Are the Four Gospels Trustworthy?

[POI]

1. As the title implies, are the four Gospels trustworthy?
2. If so, are they completely trustworthy, or maybe only completely trustworthy where they really need to be?
3. Do they even need to be trustworthy?

[TRANSPONDER]

I wave nothing aside. If as you say Tacitus says a camp and Josephus says three camps and the remains of the three camps are still there, it does not debunk the history as the camps, ramps and remains at Masada show that the siege happened (1).

Firstly, you have been confusing the Siege of Jerusalem with the Siege at Masada. I have been referencing the Siege of Jerusalem this entire time. Secondly, in regards to Masada, you’ve doubled-down on the reality of the siege of Masada despite the evidence coming from what is, by your reasoning, an unreliable source in Josephus.

As for the interpretation of the archaeological evidence at Masada, it has been hotly debated among archaeologists. The remains of a wall, camps, and some arrow heads show Romans were there. But without the written account of Josephus how would you know this was a siege? How would you know when it happened or have any idea of what happened? For instance, was there really a mass suicide by the Jews? Archaeological discoveries support or dispute the historical record, they don’t in-and-of-themselves form the historical record. In the above article Eric Cline says:

Yet the dispute goes on. The story of Masada is more than just a story of the archae¬ological excavations. It is an example of how archaeologists use histori¬cal information to supplement what they find during their excavations and to flesh out the bare details provided by the archaeological discov¬eries. Yadin made particular use of the writings of Flavius Josephus – the Jewish general turned Roman historian who wrote two books about the Jews in the first century CE and who is the primary source for what might have taken place on top of Masada nearly 2,000 years ago. And Masada shows how the relationship between archaeology and the historical record cuts both ways; since we cannot be certain that Josephus’s discussions are 100 per cent accurate, we can use archaeology to corroborate – or to challenge – the ancient text.

The siege of Jerusalem is mentioned in history and is graphically depicted on the arch of Titus.

How are you getting the Siege of Jerusalem from that image? Remember you can’t use Josephus and Tacitus because they contradict each other on the siege of Jerusalem. How is that image carved out by some anonymous Romans any better than Tacitus writing about the siege?

You are waiving aside the arguments without addressing them. You’re waiving aside major contradictions between Josephus and Tacitus. The point you are missing is that your reasoning implies we cannot trust either writer. Whether or not either siege actually happened is irrelevant to that argument.

There is reason to think there was a real Jesus, but the details, you may say, raise questions. The nativities contradict each other and all 4 resurrections contradict.

Well so what? If they contradict, it’s in the secondary details. You’ve already argued that contradictions in the secondary details do not prove the event was not historical. In fact, you’ve argued, probably unknowingly, that events from ancient history are often “facts” and “a reality” despite the accounts being wildly contradictory.

Further, history itself raises queries about the gospels. There is no Passover release custom known, the blasphemy charge and meaning of king of the Jews in the nativity make no sense other than within Christian Dogma. For that matter, Nazareth may not have even really existed at the time.

You’re repeating yourself. I’ve already provided plenty of examples that would likewise cause us to discard Josephus and Tacitus if the above is sufficient to discredit the Gospels. And yet you’ve argued that despite these kinds of problems the core events are a “fact” and “a reality.”

These are 'details' but ones that impact the dogmatic claim. They destroy the credibility of the gospel reliability as eyewitness even if the broad facts are accepted.

None of the details you listed above necessarily preclude the Gospels from being based on eyewitness sources. Moreover, they don’t need to be eyewitness accounts to be reliable anyway. Besides, I’ve already given you reasons to think Josephus was not an eyewitness of the siege of Jerusalem, but you ignored those too.

Sorry, no. I will maintain that it requires more criticism, and that you refuse to accept that is neither here nor there. It will not persuade me to drop the apologetic (not that I suppose you thought I would, and it was more about your denial and keeping Biblefaith) I will continue making the case, calling for a thinktank (we badly need one) to put these ideas out and make Historians turn a critical gaze on the gospels in a way that it really hasn't or not enough, so far.

You are free to continue to hold your current reasoning. But do so with the knowledge that it’s irrational and leads to absurd outcomes. Moreover, you’ve nicely demonstrated that you don’t even apply your own reasoning consistently insisting that certain historical events are “facts” and “a reality” despite the evidence being wildly contradictory. In light of that, it’s hard to take much of what you say seriously.

It is rather yourself making irrational outcomes from the problems of assessing books especially where there are contradictions. Of course I have never denied that efforts are made to extract history out of ancient writings even with contradictions. The same is done with the Bible , but where there are contradictions, you want Tacitus and Josephus put under the spotlight, but in the Bible which are supposed to be eyewitness or at least 2nd hand, you use the discrepancies between Tacitus and Josephus to have us ignore the Bible contradictions. Be at least consistent in your argument.

Taking the evidence at best, Josephus was there or got it from other sources. His three camps is supported by the archaeology; the ramp is there just as he said. If Tacitus differs, he was writing at a distance and assumed there was one camp. That makes as much sense as assuming Pilate was a procurator; he wasn't, but that only means that Tacitus was making assumptions and did nor have direct knowledge. You want Tacitus on Jesus dismissed because he got something wrong?

Isn't it fair to make the same conclusions about the gospel account? Paul is the one talking first or 2nd hand. He talks about a resurrection, but it is nothing like in the gospels. Isn't it fair to see the gospels as our Tacitus, making assumptions about what they believed happened?

The arch of Titus at least confirms what Josephus wrote - Titus took and sacked the Temple and paraded the holy vessels at his triumph. That is what your nice photo shows. You are the one saying I can't use Tacitus and Josephus as support, not me. I see it as good as the Nineveh frieze that the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem really happened, even if the Assyrian and Biblical accounts differ. I see no reason to do historical dismissals as you suggest nor can you accuse me of trying to do that to the bible. I'm not saying the Jesus never happened, I'm trying to work out what the contradictions tell us, no wave the whole thing away. I think you are trying to force a strawman position on me.

