Here is a link to the letter: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2425106.html
Carr said, "the complete text of the New Testament." Montgomery wrote "the gospels."
I searched but was unable to find a quote by Montgomery about Pilate, but I did find an undocumented tradition that literary criticism prior to 1961 Pilate's historicity was doubted.
My apologies for misreading the letter,and missing Montgomery's careful qualification of 'Gospels'. That was a bad mistake by me.
Presumably even he concedes that the rest of the NT is not well attested???
Why else would he put in such a qualification???
I quote Montgomery again 'To take but a single striking example: after the rise of liberal biblical criticism, doubt was expressed as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, since he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death. '
This is a lie. Pilate is not mentioned only in connection with the death of Jesus.
Unless Montgomery counts Josephus and Philo as not pagans, and wants to hide from his readers that there are ancient historians who mentioned Pilate in other contexts. A sin of ommission in other words.
And the full text of the Gospels is *not* in Sinaiticus and Vaticaus.
Even not taking into account the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman, among other changes , it does not have Luke 22:43-44 'And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground'. It is also missing Luke 22:34 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do.'
And which sceptics doubted until 1961 that Pilate did not exist?
I asked Montgomery that in an email, and there was no answer in the hate-filled bile that he sent back.
A striking example, Montgomery declares, yet Montgomery could not produce a single example of such a person!
'Steven - can you honestly tell me that you think that it is even LIKELY that John Montgomery is consciously LYING about a readily verifiable matter such as the historical record concerning Pontius Pilate?'
'To take but a single striking example: after the rise of liberal biblical criticism, doubt was expressed as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, since he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death. Then in 1961 came the discovery at Caesarea of the now famous "Pilate inscription," definitely showing that, as usual, the New Testament writers were engaged in accurate historiography.'
When asked, Montgomery was unable to name one sceptic who doubted the historicity of Pilate , because pagan historians had only mentioned him in connection with the death of Jesus.
He was either bluffing or lying.
And Montgomery knows perfectly well that Pilate was mentioned by Josephus in other connections ,so he is guilty of decieving his audience by ommission.
And Montgomery knows perfectly well that the full text of the Gospels is not in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus (I listed some differences between those and what we read today), yet he wrote to the London Times claiming that there were and that there were 1st-century fragments of the Gospels.
BILBO In order to move from *made a mistake* to *proven liar*, you need to show evidence of precisely what you assert -- that "Montgomery knows perfectly well that Pilate was mentioned by Josephus in other connections."
BILBO In order to move from *made a mistake* to *proven liar*, you need to show evidence of precisely what you assert -- that "Montgomery knows perfectly well that Pilate was mentioned by Josephus in other connections."
CARR Is Bilbo really going to say in public that Montgomery does not know that Pilate was mentioned by Josephus in other connections?
Does Bilbo want to make out that Montgomery is ignorant of really basic stuff?
Montgomery lies and says that it was a striking example of scepticism that sceptics denied that Pilate existed, and that this was put to rest in 1961.
I asked Montgomery for one of these 'striking' examples , and he could not name a single person, let alone a 'striking' example.
Neither can Bilbo.
Hence Bilbo's attacks on my character, because he cannot find any facts to back him up.
As he cannot find any facts to oppose his opponents, he has to traduce their character.
What other choice does he have? He cannot show that Montgomery was telling the truth.
And now Bilbo defends Montgomery by claiming Montgomery simply doesn't know what he is talking about...
And Bilbo still cannot find any evidence to back up Montgomery's claim that the *full* text of the Gospels is in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
He can't, because I pointed out that part of the text is missing.
Steven; What Bilbo has consistently maintained is that JWM could have been sincerely mistaken about the fact that Pilate is mentioned by Josephus in other contexts. He has never once said that JWM was right. When people argue against the Trilemma they often maintain that it arbitrarily excludes the possibility that Jesus was sincerely mistaken, but not insane, in believing that he was God. Why couldn't Montogmery be sincerely mistaken here?
'Steven; What Bilbo has consistently maintained is that JWM could have been sincerely mistaken about the fact that Pilate is mentioned by Josephus in other contexts. '
What? You just have to be joking?
Montgomery is off to be a speaker at an apolgetics conference and does not know really, really basic stuff like that?
Put it this way. If I know that, what are the chances of an apologetics conference speaker not knowing that?
I am reminded of the defense that David Irving put forwarded at his libel trial. He simply had never read the books he referenced and so was sincerely mistaken about their contents.
Off the top of my head, I can figure out how scholars before 1961 could doubt Pilate's existence even though his name appears on other contexts in Josephus. We all know that most scholars believe that Christians are thought to have embellished Josephus. So couldn't skeptical scholars have argued that the "Pilate" references in Josephus were interpolations on the part of Christians to undergird the Bible's story?
VICTOR Off the top of my head, I can figure out how scholars before 1961 could doubt Pilate's existence even though his name appears on other contexts in Josephus.
CARR Nobody has managed to find any sceptics before 1961 who said that Pilate did not live.
Perhaps Montgomery also made it up of the top his head. Perhaps he even believes it.
I asked him and he was unable to give me a name. perhaps like Christians of two thousand years ago he is a only repeating what he has been told without checking to see whether or not it is true.
And Montgomery claimed in the Times that there were first century manuscripts. He must know that this is disputed, to say the least.
12 comments:
Who lied?
Here is a link to the letter:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2425106.html
Carr said, "the complete text of the New Testament." Montgomery wrote "the gospels."
I searched but was unable to find a quote by Montgomery about Pilate, but I did find an undocumented tradition that literary criticism prior to 1961 Pilate's historicity was doubted.
