The Historical Jesus.

[Cruentus]

Of course, some of the original text of the gospels were compiled before Nicea(I think Mark is believed to have been compiled around 70 c.e.), but a surprising number of them are probably closer to the time of the Council of Nicea than the time of Jesus--or at least equidistant(I can give the dates if you'd like ).

How 'bout I give you the dates. The Gospels in the Bible were written between 70 c.e. and 110 c.e.. The council of Nicea was 325. Could things have been lost in transletions of the gospels? Sure...but that is irrelevent, bacause the "oldest" greek and hebrew versions still exist. But your conjecture that the Gospels were written on or more near the time of the council is not supported by the facts that are available to us. The council was about 215 years after the last gospel was written; about 255 from the first. I don't see how the gospels were written closer to Nicea. Also, the letters were written even before the gospels. I think you make a lot of conjectures which I find hard to buy, because of the lack of/false evidence supporting your conjectures.

But, as with everyone else, you will believe what you want. I don't have hard feelings about this if you don't.

 

[OULobo]

Careful man, its hard to train with severly cramped fingers.

 

[MA-Caver]

I guess the question on my mind after all this (and probably more to come...which is welcomed...by me anyway)... is, and this is directed to those who doubt the man's existence....
Why all the fuss about trying to disprove that one man ever lived?
Do you doubt the existence of Elijah (not Wood)? Moses? Noah? David? Solomon? What about the apostles themselves? All of them are mentioned in the Bible do you doubt their existence?
Seems to me (IMHO) that you doubt Jesus' existence because so many millions believe without seeing. Seems that their beliefs (and mine) go a lot deeper than just historical facts and records (which ironically what most of the Bible is).

Peace
:asian:

 

[r erman]

Originally posted by PAUL
How 'bout I give you the dates. The Gospels in the Bible were written between 70 c.e. and 110 c.e.. The council of Nicea was 325. Could things have been lost in transletions of the gospels? Sure...but that is irrelevent, bacause the "oldest" greek and hebrew versions still exist. But your conjecture that the Gospels were written on or more near the time of the council is not supported by the facts that are available to us. The council was about 215 years after the last gospel was written; about 255 from the first. I don't see how the gospels were written closer to Nicea. Also, the letters were written even before the gospels. I think you make a lot of conjectures which I find hard to buy, because of the lack of/false evidence supporting your conjectures.

But, as with everyone else, you will believe what you want. I don't have hard feelings about this if you don't.

I think we are not on the same page. I was referring to all of the gospels(cannonical and non-cannonical) in my post, I wasn't simply referring to the 'official four'...

For instance, The Secret Book of James is known to have been written sometime before 313c.e. as it mentions martyrdom(313 was when Constantine outlawed the persecution of Christians), but no earlier than around 150c.e. The Gospel Oxyrhynchus 840 is estimated to have been written around 200c.e. The Gospel of the Nazoreans was written around 150c.e. The Egerton Gospel dates from anywhere between 150-200c.e.(although it is assumed that it was a copy of an earlier manuscript--see I can be impartial ).

Conjectures? I'm not sure what you mean. Unless you are referring to my nod towards the gnostics when I mentioned Jesus and Mary running around re-enacting Isis and Osiris/Divine Feminine/Qabbala/Godess worship. I think it would be fairly obvious that researching this kind of history is(or has been) a hobby of mine. I could write pages about all of the fragmentary gospels, the infancy gospels, the 'secret'(read inner-circle) versions of the Synoptics, the Gnostic Gospels, the changes and additions to later versions of the gospels, the mistranslations from greek to aramaic to more greek to coptic back again to greek to latin to english...etc, ad infinitum.

I don't have much traffic with fundamentalist Christians anymore(although my wife and children are Catholic), but I enjoy the teachings of Jesus(or should I say teachings attributed to?), they match up for the most part with my own(read quasi-buddhist) views. I love all of the western spiritual traditions that have been influenced or founded upon Christianity.

Anyway, I think there is more than enough real evidence to back up all of my points(particularly the healing/social program points). Although, I (try to)withold judgement as the conjecture is ultimately arbitrary. As has been said already there comes a point in any debate where belief comes into play, irregardless of what "proof" is held up. Although, I disagree with another's previous assumption that all spiritual traditions are predicated on 'faith'...anyway, back to regular programming.

Finally, in the scheme of totality, it matters little whether you look at the story of Christ as mythos or logos, the message is essentialy the same,(of course I put the obligatory)IMO.

It's all good.

'Night

(p.s. Heretic888(?) I propose a third alternative to your Christ did/didn't exist discussion[Buddhism advocates a middle path afterall]. The man did exist, looking at the helenistic society of Rome at the time, it provided the most fertile ground for the seed of Christianity to grow, and change. Thus the archetype was borne out of the man)

 

[Cruentus]

:rofl:

Hey guess what!?!? I am Catholic also! I think it is funny that this is the second time on this thread where I have been possibly refered too as a fundamentalist. I better slow my role...