[Goose]

Of course I have never denied that efforts are made to extract history out of ancient writings even with contradictions.

Seems like that only applies to non-Biblical ancient writings. When Tacitus and Josephus wildly contradict you insist the core event is still a “fact” and a “reality.” When the Gospels contradict on secondary details you insist they “contradict terminally.” Gotchya.

The same is done with the Bible , but where there are contradictions, you want Tacitus and Josephus put under the spotlight, but in the Bible which are supposed to be eyewitness or at least 2nd hand, you use the discrepancies between Tacitus and Josephus to have us ignore the Bible contradictions. Be at least consistent in your argument.

From this statement it’s quite clear you still don’t understand the argument.

Taking the evidence at best, Josephus was there or got it from other sources. His three camps is supported by the archaeology; the ramp is there just as he said. If Tacitus differs, he was writing at a distance and assumed there was one camp.

Firstly, you are, once again, incorrectly conflating the siege at Jerusalem with the siege at Masada. The contradiction between Tacitus’ one camp and Josephus’ three camps is in reference to the siege at Jerusalem, not Masada. Secondly, you continually ignore the larger more damning contradictions. I can only assume that’s because you have no way to answer.

That makes as much sense as assuming Pilate was a procurator; he wasn't, but that only means that Tacitus was making assumptions and did nor have direct knowledge. You want Tacitus on Jesus dismissed because he got something wrong?

That’s what your reasoning implies. That is, we dismiss a source as unreliable because he may have got something wrong.

Isn't it fair to make the same conclusions about the gospel account? Paul is the one talking first or 2nd hand. He talks about a resurrection, but it is nothing like in the gospels. Isn't it fair to see the gospels as our Tacitus, making assumptions about what they believed happened?

We could make that assertion about any ancient source, that they were just “making assumptions about what they believed happened.” It isn’t much of an argument.

The arch of Titus at least confirms what Josephus wrote - Titus took and sacked the Temple and paraded the holy vessels at his triumph. That is what your nice photo shows.

The image on the arch of Titus is simply an image of Romans carrying a few items, one of which appears to be a menorah. The table and trumpets do not appear to be in-and-of-themselves anything special. If we assume this is an image reflecting Judaism they are probably supposed to be the golden table (Ex 25:23-30; Lev 24:5-9) and the two silver trumpets (Numbers 10: 1-10). The menorah appears to be a Roman knock-off. The base appears quite Roman with images of mythological sea-creatures, griffins, dragons, and even Erotes a Greek god associated with sex. Considering the Jewish attitude towards sex and graven images, it's problematic to say the least to think this was the menorah in the Temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore, earlier depictions of the menorah differ markedly and have a triangular base.

If you had no written record from Josephus, you would have very little idea of the meaning of the image on the arch of Titus. We would be left merely speculating about what it references. When we consider the items in the image are found in the Old Testament, how could you disprove the idea these items were just made by the Romans and put on display?

Furthermore, the anonymous sculptor(s) of the image on the arch contradicts Josephus. Josephus only mentions the table, the candlestick, and the law displayed in the triumph.

That is the golden table...The candlestick also... And the last of all the spoils was carried the law of the Jews. – Wars, 7.5.5

But the anonymous sculptor of the image depicts the candlestick (menorah), the table, and two trumpets not mentioned by Josephus. It does not show the law. Did Josephus just happen to not see the two trumpets? Your reasoning argues against Josephus being an eyewitness because he does not mention something we would expect him to, the two trumpets. Of course this is setting aside the fact that earlier Josephus says there were two candlesticks given to Titus by a priest named Jesus in exchange for his freedom (Wars, 6.8.3). Josephus says these two candlesticks were, “like to those that lay in the holy house” (Wars, 6.8.3). So who knows, it’s possible Titus had a fake menorah made. Which may have been the case since Josephus seems to imply the candlestick on display in the triumph was not the real deal.

The candlestick also, that was made of gold; though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of. – Wars, 7.5.5

You are the one saying I can't use Tacitus and Josephus as support, not me.

You are implying that with your argument. You have argued that contradictions render the text unreliable. You can’t use an unreliable text, can you? Now that we see the sculptor of the arch of Titus contradicts Joseph, according to your reasoning, it’s unreliable as well.

I'm not saying the Jesus never happened, I'm trying to work out what the contradictions tell us, no wave the whole thing away. I think you are trying to force a strawman position on me.

Didn’t you argue that a contradiction discredits the rest of the evidence? Why yes, yes you did...

I've presented some major ones, and here's the thing - if some contradictions can't be explained credibly, then it means that some that could be explained more easily are also real contradictions. You know how it works in court - if you can catch a witness in a few lies, it compromises and discredits the rest of his statements, claims and evidence.

If you want to argue something more nuanced such as contradictions imply the core event under question is discredited, rather than the whole work, the argument I’ve made still applies. Besides, you’ve already demonstrated you don’t apply that reasoning consistently anyway.

[TRANSPONDER]

Of course I have never denied that efforts are made to extract history out of ancient writings even with contradictions.

Seems like that only applies to non-Biblical ancient writings. When Tacitus and Josephus wildly contradict you insist the core event is still a “fact” and a “reality.” When the Gospels contradict on secondary details you insist they “contradict terminally.” Gotchya.

The same is done with the Bible , but where there are contradictions, you want Tacitus and Josephus put under the spotlight, but in the Bible which are supposed to be eyewitness or at least 2nd hand, you use the discrepancies between Tacitus and Josephus to have us ignore the Bible contradictions. Be at least consistent in your argument.

From this statement it’s quite clear you still don’t understand the argument.

Taking the evidence at best, Josephus was there or got it from other sources. His three camps is supported by the archaeology; the ramp is there just as he said. If Tacitus differs, he was writing at a distance and assumed there was one camp.

