the Gospel and Bible itself. Refer to the video I sent above, which you haven't replied to.
"The only two events subject to "almost universal assent"[6] are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that he was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[7] There is no scholarly consensus about other elements of Jesus's life, including the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events such as the resurrection, and certain details of the crucifixion.[8][9]"
For the nativity story- the accounts are vastly different, as are the genealogical information referenced.

Luke 2:4-20:

Spoiler

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

Matthew 1:18-23 and 2:1-15

Spoiler: i may have copy pasted a bit more than necessary

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ[a] took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed[b] to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

The Visit of the Wise Men​

2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men[c] from the east came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose[d] and have come to worship him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

6 “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
7 Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.” 9 After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.

The Flight to Egypt​

13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” 14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

"The New Testament provides two accounts of the genealogy of Jesus, one in the Gospel of Matthew and another in the Gospel of Luke.[1] Matthew starts with Abraham and works forwards, while Luke works back in time from Jesus to Adam. The lists of names are identical between Abraham and David (whose royal ancestry affirms Jesus' Messianic title Son of David), but differ radically from that point. Matthew has twenty-seven generations from David to Joseph, whereas Luke has forty-two, with almost no overlap between them or with other known genealogies.⁠ They also disagree on who Joseph's father was: Matthew says he was Jacob, while Luke says he was Heli.[2]"

Spoiler: genealogy

Luke 3.23-38​

23Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli, 24son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, 25son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai, 26son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda, 27son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, 28son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, 29son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, 30son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim, 31son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, 32son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Sala, son of Nahshon, 33son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, 34son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor, 35son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah, 36son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech, 37son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, 38son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.

Matthew 1.1-16​

1An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Aram, 4and Aram the father of Aminadab, and Aminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6and Jesse the father of King David. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, 8and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, 11and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 12And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Salathiel, and Salathiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

There are also different versions for Judas' death. In Matthew, Judas hangs himself. In Acts, he falls in a field and his guts spill out/his body bursted open.

I would also like to know your thoughts on this. I admit I don't fully understand this, it might not even be significant towards the argument. I would like to know your perspective as a Christian. There are also different variations on this sourcing hypothesis.

Authority (textual criticism) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Given all of the statements and other evidence I have received from the Bible, I have come to these conclusions: The Bible is not reliable and is contradictory. And the Bible promotes/allows slavery, murder, genocide, eternal torture, and sexism (not stated here since this is about Biblical reliability and not the ethics). My beliefs are that this book was written by man for man, within the specific timeframe.

It also feels morally inconsistent.
I would like to hear your views on the video. I know I have repeated myself but yeah I really wanna know.

The Gospels draw on earlier written and oral sources. Mark didn't just sit down in 70 AD and make shit up. He's compiling and organizing existing tradition. We can see this in the literary layers, the Aramaic substrata, the preservation of embarrassing details - all markers of early, authentic material.

I see. But there is clealy some originality in the sources that are independent of each other, like I mentioned the nativity story and Judas' death.

Synoptic Gospels and Marcan Priority

Introduction: While reading the New Testament, the first three gospels (Mathew, Mark, and Luke) seem to be very similar. In the structure, the stories they portray, and the wording (in contrast to …

sergebiblestudies.wordpress.com

There are many different theories on the sourcing and also added in ideas by the newer authors of the Gospels.

The "Jesus spoke Aramaic but Gospels were in Greek" argument is fucking laughable to anyone who understands ancient Mediterranean culture. Palestine was multilingual. We have clear evidence of widespread Greek usage. Many Jews were bilingual. The Gospels preserve Aramaic phrases and show clear signs of Aramaic sources. This actually SUPPORTS their authenticity.

Interesting.
Yes many were bilingual in Palestine, mostly Hebrew and Aramaic. Some knew Greek.
"[the] association of Greek with the elites means that it was probably more often encountered in the cities and thus in Lower Galilee than in Upper Galilee . . . The extent of the non-administrative use of Greek, especially in the first century, remains in question. It is easy to demonstrate that Greek was the language of the governmental sphere. It is much harder to demonstrate that it was the primary conversational language, whether public or private, even among those elites who knew it." - Chancey's Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus
Many probably knew basic level Greek, there is evidence. But to say that most were is in question.
But yes this is a strong argument I will keep in mind, thank you.

Your hapax legomena argument shows you don't understand basic linguistics or textual criticism. Unique words are EXPECTED in any large text corpus. The percentage in the Bible is actually NORMAL for ancient literature. Many hapax are just rare words we understand perfectly well from context or cognate languages.

The Bible has an unusually high amount of hapax legomena compared to other contemporary works, from what I've heard. I do find it questionable when trying to decipher reliability and information. -Please correct me and back it up with evidence if I am wrong. I am willing to admit if I am about this. It can cause problems in translation, and certainly has.

The "900 translations" argument is possibly the dumbest of all. We don't rely on English translations for historical analysis, you absolute walnut. We work from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. And guess what? The textual variation between manuscripts is minimal and doesn't affect any major historical or theological points.

