mako Posted November 22, 2005 #151 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Irenaeus commented that John wrote after the first three Gospels. [8] --------- A.D.110 ------- Here is the information known on Ireneus - He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142. It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard the holy Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna. Yet you have him writing in 1108 CE, at least five years before he was born, he must really be a prodigy. Now that is quite a feat - prepartum authorship! Polycarp, (disciple of the apostle John and who taught Irenaeus) in one of his letters written about A.D. 110 to the Philippians, refers to the: 4 Gospels, the book of Acts and 13 other New Testament books. [1] Since none of Polycarp’s works exist and we only “know” what he said through later writers such as Irenaeus and Eusebius, there is no way to date when he wrote what. 108 CE is a date that is purely conjecture. No where does either of the gentlemen referenced give a date for such a statement from Polycarp, therefore it could have just as easily been made just prior to his visit to Rome, where Irenaeus met him Ignatius in 7 letters around A.D. 108, refers to the: 4 Gospels, Acts and 19 other New Testament books. [1] That’s another pretty good feat, especially since his death occurred sometime around 98 CE! Even then, some of his letters are accepted as valid and some are accepted as forgies, from whence comes you data? Clement of Alexandria (recorded by Eusebius) said that John wrote to supplement the writings of the other Gospels. [9] Considering that Clement was born around 211 CE, he is really in the know! Anything that Clement had would be third hand information. It is thought that John's Gospel was written in the A.D. 90's. But this is not proved, and it could have be written earlier than that. Actually “liberal” (read non-biased) scholars put it at 115-120 CE, but that too is not proved and it could have been written much later. The Book of Revelation probably written A.D. 96 Possibly, but then again, it could have been written as early as 60 CE, since it is very evidentially a political writing aimed at Nero. Clement, writing from Rome in about A.D. 96 refers to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and 8 other New Testament books. [1] This is completely wrong. Clement only wrote one surviving document – 1 Clement. A 2 Clement, attributed to him originally, but found to be a forgery, was written in the late second century. I have just read both of them in their entirety. 1 Clement makes reference to “Jesus giving us the Gospel” (not singular not plural) and admonishes Jesus’ followers to take up the epistles of Paul, not otherwise no mention of any other NT document. His quotes and allusions all come from the OT. In 2 Clements, the gospels are not even mentioned. You need a new source! Conclusion: At least 25 of the 27 books of the New Testament were in circulation by about the year A.D.100. Conclusion: no gospels is mentioned in early writings until 180 CE. The 3 letters of John probably written A.D. 90 The Book of Hebrews was written earlier than A.D. 70 Second letter to Timothy may possibly have been written A.D. 65 Jude's letter probably written A.D. 66 Peter's second letter probably written A.D. 66 Letter to the Colossians probably written A.D. 64 Letter to the Ephesians probably written A.D. 64 Letter to the Philippians may possibly have been written A.D. 64 Letter to Philemon probably written A.D. 64 Letter to the Romans probably written A.D. 60 Second letter to the Corinthians probably written A.D. 60 Letter to the Galations probably written A.D. 60 Peter's first letter probably written A.D. 60 First letter to the Corinthians probably written A.D. 59 First and second letters to the Thessalonians probably written A.D. 54 James' letter probably written a lot earlier. Show some evidence for this…. The book of Acts is a history of the early church and it has got a lot of historical detail. So it is logical to be able to put a date on this book. Not even mentioned by early writers until near the end of the second century CE. Acts does not record the monumental fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, when the Romans literally flattened it. The Temple was also demolished, surely this event would have been recorded if Acts had been written after A.D. 70. Acts does not mention Nero's massive persecution on Christians in about A.D. 65. To omit this seems unlikely, because other persecutions were described within Acts. Acts stops short of the result of Paul's arrest and appeal to Caesar (Acts 28:17-19 and 30-31). Probably this was due to the outcome not being known at the time Acts was written. It is thought that Paul was martyred in A.D. 64, so Acts must have been written before that. [2] Acts does not mention the killing of James in A.D. 61 and Peter in A.D. 65, Not necessarily, especially considering the author's abysmal lack of knowledge of the geography of the "Hoy Land". Lack of mention is not evidence for an early date of origin. The purpose of Acts was more for the advancement of Paul as the true spokesman of Christianity, not really history. "...the material we find present in Acts fits very well with it being written in the early 60's A.D." Or anytime afterwards….. William F. Albright, the distinguished archaeologist and biblical scholar, affirmed that "every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)." [6] Wondered when you were going to bring in that golden-haired amateur archaeologist! The man is a joke among archaeologists, including those that you would consider conservative, he is the origin of “the Bible in one hand and a shovel in the other”, the man than made his conclusions before digging and then tried to warp the finds to match them! Jesus' death & resurrection was about A.D. 30. show evidence for this. It must fit history and the two gospels that mention his birth. This shows the truth behind the “conservative” scholars….Not very reliable in the light of recorded history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfan Posted November 22, 2005 Author #152 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Here is the information known on Ireneus - He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142. It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard the holy Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna. Yet you have him writing in 1108 CE, at least five years before he was born, he must really be a prodigy. Now that is quite a feat - prepartum authorship! Since none of Polycarp’s works exist and we only “know” what he said through later writers such as Irenaeus and Eusebius, there is no way to date when he wrote what. 108 CE is a date that is purely conjecture. No where does either of the gentlemen referenced give a date for such a statement from Polycarp, therefore it could have just as easily been made just prior to his visit to Rome, where Irenaeus met him That’s another pretty good feat, especially since his death occurred sometime around 98 CE! Even then, some of his letters are accepted as valid and some are accepted as forgies, from whence comes you data? Considering that Clement was born around 211 CE, he is really in the know! Anything that Clement had would be third hand information. Actually “liberal” (read non-biased) scholars put it at 115-120 CE, but that too is not proved and it could have been written much later. Possibly, but then again, it could have been written as early as 60 CE, since it is very evidentially a political writing aimed at Nero. This is completely wrong. Clement only wrote one surviving document – 1 Clement. A 2 Clement, attributed to him originally, but found to be a forgery, was written in the late second century. I have just read both of them in their entirety. 1 Clement makes reference to “Jesus giving us the Gospel” (not singular not plural) and admonishes Jesus’ followers to take up the epistles of Paul, not otherwise no mention of any other NT document. His quotes and allusions all come from the OT. In 2 Clements, the gospels are not even mentioned. You need a new source! Conclusion: no gospels is mentioned in early writings until 180 CE. Show some evidence for this…. Not necessarily, especially considering the author's abysmal lack of knowledge of the geography of the "Hoy Land". Lack of mention is not evidence for an early date of origin. The purpose of Acts was more for the advancement of Paul as the true spokesman of Christianity, not really history. Or anytime afterwards….. Wondered when you were going to bring in that golden-haired amateur archaeologist! The man is a joke among archaeologists, including those that you would consider conservative, he is the origin of “the Bible in one hand and a shovel in the other”, the man than made his conclusions before digging and then tried to warp the finds to match them! show evidence for this. It must fit history and the two gospels that mention his birth. This shows the truth behind the “conservative” scholars….Not very reliable in the light of recorded history. Albraight was considered to me much more than an "amateur" archaelogist, and he used his discoveries as the basis to prove much of the historical reliability of the OT.. Unlike Critical scholars of today, he interpreted the archeological evidence as he found it, and it DID happen to correspond with OT recording of events... Some more