Firstly, you are, once again, incorrectly conflating the siege at Jerusalem with the siege at Masada. The contradiction between Tacitus’ one camp and Josephus’ three camps is in reference to the siege at Jerusalem, not Masada. Secondly, you continually ignore the larger more damning contradictions. I can only assume that’s because you have no way to answer.

That makes as much sense as assuming Pilate was a procurator; he wasn't, but that only means that Tacitus was making assumptions and did nor have direct knowledge. You want Tacitus on Jesus dismissed because he got something wrong?

That’s what your reasoning implies. That is, we dismiss a source as unreliable because he may have got something wrong.

Isn't it fair to make the same conclusions about the gospel account? Paul is the one talking first or 2nd hand. He talks about a resurrection, but it is nothing like in the gospels. Isn't it fair to see the gospels as our Tacitus, making assumptions about what they believed happened?

We could make that assertion about any ancient source, that they were just “making assumptions about what they believed happened.” It isn’t much of an argument.

The arch of Titus at least confirms what Josephus wrote - Titus took and sacked the Temple and paraded the holy vessels at his triumph. That is what your nice photo shows.

The image on the arch of Titus is simply an image of Romans carrying a few items, one of which appears to be a menorah. The table and trumpets do not appear to be in-and-of-themselves anything special. If we assume this is an image reflecting Judaism they are probably supposed to be the golden table (Ex 25:23-30; Lev 24:5-9) and the two silver trumpets (Numbers 10: 1-10). The menorah appears to be a Roman knock-off. The base appears quite Roman with images of mythological sea-creatures, griffins, dragons, and even Erotes a Greek god associated with sex. Considering the Jewish attitude towards sex and graven images, it's problematic to say the least to think this was the menorah in the Temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore, earlier depictions of the menorah differ markedly and have a triangular base.

If you had no written record from Josephus, you would have very little idea of the meaning of the image on the arch of Titus. We would be left merely speculating about what it references. When we consider the items in the image are found in the Old Testament, how could you disprove the idea these items were just made by the Romans and put on display?

Furthermore, the anonymous sculptor(s) of the image on the arch contradicts Josephus. Josephus only mentions the table, the candlestick, and the law displayed in the triumph.

That is the golden table...The candlestick also... And the last of all the spoils was carried the law of the Jews. – Wars, 7.5.5

But the anonymous sculptor of the image depicts the candlestick (menorah), the table, and two trumpets not mentioned by Josephus. It does not show the law. Did Josephus just happen to not see the two trumpets? Your reasoning argues against Josephus being an eyewitness because he does not mention something we would expect him to, the two trumpets. Of course this is setting aside the fact that earlier Josephus says there were two candlesticks given to Titus by a priest named Jesus in exchange for his freedom (Wars, 6.8.3). Josephus says these two candlesticks were, “like to those that lay in the holy house” (Wars, 6.8.3). So who knows, it’s possible Titus had a fake menorah made. Which may have been the case since Josephus seems to imply the candlestick on display in the triumph was not the real deal.

The candlestick also, that was made of gold; though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of. – Wars, 7.5.5

You are the one saying I can't use Tacitus and Josephus as support, not me.

You are implying that with your argument. You have argued that contradictions render the text unreliable. You can’t use an unreliable text, can you? Now that we see the sculptor of the arch of Titus contradicts Joseph, according to your reasoning, it’s unreliable as well.

I'm not saying the Jesus never happened, I'm trying to work out what the contradictions tell us, no wave the whole thing away. I think you are trying to force a strawman position on me.

Didn’t you argue that a contradiction discredits the rest of the evidence? Why yes, yes you did...

I've presented some major ones, and here's the thing - if some contradictions can't be explained credibly, then it means that some that could be explained more easily are also real contradictions. You know how it works in court - if you can catch a witness in a few lies, it compromises and discredits the rest of his statements, claims and evidence.

If you want to argue something more nuanced such as contradictions imply the core event under question is discredited, rather than the whole work, the argument I’ve made still applies. Besides, you’ve already demonstrated you don’t apply that reasoning consistently anyway.

Then if Tacitus is not talking about Masada (I haven't time now to check what you tell me (1) and there was no contradiction between Josephus and his three camps at Masada, (which there are) there is no disagreement between them, which negates your point, doesn't it? The point is, whichever way you present the argument you can't use the way we approach history to make a special case for the Bible, and no Gotcha, sorry. I have not done anything with the Bible than note what agrees, what actually appears to be a reliable fact and what contradicts and what contradicts seriously. You seem to be the one insisting that because Tacitus and Josephus disagree about an aspect of the Jewish war (though it now seems that they don't) you want all the Bible problems overlooked.

The gospels do not match up as well as Tacitus and Josephus, never mind not being reliable as eyewitness. The fact is that historical discrepancies get argued about and bias, spin and tall stories are not ruled out. Why should the gospels be treated any differently?

The point about the arch of Titus us that we we do have written history that tells us what it means. If we didn't, we might wonder what happened. I fail to see your argument. If we had no gospels, and only Tacitus on Jesus, we would have no religious background. But we do, so the point doesn't arise and I fail to see what your point is.

You misunderstand the point about Pilate. The apologetic is that Tacitus perhaps used Roman sources. That he said Pilate was a procurator doesn't make his history invalid but it does raise a question of how reliable his source was. That's why the gospels are unreliable, because they get things wrong, contradict each other and make dubious claims.

You still seem to be missing the point about the arch of Titus. You may point up discrepancies. They aren't to be overlooked, but broadly the arch supports the Roman triumph with some temple goods. Nor is Josephus really contradicted - statuettes and Egyptian offering tables, and we'd know something was wrong, but what we have confirms Josephus. We can ask why he doesn't have the same description of the loot just as Tacitus doesn't have the same governorship title as the Pilate stone. It doesn't dismiss the account. The gospel problems don't entirely dismiss the Gospels as having a factual basis, but the problems are bad enough to man they are not reliable. And yes, I would say that some does discredit the gospels, at least in part.