The fact that it does exist still raises issues. Some people claim their book is better/more accurate than others.
There is formal and functional equivalence. Also different interpretations.
There are some words, like ἀγάπη , which can mean love or charity.
Or almah can mean virgin, or young woman. The meaning changes a lot. Some translations put it as virgin, some as young woman (for Mary). The actual Hebrew word means young woman, just in this context it could be interpreted as virgin.

The Bible is not a historical document, but a religious text.

 

[Frax]

brooooooo too much high iqqqqqq

 

[holy]

I notice that in your posts you tend to insult people and their ideas. In your threads you call people "retards" and "fucking idiots". Why do you always find a way to belittle people and assert yourself in this way? It really shows a reflection on who I am, calling my takes embarrassing, illiterate, a walnut, and good for a laugh.
That I am just a surface level regurgitating internet atheist.
Its easy to try and use ad-hominem against me and insult me and others, as if it makes your argument any more superior.
What is this supposed to do? Make me break and cave, "Oh holy, please forgive me, I'm nothing but a narrowminded retarded peanut-brain, oh please you're such a rational genius and I will be cast into hell while you laugh at me from the heavens!"
I am trying to study and challenge religions for a long time now. I didn't wake up, click on this thread, and copy paste stuff from the internet I saw moments after. I want to consider many perspectives.
My intention is never to disrespect you, yet you do the same upon me, attempt to demoralize me. I have never started with my post calling you a walnut or a r****d.

Additionally, may I inquire that you reply to the rest of my reply? Thank you in advance. @Slicer did not reply when I asked him about the Biblical contradictions video, instead only "Hmm"'d me.
I feel like I am being dismissed by both of you, and I think it is reasonable of me to think this way.

That aside, I do plan on continuing this conversation.

I want to say that I appreciate you taking your time and effort into making these replies and showing your opinions. Thank you for trying to address these criticisms of the Bible I have encountered.

This "be nice" rule is precisely why actual intellectual discourse is dying on forums like this. You want to know why it won't fucking work? Because real debate, which is actual, serious historical and textual criticism - isn't about protecting people's feelings or maintaining some artificial veneer of politeness.
When someone comes in here spouting historically illiterate nonsense, misquoting scholars they haven't read, and making arguments that wouldn't pass muster in a freshman seminar, calling it what it is isn't "hate speech" - it's intellectual honesty.
You're essentially saying "Please dismantle my completely wrong arguments about ancient historiography, but do it while pretending they're not embarrassingly bad." That's not how scholarly discourse works. That's not how ANY serious intellectual discussion works.
What you're doing is using tone policing as a shield to avoid engaging with the substance of the arguments. When I call your arguments "fucking stupid," I'm not engaging in hate speech but making a precise evaluation of their scholarly merit. When I call you a "walnut," I'm accurately describing the intellectual depth of your engagement with the material.

You want "constructive criticism"? Here's some: Stop hiding behind civility rules when you're out of your depth. Stop pretending that strong language somehow invalidates scholarly arguments. And for fuck's sake, stop acting like your feelings are more important than historical accuracy.

Let me be brutally honest: I don't care if you feel "demoralized." I don't care if you think I'm using "strong language". What I care about is the integrity of historical scholarship. If you want to debate, then DEBATE. Address the actual arguments. Show me where my analysis of the early creedal material is wrong. Explain why the manuscript tradition doesn't support what I'm saying.

This passive-aggressive "Oh thank you for your time while you're being so mean to me" has to fucking stop because not only is it intellectually dishonest but frankly pathetic as fuck. It's either you engage with the substance of the argument or admit you're just out of your depth.

This isn't some kindergarten show-and-tell where everyone's contribution is equally valuable. No. This is a debate about historical reliability, textual criticism, and ancient languages. If you can't handle having your arguments called what they are - fucking stupid - then maybe stick to topics you've actually studied. But no, you'd rather clutch your pearls about mean words while completely ignoring the substantive rebuttals I've made to every single one of your points.

That's not moderation. That's intellectual cowardice.

So you argue that the ancient recorded historical events are recent and reliable.
However, methods of historical verification used today were not known by ancient scholars. For example, people may have made things up + used real things, and other people based that source material for their own writings.
As for Paul's letters, they don't give a detailed historical account of Jesus' life. Paul's not one of Jesus' 12 apostles. He only claimed to have a vision of Jesus on a road.
There are also contradictions within the Gospel and Bible itself. Refer to the video I sent above, which you haven't replied to.
"The only two events subject to "almost universal assent"[6] are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that he was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[7] There is no scholarly consensus about other elements of Jesus's life, including the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events such as the resurrection, and certain details of the crucifixion.[8][9]"
For the nativity story- the accounts are vastly different, as are the genealogical information referenced.

