PDA

View Full Version : OUR FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE: Evidence for Jesus from Probe Ministries



Trout
October 21st 2007, 07:16 PM
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources Written by Michael Gleghorn

Evidence from Tacitus

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."{2} He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"{3} The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?
Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.
Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.
Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

Notes

1. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 82.

5. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

6. N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190.

7. Edwin Yamauchi, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

8. Pliny, Epistles x. 96, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 25; Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 198.

9. Ibid., 27.

10. Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

11. M. Harris, "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors," in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55, cited in E. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?", in Jesus Under Fire, ed. by Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 227, note 66.

12. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

13. Bruce, Christian Origins, 28.

14. Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 36.

15. Ibid.

16. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.

17. Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64, cited in Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.

18. Ibid.

19. Although time would not permit me to mention it on the radio, another version of Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum" survives in a tenth-century Arabic version (Bruce, Christian Origins, 41). In 1971, Professor Schlomo Pines published a study on this passage. The passage is interesting because it lacks most of the questionable elements that many scholars believe to be Christian interpolations. Indeed, "as Schlomo Pines and David Flusser...stated, it is quite plausible that none of the arguments against Josephus writing the original words even applies to the Arabic text, especially since the latter would have had less chance of being censored by the church" (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194). The passage reads as follows: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).

20. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 202-03.

21. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

22. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

23. See John 8:58-59 and 10:31-33.

24. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 204. See also John 18:31-32.

25. Matt. 12:24. I gleaned this observation from Bruce, Christian Origins, 56.

26. Luke 23:2, 5.

27. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 206.

©2001 Probe Ministries.

About the Author

Michael Gleghorn is a research associate with Probe Ministries. He earned a B.A. in psychology from Baylor University and a Th.M. in systematic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. Before coming on staff with Probe he taught history and theology at Christway Academy in Duncanville, Texas. Michael is married to his beautiful wife Hannah.
What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.

Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:

Probe Ministries
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
(972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664
info@probe.orgThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
www.probe.org

Theolog
October 21st 2007, 08:53 PM
Great article.

I have always believed that Josephus was a Christian. He was a priest that served in the temple when Jesus was alive. He Claimed that God told him to quit fighting the Romans and surrender to the write history. Being a priest he wittnessed first hand Jesus Christ. As Jewish Historian he was bound to the truth. I am equally sure that most Jews that witnessed the events on that faithful day knew that Jesus was the messiah at the time but the cost was too dear to the politicos so the killed him and changed many of the peoples opinion. Much like todays government.

In short I believe that Josephus wrote in a manner that Christians would understand and non Christians would not. His accounts of the great tribulation are very chilling. It seems clear that he was saying nothing like it had ever happened before or will ever happen again. I could go on but you get the picture.

JonLanceBarker
October 21st 2007, 11:12 PM
great article.

excellent corroboration of much that has already been said.

(theolog, no one has any evidence corroborating your assertions. sorry. :wink:)

LostSheep
October 22nd 2007, 08:28 PM
great article.

excellent corroboration of much that has already been said.


I heartily agree with what Lance has said, and contrary to what I've heard many skeptics say, this evidence is EXTRAORDINARILY solid!

A great article, and once again, a powerful reinforcement of something skeptics can often obscure: the great evidence for the historical Jesus.

traveler
October 25th 2007, 08:42 PM
Didn't Christ get his last name from "Christos", which was a Greek term?

JonLanceBarker
October 26th 2007, 01:30 AM
"Christos" is the Greek for the Hebrew "Mashiach" which means "Anointed One."
it's more of a title than a name.
Jesus' proper name would have been something like Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph).

[note: Jesus didn't have to be Joseph's natural son to be called his son.]

Trout
November 6th 2007, 04:35 PM
:bump:

gharfish
November 7th 2007, 03:24 AM
Outstanding ! And this is from Probe. I have known of them for many years; grew up within walking distance. A great ministry. I tried to get on as an artist with them when I was a "kid." As I recall, the ministry was supportive of Josh McDowell's, headquartered then in the same city. McDowell was a strong part of the national "Campus Crusade for Christ" ministry, founded by the late Bill Bright.