The suggestion that the Romans faked them up for display would be regarded as less probable than the Romans really knocked over the Temple, even if there was no written record. Like the far - fetched excuses for Gospel contradictions, it cannot be totally disproved, but that it was a real triumph is the better hypothesis.

I think I do apply the method consistently, rather more than you do with your odd suggestion about the Romans faking the triumph being taken as a serious theory. But I shall continue to make the arguments and if you want to argue inconsistency, you do it and we'll see if your examples from Tacitus and Josephus are treated differently without reason - remember, we have archaeological evidence to confirm the history, very often.

(1) or maybe I will.

Josephus, the Jewish war Now Titus, according to the Roman usage, went in the front of the army after a decent manner, and marched through Samaria to Gophna, a city that had been formerly taken by his father, and was then garrisoned by Roman soldiers; and when he had lodged there one night, he marched on in the morning; and when he had gone as far as a day's march, he pitched his camp at that valley which the Jews, in their own tongue, call "the Valley of Thorns," near a certain village called Gabaothsath, which signifies "the Hill of Saul," being distant from Jerusalem about thirty furlongs.

The three camps at Masada are a later battle, at a different place.

One camp - he doesn't disagree with Tacitus. Even if he did, it would just raise a question, not debunks the pair of histories, nor is that what history does. The gospel accounts, supposedly eyewitness become unreliable when they contradict throughout. Do we see the difference in assessing here?

[Goose]

Then if Tacitus is not talking about Masada (I haven't time now to check what you tell me (1) and there was no contradiction between Josephus and his three camps at Masada, (which there are) there is no disagreement between them, which negates your point, doesn't it?

*facepalm* You’re still confusing Josephus’ account of the siege of Jerusalem with his account of Masada. I don’t know why you are confused about this, I don’t what more I can say. Until you get that straight, this is futile.

The point is, whichever way you present the argument you can't use the way we approach history to make a special case for the Bible, and no Gotcha, sorry.

I’m not making a special case for the Bible. On the contrary you are. Either that, or you are making a special case for other writers like Josephus. What I’m demonstrating is that your reasoning leads to absurd outcomes. Historians don’t approach history the way you do. If they did, they would hardly be able to do history at all since so much of it contradicts.

I have not done anything with the Bible than note what agrees, what actually appears to be a reliable fact and what contradicts and what contradicts seriously.

That’s got to be one of the most disingenuous statements I’ve read in a very long time. You are trying to do far more than merely note what agrees and what contradicts in the Bible. We both know that. What you are trying to do is argue those contradictions imply unreliability with respect to the Gospels. Do I really need to quote again all the many posts in this thread where you did that? Heck you even do it in this post for crying out loud.

You seem to be the one insisting that because Tacitus and Josephus disagree about an aspect of the Jewish war (though it now seems that they don't) you want all the Bible problems overlooked.

Nope, try harder to understand what’s being argued.

The gospels do not match up as well as Tacitus and Josephus, never mind not being reliable as eyewitness.

Your subjective opinion is noted and filed. Naturally you would say that anyway, you’re a Tacitus/Josephus apologist. Furthermore, this statement carries no credibility from one who has routinely ignored the more serious contradictions between Josephus and Tacitus.

The fact is that historical discrepancies get argued about and bias, spin and tall stories are not ruled out. Why should the gospels be treated any differently?

They shouldn’t be. Treat them the same way you treat Josephus and Tacitus. That’s all that’s being asked.

The point about the arch of Titus us that we we do have written history that tells us what it means.

Well if you need a written source to tell you what it means, what good is the arch of Titus?

If we didn't, we might wonder what happened. I fail to see your argument. If we had no gospels, and only Tacitus on Jesus, we would have no religious background. But we do, so the point doesn't arise and I fail to see what your point is.

You have a contradictory account from a biased source who may not have been an eyewitness. A source that makes mistakes and has the same kind of problems as you assert the Gospels have. You consider that source reliable, reliable enough to tell you what the arch of Titus means. But when it comes to the Gospels on the other hand, well, that’s whole different story.

You misunderstand the point about Pilate. The apologetic is that Tacitus perhaps used Roman sources. That he said Pilate was a procurator doesn't make his history invalid but it does raise a question of how reliable his source was. That's why the gospels are unreliable, because they get things wrong, contradict each other and make dubious claims.

And there you go arguing the Gospels are unreliable because they contradict. What happened to just noting where they contradict? More to the point, notice how charitable you are to Tacitus here, his history isn’t invalidated but only questions arise about his sources. Notice how condemning you are towards the Gospels, they are unreliable according to you. That inconsistency doesn’t go unnoticed.

Here’s the kicker. Tacitus likewise gets things wrong, contradicts other sources, and makes dubious claims (I would be happy to expand on that if you wish). So does Josephus, Plutarch, Suetonius and other writers from the era. Therefore, Tacitus et al. are, according to your reasoning, every bit as unreliable as the Gospels. Or said another way, the Gospels are no more unreliable than Tacitus et al.

You still seem to be missing the point about the arch of Titus. You may point up discrepancies. They aren't to be overlooked, but broadly the arch supports the Roman triumph with some temple goods.

Of course, when your favorite source is contradicted it’s not a big deal, we should just focus on the broad points of agreement. Right, got it.

Nor is Josephus really contradicted - statuettes and Egyptian offering tables, and we'd know something was wrong, but what we have confirms Josephus. We can ask why he doesn't have the same description of the loot just as Tacitus doesn't have the same governorship title as the Pilate stone. It doesn't dismiss the account. The gospel problems don't entirely dismiss the Gospels as having a factual basis, but the problems are bad enough to man they are not reliable. And yes, I would say that some does discredit the gospels, at least in part.