fun facts: Dating of the NT Documents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction Despite the testimony of the early church Fathers, earlier this century it was commonly claimed that the gospels were not written until some 100 years after Christ. This view had gained fashionability as a result of the theories of higher criticism, which were only really plausible if one assumed a process of gradual development of the gospel stories. However, when the basis of these later datings is examined they prove to be extremely fragile; being based mostly upon the assumptions of the theory they are required to support. Very late datings for the gospels may be dismissed fairly readily. Citations of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts appear in the letter of Clement of Rome (died c. AD 102) to the Corinthians; a document dated around AD 95 and generally accepted as genuine. John is also cited by Ignatius, who died c. AD 117. Interestingly, until very recently it was John's gospel, the last to be written, that had yielded the earliest extant manuscript - a fragment which has been dated to around AD 130 and is now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, UK. The fact that this was found in Egypt indicates that the gospels were already widely circulated by this date. But most scholars still believe John's gospel wasn't written till after AD 90! The Destruction of the Temple The principal and most frequently cited argument for a late dating of the gospels relates to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70. It was claimed that since all the synoptic gospels make reference to this event they must have been written afterwards. But what is remarkable about the New Testament documents is that nowhere in the gospels or epistles is this destruction said to have already taken place. On the contrary, the references are in the context of prophecies made by Jesus when the temple was still standing. This makes it all the more remarkable that none of the gospel writers make any comment about the fulfillment of this prophecy - because this is entirely out of keeping with their observed practice of pointing out where Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, or even his own predictions of his resurrection. Acts, which is clearly a sequel to Luke, makes no mention of this event even though there are plenty of references to Jerusalem; neither do any of the epistles. Only in Revelation, which may well have been written after AD 70, do we find what may be a veiled reference. Since this was the worst catastrophe to befall the Jews in living memory, and a clear vindication of Jesus' words, this silence is deafening. If the gospels had been written after the fall of Jerusalem there would have been no need to conceal this fact. (The Old Testament, for example, contains many evidences of later editorship, with expressions such as, 'to this day' occurring in many places.) Similarly in both Luke (1:1-4) and John (21:24) the writers are quite candid about the fact that they are compiling their gospels retrospectively, using eyewitness and documentary accounts. Furthermore, the narrative of Acts (the sequel to Luke) ends with Paul's imprisonment in Rome (AD 60-22), making no mention of the fire of Rome and Nero's resulting persecution of Christians in AD 64, or the beginning of the Jewish revolt in AD 66; so a date later than this is highly doubtful. Consequently the logical conclusion, based on the internal evidence, is that the gospels predate the fall of Jerusalem and were based on the testimony of witnesses, supplemented by written notes (see below). Not unless you believe in prophecy! Historical Objections to Higher Criticism The arguments of higher criticism are based upon the idea that the theology of the early church was gradually developed over a period of time in order to meet the needs of the early church. The main implication of this is the assumption that the miraculous elements of the gospels, including the resurrection, are later additions; and that the first generation of Christians had little, if any, interest in preserving an accurate historical account of the life of Christ. This requires that either: a) the gospel writers were aware that the accounts they were presenting were not factual, or, the gospels were not recorded in their present form until well after the event. The obvious difficulty with both suggestions is that the gospel writers insist the details they record are factual (cf. Luke 1:1-4, John 19:35 and 21:24). If they are not, it is difficult to regard them as the work of honest men. Even the higher critics would generally stop short of suggesting a deliberate falsification. The Graeco-Roman culture in which early Christianity developed is radically different from the Palestine of Jesus' day: so if the gospels are shown to accurately reflect conditions in first-century Palestine, then the higher critics' claim for a later dating is discredited. It is in precisely this area that the wealth of historical research over the last century has worked so strongly to re-establish confidence in the NT documents. Books such as the gospels and Acts contain a wealth of historical and cultural detail; and the more that is learned about the Jewish and Graeco-Roman cultures of Jesus' day, the more apparent it becomes that the accuracy and detail of the information given effectively rules out the possibility of later embellishment. Here are a few serious verdicts on the subject (from sceptical scholars, not bible fundamentalists): "Luke is a historian of the first rank ... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." (Sir William Ramsay, 'The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament.' Prior to his archaeological researches in Asia, Ramsay had believed that Luke was totally unreliable.) "As a Western Scripture scholar I am inclined to doubt these stories, but as a historian I am obliged to take them as reliable" (Dr. Peter Stuhlmacher, 'Time' magazine, 15/8/88) "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." (Sir Frededick Kenyon, director and principal librarian at the British Museum, 'The Bible and Archaeology') Dr. John A.T. Robinson, of 'Honest to God' fame, in his book, 'Redating the New Testament' also concludes that the evidence now available shows that the whole of the New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The Current Concensus on Dating Until quite recently, the general scholarly concensus would have placed Mark first at AD 64-70, Matthew at AD 70-80, Luke c. AD 80, with Acts some time after this, and John c. AD 90. These datings were primarily based, as previously discussed, on the invalid argument concerning the destruction of the temple and the theories of higher criticism. More recent publications now suggest that Mark should be dated c. AD 50, Matthew c. AD 55, Luke c. AD 59 and Acts c. AD 63. Not all scholars have embraced this position, of course. At present, the general concensus appears to be AD 63-70 for Luke and AD 60-ish for Mark. Datings of around AD 60 for the synoptic gospels fit in well with the available NT and other historical evidence. All these dates clearly place the gospels within the lifetimes of the first generation Christians and eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and ministry. The Encylopaedia Britannica dates Mark before the destruction of the Temple and all the rest much later. John is still generally dated at around AD 90; although some scholars, including J.A.T. Robinson and Thiering are now arguing that it may even predate Mark. If John was written much before the Synoptic Gospels it is surprising they did not follow John's account of events... These are not the only New Testament sources which are generally accepted as contemporaneous with the apostles; we also have the epistles. In particular, the following epistles of Paul are generally accepted as authentic even by sceptical scholars, and opinions on their dates are normally consistent to within a few years of the following: AD 51 I Thessalonians AD 52 II Thessalonians AD 53 Galatians AD 55 I Corinthians, II Corinthians AD 57 Romans AD 60 Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon AD 61 Philippians According to Professor Mack, Paul's letters covered the period CE 55 to 85. All of these dates place the Gospels and Pauline epistles within the lifetimes of the Apostles and other eyewitnesses of these events: so that there is no sound historical basis to question their authenticity. Obviously, if the attributions of the other epistles are correct, then these must also be contemporaneous. I have, however, avoided citing them in order that an examination of the evidence for the resurrection can proceed upon a basis of general scholarly endorsement WWW.Zetnet.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfan Posted November 22, 2005 Author #153 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Yes you did! When I stated the Vatican's position that the Gospels are now considered literary works (genre--drama, poetry et al), you claimed it critical, liberal bias. You then turned right around when I presented you with a contradiction that you could not dismiss, and stated that the Bible contained various forms of literary genre! How else are we to find the truth behind the man? Just take everything at face value? That being the case--and by your methodology--every religion and religious figure is real. "The story of the historical Jesus ended with his death on the cross and the decay of his body ... Whatever Jesus' followers experienced after the crucifixion, it happened in their hearts and minds, not as a matter of history ... God raised Jesus from the dead' is a statement of faith, not historic fact.”