Thanks, TWeb, for providing this. It's very encouraging to see these proofs that Jesus is indeed a historical person, well recorded outside of the NT testimonies as someone fitting, factually, right in there.

Glenn P
November 7th 2007, 03:31 AM
This is a very useful summary indeed. May it be widely read.

gharfish
November 8th 2007, 01:18 AM
This is a very useful summary indeed. May it be widely read.I heard that !

iceage
November 9th 2007, 03:33 PM
Doesn't anyone else find it odd and suspect that the Son of God comes to earth and the only external disinterested references are second hand and indirect?

gharfish
November 10th 2007, 12:04 PM
Do you mean it's from the outside which are unbelievers' observations, at that point in time ? Naturally they would be regarded as second hand ones.

JonLanceBarker
November 11th 2007, 01:06 AM
Doesn't anyone else find it odd and suspect that the Son of God comes to earth and the only external disinterested references are second hand and indirect?

in that day and age, the only external references were by definition second-hand and indirect.

otherwise, they would not have been external.

disinterested sources would have been nearly nonexistent.
why?

we in this age tend to forget that literacy as well as writing materials were much scarcer in ancient societies than they are today.
hence, the only people likely to write about things are those with access to writing resources, ie the educated wealthy classes.
they also have to care enough about something to write about it.
naturally, the only real reason to care about Christ and and Christianity would be to support or oppose the movement.
guess what we have.
writings by supporters and writings by opposers.
significantly, only a few of the more notable writings are by opposers.
significantly, the opposing writings are second-hand and indirect.

clue, anyone?

gharfish
November 11th 2007, 01:23 AM
Yes ! Thank you, Lance Q/Barker.

You said what I wanted to say but couldn't.....manage....to...come up with..it !

JonLanceBarker
November 11th 2007, 01:32 AM
Yes ! Thank you, Lance Q/Barker.

You said what I wanted to say but couldn't.....manage....to...come up with..it !

aww....thanks! :blush:

iceage
November 11th 2007, 07:29 PM
in that day and age, the only external references were by definition second-hand and indirect.

I don't know - what about a diary or records by Pontius Pilate, a scribe passing through, a interested but objective jewish scribe.


we in this age tend to forget that literacy as well as writing materials were much scarcer in ancient societies than they are today.
hence, the only people likely to write about things are those with access to writing resources, ie the educated wealthy classes.

This is true but evidently even fisherman were literate enough to write a gospel.

The bigger issue though is that the Son of God came to earth and the only significant records are biased interested parties. Why didn't/couldn't God see to it that someone else documented the events - maybe wisemen from the east, a greek philosopher, a roman historian.

Think about this, a significant religious/political leader is publicly executed, the curtain in the temple is torn and he rises in a dramatic fashion and walks the earth with his wounds for weeks and apparently no one else notices? Why is the ascension such a local event and not something witnessed world wide. Why not some dramatic event to commemorate the most significant event in the course of humanity like the moon breaking into two, a star cluster aligned into a cross. God supposedly stopped the moon and sun in their tracks just to facilitate a slaughter but no long term physical evidence or reporting to mark this period. Sounds a bit suspect, like some disappearing golden plates.


guess what we have.
writings by supporters and writings by opposers.
significantly, only a few of the more notable writings are by opposers.
significantly, the opposing writings are second-hand and indirect.

For that matter why didn't/couldn't God see to it that the original gospels where preserved - why not miraculous preservation or course of events that lead to the original copies? As it is we have additions like the condemned woman and stones that apparently appear out of no where centuries later.

JonLanceBarker
November 12th 2007, 01:06 AM
I don't know - what about a diary or records by Pontius Pilate, a scribe passing through, a interested but objective jewish scribe.