Here we go again. When your favorite source is contradicted and has problems every bit as bad as the Gospels, well, it’s not really a contradiction and we shouldn’t dismiss the account because of those problems. On the other hand, when the Gospels contradict and have problems, well, they are not reliable.

The suggestion that the Romans faked them up for display would be regarded as less probable than the Romans really knocked over the Temple, even if there was no written record.

Really? People make fake stuff all the time. We rarely see a successful siege of an entire city. It’s far easier to make a few items than it is mobilize an entire army into a long term siege.

Like the far - fetched excuses for Gospel contradictions, it cannot be totally disproved, but that it was a real triumph is the better hypothesis.

Probably a rabbit trail, but I’m curious why you think it’s a better hypothesis. What makes one hypothesis better than another?

I think I do apply the method consistently,...

I think it’s been demonstrated quite well in this thread that you do not apply your method consistently. It’s quite clear that you do not apply the same level of scepticism to your favorite ancient texts like Josephus that you apply to the Gospels. You focus on the broad points of agreement between him and Tacitus insisting the history they report is a “fact” and a “reality” despite the accounts wildly contradicting. You ignore the fact they have many of the same problems you assert the Gospels have. Despite all that, your favorite texts are generally reliable but the Gospels are not, right? Yeah, I don’t think anyone reading this thread would see you as applying your method consistently.

...rather more than you do with your odd suggestion about the Romans faking the triumph being taken as a serious theory.

It doesn’t even have to be an image of a fake triumph. It could just simply be an artistic expression that had nothing to do with sacking Jerusalem. Perhaps, as you said earlier, the sculptor was “making assumptions about what [he] believed happened.” Or maybe the sculptor just made it all up. How would you prove otherwise without Josephus?

But you’re missing the point anyway. The point isn’t that a fake triumph should be taken as a serious hypothesis. The salient point is that without Josephus, a source who is rendered unreliable by your reasoning, we would have little idea of what the image on the arch was depicting.

But I shall continue to make the arguments and if you want to argue inconsistency, you do it and we'll see if your examples from Tacitus and Josephus are treated differently without reason - remember, we have archaeological evidence to confirm the history, very often.

The rare cases where we find archaeological evidence to confirm the history despite the written accounts contradicting in the details demonstrates that contradictions are not necessarily evidence of non-historicity, that accounts which contradict can be reliable at least in the core event they report. Thus, the argument that contradictions demonstrate the Gospels are unreliable or that the resurrection, for example, is not historical fails.

(1) or maybe I will.

Josephus, the Jewish war Now Titus, according to the Roman usage, went in the front of the army after a decent manner, and marched through Samaria to Gophna, a city that had been formerly taken by his father, and was then garrisoned by Roman soldiers; and when he had lodged there one night, he marched on in the morning; and when he had gone as far as a day's march, he pitched his camp at that valley which the Jews, in their own tongue, call "the Valley of Thorns," near a certain village called Gabaothsath, which signifies "the Hill of Saul," being distant from Jerusalem about thirty furlongs.

The three camps at Masada are a later battle, at a different place.

This is confused. You need to continue reading. I gave the references in this post. The point in the narrative you are quoting above is Wars 5.2.1 where Titus waited for the legion from Emmaus to join him (5.2.3). This temporary camp was thirty furlongs from Jerusalem according to Josephus. Once the legion from Emmaus joined Titus he moved closer to Jerusalem and established three camps, one at Scopus which was seven furlongs away, one three furlongs behind them, and one six furlongs away at the Mount of Olives (Wars, 5.2.3). It’s these three camps which caused the Jews to be astonished that “the Romans pitching three several camps” (Wars, 5.2.4). It's these three camps of Josephus which create a contradiction between the one camp of Tacitus.

(Pssst. When reading those passages did you also notice where Josephus incorrectly refers to Titus as Caesar? Never mind that though, right?)

One camp - he doesn't disagree with Tacitus.

If you wish to argue the camp mentioned by Josephus in Wars 5.2.1 is the same camp mentioned by Tacitus, then go ahead and reconcile the contradiction between the distance of the camps from Jerusalem. Josephus says it was near a “village called Gabaothsath” which he says was “thirty furlongs” from Jerusalem. The furlong was roughly equivalent to the stadion which historians estimate to between 150 and 210 metres. That means Titus’ camp, according to Josephus, was somewhere between 4.5 – 6.3 kms away from Jerusalem. Whereas Tacitus says, “Titus pitched his camp before the walls of Jerusalem” (Histories 5.11), which implies close proximity. Certainly 4.5 – 6.3 kms from Jerusalem is not “before the walls” of Jerusalem. So go ahead and make some “excuse” for the contradiction that isn’t any worse than those you’ve ridiculed for the ones found in the Gospels. This should be fun to watch.

When you are done with that, let’s see you reconcile the contradiction between Josephus and Tacitus on the number of dead Jews. Go ahead and make some special plea for why that isn't a "terminal contradiction" as you call it. That ought to be fun to watch too.

[TRANSPONDER]

You are trying to make a case out of nothing. I have already said that if Josephus and Tacitus don't agree, then we look at the disagreement and decide what's the problem. I did not and do not propose to get into comparing Josephus and Tacitus when Josephus was on the spot and Tacitus wasn't. Nor do I think your suggestion that it is easier to fake booty and spoils than to win a siege has many legs. Well, if you are going to dismiss recorded history on such grounds you may do so, but I would suppose that Bible credibility would go along with it.

If we are going to credit the crucifixion, which I do, we should credit the siege of Jerusalem, which I also do. If we are to worry about discrepancies, as we do, for example Philo and Josephus on Pilate don't altogether match, then questioning the Bible, especially where it makes no sense, is valid. It isn't a case of swallow the whole claim or toss it all out, but nuanced as you say, just as with James and Jesus in Antiquities, I don't query the story of a power struggle. The one about a Jesus walking the walls of Jerusalem predicting the fall and his own death to the minute...well, we have to query the supernatural.