Luke 2:4-20:

Matthew 1:18-23 and 2:1-15

"The New Testament provides two accounts of the genealogy of Jesus, one in the Gospel of Matthew and another in the Gospel of Luke.[1] Matthew starts with Abraham and works forwards, while Luke works back in time from Jesus to Adam. The lists of names are identical between Abraham and David (whose royal ancestry affirms Jesus' Messianic title Son of David), but differ radically from that point. Matthew has twenty-seven generations from David to Joseph, whereas Luke has forty-two, with almost no overlap between them or with other known genealogies.⁠ They also disagree on who Joseph's father was: Matthew says he was Jacob, while Luke says he was Heli.[2]"

Spoiler: genealogy

Luke 3.23-38​

23Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli, 24son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, 25son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai, 26son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda, 27son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, 28son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, 29son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, 30son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim, 31son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, 32son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Sala, son of Nahshon, 33son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, 34son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor, 35son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah, 36son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech, 37son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, 38son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.

Matthew 1.1-16​

1An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Aram, 4and Aram the father of Aminadab, and Aminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6and Jesse the father of King David. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, 8and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, 11and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 12And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Salathiel, and Salathiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

There are also different versions for Judas' death. In Matthew, Judas hangs himself. In Acts, he falls in a field and his guts spill out/his body bursted open.

I would also like to know your thoughts on this. I admit I don't fully understand this, it might not even be significant towards the argument. I would like to know your perspective as a Christian. There are also different variations on this sourcing hypothesis.

Authority (textual criticism) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Given all of the statements and other evidence I have received from the Bible, I have come to these conclusions: The Bible is not reliable and is contradictory. And the Bible promotes/allows slavery, murder, genocide, eternal torture, and sexism (not stated here since this is about Biblical reliability and not the ethics). My beliefs are that this book was written by man for man, within the specific timeframe.

It also feels morally inconsistent.

This was long for no reason whatsoever so I'm just going to systematically dismantle this mess:

1. "Methods of historical verification weren't known to ancient scholars"

This is such a fundamentally flawed understanding of historiography it's actually painful. Ancient historians had their own methodologies and critical approaches. Thucydides wrote extensively about his historical methods. Luke explicitly states his methodology of consulting eyewitnesses and sources. The idea that ancient writers were just some fucking credulous idiots who wrote down whatever they heard is PURE chronological snobbery.

2. Your Paul argument is embarrassingly weak.

Who gives a shit if he wasn't one of the 12? He was writing in the 50s AD, in contact with the original apostles (he explicitly mentions meeting Peter and James), and preserving early tradition. The creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is recognized by virtually ALL scholars, including skeptics, as pre-Pauline material dating to the earliest Christian community. And, no, this isn't controversial but basic historical scholarship.

3. The "contradictions" you're citing? Let's take your examples:

• The Nativity accounts: Different doesn't mean contradictory, you historical infant. Matthew and Luke are emphasizing different aspects and sources. This is exactly what we'd EXPECT from independent historical accounts. If they were identical, THAT would be suspicious.
• Judas's death: This is historiography 101. Both accounts can be true - he hanged himself AND fell. Ancient historians regularly compressed or emphasized different aspects of events. This isn't a contradiction. It's complementary information.

4. Your Wikipedia quote about "universal assent" is cherry-picking bullshit.

Scholars agree on FAR more than just baptism and crucifixion. Jesus's teaching ministry, his followers, his conflicts with religious authorities - these are all accepted by the vast majority of scholars. You're confusing scholarly debate about specific details with wholesale rejection.

5. The genealogies?

One traces Joseph's legal line, one his biological line. This was common in ancient genealogies - different purposes, different emphases. Again, this shows you don't understand ancient historiographical conventions.

I would like to hear your views on the video. I know I have repeated myself but yeah I really wanna know.

You keep mentioning some video based on biblical contradictions I haven't watched and never will. I don't give a fuck about your YouTube video. Make the arguments YOURSELF or don't make them at all. I'm not here to debunk some random internet video for you.

Given all of the statements and other evidence I have received from the Bible, I have come to these conclusions: The Bible is not reliable and is contradictory. And the Bible promotes/allows slavery, murder, genocide, eternal torture, and sexism (not stated here since this is about Biblical reliability and not the ethics). My beliefs are that this book was written by man for man, within the specific timeframe.

This just shows you don't understand how historical reliability works.

We're not talking about modern journalistic standards. We're talking about ancient historical documents that have been subjected to more scholarly scrutiny than any other texts in history and have consistently shown remarkable historical accuracy where they can be tested.

The fact that you throw in "eternal torture and sexism" at the end just shows your real agenda.

This isn't about historical reliability. You have moral objections to Christianity and are working backwards to try to discredit the texts.

But, I'm suggesting this to you. Do you want to have a real debate?

Well, let's dig into the actual historical evidence. Let's talk about the criterion of embarrassment, multiple attestation, early attestation. Let's discuss the archaeological evidence that keeps confirming biblical accounts. Let's examine the manuscript tradition in detail.

I see. But there is clealy some originality in the sources that are independent of each other, like I mentioned the nativity story and Judas' death.

Synoptic Gospels and Marcan Priority

Introduction: While reading the New Testament, the first three gospels (Mathew, Mark, and Luke) seem to be very similar. In the structure, the stories they portray, and the wording (in contrast to …

sergebiblestudies.wordpress.com

There are many different theories on the sourcing and also added in ideas by the newer authors of the Gospels.