:twitch: what do you expect Pontius Pilate to write? that Jesus reappeared after having been crucified?
what possible motive could he have to completely abandon all his honor and credibility after having ordered Jesus's death?
after all, we have no real evidence that he actually sympathized with Jesus, or became a Christian.

and it would be extremely unlikely for a jewish scribe to be objective about Jesus.
Jesus is claiming not only to be Messiah, but eqivalent to God Himself!
it would be nearly impossible for a seriously religious jew to see this situation objectively! :teeth:


This is true but evidently even fisherman were literate enough to write a gospel.

Matthew was a tax collector, Mark was apparently Peter's note-taker, and Luke was a Greek physician. that's three out of four who can be considered educated and/or somewhat wealthy.
traditionally, it's held that John wrote his gospel rather late in life...obviously long enough for him to become functionally literate enough to write it.


The bigger issue though is that the Son of God came to earth and the only significant records are biased interested parties. Why didn't/couldn't God see to it that someone else documented the events - maybe wisemen from the east, a greek philosopher, a roman historian.

:no: did you just completely ignore what i just posted about ancient writing?
you seem to be assuming that writing classes of the day included classes on objective journalism!!
talk about anachronistic assumptions!
there was no reason for anybody to write objectively in those days!!
it's true even today that anyone who writes ANYTHING has an agenda behind the writing!!
why would magi, philosophers, or historians be any more objective than the followers of Christ and their opposition?
if they were interested enough to write about Christ, they would MOST PROBABLY have been in one camp or the other!!


Think about this, a significant religious/political leader is publicly executed, the curtain in the temple is torn and he rises in a dramatic fashion and walks the earth with his wounds for weeks and apparently no one else notices? Why is the ascension such a local event and not something witnessed world wide. Why not some dramatic event to commemorate the most significant event in the course of humanity like the moon breaking into two, a star cluster aligned into a cross.

:no: why doesn't God change all babies' diapers too?

while He was alive, Jesus wasn't on the Roman imperial radar. think about this: what historian in his right mind is going to pay any attention to the things that happen in the Galilee, Hicksville of the nowhere-land of Judaea, the quintessential backwards backwater province of the Roman Empire?

Jesus only became significant to Roman historians after His followers became significantly numerous.
that's why writers like Tacitus and Josephus are so far down the years from the events in question.


God supposedly stopped the moon and sun in their tracks just to facilitate a slaughter but no long term physical evidence or reporting to mark this period. Sounds a bit suspect, like some disappearing golden plates.

:hehe: well, surprise...i don't hold that God actually stopped the sun and moon in their tracks.
apparently, those words can also be interpreted to say that God completely covered the sun, which makes more sense because previously in the passage God makes hail fall on the enemy armies.
still miraculous...but makes a lot more sense to do. :teeth:
sorry...no joseph smith here.


For that matter why didn't/couldn't God see to it that the original gospels where preserved - why not miraculous preservation or course of events that lead to the original copies? As it is we have additions like the condemned woman and stones that apparently appear out of no where centuries later.

so why doesn't God change babies' diapers?

why must miraculous preservation be preferable to regular preservation by the process of copy-making, as if the latter didn't faithfully preserve the original text?

would you believe in Jesus even if they were "miraculously preserved?" (now THAT sounds like golden plates!!!)

and by the way, it's very probable that the story of the condemned woman was an already existing oral tradition that some scribes simply decided to incorporate into the Gospel of John.
oral tradition was probably the original format of all the Gospels anyway...and the addition of the story wasn't apparently very significant, either!

why does this addition have anything to with preservation? it's an addition, not a subtraction!!

gharfish
November 12th 2007, 01:32 AM
Excellent.

JonLanceBarker
November 12th 2007, 01:44 AM
Excellent.

dude...'preciate it. :teeth:

Christian2
November 12th 2007, 02:05 PM
Quote from the article:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}[

The Jews say this reference is not about Jesus.

iceage
November 13th 2007, 01:01 AM
what do you expect Pontius Pilate to write? that Jesus reappeared after having been crucified?
what possible motive could he have to completely abandon all his honor and credibility after having ordered Jesus's death?