It is you trying to force an uncritical acceptance of the Bible on the grounds that I already accept the Jewish war as a valid event and why shouldn't I? Because it would have been cheaper for the Romans to fake it? That's not history but denial. Thus even if Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius and Philo all wrote about the Jewish war and contradicted, with Josephus disagreeing with them all, the Jewish was would still have more credibility than the resurrection - claim because wars happen and resurrections don't. And that is how historical assessment of old books works, and it's not my opinion nor yours.

I reckon that the five way contradiction of the resurrection renders it unreliable and your argument from historical disagreements doesn't make that wrong or my opinion, though you'd like it to be. It is what it is and it would be slung out in a court of law because the claim itself is under question, just like the resurrection. It is not accepted fact and discussion of how it happened, like the Jewish war, and that's where your case falls down.

If you want to go on a history forum and actually argue that the siege of Jerusalem never succeeded, and the Romans faked the stuff for their triumph, let me know where you argue that and I'll come and watch the fun. In the meantime I'll even argue that the open and empty tomb can't be credited as a basic fact, never mind Jesus' body walking around with the holes in. That is as wrong as the arch of Titus sporting Egyptian statues and saying it came from the 2nd temple.

[TRANSPONDER]

Now a few further points I do get the point you are making. If we try to screw legitimate history out of dubious tales, why do I dismiss the gospels? It is a fair question. But the fair answer is that we do (I do - I hope) approach history the same way. I really didn't want to get into comparing Tacitus and Josephus in detail - that's up to the historians; for me the Jewish war is a fact for historians, and the discrepancies are their problem. The Jewish war and sack of the temple and the arch with the triumph and spoils is support for that. If Josephus says something else, that is a question and a problem but not a debunk of the historical credibility of the Jewish war.

The problem is that the Gospels have not got the same historical acceptance. It reminds me rather of the case for Arthur or the kings of pagan. I have seen history squeezed out of the legends, but they sound fanciful as the gospels and only the fact of wars between the Britons and Saxons and the Empire of Pagan and their war with Pegu. The history is as basic and Jesus and crucifixion, but the tall stories are dubious. All history and trying to ease history out of legend is a tricky business, but the problems does not means swallowing the resurrection -claim, not does querying the resurrection - stories make my approach different other (true) than there is a miracle claim at bottom.

[Goose]

You are trying to make a case out of nothing. I have already said that if Josephus and Tacitus don't agree, then we look at the disagreement and decide what's the problem.

With your favorite sources the problem doesn’t ever seem to be a “terminal contradiction” no matter how badly they contradict though. You’ve repeatedly implied that in those instances where they disagree, no matter how badly, the methodology is that we should focus on the fact that they agree on the broad points. You argued in an earlier post...

It's not just Tacitus and Josephus who disagree, but Josephus and Philo on Pilate for instance. But still the broad outlines are the same...

But when it comes to the Gospel disagreements the fact that they agree on the broad outlines of death, burial, resurrection and appearances doesn’t matter because as you put it in that same post...

...a claim is not evidence for the claim.

So in cases where the texts disagree, the basic claim is evidence for the claim when it comes to Josephus and Tacitus but not when it comes to the Gospels.

I did not and do not propose to get into comparing Josephus and Tacitus when Josephus was on the spot and Tacitus wasn't.

I can understand why you want to avoid this given that it exposes the bias in your methodology. That’s an interesting assertion, that Josephus was “on the spot.” How do you know Josephus was on the spot? I’ve given some reasons to think he wasn’t.

Nor do I think your suggestion that it is easier to fake booty and spoils than to win a siege has many legs.

By comparison it’s far easier to make some furniture than win a siege. That seems self evident.

Well, if you are going to dismiss recorded history on such grounds you may do so, but I would suppose that Bible credibility would go along with it.

Oh, I’m not at all dismissing recorded history. The point, once again, is that your overall argument implies that we should. I’m trying to demonstrate for you what happens when we do that, when we use the kind of reasoning you do. But I suppose, like so many points I’ve made, that one is lost as well.

If we are going to credit the crucifixion, which I do, we should credit the siege of Jerusalem, which I also do. If we are to worry about discrepancies, as we do, for example Philo and Josephus on Pilate don't altogether match, then questioning the Bible, especially where it makes no sense, is valid. It isn't a case of swallow the whole claim or toss it all out, but nuanced as you say, just as with James and Jesus in Antiquities, I don't query the story of a power struggle. The one about a Jesus walking the walls of Jerusalem predicting the fall and his own death to the minute...well, we have to query the supernatural.

Here you go again trying to downplay what it is you are attempting to do. Obviously you are not merely questioning the Gospels where they disagree. You have repeatedly made the argument that these discrepancies demonstrate that the Gospels are not trustworthy. Have you forgotten you claimed this in an earlier post...

...the gospels are demonstrably not trustworthy. It just needs some demonstration.

It is you trying to force an uncritical acceptance of the Bible on the grounds that I already accept the Jewish war as a valid event and why shouldn't I?

If you were to apply your reasoning consistently, you shouldn’t accept the siege of Jerusalem because by your reasoning there are no reliable sources that report it. They contradict, they get things wrong, they are biased, they make dubious claims, etc. You know, all the criteria you say render the Gospels as unreliable. But that fact you do accept the siege of Jerusalem despite the sources being unreliable by your reasoning demonstrates that when it comes to history outside of the Gospels you suspend that reasoning and make a special plea.

Because it would have been cheaper for the Romans to fake it? That's not history but denial.

It seems uncontroversial that it would be easier and cheaper to make some furniture rather than finance and orchestrate a long distance, long term military siege. But I would agree that in order to argue the Romans faked the holy relics from Jerusalem would require denying the historical record. Not unlike those who argue Jesus faked his own death must do. At least you see the folly in such an argument.