Holy fucking shit. Are you seriously trying to use a WordPress blog to argue about Synoptic source criticism and STILL didn't understanding the basic concept of independent sources? You are something special

1. Yes, there's "originality" in independent sources - THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.

That's how we know they're drawing from genuine historical tradition rather than just copying each other. If Matthew, Mark, and Luke were identical, we'd suspect collusion. The fact that they preserve different details while maintaining core consistency is EXACTLY what we'd expect from reliable historical sources.

2. Your understanding of Marcan priority is, as I'd expect, kindergarten-level.

Yes, Matthew and Luke probably used Mark as a source. They also used Q (or whatever you want to call the shared non-Marcan material) and their own unique sources (M and L). And, again, no, this isn't controversia. It's been standard scholarship for over a fucking CENTURY. But here's what you're missing:

• Mark himself is drawing on earlier tradition
• The existence of Q demonstrates early, independent tradition
• The unique material in Matthew and Luke shows they had access to other reliable sources
• John represents a completely independent tradition altogether

3. "Added in ideas by newer authors"


This shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of ancient composition it's almost sooo fucking painful.

Ancient authors didn't just "add ideas" willy-nilly. They worked with sources and traditions according to established historiographical principles. The fact that later Gospels include material not in Mark doesn't mean they're making shit up - it means they're incorporating additional reliable tradition.

4. You keep pointing to differences in the nativity narratives and Judas's death like they're some kind of smoking gun. They're not. They're exactly what we'd expect from multiple historical sources recording complex events from different perspectives and for different purposes. AGAIN, this is History 101 stuff.

Here's what's really happening:

You don't understand ancient historiography. You don't understand source criticism. You don't understand how ancient authors worked with sources and traditions.

But instead of ACTUALLY studying these things, you're reading WordPress blogs and thinking you've found devastating criticisms. It's honestly so fucking funny.

Let's discuss the ACTUAL source criticism, sigma. Let's talk about:

• The evidence for pre-Marcan tradition
• The nature and extent of Q
• The relationship between John and the Synoptics
• The role of oral tradition in Gospel formation
• The evidence for eyewitness testimony in the Gospels

Interesting.
Yes many were bilingual in Palestine, mostly Hebrew and Aramaic. Some knew Greek.
"[the] association of Greek with the elites means that it was probably more often encountered in the cities and thus in Lower Galilee than in Upper Galilee . . . The extent of the non-administrative use of Greek, especially in the first century, remains in question. It is easy to demonstrate that Greek was the language of the governmental sphere. It is much harder to demonstrate that it was the primary conversational language, whether public or private, even among those elites who knew it." - Chancey's Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus
Many probably knew basic level Greek, there is evidence. But to say that most were is in question.
But yes this is a strong argument I will keep in mind, thank you.

Fuck, now we're cherry-picking Chancey? Let me guess, you found that quote somewhere online and thought it was a slam dunk?

1. First, you're misrepresenting Chancey's overall argument.

He's specifically discussing the depth of Greek penetration in rural Galilee, not making a broad claim about Palestine as a whole. The fact that you're pulling this quote without that context shows you probably haven't actually read the book.

2. But let's say we accept Chancey's conservative estimate. You realize this STILL doesn't help your argument, right? Because:

- The Gospels show exactly the pattern we'd expect: a mix of Greek composition with preserved Aramaic phrases and clear Semitic influences
- The authors were likely urban, educated Jews - exactly the demographic Chancey acknowledges would have been comfortable in Greek
- We have clear evidence of Greek being used in Jewish religious contexts (Septuagint, anyone?)
- The target audience included Diaspora Jews and God-fearers who would have been Greek speakers

3. "Many probably knew basic level Greek"

Dude, you have such a simplistic understanding that it's not even funny anymore.

We're not talking about tourist-level language skills here. We're talking about a complex diglossia situation where different languages were used in different contexts. The fact that the Gospels preserve Aramaic phrases while being composed in Greek is exactly what we'd expect in this linguistic environment.

4. You completely ignore the evidence from Jewish inscriptions, papyri, and literary sources showing widespread Greek usage among Jews. The synagogue inscriptions alone demonstrate this wasn't just "basic level" Greek.

5. "But to say that most were is in question"

WHO THE FUCK SAID "MOST"?

I said it was widespread and that many Jews were bilingual. You're attacking a strawman because you can't engage with the actual argument.

The fact that you think you've scored some point by quoting Chancey just shows how superficial your understanding is.

This isn't about counting how many peasants could speak Greek but about understanding the complex linguistic reality of first-century Palestine and how the Gospel texts perfectly reflect that reality.

You're quoting scholars out of context and it's really helping your case.

But, if you're up to talk about ACTUAL linguistic evidence, sigma, here's some:

- The nature of Septuagintal Greek influence on the Gospels
- The preserved Aramaic phrases and their significance
- The evidence for translation Greek vs. composition Greek
- The role of Greek in Jewish education and literary production

But something, just something, tells me you'd rather just Google more quotes you don't fully understand.

The Bible has an unusually high amount of hapax legomena compared to other contemporary works, from what I've heard. I do find it questionable when trying to decipher reliability and information. -Please correct me and back it up with evidence if I am wrong. I am willing to admit if I am about this. It can cause problems in translation, and certainly has.