Why would reporting or writing in diary that a man apparently was resurrected with mortal wounds threaten the Prefects honor or credibility? From what we know of Pilate he was somewhat ambivalent about the whole affair and a philosophical man.


and it would be extremely unlikely for a jewish scribe to be objective about Jesus.
Jesus is claiming not only to be Messiah, but eqivalent to God Himself!
it would be nearly impossible for a seriously religious jew to see this situation objectively!


Unlikely perhaps, but for God how more unlikely then say any other miracle...

Why did Jesus perform miracles? Just for the local crowd? - and why not a miraculous sign for the global crowd ?


did you just completely ignore what i just posted about ancient writing?
you seem to be assuming that writing classes of the day included classes on objective journalism!!
talk about anachronistic assumptions!
there was no reason for anybody to write objectively in those days!!
it's true even today that anyone who writes ANYTHING has an agenda behind the writing!!
why would magi, philosophers, or historians be any more objective than the followers of Christ and their opposition?

There exists (unmiraculously) many letters to and from Roman soldiers and home.

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/paplet1.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Letters-Roman-Frontier-Bowman/dp/0415920256

Why not one saying "Wow mum thanks for the new socks, but wait tell I get home and tell you about this dude we executed and buried and on the third day he was walking around with these wounds - No I am not drinking too much wine"

Divinely inspired of course.



Think about this, a significant religious/political leader is publicly executed, the curtain in the temple is torn and he rises in a dramatic fashion and walks the earth with his wounds for weeks and apparently no one else notices? Why is the ascension such a local event and not something witnessed world wide. Why not some dramatic event to commemorate the most significant event in the course of humanity like the moon breaking into two, a star cluster aligned into a cross.


why doesn't God change all babies' diapers too?


Changing Diapers is a non-sequitur and fine example of a Red Herring.


while He was alive, Jesus wasn't on the Roman imperial radar. think about this: what historian in his right mind is going to pay any attention to the things that happen in the Galilee, Hicksville of the nowhere-land of Judaea, the quintessential backwards backwater province of the Roman Empire?

Perhaps you are correct if we are talking about some radical rabbi - but we are talking about the Son of God - evidently this Son of God event was insignificant compared the Roman Empire.


Jesus only became significant to Roman historians after His followers became significantly numerous.
that's why writers like Tacitus and Josephus are so far down the years from the events in question.

Again exactly what one would expect as the result of a purely natural event - perhaps a newly expanding meme-complex.


well, surprise...i don't hold that God actually stopped the sun and moon in their tracks.
apparently, those words can also be interpreted to say that God completely covered the sun, which makes more sense because previously in the passage God makes hail fall on the enemy armies.
still miraculous...but makes a lot more sense to do.

Making sense or not that is what the words say and exactly the meaning of every biblical translation I know of. Here are 12 primary translations and 3 commentaries all in agreement and contrary to such a liberal interpretation.

http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

"Covering the sun" is twisting, and an incongruent extrapolation, of the text in an attempt to conform to modern understanding of cosmology! Does "did not hasten to go down" seem logical in view of covering the the sun?

Further there are other references of God supposedly making the Sun's shadow move backwards as a mere sign to King - But nothing significant for the Son of God on his resurrection and ascension. hmmm...


sorry...no joseph smith here.

Like it or not it, the evidence is of the same variety.


For that matter why didn't/couldn't God see to it that the original gospels where preserved - why not miraculous preservation or course of events that lead to the original copies? As it is we have additions like the condemned woman and stones that apparently appear out of no where centuries later.


so why doesn't God change babies' diapers?

More Herring I think we have enough for a fish fry....


why must miraculous preservation be preferable to regular preservation by the process of copy-making, as if the latter didn't faithfully preserve the original
text?

"as if" is right.