--Stephen J. Patterson, Associate Professor of New Testament at Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis Resurrection of Christ. Biblical Background. In all but the latest parts of the Hebrew Bible, the concept of resurrection was applied not to the life of the individual after death but metaphorically to the renewal of Israel corporately after the return from exile (see Isaiah 26.19; Ezekiel 37.1–14, where the resurrection language, especially in Ezekiel 37.13, is clearly metaphorical). In apocalyptic literature, beginning with Daniel 12.2, resurrection language is applied literally, denoting coming to life again after death through an act of God in a transcendental mode of existence beyond history. This new existence, however, is not conceived in an individualistic fashion; it is the elect people of God (Daniel 12.1) who are corporately resurrected. The transcendental character of this resurrection life is indicated by such similes as “shine like the brightness of the sky” (Daniel 12.3). Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God, a concept couched in apocalyptic terms and involving a new cosmic order. It was to arrive shortly; God was already at work in Jesus’ ministry to bring it about. Jesus’ proclamation thus implied impending corporate resurrection of the people of God, or at least of those who responded positively to his message. In the controversy with the Sadducees, Jesus used a simile reminiscent of Daniel 12.3 to describe the transcendental character of the resurrection life; the resurrection will be “like angels in heaven” (Mark 12.25). Critical scholarship regards the predictions by Jesus of his own resurrection (Mark 8.31; etc.) as creations of the post-Easter community after the event. Since, however, Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom implied resurrection, there can be no question that he foresaw the corporate resurrection of God’s people as lying beyond his own death (Mark 14.25). But there is nothing in his authentic preaching to suggest that he expected an individual resurrection for himself.--REGINALD H. FULLER (Professor Emeritus, Virginia Theological Seminary) They are faith peddlers who's work can be found only in ultraconservative fundamentalist sham "universities" (and churches) like Liberty, Oral Roberts, Bob Jones et al who teach a strict literalist viewpoint of the scriptures. They are not scholars in any sense of the word. *Contra Craig http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm *Contra Craig http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig...g%20Web%20Sites *Geisler: Objection #4: God Isn't Worthy Of Worship If He Kills Innocent Children (2001) http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyl...ined/obj4.shtml *Geisler: Objection 4: God Isn't Worthy if He Kills Innocent Children http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/pau...bjection4.shtml Quote from Norman Geisler: “Some Intellectual Advice (for the Mind). My first piece of advice is this: Avoid the Desire to Become a Famous Scholar. There seems to be an almost irresistible temptation among many scholars, particularly younger ones, to "make a name for themselves." In biblical terms this is the sin of pride of which Holy Scripture warns us. Pride distorts our vision of the truth because it is the presumption to knowledge born of ignorance. It is humbling to remind ourselves that the apostle Paul explicitly exhorts us that though "I understand all mysteries and all knowledge . . . but have not love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2). Scholarship should be used to build Christ’s spiritual kingdom, not to build an academic kingdom for one’s self... Do Not Dance on the Edges. My next bit of advice for evangelical exegetes is to avoid dancing on the edges. Do not see how far the borders of evangelicalism can be stretched to accommodate the latest scholarly fad. Do not flirt with the latest critical methodology.” Looks like you're living up to expectations, JF. Good job. THIS MAN IS AN ANTI-INTELLECTUAL QUACK!!! *McDowell http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the...s.html#mcdowell *Lee Strobel http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the...cs.html#strobel Sean To be accurate... I agree that the Bible has Genre within it, and so it needs to be interpreted based upon the particular style of writting, but the Gospels are much more than mere faith recordings, they are also historical documents to actual events that occured in life of early Church... And the resurrection of Jesus is far more than a story of"faith evidence", no, it is historically grounded and rooted as an actual event that really happened... I will say again, the problem is not that there is not enough sound historical evidence to support Jesus resurrection, but that people have a mindset against that happening, for just as Bultmann tried to seperate Jesus of history from the One of "faith", the modern scholars have wedged into the concept of the NT producing a Jesus Far removed beyond the "real" Jesus... Problem is that the Historical Jesus and Jesus of Faith IS THE SAME PERSON.... Guess that the persons of F.F. bruce, C.H. Dodd, GE Ladd, NT Wright, Charles Hodgh, John Calvin, Karl Barth, Milliard Erickson etc, must all be misinformed evangelical minded individuals who even while interacting and agreeing with some of the critical teachings concerning jesus, came to believe in Him as being the Messiah, risen Lord and Saviour... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xstortionist Posted November 22, 2005 #154 Share Posted November 22, 2005 jesus and christanity is so hated because people can't believe something they can't see. I know there is god out there....and i felt him this weekend for the first time in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mako Posted November 22, 2005 #155 Share Posted November 22, 2005 it is historically grounded and rooted as an actual event that really happened... You keep asserting this and are continually asked to provide evidence to support this assertion, yet never give this evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfan Posted November 22, 2005 Author #156 Share Posted November 22, 2005 You keep asserting this and are continually asked to provide evidence to support this assertion, yet never give this evidence. Hope this outline of historical events concerning jesus and His earliest followers help: The rise of early Christianity, and the shape that it took in two central and vital respects, thus presses upon the historian the question for an explanation. The early Christians retained the Jewish belief in resurrection, but both modified it and made it more sharp and precise. They retained the Jewish belief in a coming Messiah, but redrew it quite drastically around Jesus himself. Why? 4. Reasons for the Development: From Theology to Story The answer the early Christians themselves give for these changes, of course, is that Jesus of Nazareth was bodily raised from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion. It is Jesus’ own resurrection that has given force and new shape to the Christian hope.15 It was, they insist, Jesus’ own resurrection which constituted him as Messiah, and, if Messiah, then Lord of the world.16 But what exactly did they mean by this, and what brought them to such a belief? We must now come to the third and fourth stages of my argument. First, we must establish, against some rival claims, that they really did intend to say that Jesus had been bodily raised; they were not simply using that language to describe something else, a different belief about Jesus or a different experience they had had. Second, we must enquire as historians what could have caused them to say such a thing. It is out of the question, for a start, that the disciples were simply extrapolating from the teaching of Jesus himself. One of the many curious things about Jesus’ teaching is that though resurrection was a well-known topic of debate at the time we only have one short comment of his on the subject, in reply to the question from the Sadducees — a comment which is itself notoriously cryptic, like some of its companion pieces in the synoptic tradition. Apart from that, there are the short repeated predictions of Jesus’ passion and resurrection, which many of course assume are vaticinia ex eventu, and two or three other cryptic references.17 These are scarcely enough to suggest that the disciples invented stories of Jesus’ resurrection, on the basis of his teaching, after his death. Other Jews had died promising resurrection, the Maccabees being the most obvious example (2 Maccabees 7, etc.); their followers regarded them as heroes and martyrs, and believed devoutly that they would be raised from the dead; but nobody said they had been, for the rather obvious reason that they hadn’t.18 And even if, against all probability, we were to suggest that the disciples had indeed invented resurrection-stories on the basis of Jesus’ sayings, this would still not account for the modifications and new focus they gave to the existing Jewish notions of resurrection. One regular proposal, which has taken various