"From what I've heard"? "I do find it questionable"?

This is exactly the kind of half-baked, secondhand argument I've come to expect.

1. "unusually high amount"

That is straight-up bullshit.

Let's look at the numbers:

• Homer's Iliad: About 9,000 different words, with roughly 1,100 hapax legomena
• Homer's Odyssey: Around 8,000 different words, with about 868 hapax legomena
• The Greek New Testament: Approximately 5,000 different words, with about 686 hapax legomena

Do the fucking math. The percentage is COMPLETELY NORMAL for ancient literature. But you wouldn't know that because you're just repeating what you "heard" somewhere.

2. "Problems in translation"?

Most biblical hapax are perfectly understandable from:

• Context within the passage
• Cognate languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, other Semitic languages)
• Related Greek words
• Contemporary usage in other texts

The number of truly problematic hapax that significantly affect meaning is minimal.

3. You're also ignoring basic linguistic principles about corpus size and vocabulary distribution. Hapax legomena follow predictable patterns in any large text corpus - it's called Zipf's Law. The Bible's distribution is statistically normal.

4. "When trying to decipher reliability" - This shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how textual criticism works. The presence of rare words doesn't undermine reliability; if anything, it often indicates authenticity because authors making shit up tend to stick to common vocabulary.

5. You want evidence?

Here's a challenge:

Name ONE significant theological or historical point that hinges on an uncertain hapax legomenon. Just one. I'll wait.

The fact that you're willing to "admit if you're wrong" doesn't make your argument any less ignorant. This is what happens when you form opinions based on what you've "heard" rather than actual scholarship.

Tell me more about your feelings on linguistic patterns you haven't actually studied. Maybe throw in some more "from what I've heard" arguments. It's fascinating watching someone try to debate linguistics without understanding basic statistical patterns in language use.

Well, if you're going that route of biblical linguistics, let's talk about:

- ACTUAL statistical analysis of vocabulary distribution
- The role of genre in vocabulary variation
- The relationship between hapax legomena and textual authenticity
- Comparative analysis with contemporary literature

Or.. you'd rather stick to vague assertions about what you "find questionable."

The fact that it does exist still raises issues. Some people claim their book is better/more accurate than others.
There is formal and functional equivalence. Also different interpretations.
There are some words, like ἀγάπη , which can mean love or charity.
Or almah can mean virgin, or young woman. The meaning changes a lot. Some translations put it as virgin, some as young woman (for Mary). The actual Hebrew word means young woman, just in this context it could be interpreted as virgin.

The Bible is not a historical document, but a religious text.

Congratulations. You've managed to make an even more incompetent argument than before.

1. "The fact that it does exist still raises issues"

No, it fucking doesn't.

English translations are IRRELEVANT to historical analysis. We work from the original languages. The fact that Bob's Baptist Bible differs from the NIV means exactly jack shit for historical reliability. This is like saying Shakespeare isn't historically reliable because there are different Spanish translations. It's fucking weapons-grade stupid.

2. The "ἀγάπη" example just proves you don't understand basic semantics.

ALL words have semantic ranges. That's how language works, buddy.

The existence of multiple possible translations doesn't mean the original text is unclear - it means language is complex. When scholars analyze texts, they look at context, usage patterns, and semantic domains. We don't just throw our hands up and say "oh no, this word could mean two things!"

3. "אלמה (almah) argument?"

Holy shit, you're really going to die on this hill?

Yes, the word can mean "young woman" or "virgin" - IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. This isn't some devastating revelation; it's basic Hebrew semantics. The fact that translations handle it differently doesn't undermine the original text's meaning - it reflects different translation philosophies.

4. "The Bible is not a historical document, but a religious text"

This is possibly the dumbest false dichotomy I've seen today.

News flash (And, this may surprise you): texts can be BOTH religious AND historical

The fact that the Bible contains religious material doesn't negate its historical content any more than religious elements in Thucydides or Tacitus negate their historical value.

Your entire argument boils down to:

"translation is complicated, therefore the original text isn't reliable."

That's like saying:

"because people interpret Shakespeare differently, we can't know what the original plays said."

It's such a fucking fundamentally flawed understanding of textual criticism it's almost impressive.

Keep telling me about how different English translations somehow magically affect the reliability of ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It's HILAROUS.

And for fuck's sake, if you're going to try to make arguments about biblical languages, at least learn the basics of how semantic domains work. This isn't some fucking advanced linguistics but entry-level stuff that any first-year seminary student should know.

 

[holy]

Alright. I'm done with this debate. Cheers to anyone I've debated about this.

 

[lemonpie]

like it or not mr holy , buddha's teaching are infinitely better than jesus's teachings

LMAO IM GONNA DIE

 

[Nihilus]

LMAO IM GONNA DIE

lets be real here princess , you dont know shit buddha

 

[lemonpie]

lets be real here princess , you dont know shit buddha

I do actually as I have long studied theology. I think this thread is actually proof of YOUR ignorance and not mine, seeing as you were brutally refuted. Silence and away blasphemer!