The earliest copies of the gospels do not even have the authors names attached!!! It was sometime decades or centuries that attribution was added.

The Pericope Adulterae does not even appear in John until a 5th century copy! The earliest references in the literature is around 4th century!

There are many other questionable passages.

Why would God "inspire his holy thoughts" and then let sloppy humans copy and insert additions and redactions and let major uncertainty filter into the process so that we can fight over them. Why would God like uncertainty.


would you believe in Jesus even if they were "miraculously preserved?" (now THAT sounds like golden plates!!!)

Very likely and at least one could maintain intellectual honesty in following a God.

The bigger question is why would God want anyone to believe in questionable things - what is the value in that? Sounds more like a chain letter (believe and good things will happen / doubt and bad things will happen)


and by the way, it's very probable that the story of the condemned woman was an already existing oral tradition that some scribes simply decided to incorporate into the Gospel of John.
oral tradition was probably the original format of all the Gospels anyway...and the addition of the story wasn't apparently very significant, either!

why does this addition have anything to with preservation? it's an addition, not a subtraction!!


Sure, it is nice story, my favorite. But did it happen? is from God? etc. This is an important point not to be left to the whims of oral traditions over centuries and the political influences of committees.

JonLanceBarker
November 13th 2007, 03:07 AM
:sigh: iceage, i gotta say i'm not very impressed with your arguments.
but since it's 2 AM where i am, and i have to get up early, i'm dealing with your answer some other time.
be back soon.

gharfish
November 13th 2007, 02:51 PM
Quote from the article:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}[

The Jews say this reference is not about Jesus."They" say it's a reference to _______ instead. (*fill in the blank*)

hogarm
November 15th 2007, 02:23 PM
Admitting Jesus is a spiritual concept and not a historical person, does not take away from Christianity. In fact, developing a theology around a spiritual man would add to Christianity.
There is disagreement on the authenticity of this Tacitus passage. The most damaging criticism, it wasn’t included in the fourth century list by Eusebius of all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources. But even if authentic, it proves the existence of Christians in the first century, not the human existence of Jesus. If it said Jesus the Christ it would be more evidence. Christ at that time would have been used as a title, not as a name. Jesus and Christus are both names, not a title. Also, it could have referred to followers of Osaris who would have been called Christians.
Some historians also dispute the authenticity of the Pliny the Younger letter. But again, even if authentic it only affirms the existence of Christians; it gives no evidence for a human named Jesus. Further in the letter is a statement, “… the flesh of their sacrificial victims is on sale everywhere …” What is a curious statement. I have never heard it explained by either critic or apologist.
Concerning the "Testimonium Flavianum," I wouldn’t say that most scholars believe Josephus wrote the core, but some do. Everyone agrees that even if Josephus wrote a core, a later editor altered it. The most convincing argument of those who believe the whole passage was a later interpolation is that it interrupts Josephus’s narrative. It doesn’t logically follow the preceding paragraph, and it doesn’t logically introduce the following paragraph. It just sounds like it was inserted after the original was written. Some historians believe Eusebius wrote it in the fourth century.
Later references to a human man named Jesus all suffer from the criticism that by then the Catholic Church had already been teaching that Jesus was a man, so even non-Christians accepted him a human not a spiritual man.
For anyone interested in the beauty of Christianity without the permutations of the Catholic Church and a spiritual rather than a human Jesus I would recommend the books by Freke and Gandy.

Christian2
November 16th 2007, 04:19 PM
"They" say it's a reference to _______ instead. (*fill in the blank*)

The Jews deny that 43a refers to Jesus. I've spoken to many of them about this. The last one suggested I read this site:

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Specifically, I would check out Passage #4 on his "The Jesus Narrative" page, where he says of this passage from the Talmud:

Summary
Here we have the story of the execution of Yeshu. Like Ben Stada, he was also executed on the eve of Passover. Before executing him, the court searched for any witnesses who could clear his name, as was normally done before any execution. Ulla, however, questioned this practice. An enticer, due to the biblical mandate not to be merciful, should not be afforded this normal consideration. The Talmud answers that Yeshu was different. Because of his government connections, the court tried to search for any reason not to execute him and upset the government.