forms, is that though the early church used the language of resurrection about Jesus, and eventually wrote down stories about how it had happened, this developed originally from something else, a different experience or belief. In particular, some have said, Jesus’ followers came first to a belief in his exaltation, and they deduced from this, either by logic or devotion, that he had been raised from the dead. This needs a little more unpacking. Sometimes it has been argued, or more often assumed, that the early Christians believed that Jesus had been in some sense exalted (though why they believed this remains uncertain) and that they either expressed this belief by saying that he had been raised from the dead (misleadingly, because there was never what ‘resurrection’ meant in their world) or deduced from this that he had in fact been raised from the dead (though again why they would make such a deduction, in a world where ‘resurrection’ was something to do with bodies, and for that matter something that would happen to all the righteous at once, is not clear). At other times it has been argued that the disciples came to believe in Jesus’ actual divinity, perhaps by experiencing him as a divine presence, and again either expressed this by saying he had been raised, or deduced from it the fact that he had been raised. In this case, too, the logic fails at every point when we remind ourselves of how these ideas worked within the historical world of the first century.19 It is true that Paul can sometimes speak simply of Jesus’ death and exaltation, without mentioning the resurrection explicitly, as in the poem of Philippians 2.6-11 — though it is equally true that in the same letter he can speak emphatically of the bodily transformation that Jesus will effect on believers still alive at his return.20 And when he sums up the traditional gospel announcement in 1 Corinthians 15.21 a summary which must have done justice to what Cephas and Apollos said as well, otherwise the Corinthians would have been able to challenge him on it, it is clear that the gospel is about an event which happened at some interval after Jesus’ death.21 This has not, I think, been sufficiently thought through. If we assume, as is often done, that talking of Jesus’ resurrection is simply a flowery, perhaps Jewish, way of talking about him ‘going to heaven when he died’, so that his death and his ‘exaltation’ were actually the same thing, and together constitute him as divine, where did the notion of an interval come from? I have often heard it said, sometimes by people who should know better, that Jesus died and was ‘resurrected to heaven’, but that is precisely not what the early Christians said. Raised from the dead, yes; exalted to heaven, yes; but resurrection never did mean ‘going to heaven when you die’, and it certainly did not mean that when people used it to talk about Jesus.22 No: if the early Christians had been merely ‘deducing’ Jesus’ resurrection from some other belief about something he had become through dying, the talk of an interval between death and resurrection would never have arisen — unless we are to postulate yet another cycle of improbable development of tradition, moving from exaltation to resurrection to a three-day gap.23 Jews, after all, had well-developed ways of talking about martyrs being honoured and respected, and they believed that they would be raised in the future. If the early Christians thought Jesus, upon his death, had gone to a special place of honour with God, that would have been the obvious language for them to use. The key questions here are the following: (a) whether Jesus’ death would by itself have precipitated the language of exaltation or vindication; ( if not, whether any subsequent experience (other than resurrection itself) would have done so; and © what reason there is, even if we were to grant that people had begun to speak of Jesus being exalted, being glorified, or even perhaps being seen as divine, to suppose that they would deduce from that that he had been raised from the dead? The answers are all obviously negative. One can understand why, if they believed that Jesus had indeed been raised from the dead, they came to believe, after he had ceased to appear to them, that he had now been exalted to heaven. But when you think about the options open to first-century Jews faced with a dead Messiah, there is simply no route in the opposite direction. Some theologians have brought together Jesus’ resurrection and the early disciples’ recognition of his divinity in a way which seems to me to short-circuit any process that we can reasonably suppose to have been historical. Even if Peter and the rest, two or three days after Jesus’ crucifixion, had somehow become convinced that he was the second person of the Trinity — an idea which takes some imagination — there is no reason to suppose that they would have deduced from this that God ‘must have’ raised him from the dead. Apotheosis along the lines of Hercules, Alexander and the Caesars was of course unknown in Judaism, but even if that was the route they had gone there is no reason to suppose that they would have added resurrection to the mix. No: I believe we must firmly uncouple the historical discussion of Jesus’ resurrection from the historical discussion of the rise of an early, high Christology (in which I also believe); or, at least, we must insist that the only credible line of explanation runs from resurrection to Christology (about which more anon), rather than in the opposite direction. In any case, with all of these accounts which suppose that the disciples deduced Jesus’ resurrection from something else, or expressed some other belief in the (misleading) fashion of ‘he’s been raised from the dead’, we are still faced with the major problem: why would ‘resurrection’ itself, and the hope for a Messiah, have been so drastically adjusted as we find them to have been in early Christianity? We are forced to conclude that when the early Christians said that Jesus had been raised from the dead, and gave that as their reason for reshaping their beliefs about resurrection itself on the one hand and Messiahship on the other, they were using the language in its normal sense. That which Aeschylus said couldn’t happen to anyone, and Daniel said would, to all God’s people at once, had happened to Jesus, all by himself. That was what they intended to say. And this brings us, at last, to the resurrection narratives themselves. The first point to make here is vital. I have argued that the early Christians looked forward to a resurrection which was not a mere resuscitation, nor yet the abandonment of the body and the liberation of the soul, but a transformation, a new type of body living within a new type of world. This belief is embroidered with biblical motifs, articulated in rich theology. Yet in the gospel narratives we find a story, told from different angles of course, without such embroidering and theology — told indeed in restrained, largely unadorned prose. Yet the story is precisely of a single body neither abandoned, nor merely resuscitated, but transformed; and this, though itself totally unexpected, could give rise to exactly that developed view of which I have spoken. The Easter narratives, in other words, appear to offer an answer to why the early Christian hope and life took the form and shape they did. Were the four gospels, then, all derived from this developed theology? Are they all later narratival adaptations of a doctrinal and exegetical basis, from which of course all traces of dogma and exegesis have, in each case, been carefully extracted? Hardly. It is far easier to say that the stories, or something like them, came first, and that Paul and the other later theologians have reflected deeply upon them, have indeed reshaped and rethought one branch of mainstream Jewish theology around them, but have not substantially modified them. A few more remarks about the narratives themselves. Matthew’s story is often seen as anti-Jewish apologetic — not surprisingly, because he himself tells us that he is countering a story current among non-Christian Jews of his day. But even if Matthew does represent a later polemic, the debate itself — that some say Jesus’ body was stolen, and others say it wasn’t — bears witness to my more fundamental point, that in the first century ‘resurrection’ wasn’t about exaltation, spiritual presence, a sense of forgiveness, or divinization; it was about bodies and tombs. If someone had been able to say ‘oh, don’t you understand? When I say “resurrection”, all I mean is that Jesus is in heaven and he is my Lord, that I’ve had a new sense of God’s love and forgiveness,’ the dangerous debate about tombs, guards, angels and bodies could have been abandoned with a sigh of relief all round.24 Second, a word about Mark. When Mark says that the women ‘said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid,’ he does not mean they never said anything to anyone. I do not think, in any case, that Mark finished his gospel at chapter 16 verse 8.1 think he wrote more, which is now lost. But I think his emphatic denial that the women said anything to anyone is meant to counter the charge, actual or possible, that if the women really had seen something remarkable — an empty tomb, a rolled-away stone, an angel — they would have been bound to tell everyone they met. This they had not done; so (the charge would run) maybe they had not seen anything