 

[Nihilus]

I do actually as I have long studied theology. I think this thread is actually proof of YOUR ignorance and not mine, seeing as you were brutally refuted. Silence and away blasphemer!

studied theology and somehow still a Christian...
yeah , sure you did

 

[holy]

This debate is over. Why are you guys still arguing?

 

[Nihilus]

This debate is over. Why are you guys still arguing?

we are not arguing , she addressed me and i responded

 

[sigma]

This "be nice" rule is precisely why actual intellectual discourse is dying on forums like this. You want to know why it won't fucking work? Because real debate, which is actual, serious historical and textual criticism - isn't about protecting people's feelings or maintaining some artificial veneer of politeness.

It's not about intellectual discourse when you're calling someone a peanut and attacking them personally.
It's not even necessary to an argument to just start to attack someone, I have no idea where you've got that from.

You're essentially saying "Please dismantle my completely wrong arguments about ancient historiography, but do it while pretending they're not embarrassingly bad." That's not how scholarly discourse works. That's not how ANY serious intellectual discussion works.
What you're doing is using tone policing as a shield to avoid engaging with the substance of the arguments. When I call your arguments "fucking stupid," I'm not engaging in hate speech but making a precise evaluation of their scholarly merit. When I call you a "walnut," I'm accurately describing the intellectual depth of your engagement with the material.

Sure buddy, whatever justifies in your head of you acting condescendingly towards me and others. People can make a perfectly fine argument without calling people names.

You want "constructive criticism"? Here's some: Stop hiding behind civility rules when you're out of your depth. Stop pretending that strong language somehow invalidates scholarly arguments. And for fuck's sake, stop acting like your feelings are more important than historical accuracy.

My feelings are not more important than historical accuracy, you're just strawmanning me.

Let me be brutally honest: I don't care if you feel "demoralized."

I don't, I'm just saying that this is what you're attempting to do.

This passive-aggressive "Oh thank you for your time while you're being so mean to me" has to fucking stop because not only is it intellectually dishonest but frankly pathetic as fuck. It's either you engage with the substance of the argument or admit you're just out of your depth.

This isn't some kindergarten show-and-tell where everyone's contribution is equally valuable. No. This is a debate about historical reliability, textual criticism, and ancient languages. If you can't handle having your arguments called what they are - fucking stupid - then maybe stick to topics you've actually studied. But no, you'd rather clutch your pearls about mean words while completely ignoring the substantive rebuttals I've made to every single one of your points.

That's not moderation. That's intellectual cowardice.

JFL
I'm not going to stoop that low and continue replying to your little games and snobbery.

This was long for no reason whatsoever so I'm just going to systematically dismantle this mess:

1. "Methods of historical verification weren't known to ancient scholars"

This is such a fundamentally flawed understanding of historiography it's actually painful. Ancient historians had their own methodologies and critical approaches. Thucydides wrote extensively about his historical methods. Luke explicitly states his methodology of consulting eyewitnesses and sources. The idea that ancient writers were just some fucking credulous idiots who wrote down whatever they heard is PURE chronological snobbery.

Don't strawman me here, I never said they were "fucking credulous idiots who wrote down whatever they heard".
I'm saying that there are flaws because people in the past did not have the same resources as people with of the present, and that should be kept in mind.

2. Your Paul argument is embarrassingly weak.

Who gives a shit if he wasn't one of the 12? He was writing in the 50s AD, in contact with the original apostles (he explicitly mentions meeting Peter and James), and preserving early tradition. The creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is recognized by virtually ALL scholars, including skeptics, as pre-Pauline material dating to the earliest Christian community. And, no, this isn't controversial but basic historical scholarship.

Well, it feels weak when someone is recording what he hears from others. There are memory errors, bias, misinterpretation, pressure to conform and other things when giving a witness statement.

3. The "contradictions" you're citing? Let's take your examples:

• The Nativity accounts: Different doesn't mean contradictory, you historical infant. Matthew and Luke are emphasizing different aspects and sources. This is exactly what we'd EXPECT from independent historical accounts. If they were identical, THAT would be suspicious.

???
It's suspicious when stories don't match up, I think you're confused.
If they were independent historical accounts yet had the same story, I think it would strengthen it.
This argument genuinely does not make sense, pls reread.

5. The genealogies?

One traces Joseph's legal line, one his biological line. This was common in ancient genealogies - different purposes, different emphases. Again, this shows you don't understand ancient historiographical conventions.

Can you elaborate, I'm not sure if this is a 100% certain thing, I think this is just believed/interpreted to be as such.
"One explanation for the lines branching off this way is that the genealogies are of different people. Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy and Luke gives Mary's. Some suggest that it is the other way around with Matthew providing Mary's line, while Luke gives us Joseph's."

You keep mentioning some video based on biblical contradictions I haven't watched and never will. I don't give a fuck about your YouTube video. Make the arguments YOURSELF or don't make them at all. I'm not here to debunk some random internet video for you.

Well instead of rewriting a video's transcript into a readable format, it would be easier to watch it. It was a suggestion. A debate about the historicity of the Bible isn't the first time, many times it has been debated, and many times people have created works about it, it would be easier to ask about it than to create my own.
Like in science, I don't start off with not knowing shit and playing around with the environment and rediscovering science, people in the past have done that for me and I read about it and understand it quickly in textbooks and videos.
But hey man, it's your choice.