Thus even if Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius and Philo all wrote about the Jewish war and contradicted, with Josephus disagreeing with them all, the Jewish was would still have more credibility than the resurrection - claim because wars happen and resurrections don't. And that is how historical assessment of old books works, and it's not my opinion nor yours.

That is your opinion, one grounded in a bias towards the supernatural. Any historian open minded to the supernatural is free to treat a supernatural claim that same way as a natural one.

Let me see if I have your statement above straight. It doesn’t matter how bad the evidence is for a claim that you believe. It would still have more credibility than the evidence for a claim you don’t believe even if, presumably, the evidence for a claim you don’t believe was far superior than the evidence for a claim you do believe. Is that about right?

Think about what you are arguing here though. Notice here you are tactility implying that the resurrection has some credibility. You aren’t saying the resurrection has no credibility, you are just saying the siege of Jerusalem would still have more credibility to you because you believe in sieges. Said another way, no matter how much credibility the resurrection might have, the siege of Jerusalem would still have more. So the resurrection might have high credibility but the siege would still have more. To which I would simply reply, well so what?

Moreover, you are no longer making an evidential argument against the reliability of the Gospels. You are now making a philosophical one. In a nut shell you are now arguing the Gospels are less credible to you because they report things you don’t believe, namely the supernatural. For someone like me who is open minded to the supernatural, the report of a supernatural event is not itself sufficient reason to discard the text.

Lastly, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio report the supernatural at various points throughout their respective works. They also report the supernatural in connection to Vespasian and the siege of Jerusalem in particular. Which would imply the works by those authors are every bit as unreliable as the Gospels. I would be happy to expand on this if you wish.

I reckon that the five way contradiction of the resurrection renders it unreliable and your argument from historical disagreements doesn't make that wrong or my opinion, though you'd like it to be.

You’ve already demonstrated with your own arguments that contradictions don’t necessarily render the text unreliable. You refuted yourself.

[TRANSPONDER]

You are trying to make a case out of nothing. I have already said that if Josephus and Tacitus don't agree, then we look at the disagreement and decide what's the problem.

With your favorite sources the problem doesn’t ever seem to be a “terminal contradiction” no matter how badly they contradict though. You’ve repeatedly implied that in those instances where they disagree, no matter how badly, the methodology is that we should focus on the fact that they agree on the broad points. You argued in an earlier post...

It's not just Tacitus and Josephus who disagree, but Josephus and Philo on Pilate for instance. But still the broad outlines are the same...

But when it comes to the Gospel disagreements the fact that they agree on the broad outlines of death, burial, resurrection and appearances doesn’t matter because as you put it in that same post...

...a claim is not evidence for the claim.

So in cases where the texts disagree, the basic claim is evidence for the claim when it comes to Josephus and Tacitus but not when it comes to the Gospels.

That's two different arguments and both wrong. I regard some contradictions as demonstrably terminal even if you don't, and broad outlines of either the Jewish war of the Crucifixion of Jesus by Pilate as both broadly acceptable. Your point about disagreements in either the account of the war or in the gospels are treated the same way and I am not doing it differently.

I did not and do not propose to get into comparing Josephus and Tacitus when Josephus was on the spot and Tacitus wasn't.

I can understand why you want to avoid this given that it exposes the bias in your methodology. That’s an interesting assertion, that Josephus was “on the spot.” How do you know Josephus was on the spot? I’ve given some reasons to think he wasn’t.

Josephus threw in his lot with Vespasian and was there with Titus during the rest of the war. Tacitus wasn't. Can you show differently?

Nor do I think your suggestion that it is easier to fake booty and spoils than to win a siege has many legs.

By comparison it’s far easier to make some furniture than win a siege. That seems self evident.

You either miss or evade the point. While it could be cheaper (in a shortsighted way - how about bribing the army to say nothing about it? - it is not going far as a credible case to make to historians. Further, it debunks the gospels as the less probable hypothesis (that there was a real resurrection) is beaten by the idea that the writers made it up, especially when the details diverge. The difference you point up in the loot on the arch of Titus and as in Josephus does ask for an explanation, just as Mary running to Jesus in Matthew but not in Luke. That the resurrection didn't happen is more in accordance with the evidence than the Siege if Jerusalem didn't succeed - since I gather you aren't even proposing that as a serious hypothesis anyway. So your argument fails before you start.

Well, if you are going to dismiss recorded history on such grounds you may do so, but I would suppose that Bible credibility would go along with it.

Oh, I’m not at all dismissing recorded history. The point, once again, is that your overall argument implies that we should. I’m trying to demonstrate for you what happens when we do that, when we use the kind of reasoning you do. But I suppose, like so many points I’ve made, that one is lost as well.

You can save yourself the trouble as I am not doing so through you try to argue that I am. Yes, that like many of your points, is lost.

If we are going to credit the crucifixion, which I do, we should credit the siege of Jerusalem, which I also do. If we are to worry about discrepancies, as we do, for example Philo and Josephus on Pilate don't altogether match, then questioning the Bible, especially where it makes no sense, is valid. It isn't a case of swallow the whole claim or toss it all out, but nuanced as you say, just as with James and Jesus in Antiquities, I don't query the story of a power struggle. The one about a Jesus walking the walls of Jerusalem predicting the fall and his own death to the minute...well, we have to query the supernatural.

Here you go again trying to downplay what it is you are attempting to do. Obviously you are not merely questioning the Gospels where they disagree. You have repeatedly made the argument that these discrepancies demonstrate that the Gospels are not trustworthy. Have you forgotten you claimed this in an earlier post...

No, there you go again trying to make the false argument that all discrepancies are equally strong. They are not. The Jewish war is accepted, just as is the crucifixion is, as a basic. The discrepancies ask for explanations. The ones with the gospels are so bad that we have to regard them as untrustworthy. I pointed out that if you want to dismiss history just because of discrepancies, the Bible goes with it, but if you accept history, it is not all accepted on the same credibility level. That's where you fall down. What's worse, the gospels are presented as eyewitness, not history, so unsafe witness is what applies here, not writing history.