Proof
Again we see Yeshu. All of the proofs from above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here as well. Additionally, the execution on the eve of Passover is another connection to Jesus as above with Ben Stada.

Problems
1. As mentioned above with Ben Stada, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.
2. As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.
3. Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his. During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.
3. [sic, 4.] There is no indication from the New Testament that Jesus had friends in the government.

He more fully quotes the passage thus:

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him."

Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.

------

If you can punch some holes in this argument I certainly would appreciate it.

Christian2
November 16th 2007, 04:23 PM
Admitting Jesus is a spiritual concept and not a historical person, does not take away from Christianity. In fact, developing a theology around a spiritual man would add to Christianity.
There is disagreement on the authenticity of this Tacitus passage. The most damaging criticism, it wasn’t included in the fourth century list by Eusebius of all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources. But even if authentic, it proves the existence of Christians in the first century, not the human existence of Jesus. If it said Jesus the Christ it would be more evidence. Christ at that time would have been used as a title, not as a name. Jesus and Christus are both names, not a title. Also, it could have referred to followers of Osaris who would have been called Christians.
Some historians also dispute the authenticity of the Pliny the Younger letter. But again, even if authentic it only affirms the existence of Christians; it gives no evidence for a human named Jesus. Further in the letter is a statement, “… the flesh of their sacrificial victims is on sale everywhere …” What is a curious statement. I have never heard it explained by either critic or apologist.
Concerning the "Testimonium Flavianum," I wouldn’t say that most scholars believe Josephus wrote the core, but some do. Everyone agrees that even if Josephus wrote a core, a later editor altered it. The most convincing argument of those who believe the whole passage was a later interpolation is that it interrupts Josephus’s narrative. It doesn’t logically follow the preceding paragraph, and it doesn’t logically introduce the following paragraph. It just sounds like it was inserted after the original was written. Some historians believe Eusebius wrote it in the fourth century.
Later references to a human man named Jesus all suffer from the criticism that by then the Catholic Church had already been teaching that Jesus was a man, so even non-Christians accepted him a human not a spiritual man.
For anyone interested in the beauty of Christianity without the permutations of the Catholic Church and a spiritual rather than a human Jesus I would recommend the books by Freke and Gandy.


It is true that some say he Testimonium Flavianum was tampered with, but they only dispute certain phrases. The rest still confirms the existance of Jesus, the Christ.

What about the Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum? I don't think anyone believes it was tampered with.

JonLanceBarker
November 17th 2007, 12:55 PM
Admitting Jesus is a spiritual concept and not a historical person, does not take away from Christianity. In fact, developing a theology around a spiritual man would add to Christianity.
There is disagreement on the authenticity of this Tacitus passage. The most damaging criticism, it wasn’t included in the fourth century list by Eusebius of all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources. But even if authentic, it proves the existence of Christians in the first century, not the human existence of Jesus. If it said Jesus the Christ it would be more evidence. Christ at that time would have been used as a title, not as a name. Jesus and Christus are both names, not a title. Also, it could have referred to followers of Osaris who would have been called Christians.
Some historians also dispute the authenticity of the Pliny the Younger letter. But again, even if authentic it only affirms the existence of Christians; it gives no evidence for a human named Jesus. Further in the letter is a statement, “… the flesh of their sacrificial victims is on sale everywhere …” What is a curious statement. I have never heard it explained by either critic or apologist.
Concerning the "Testimonium Flavianum," I wouldn’t say that most scholars believe Josephus wrote the core, but some do. Everyone agrees that even if Josephus wrote a core, a later editor altered it. The most convincing argument of those who believe the whole passage was a later interpolation is that it interrupts Josephus’s narrative. It doesn’t logically follow the preceding paragraph, and it doesn’t logically introduce the following paragraph. It just sounds like it was inserted after the original was written. Some historians believe Eusebius wrote it in the fourth century.
Later references to a human man named Jesus all suffer from the criticism that by then the Catholic Church had already been teaching that Jesus was a man, so even non-Christians accepted him a human not a spiritual man.
For anyone interested in the beauty of Christianity without the permutations of the Catholic Church and a spiritual rather than a human Jesus I would recommend the books by Freke and Gandy.