This just shows you don't understand how historical reliability works.

We're not talking about modern journalistic standards. We're talking about ancient historical documents that have been subjected to more scholarly scrutiny than any other texts in history and have consistently shown remarkable historical accuracy where they can be tested.

The fact that you throw in "eternal torture and sexism" at the end just shows your real agenda.

This isn't about historical reliability. You have moral objections to Christianity and are working backwards to try to discredit the texts.

But, I'm suggesting this to you. Do you want to have a real debate?

Yes I would like to have a debate.
And yes I do have both moral and historical objections to Christianity. I won't deny that I find eternal torture, genocide, infanticide, homophobia, sexism, racism, slavery and murder all bad. These are my opinions, and I'm not ashamed of it.

Well, let's dig into the actual historical evidence. Let's talk about the criterion of embarrassment, multiple attestation, early attestation. Let's discuss the archaeological evidence that keeps confirming biblical accounts. Let's examine the manuscript tradition in detail.

Please.

Holy fucking shit. Are you seriously trying to use a WordPress blog to argue about Synoptic source criticism and STILL didn't understanding the basic concept of independent sources? You are something special

1. Yes, there's "originality" in independent sources - THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.

That's how we know they're drawing from genuine historical tradition rather than just copying each other. If Matthew, Mark, and Luke were identical, we'd suspect collusion. The fact that they preserve different details while maintaining core consistency is EXACTLY what we'd expect from reliable historical sources.

I spoke about this earlier, and yes. I find independent historical sources differing VERY suspicious. I still don't understand your argument, it would seriously be more more stronger in the reliable sense if they matched up but never interacted.

2. Your understanding of Marcan priority is, as I'd expect, kindergarten-level.

Yes, Matthew and Luke probably used Mark as a source. They also used Q (or whatever you want to call the shared non-Marcan material) and their own unique sources (M and L). And, again, no, this isn't controversia. It's been standard scholarship for over a fucking CENTURY. But here's what you're missing:

• Mark himself is drawing on earlier tradition
• The existence of Q demonstrates early, independent tradition
• The unique material in Matthew and Luke shows they had access to other reliable sources
• John represents a completely independent tradition altogether

Additionally I would like to ask about Mark himself. He was not an apostle and likely did not see Jesus. He was a companion of Paul. I don't see how he was a witness to all of the things he wrote about.
As for John, I was not mentioning him in the reliability. Gospel of John does not mention Jesus' nativity, nor Judas' death. Just as Mark.
Can you elaborate on Q, I can't find much on early Church catalogs about it, since it was stated to be an oral Church gospel. And yes, my source is Google because I do not have ancient historical documents strewn around my house. If you can direct me to a useful online source, then thank you.

3. "Added in ideas by newer authors"


This shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of ancient composition it's almost sooo fucking painful.

Ancient authors didn't just "add ideas" willy-nilly. They worked with sources and traditions according to established historiographical principles. The fact that later Gospels include material not in Mark doesn't mean they're making shit up - it means they're incorporating additional reliable tradition.

4. You keep pointing to differences in the nativity narratives and Judas's death like they're some kind of smoking gun. They're not. They're exactly what we'd expect from multiple historical sources recording complex events from different perspectives and for different purposes. AGAIN, this is History 101 stuff.

Hmm I continue to disagree.

Let's discuss the ACTUAL source criticism, sigma. Let's talk about:

• The evidence for pre-Marcan tradition
• The nature and extent of Q
• The relationship between John and the Synoptics
• The role of oral tradition in Gospel formation
• The evidence for eyewitness testimony in the Gospels

Please tell me about it.

Fuck, now we're cherry-picking Chancey? Let me guess, you found that quote somewhere online and thought it was a slam dunk?

1. First, you're misrepresenting Chancey's overall argument.

He's specifically discussing the depth of Greek penetration in rural Galilee, not making a broad claim about Palestine as a whole. The fact that you're pulling this quote without that context shows you probably haven't actually read the book.

2. But let's say we accept Chancey's conservative estimate. You realize this STILL doesn't help your argument, right? Because:

- The Gospels show exactly the pattern we'd expect: a mix of Greek composition with preserved Aramaic phrases and clear Semitic influences
- The authors were likely urban, educated Jews - exactly the demographic Chancey acknowledges would have been comfortable in Greek
- We have clear evidence of Greek being used in Jewish religious contexts (Septuagint, anyone?)
- The target audience included Diaspora Jews and God-fearers who would have been Greek speakers

I mean Jesus, he was not an elite, no? He likely mostly spoke Aramaic?

3. "Many probably knew basic level Greek"

Dude, you have such a simplistic understanding that it's not even funny anymore.

We're not talking about tourist-level language skills here. We're talking about a complex diglossia situation where different languages were used in different contexts. The fact that the Gospels preserve Aramaic phrases while being composed in Greek is exactly what we'd expect in this linguistic environment.