My apologies for misreading the letter,and missing Montgomery's careful qualification of 'Gospels'. That was a bad mistake by me.
Presumably even he concedes that the rest of the NT is not well attested???
Why else would he put in such a qualification???
I quote Montgomery again 'To take but a single striking example: after the rise of liberal biblical criticism, doubt was expressed as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, since he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death. '
This is a lie. Pilate is not mentioned only in connection with the death of Jesus.
Unless Montgomery counts Josephus and Philo as not pagans, and wants to hide from his readers that there are ancient historians who mentioned Pilate in other contexts. A sin of ommission in other words.
And the full text of the Gospels is *not* in Sinaiticus and Vaticaus.
Even not taking into account the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman, among other changes , it does not have Luke 22:43-44 'And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground'. It is also missing Luke 22:34 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do.'
And which sceptics doubted until 1961 that Pilate did not exist?
I asked Montgomery that in an email, and there was no answer in the hate-filled bile that he sent back.
A striking example, Montgomery declares, yet Montgomery could not produce a single example of such a person!
'Steven - can you honestly tell me that you think that it is even LIKELY that John Montgomery is consciously LYING about a readily verifiable matter such as the historical record concerning Pontius Pilate?'
Montgomery citation
I quote the web page, once again.
'To take but a single striking example: after the rise of liberal biblical criticism, doubt was expressed as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, since he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death. Then in 1961 came the discovery at Caesarea of the now famous "Pilate inscription," definitely showing that, as usual, the New Testament writers were engaged in accurate historiography.'
When asked, Montgomery was unable to name one sceptic who doubted the historicity of Pilate , because pagan historians had only mentioned him in connection with the death of Jesus.
He was either bluffing or lying.
And Montgomery knows perfectly well that Pilate was mentioned by Josephus in other connections ,so he is guilty of decieving his audience by ommission.
And Montgomery knows perfectly well that the full text of the Gospels is not in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus (I listed some differences between those and what we read today), yet he wrote to the London Times claiming that there were and that there were 1st-century fragments of the Gospels.
BILBO
In order to move from *made a mistake* to *proven liar*, you need to show evidence of precisely what you assert -- that "Montgomery knows perfectly well that Pilate was mentioned by Josephus in other connections."
CARR
You are having a laugh aren't you?
BILBO
In order to move from *made a mistake* to *proven liar*, you need to show evidence of precisely what you assert -- that "Montgomery knows perfectly well that Pilate was mentioned by Josephus in other connections."
CARR
Is Bilbo really going to say in public that Montgomery does not know that Pilate was mentioned by Josephus in other connections?
Does Bilbo want to make out that Montgomery is ignorant of really basic stuff?
Montgomery lies and says that it was a striking example of scepticism that sceptics denied that Pilate existed, and that this was put to rest in 1961.
I asked Montgomery for one of these 'striking' examples , and he could not name a single person, let alone a 'striking' example.
Neither can Bilbo.
Hence Bilbo's attacks on my character, because he cannot find any facts to back him up.
As he cannot find any facts to oppose his opponents, he has to traduce their character.
What other choice does he have? He cannot show that Montgomery was telling the truth.
And now Bilbo defends Montgomery by claiming Montgomery simply doesn't know what he is talking about...
And Bilbo still cannot find any evidence to back up Montgomery's claim that the *full* text of the Gospels is in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
He can't, because I pointed out that part of the text is missing.
Some Christians just hate facts, don't they?
In his letter to the London Times, Montgomery said there were first-century fragments of the Gospels.
Is that the truth?
Or is Montgomery simply ignorant of the fact that any such proposed datings have been almost universally rejected?
I think Bilbo has pretty much dropped any idea of trying to show that what Montgomery said corresponded to the truth.
Steven; What Bilbo has consistently maintained is that JWM could have been sincerely mistaken about the fact that Pilate is mentioned by Josephus in other contexts. He has never once said that JWM was right. When people argue against the Trilemma they often maintain that it arbitrarily excludes the possibility that Jesus was sincerely mistaken, but not insane, in believing that he was God. Why couldn't Montogmery be sincerely mistaken here?
'Steven; What Bilbo has consistently maintained is that JWM could have been sincerely mistaken about the fact that Pilate is mentioned by Josephus in other contexts. '
What? You just have to be joking?
Montgomery is off to be a speaker at an apolgetics conference and does not know really, really basic stuff like that?
Put it this way. If I know that, what are the chances of an apologetics conference speaker not knowing that?
I am reminded of the defense that David Irving put forwarded at his libel trial. He simply had never read the books he referenced and so was sincerely mistaken about their contents.
Off the top of my head, I can figure out how scholars before 1961 could doubt Pilate's existence even though his name appears on other contexts in Josephus. We all know that most scholars believe that Christians are thought to have embellished Josephus. So couldn't skeptical scholars have argued that the "Pilate" references in Josephus were interpolations on the part of Christians to undergird the Bible's story?
VICTOR
Off the top of my head, I can figure out how scholars before 1961 could doubt Pilate's existence even though his name appears on other contexts in Josephus.
CARR
Nobody has managed to find any sceptics before 1961 who said that Pilate did not live.
Perhaps Montgomery also made it up of the top his head. Perhaps he even believes it.
I asked him and he was unable to give me a name. perhaps like Christians of two thousand years ago he is a only repeating what he has been told without checking to see whether or not it is true.
And Montgomery claimed in the Times that there were first century manuscripts. He must know that this is disputed, to say the least.
Post a Comment