:rofl: so...which one are you, Freake or Gandy? :hehe:

Longstreet
November 17th 2007, 02:36 PM
…fine example of a Red Herring
One of the most-often misused terms on this board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
A red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an original objective.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

Mw http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/redherring
red herring
Top of Form 1
One entry found.

red herring

Bottom of Form 1
Main Entry: red herring Function: noun Date: 15th century
1: a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color2[from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue




This is true but evidently even fisherman were literate enough to write a gospel.
If some Roman soldier's were literate, why not some Galilean fishermen?


Why would reporting or writing in diary that a man apparently was resurrected with mortal wounds threaten the Prefects honor or credibility? From what we know of Pilate he was somewhat ambivalent about the whole affair and a philosophical man.
Are you seriously suggesting that Christ's ressurection wouldn't be an embarrasment for Pilate?


Very likely and at least one could maintain intellectual honesty in following a God.
With all due respect, I doubt it. The OP presents a set of very good arguments, and your responses consist of "Why didn't this thing, or that thing, happen?"

iceage
November 18th 2007, 10:52 PM
One of the most-often misused terms on this board.
....
A red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an original objective.

Concerning the question on why wouldn't God see to it that his alleged inspired word were miraculously preserved does not equate to "Why doesn't God Change Babies Diapers" It distracts from the issue and is a really really bad metaphor. If the topic was along the lines of why doesn't God do xyz for me then perhaps it would have some merit - which i suspect is original source of the metaphor.


If some Roman soldier's were literate, why not some Galilean fishermen?

Circular question, if you allow for literate Galilean Fishermen that we can allow for literate Roman Soldiers - however there is evidence of literate Roman Soldiers; do you have any other evidence for literate Galilean fishermen?

Nevertheless, the point being is that this supposed supernatural event occurred, perhaps the most significant in the history of mankind and there is no permanent record (geological, cosmological, biological, etc), no original sources, and questionable and minimal disinterested sources.


Are you seriously suggesting that Christ's resurrection wouldn't be an embarrassment for Pilate?

Why would a significant supernatural event be an embarrassment for Pilate? In any case this is not a significant issue that lack of, or minimal, independent references is the issue.


With all due respect, I doubt it. The OP presents a set of very good arguments, and your responses consist of "Why didn't this thing, or that thing, happen?"

But as someone else pointed out there are tenuous and weak and even if authentic only demonstrates that there were early Christians.

Yes my response consist of "Why didn't this thing or that thing happen" as it seems incongruent IMHO. For God allegedly interacted in the natural world in significant ways, for example to perpetuate slaughter, but nothing to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus. We are left with interested reports without clear pedigree. If that is not a issue with you fine, for me it presents a a big question mark in a similar way as it does for other religious miraculous claims. I do not believe that God values belief in unsubstantiated stories or superstition.

MaxInfidelis
November 23rd 2007, 10:15 AM
Many non-believers write articles about the alleged Jesus god-man, that does not prove he exists any more than me making reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Of course we have to forget all the stuff that does not make any sense and hold ever so tightly to the smallest sliver of what is being called evidence. Its hearsay and could not be used as evidence in a court.

Accept reality and enjoy your life, there is no after life, trust me on this one.:argh:

JonLanceBarker
November 23rd 2007, 06:53 PM
there is no after life, trust me on this one.

and i suppose you died and came back to tell us this? :hehe:

gharfish
November 23rd 2007, 08:39 PM
He is an infidel to the max; just look at his user name. I'm inclined to not trust someone with such a self description.