4. You completely ignore the evidence from Jewish inscriptions, papyri, and literary sources showing widespread Greek usage among Jews. The synagogue inscriptions alone demonstrate this wasn't just "basic level" Greek.

Scholars debate on Jesus' literacy, and knowledge of the Greek language. He was rejected from being a synagogue teacher, for being a carpenter, it was his social class. There is evidence that he spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. Just this Greek language, people are not sure of.

5. "But to say that most were is in question"

WHO THE FUCK SAID "MOST"?

I said it was widespread and that many Jews were bilingual. You're attacking a strawman because you can't engage with the actual argument.

The fact that you think you've scored some point by quoting Chancey just shows how superficial your understanding is.

This isn't about counting how many peasants could speak Greek but about understanding the complex linguistic reality of first-century Palestine and how the Gospel texts perfectly reflect that reality.

You're quoting scholars out of context and it's really helping your case.

I didn't say that you said most. Just to say that would be in question since it is debated.

But, if you're up to talk about ACTUAL linguistic evidence, sigma, here's some:

- The nature of Septuagintal Greek influence on the Gospels
- The preserved Aramaic phrases and their significance
- The evidence for translation Greek vs. composition Greek
- The role of Greek in Jewish education and literary production

But something, just something, tells me you'd rather just Google more quotes you don't fully understand.

I'm asking if Jesus knew it, because from what I can tell likely no.
Because people wrote down in Greek what Jesus said in Aramaic.

Congratulations. You've managed to make an even more incompetent argument than before.

1. "The fact that it does exist still raises issues"

No, it fucking doesn't.

English translations are IRRELEVANT to historical analysis. We work from the original languages. The fact that Bob's Baptist Bible differs from the NIV means exactly jack shit for historical reliability. This is like saying Shakespeare isn't historically reliable because there are different Spanish translations. It's fucking weapons-grade stupid.

You mean the original Septuagint? And I'm saying English translations because I do not know Greek and, most of the rest of the population does not either.
This argument was more about interpretation, people translated from Greek into their own English Bibles so these people who knew Greek and English read it differently.

"From what I've heard"? "I do find it questionable"?

This is exactly the kind of half-baked, secondhand argument I've come to expect.

1. "unusually high amount"

That is straight-up bullshit.

Let's look at the numbers:

• Homer's Iliad: About 9,000 different words, with roughly 1,100 hapax legomena
• Homer's Odyssey: Around 8,000 different words, with about 868 hapax legomena
• The Greek New Testament: Approximately 5,000 different words, with about 686 hapax legomena

Do the fucking math. The percentage is COMPLETELY NORMAL for ancient literature. But you wouldn't know that because you're just repeating what you "heard" somewhere.

Ok
But does this mean that the Iliad and Odyssey have ambigious/unknown words? Maybe it was common in literature back then as you say, but does it help with reliability and trying to understand the text?

2. "Problems in translation"?

Most biblical hapax are perfectly understandable from:

• Context within the passage
• Cognate languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, other Semitic languages)
• Related Greek words
• Contemporary usage in other texts

The number of truly problematic hapax that significantly affect meaning is minimal.

While some things are guesses by historical context, that's what they are; guesses.

2. The "ἀγάπη" example just proves you don't understand basic semantics.

ALL words have semantic ranges. That's how language works, buddy.

The existence of multiple possible translations doesn't mean the original text is unclear - it means language is complex. When scholars analyze texts, they look at context, usage patterns, and semantic domains. We don't just throw our hands up and say "oh no, this word could mean two things!"

Ok, it's complex. But is the meaning certain then? Many words have multiple meanings and yeah it affects interpretation.

3. "אלמה (almah) argument?"

Holy shit, you're really going to die on this hill?

Yes, the word can mean "young woman" or "virgin" - IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. This isn't some devastating revelation; it's basic Hebrew semantics. The fact that translations handle it differently doesn't undermine the original text's meaning - it reflects different translation philosophies.

Almah does not mean virgin
Mary could or could've not been a virgin, from this word I cannot know.

4. "The Bible is not a historical document, but a religious text"

This is possibly the dumbest false dichotomy I've seen today.

News flash (And, this may surprise you): texts can be BOTH religious AND historical

It is a work of interpreted history, and clearly has elements of fiction in it due to added differing stories, or things like, the Earth was made in 6 days.

Your entire argument boils down to:

"translation is complicated, therefore the original text isn't reliable."

That's like saying:

"because people interpret Shakespeare differently, we can't know what the original plays said."

It's such a fucking fundamentally flawed understanding of textual criticism it's almost impressive.

Keep telling me about how different English translations somehow magically affect the reliability of ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It's HILAROUS.

And for fuck's sake, if you're going to try to make arguments about biblical languages, at least learn the basics of how semantic domains work. This isn't some fucking advanced linguistics but entry-level stuff that any first-year seminary student should know.

Nah, also the contradictions and fictional elements, don't forget that.

Alright. I'm done with this debate. Cheers to anyone I've debated about this.

Aww, really? Cheers then. Thanks for participating with me. I mean it, its not some passive aggressive thing. I do enjoy having conversations & debates albeit this one could've been more friendly.