much after all? Certainly not, replies Mark: the reason they said nothing to anyone (until, we presume, they got to the disciples) is because they were scared stiff. Third, a word about Luke and John. They tell, of course, much fuller stories than Matthew and Mark, and it is they who are normally accused of having developed, or invented, these stories to combat the danger of docetic views within the early church, beliefs that Jesus in his risen body wasn’t really a physical human being, but only seemed to be. Leave aside the fact that that is not what mainstream docetism wanted to say anyway — it was a belief about Jesus’ pre-crucifixion humanity more than about his risen body — and concentrate on what Luke and John actually say. Yes, they have him eating food. Yes, he invites them to touch him, to inspect him, to make sure he is a real human being. But these are the same accounts, in the same passages, which have Jesus appearing and disappearing, sometimes through locked doors. If Luke or John wanted to invent anti-docetic, no-nonsense real-body stories, they surely could have done better than this. No: it really does look as if they are telling, with continuing bewilderment, stories which, though astonishing at the time as they still are, provided the basis we are seeking for the transformed belief about resurrection we have outlined earlier: stories about Jesus’ body being neither abandoned (as though he had simply ‘gone to heaven’ and was now a ‘spiritual’, ‘non-bodily’ presence) nor merely resuscitated, like Lazarus, and like (perhaps) the martyrs expected to be, but transformed, so that, though in all sorts of ways still ‘bodily’, and certainly so as to leave an empty tomb behind him, his body was now significantly different, with new properties, in a way that nothing in the Jewish tradition had prepared him or his followers for. Indeed, the one new property which you would have expected them to include, had they been making these stories up on the basis of scripture, they do not. In none of the accounts is there the slightest suggestion that Jesus’ body was shining like a star. I suggest, in fact, that the gospel stories themselves, though no doubt written down a good deal later than Paul, go back with minimal editorial addition to the very early stories told by the first disciples in the earliest days of Christianity. They are not the later narratival adaptation of early Christian theology; they are its foundation. This does not mean, of course, that they are photographic descriptions of ‘what happened’. No historical narrative is ever quite that. But they challenge today’s historian, as they challenged their first hearers, either to accept them or to come up with a better explanation for why Christianity began and why it took the shape it did. 5. From Story to Event This brings us, finally, to our fourth question. What can the historian say that will account for the early Christians’ claim that Jesus of Nazareth had been raised from the dead, the explanation they themselves offer for their drastic modification of the Jewish hope? There has been no shortage of hypotheses designed to explain why the early Christians really did believe that Jesus really had been raised from the dead. These come in many shapes and sizes, but most of them feature one of three types of explanation. (1) Jesus did not really die; he somehow survived. (2) The tomb was empty, but nothing else happened. (3) The disciples had visions of Jesus, but without there being an empty tomb. (1) The first can be disposed of swiftly. Roman soldiers knew how to kill people especially rebel kings. First-century Jews knew the difference between a survivor and someone newly alive. (2) The second is only a little more complicated. Faced with an empty tomb, but with no other evidence, the disciples would have known the answer; the body had been stolen by someone. These things happened. They were not expecting Jesus to rise again; by itself, an empty tomb would prove as little to them as it would to us. (3) Visions were frequent and well known — including visions of someone recently dead. We did not have to wait for modem medicine, psychology and pastoral records to tell us that these things happen. Faced with Peter knocking on the door when they thought he was about to be killed, the praying church assumed he had died and was paying them a post-mortem visit; ‘it must be his angel’, they said.25 Even lifelike visions would not prevent people conducting a funeral, continuing to mourn, and venerating the tomb. To cut a long story very short: to explain why the early Christians really did believe that Jesus really had been raised from the dead, we must postulate three things: Jesus really had been dead; the tomb really was empty, and it really was his tomb; they really did see, meet and talk with a figure who was not only demonstrably the crucified Jesus but who seemed to be in some ways different — though not in the ways one would have imagined from reading Isaiah, Ezekiel or Daniel. Can we go beyond this? What then can and must be said? To move any further back, from the empty tomb and the visions of a previously dead Jesus, is notoriously difficult, even when we have become quite clear what the early church really meant by those stories. There are a couple of related difficulties which must be cleared out of the way. First, there is a hare-and-tortoise puzzle currently vexing cautious-minded historians. I propose we take a tough line with it and simply insist on common sense. All writing, all history, all biography, is someone’s ‘construction’ of reality. This leads many to say, again and again, that all we can know is ‘Matthew’s construction of Christian origins,’ ‘Mark’s view of Easter,’ and so on. There is a grain of truth in this. But the fact that the historian has a point of view does not mean that nothing happened. History proceeds, not just by deduction from each individual piece of evidence, but by abduction, by inference to the best explanation. We must not be browbeaten by an over-cautious epistemology. This is where the hare must stride confidently past the tortoise, ignoring the protests which say all he can ever do is halve the distance between them. Second, much more seriously, there is the problem I associate with Hans Frei and others.26 If we attempt to argue for the historical truth of the resurrection on standard historical grounds, have we not allowed historical method, perhaps including its hidden Enlightenment roots, to become lord, to set the bounds of what we know, rather than allowing God himself, Jesus himself, and indeed the resurrection itself, to establish not only what we know but how we can know it? This is I think a proper question (though it is not without echoes, not least in the Yale school of which Frei was a part, of the hare-and-tortoise problem itself), and we must face it directly.27 The problem arises, I think, not least from the fact that the events concerning Jesus, and particularly his resurrection, have often been seen, not least within a systematic theology that has lost contact with historical scholarship, as direct evidence about the divinity of Jesus, or, to put it the other way, about the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. This then poses the problem: how can the historian claim to get to that point, the point which should only be accessible to Christian faith, by the apparently ‘neutral’, even maybe would-be ‘objective’, route of historical enquiry? The answer is that both halves of the equation are misconceived. On the one hand, the resurrection did not for the first Christians, and does not today, ‘prove’ that Jesus was and/or is ‘divine’. If one of the brigands crucified alongside Jesus had been found to be alive again three days later, people would have said the world was a very odd place, but nobody would have said he was the second person of the Trinity. If one of the Maccabean martyrs, who died believing that God would raise them from the dead, had been found to be alive again a few days later, everyone would have been shocked, including the resurrected persons themselves; this was supposed to be something that happened to all the righteous together, not to one person ahead of the rest. But nobody would have imagined that this meant he or she was in any sense divine. And, supposing such a thing could have happened, it would in principle be open to historical investigation just like any other reported event. On the other hand, the Frei school have overstated their case about the nature of historical investigation. By no means all historians today believe that they are ‘objective’ or ‘neutral’, attaining fixed and unalterable results by supposedly scientific means. On the contrary, I myself stand in a line of historians who have explicitly renounced that pseudo-objectivity and have instead argued for a form of ‘critical realism’ in which the interaction between the historian and the subject matter is fully allowed for.28 In fact, in this case, the evidence presents us with exactly the sort of result that Christian theologians ought to be happy with. I would not pretend to have found an argument that would force a sceptic to admit that Jesus ‘must have’ been raised from the dead. It is always open to anyone to say, at least, ‘I can’t think of a better explanation, but I know there must be one, because I intend to hold to my presupposition that dead people don’t rise.’ Cautious agnosticism is always an option. What historical investigation can do, and in this case I believe must do, is to clear away the overgrown thickets of misunderstanding, misreading, sheer bad history, and sometimes willful obfuscation, in order that the main texts can be allowed to say what they are saying and the main questions may stand out in their stark simplicity. Historical investigation, I propose, brings us to the point where we must say that the tomb previously housing a thoroughly dead Jesus was empty, and that his followers saw and met someone they were convinced was this same Jesus, bodily alive though in a new, transformed fashion. The empty tomb on the one hand and the convincing appearances of Jesus on the other are the two conclusions the historian must draw. I do not think that history can force us to draw any particular further deductions beyond these two phenomena; the conclusion the disciples drew is there for the taking, but it is open to us, as it was to them, to remain cautious. Thomas waited a week before believing what he had been told. On Matthew’s mountain, some had their doubts. However, the elegance and simplicity of explaining the two outstanding phenomena, the empty tomb and the visions, by means of one another, ought to be obvious. Were it not for the astounding, and world-view-challenging, claim that is thereby made, I think everyone would long since have concluded that this was the correct historical result. If some other account explained the rise of Christianity as naturally, completely and satisfyingly as does the early Christians’ belief, while leaving normal worldviews intact, it would be accepted without demur. That, I believe, is the result of the investigation I have conducted. There are many other things to say about Jesus’ resurrection. But, as far as I am concerned, the historian may and must say that all other explanations for why Christianity arose, and why it took the shape it did, are far less convincing as historical explanations than the one the early Christians themselves offer: that Jesus really did rise from the dead on Easter morning, leaving an empty tomb behind him. The origins of Christianity, the reason why this new movement came into being and took the unexpected form it did, and particularly the strange mutations it produced within the Jewish hope for resurrection and the Jewish hope for a Messiah, are best explained by saying that something happened, two or three days after Jesus’ death, for which the accounts in the four gospels are the least inadequate expression we have. Of course, there are several reasons why people may not want, and often refuse, to believe this. But the historian must weigh, as well, the alternative accounts they themselves offer. And, to date, none of them have anything like the explanatory power of the simple, but utterly challenging, Christian one. The historian’s task is not to force people to believe. It is to make it clear that the sort of reasoning historians characteristically employ — inference to the best explanation, tested rigorously in terms of the explanatory power of the hypothesis thus generated — points strongly towards the bodily resurrection of Jesus; and to make clear, too, that from that point on the historian alone cannot help. When you’re dealing with worldviews, every community and every person must make their choices in the dark, even if there is a persistent rumour of light around the next corner.Gregorianum, 2002, 83/4, 615–635. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yelekiah Posted November 22, 2005 #157 Share Posted November 22, 2005 All interesting info, but there is no point in quoting ridiculously long texts, people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mako Posted November 22, 2005 #158 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I asked for evidence of his existence and you give me some long winded explanation of how the disciples and early Christians saw things and how Christianity evolved. That does not prove the existence of a man named Jesus in the 1st century CE, it only proves that a group of people were members of a cult during that period. You can’t give me any contemporary evidence of his having lived, you can’t tell me when he was born or why strangely enough over three hundred years after his supposed birth, members of the church still didn’t really know when he was born. Evidence is just that, direct non-refutable evidence, not a long rambling explanation of how a cult became a religion. So...now do you have any contemporary evidence of his ever having existed or any evidence of when he actually was born and where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
777MileStare Posted November 22, 2005 #159 Share Posted November 22, 2005 (edited) Why are they so hated? You don't hate what you don't know. My understanding is that love and hate are of an equal power and energy. You have to know to love, and you have to know to hate. So if some man was born 2000 or so years ago and there is no evidence to prove it, I don't blame you if you don't love him. But, don't hate him. That is a complete waste of energy, and if you do love him why? Edited November 22, 2005 by PFlack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfan Posted November 22, 2005 Author #160 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I asked for evidence of his existence and you give me some long winded explanation of how the disciples and early Christians saw things and how Christianity evolved. That does not prove the existence of a man named Jesus in the 1st century CE, it only proves that a group of people were members of a cult during that period. You can’t give me any contemporary evidence of his having lived, you can’t tell me when he was born or why strangely enough over three hundred years after his supposed birth, members of the church still didn’t really know when he was born. Evidence is just that, direct non-refutable evidence, not a long rambling explanation of how a cult became a religion. So...now do you have any contemporary evidence of his ever having existed or any evidence of when he actually was born and where? Here is some more interesting historical documentation for Jesus of Nazareth... Question, why is it so hard to accept that Jesus did actually exist, is it because you might than have to research if the truth claims made on his behalf by his early followers might indeed be true? It is a sure sign of desperation: In disbelieving circles, one of the most popular ideas to come to the fore recently is the "Jesus-myth" - the idea that Jesus did not even exist, much less conduct a ministry as described in the New Testament. It is an idea that one would suppose would be relegated to the pages of the Weekly World News - and it might even be funny, were it not for the fact that there are so many who take it seriously and are extremely vocal in their seriousness. At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have). Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven. "Come off it, Holding. Just because a consensus of historians say that the Jesus-myth is wrong does not mean that it is wrong. The historians could be wrong. They could also be biased. Since this subject is dominated by theological agendas and philosophical presuppositions, a scholarly consensus does not constitute evidence for the existence of Jesus." As silly as this may sound, it is actually the core of many arguments made in favor of the "Jesus-myth"! Behind every historian there is a conspiracy, a bias, or some gross error of judgment - and sometimes even the ancient historians are in on the conspiracy, too! At the end of this chapter we will offer some counsel for dealing with those who advance this type of argument, but for now, let's deal with this objection and take it seriously. Of course, it is quite possible that all of the professional historians (even those with no religious interest!) are biased or wrong, while proponents of the "Jesus-myth" are the objective ones. And yes, a consensus does not equate with evidence. But a consensus on any historical question is usually based on evidence which is analyzed by those who are recognized as authoritative in their field, and therefore may be taken at their word. If this were not the case, why should there be any criteria for someone being a historian at all? Why should we not just pick a vagrant at random off the street and let him/her compose an official history of 20th-century America for the Smithsonian archives? Therefore, while scholarly consensus is not itself evidence, it does function as a "weighting" or "warning" sign: if one agrees with peers who are detailed-students of the same subject matter, then less evidence is needed than would be needed if we disagreed with their consensus (as a very small minority). We would require not just a "good argument" but we would also have to refute all of the consensus arguments first. In other words, evidence may be mediated through expert witness and consensus. Therefore, the argument that consensus does not count as evidence, while correct in its own way, cannot be allowed to stand as a dismissal of consensus, nor as a leveling of the playing field. It is almost like the criteria, "extraordinarily bizarre positions require extraordinary evidence," that operates in scholarly circles. Such a minority position as the "Jesus-myth" is not courageous, but foolhardy - unless one has considerably stronger evidence than the majority; and