...the gospels are demonstrably not trustworthy. It just needs some demonstration.

It is you trying to force an uncritical acceptance of the Bible on the grounds that I already accept the Jewish war as a valid event and why shouldn't I?

I

f you were to apply your reasoning consistently, you shouldn’t accept the siege of Jerusalem because by your reasoning there are no reliable sources that report it. They contradict, they get things wrong, they are biased, they make dubious claims, etc. You know, all the criteria you say render the Gospels as unreliable. But that fact you do accept the siege of Jerusalem despite the sources being unreliable by your reasoning demonstrates that when it comes to history outside of the Gospels you suspend that reasoning and make a special plea.

No, you are doing the special pleading by trying to make the Histories like Jewish war as unreliable as the Bible just because they have some discrepancies. I already said - you try taking it to the History sites and arguing that the histories of the Jewish war are unreliable and we can't know that they really happened. Conversely, you fail in arguing that because I (supposedly) accept 'unsound' histories like Tacitus and Josephus, I must accept the gospels, too. No, because they contradict so badly. That's where you fail - the discrepancies are not all the same.

Because it would have been cheaper for the Romans to fake it? That's not history but denial.

It seems uncontroversial that it would be easier and cheaper to make some furniture rather than finance and orchestrate a long distance, long term military siege. But I would agree that in order to argue the Romans faked the holy relics from Jerusalem would require denying the historical record. Not unlike those who argue Jesus faked his own death must do. At least you see the folly in such an argument.

It seems you get the point, yes. you could fake the Temple loot, but selling a siege that failed as a success is more tricky at the time and concealing it from history. As to the 'swoon' theory (actually drugged theory - the Bible apologists strawman it as one would expect to make it sound less likely) if you want to debate which theory the Gospels support, we can do so rather than trying to validate the witnesses of the gospels by pointing to problems in history which are not denied, even if the basic history is accepted. It is wangling epistemology (what Bible apologists call 'Philosophy') to try to revise what actually is evidence.

Thus even if Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius and Philo all wrote about the Jewish war and contradicted, with Josephus disagreeing with them all, the Jewish was would still have more credibility than the resurrection - claim because wars happen and resurrections don't. And that is how historical assessment of old books works, and it's not my opinion nor yours.

That is your opinion, one grounded in a bias towards the supernatural. Any historian open minded to the supernatural is free to treat a supernatural claim that same way as a natural one.

It is a matter o logic and practical basics that a supernatural claim has to make its' case and that you want to pretend that one is as good is the other is just your Bible -biased opinion.

Let me see if I have your statement above straight. It doesn’t matter how bad the evidence is for a claim that you believe. It would still have more credibility than the evidence for a claim you don’t believe even if, presumably, the evidence for a claim you don’t believe was far superior than the evidence for a claim you do believe. Is that about right?

Yes, that's right, that's exactly what the Bible apologist does. I don't. The evidence is that Jesus was a Galilean and was crucified by Rome. Bible inventors would not have invented that and have to explain it away, so it's likely true. The Nativity, Resurrections and other stories (presented as witness) contradict seriously and are unreliable. What is wrong about that?

Think about what you are arguing here though. Notice here you are tactility implying that the resurrection has some credibility. You aren’t saying the resurrection has no credibility, you are just saying the siege of Jerusalem would still have more credibility to you because you believe in sieges. Said another way, no matter how much credibility the resurrection might have, the siege of Jerusalem would still have more. So the resurrection might have high credibility but the siege would still have more. To which I would simply reply, well so what?

Because the theory that is the way the world works is more likely than the supernatural. If you argue it either way you have abandoned logic for bias. Even you don't seriously propose that the Siege of Jerusalem didn't succeed, so you refute your own point here.

Moreover, you are no longer making an evidential argument against the reliability of the Gospels. You are now making a philosophical one. In a nut shell you are now arguing the Gospels are less credible to you because they report things you don’t believe, namely the supernatural. For someone like me who is open minded to the supernatural, the report of a supernatural event is not itself sufficient reason to discard the text.

Lastly, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio report the supernatural at various points throughout their respective works. They also report the supernatural in connection to Vespasian and the siege of Jerusalem in particular. Which would imply the works by those authors are every bit as unreliable as the Gospels. I would be happy to expand on this if you wish.

No, you ar trying to turn an evidential point into Bible apologist sophistry and calling it philosophy and pretending it's me doing it when it's you, tryig to make unlikely theories (the Romans faked the loot) look as good as the accepted one - that does show the loot from the temple even if Josephus disagrees what was actually in the loot. It's a detail, it doesn't make the whole Jewish war unreliable testimony. I have to make the point that histories are broadly accepted of Alexander, Caesar or the Numidian war, even though the Gordian knot, prophetic eagles and praying to a rain god are not accepted as credible. The supernatural is commonly tossed out and you tell historians that they are refuting themselves. I'd like to see you do it. If you don't and won't, then your whole argument fails as the whole gospel is based on the supernatural, let along not stacking up very well.

I reckon that the five way contradiction of the resurrection renders it unreliable and your argument from historical disagreements doesn't make that wrong or my opinion, though you'd like it to be.

You’ve already demonstrated with your own arguments that contradictions don’t necessarily render the text unreliable. You refuted yourself.

No, you did by pretending that minor details count jut as much as major ones. Essentially you point to details about descriptions of Roman camps or what is shown as the booty from the Temple. That is not on a par with the contradictions of the gospels. Some of which - a I said - re terminal.

Let me say that your trying to wangle epistemology fails, as pretending that details of credible events in either the Gospels or Histories are the same as serious discrepancies in either Bible or history so as to make either seem unreliable. It is your attempt to make different points look the same that fails, not my pointing to serious contradictions that discredit the whole story.