even then, speculation about alternate views of historical references, such as is commonly found in "Jesus-myth" circles, is not going to keep the sawed-off limb up in the air! If proponents of the "Jesus-myth" were either qualified historians or had equivalent knowledge, then their counter-consenus position might deserve to be taken more seriously. However, the overwhelming prevalance of tortured explanations, inventive theories, arguments from silence, and outright misrepresentations to get around the evidence that Jesus existed mitigates strongly against offering the Jesus-mythers any scholastic solace. The argument is more than that writers like G. A. Wells are scholars out of their field; it is also that their being out of their field shows like a gaping wound! Drews, for example [Drew.WH, 16-17], attempting to show that there were arguments that Jesus did not exist in early church history, cited these quotes from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Trypho, a Jewish person skeptical of Christianity, is speaking with Justin; the relevant passage says (words used by Drews, etc. highlighted): When I had said this, my beloved friends, those who were with Trypho laughed; but he, smiling, says, "I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things; but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. For if you remain in that mode of philosophy, and live blamelessly, a hope of a better destiny were left to you; but when you have forsaken God, and reposed confidence in man, what safety still awaits you? If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God. But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing." Drews writes with the implication that these quotes refer to Jesus, and that it was Jesus who was "made" and who was "entirely unknown." But these quotes make it quite clear that Trypho is not referring to the man Jesus. Trypho takes Jesus' historicity for granted throughout the debate with Justin. Consider these passages as samples: xxxii -- "...But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified." xxvi -"Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made." xxxviii - "For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud; then that he became man, was crucified, and ascended up to heaven, and comes again to earth, and ought to be worshipped." xxxxix -- And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ]." This is strange verbiage if Trypho believes that the Christians perpetrated a fraud to the point of inventing a man of history! What Trypho means in his earlier statement is that the Messiah - which is to say, the office of the Messiah - has been created by the Christians: He is saying that the "Christ" has not come in Jesus, but that Christians have made Jesus a Christ for themselves; and if the true Messiah was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown! The issue here relates to the Jewish belief that the Christ, when he came, would not proclaim himself (a belief we see evidenced from Jesus' own circumspection in claiming to be Messiah, and in that Bar Kochba, when he arrived, did not claim the title for himself, but allowed others to proclaim it for him). Trypho is accusing the Christians, therefore, of identifying one as Christ who is not Christ -- he is not accusing them of making up a man of history! This argument by Drews, depending as it does on taking Trypho's quotes badly out of their literary and social context, should be an extreme embarrassment to other mythicist advocates; but even Wells and Doherty are making use of it! The modern defender of the "Jesus-myth" fares no better. G. A. Wells has also picked up on the "Trypho error" in his latest work. In another place, attempting to explain why Pilate was chosen as the person who authorized the death of his fictional Jesus, Wells says that he was selected because he was "particularly detested by the Jews, and is indeed the only one of the prefects who governed Judea between AD 6 and 41 who attracted sufficient attention to be discussed by the two principal Jewish writers of the first century," Philo and Josephus. [Hoff.JesH, 39-40] In other words, Pilate was chosen because he seemed like he would do something like the Gospels describe! If anything, this is better evidence, rather, that the Gospel writers knew what they were talking about, because they knew the history. Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed. Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harv.JesC, 11] Dunn [Dunn.EvJ, 29] provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells' thesis, he writes: The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus! Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith [Hoff.JesH, 47-8] . Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote: "I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation." "...he argues mainly from silence." "...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space." "(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels." None of these scholars, we emphasize, are friends of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination. "That's not good enough. If Jesus existed and was so famous, we should have heard a lot more about him in historical sources outside the New Testament and the Church Fathers. The fact that so little was written about Jesus indicates that he was the creation of the church." On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 7-9] and Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 24-27] have indicated several reasons why Jesus remained a "marginal Jew" about whom we have so little information: As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss? Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified. Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia? Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher. Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples. Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also! A final consideration is that we have very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are: An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry. An inscription that mentions Pilate. Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D. From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius. Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject. From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus. From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [blaik.MM, 13-16] To this Meier adds [ibid., 23] that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." It is just as was said in his earlier comment on Alexander the Great: What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him! Jesus, Shattering The Christ- Myth, the reliability of the secular references to Jesus, J.P. Holding,Tektonics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodie.Lynne Posted November 22, 2005 #161 Share Posted November 22, 2005 JF, your cut and paste skills are magnificent, but you aren't fully answering the question. The question being: Is there historical evidence to support the existence of the man we have come to know as 'Jesus'? Name the texts, the census lists, the court records that show that this was more than a simulacrum of the ideal man. Your over long posts are telling us what others think, but are not pointing to the paper (or is it papyrus?) trail of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Light Posted November 22, 2005 #162 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Jeez..JF, can we have a simple one paragraph answer to mako's very straightforward question...I for one, am awaiting breathlessly the evidence you don't seem to have! Stop beating around the bush and get on with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverCougar Posted November 22, 2005 #163 Share Posted November 22, 2005 (edited) Jeez..JF, can we have a simple one paragraph answer to mako's very straightforward question...I for one, am awaiting breathlessly the evidence you don't seem to have! Stop beating around the bush and get on with it! I think.. in a way... he is answering the question. To him, the things he posts are the proof of Jesus to him. We may be waiting for the answer that appeases us for a while... Edited November 22, 2005 by SilverCougar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Light Posted November 23, 2005 #164 Share Posted November 23, 2005 I think.. in a way... he is answering the question. To him, the things he posts are the proof of Jesus to him. We may be waiting for the answer that appeases us for a while... Yeah, I knew that SilverCougar...I just thought a change of tactics and strategy may speed things up... Wishful thinking?? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverCougar Posted November 23, 2005 #165 Share Posted November 23, 2005 maybe it'll work... maybe not.. heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesusfan Posted November 23, 2005 Author #166 Share Posted November 23, 2005 JF, your cut and paste skills are magnificent, but you aren't fully answering the question. The question being: Is there historical evidence to support the existence of the man we have come to know as 'Jesus'? Name the texts, the census lists, the court records that show that this was more than a simulacrum of the ideal man. Your over long posts are telling us what others think, but are not pointing to the paper (or is it papyrus?) trail of evidence. Please feel free to look into the following standard Evangelical sources for information on jesus and NT in general: An Introduction to the New Testament,D.A.Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Dr Leon morris New Testament Introduction, Donald Guthrie Studying The Historical Jesus:A Guide to Sources and Methods, Darrell L. Bock Jesus and Christian Origins outside of the New Testament, F.F. Bruce Also, feel free to check into historical writtings concerning the Christ by: Tactius 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. Probe Ministries, Michael Gleghorn 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}Probe Ministries, Michael Gleghorn Babylonian Talmund 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} Probe Ministries, Michael Gleghorn Lucian he 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} Probe Ministries, Michael gleghorn Conclusion of historical evidence from non Christian Sources 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! Probe Ministries, Michael Gleghorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Light Posted November 23, 2005 #167 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Oh Man.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodie.Lynne Posted November 23, 2005 #168 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Question: Where are you taking all this data from? Or is this all your own work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennRose Posted November 23, 2005 #169 Share Posted November 23, 2005 (edited) At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have). So this posting was discussing how the idea that there was no Jesus was created? WTF? Is this whole diatribe trying to say that Bruno Bauer was the first to express skepticism on the validity of the stories of Jesus? First of all he wasn't trying to disprove the existence of Jesus, he critiqued the validity of some of the Gospels and Pauline letters. And his ideas were not so radical. He had a lot of influence from other theologians, such as Albert Schweitzer. But how is this answering anything, trying to trace skeptic's ideas? Edited November 23, 2005 by JennRose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mako Posted November 23, 2005 #170 Share Posted November 23, 2005 The one statement that I found ludicrous was that we knew more about Jesus than any other Jew before 70 CE! We do not know the year he was born (there is a 10 year discrepancy between Luke and Matthew and over 100 years between the times reported by Epiphanius of Salamis and Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons) nor do we know what year he was executed in. The gospels report that it was while Pontius Pilate was procurator (26 -36 CE), but this is not borne out by any secular contemporary reports. We know nothing about Jesus childhood, other than a supposed trip to the Temple, we know nothing of his teen years, or even of his early adulthood (in 1 century CE, 30 was approaching middle age), Yet we know much about a man that was born around the same time, was also a son of god, prophet, healer, magician - Apollonius. This SOG wrote books on various subjects, had various historians mention him and his miracles, had gospels written by his disciples. Josephus was born om 37 CE, we know of his youth, his adulthood, his adventures and misadventures, we have his writings and know not only his birth year, but also the year of his death and the manner of it! Our friend JF lets on that not much exists from that time period, but he forgets the writings of the early churchmen. Much of the information on Pagan writers, and their works that were destroyed by the overzealous early Christians, actually comes from these writings. They quote almost entire writings in their zeal to rebut and surprizingly we find that according to them, Philo of Alexandria who specialized in Jewish sects (which early Christianity was) knew nothing of Jesus (although he was a contemporary) or Christianity, nor did Justus of Tiberius, who not only was a contemporary, but lived "within spitting distance" of Nazareth! I can see now that he (JF)has is only capable of cut and pasting the thoughts and theories of others and would not recognize verifiable evidence is it bit him on the bum! Not unusual for a Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iaapac Posted November 23, 2005 #171 Share Posted November 23, 2005 The one statement that I found ludicrous was that we knew more about Jesus than any other Jew before 70 CE! We do not know the year he was born (there is a 10 year discrepancy between Luke and Matthew and over 100 years between the times reported by Epiphanius of Salamis and Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons) nor do we know what year he was executed in. The gospels report that it was while Pontius Pilate was procurator (26 -36 CE), but this is not borne out by any secular contemporary reports. We know nothing about Jesus childhood, other than a supposed trip to the Temple, we know nothing of his teen years, or even of his early adulthood (in 1 century CE, 30 was approaching middle age), Yet we know much about a man that was born around the same time, was also a son of god, prophet, healer, magician - Apollonius. This SOG wrote books on various subjects, had various historians mention him and his miracles, had gospels written by his disciples. Josephus was born om 37 CE, we know of his youth, his adulthood, his adventures and misadventures, we have his writings and know not only his birth year, but also the year of his death and the manner of it! Our friend JF lets on that not much exists from that time period, but he forgets the writings of the early churchmen. Much of the information on Pagan writers, and their works that were destroyed by the overzealous early Christians, actually comes from these writings. They quote almost entire writings in their zeal to rebut and surprizingly we find that according to them, Philo of Alexandria who specialized in Jewish sects (which early Christianity was) knew nothing of Jesus (although he was a contemporary) or Christianity, nor did Justus of Tiberius, who not only was a contemporary, but lived "within spitting distance" of Nazareth! I can see now that he (JF)has is only capable of cut and pasting the thoughts and theories of others and would not recognize verifiable evidence is it bit him on the bum! Not unusual for a Christian. I wholly agree, Mako. It is worth considering, as well, that Jesus reportedly lived in an age when scribes meticulously recorded the major events of the day and especially those events that took place in the palace. They were inclined to make sculptures of noted personalities. Historians were prolific in recording their viewpoints and Jerusalem was a hotbed of historians at that time. In spite of all this Jesus remains virtually a historical non-entity. Reputable theologians have admitted that almost all written references to him outside of the New Testament and the prophesies concerning him in the Old Testaments were latter additons and outright forgeries by zealous monks of the early church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creepy_Steve Posted November 23, 2005 #172 Share Posted November 23, 2005 (edited) Not that difficult to answer. Why is Jesus and Christianity so hated? Well very simple, think of all the bad things that have been done in name of God, Christ and Christianity through human history. All the peoples, knowledge and civilisations that have been whipped out in name of christianity. All the non christians who have been murdered because they stayed true to their believes and wouldn't become good little christians. All the misery that has befallen, and still is, mankind because of the interverence of christianity in human civilisation.. Then you'll have your answer. Edited November 23, 2005 by Creepy_Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanph Posted November 23, 2005 #173 Share Posted November 23, 2005 (edited) Reputable theologians have admitted that almost all written references to him outside of the New Testament and the prophesies concerning him in the Old Testaments were latter additons and outright forgeries by zealous monks of the early church. You said it! It is certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with, ..." "Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since--as already it has been often proved--these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."--St. Faustus, Fifth--Century French Bishop NT ALTERATIONS http://essenes.net/gop31nt.htm Sean Edited November 23, 2005 by seanph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mako Posted November 23, 2005 #174 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Seanp and I have pointed out what you mentioned over and over throughout this and a related thread, to no avail. I think what we have here is a serious problem of communication, in that he does not speak Logicese nor do we speak truebelieverese! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Light Posted November 23, 2005 #175 Share Posted November 23, 2005 (edited) ...I think what we have here is a serious problem of communication... No mako...he knows he could never come up with convincing evidence, because there isn't any; he's just extremely practiced in the art of denial... If he can't blind one with science, he'll baffle one with BS! Edited November 23, 2005 by Lauren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now