You're right; we weren't on the same page in that I was refering to the synoptic gospels and you were refering to others. I agree that other "histories" might be closer to the council.

However, the conjecture that I was refering too was the idea that the miricles of Jesus, and the divinity of Jesus was fabricated during the council. I simply don't think that the evidence supports the idea that Jesus' divinity was "made up" 325 years after the fact. If anyone made anything up, it would have been Jesus and his original followers themselves. I think that more evidence supports the idea that early Christians bought the whole concept of his divinity from the start. Now, we can argue Christ's divinity in another thread, but speaking historically, it seems that the early Christians going back to people who "knew" him believed #1 that he was a real person, not a mythical archtype. and #2 he was divine.

So, if we disagree (not sure that we even do ) then it might be on the above point. Glad we're on the same page with the rest.

 

[Jay Bell]

Why all the fuss about trying to disprove that one man ever lived?
Do you doubt the existence of Elijah (not Wood)? Moses? Noah? David? Solomon? What about the apostles themselves? All of them are mentioned in the Bible do you doubt their existence?
Seems to me (IMHO) that you doubt Jesus' existence because so many millions believe without seeing. Seems that their beliefs (and mine) go a lot deeper than just historical facts and records (which ironically what most of the Bible is).

Whoa...no need for the nasty. I'll try and explain.

Many of my very close friends are Christian. I'm happy that they have their faith in their lives. They use religion as a vehicle for making their lives better. My roomates are even Catholic!

One of my roomates said to me one day, "Jay, I pray for you every Sunday." My toes curled. Reason being...is I have heard this all too many times, which I'll touch on in a moment.

He said, "Every Sunday I pray that you find what you want out of life." What a wonderful thing for him to do...honestly. That meant a lot to me.

-However- <enter wicked nasty dark background music>

**Christian Fundamentalist Rant Ahead...you've been warned**

I've also had people tell me they've prayed for me in the past. The geasture was well received...until they explained further. "I prayed that God will show you the light so that you can see through your heathenistic ways and accept him as your savior." Man...that kind of nonsense leads to some pretty severe rash.

I have an ex-girlfriend from back home. I could no longer date, nor have any remote contact with her at all. Why? I followed the "devil's way". (Meaning that not only was I not Christian...but I wasn't a member of their perticular design of Christianity)

I offered my hand to a man who was witnessing in a park. He refused to shake it when I said that I did not accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. He then screamed in my face for five minutes about all the suffering I would endure after my death in a lake of fire. I approached his pastor with this...it truly disturbed me. I asked, "How is this a way to treat human beings?" The pastor looked at me, shrugged and said, "He's right, you know".

I have a couple of friends that can't speak a single sentence without using the words "Jesus", "Bible" or "God". It's baffling to me. Though I appreciate that they have beliefs in their lives as they do...is it necessary to wear a banner? Can these perticular individuals come up with a single thought in their mind on their own? Of course not. According to them...it's all Jesus.

It concerns me deeply. They would rather sit on their knees and pray to someone that may not have existed for four hours for strength instead of getting up and doing something about their troubles.

Am I anti-Christian? No. Am I anti-anti-thought? Yes.

Not only is their hate outside of the Christian umbrella by such individuals, they hate Christians too! Imagine that..."Recovering Catholic" is a term that gets used quite often. Turning their nose up at other Christian beliefs that are "wrong".

Point being...I have serious issues with groups of people that hate based on ignorance. Not ignorance due to their religous beliefs....but ignorance on why it is okay to hate people that don't follow the same belief system as they. As far as I recall, Jesus never said it was okay to hate others. Yet...I see it every day in the Christian faith. Oddly, they proclaim Jesus' name when they spread such hate. Idiots in my opinion.

So to wrap this post up...I need to make it clear that I'm not picking on anyone. From my experiances, Christianity can be a wonderful thing in people's lives. It can also be a plague that suffers human interaction and compassion.

I also want to make it clear that dealing with snot-nosed, mindless hate-filled people did not cause me not to believe in Jesus. Through reading and forming my own opinion I came to that idea. Does it mean that I have a lower opinion of those that *do* believe in Jesus? Absolutely not.

 

[heretic888]

Ah, geez.... I think this thing is moving too fast for me to take part in.

I'll try and address some issues made, but if things keep moving this quickly I doubt I'll be sticking around that long.

What do you mean,"shakey text", regarding the Bible? I for one am a believer that Jesus of Nazereth is The Son of The Living God, and that the Holy Bible is The Word of God. Why, you may ask. My answer simply put, is that I do. I agree that there are some things which are hard to understand in this life, and in The Word. There are also some preety amazing things written in there. (Thousands of years before Israel was reestablished as a nation, it was recorded in the Bible.) The only real criteria that can be used to accept, or reject the Biblical(Old&New Testament) record. Is the faith of the person considering the aforementioned. In the end thats what it all comes down to. You either listen to, and consider the evidence offered. Which basically boils down to accepting, or rejecting The Bible, but you can't accept, or refute what you don't know. Like any good martial art student. You must first examine a system before you can make an educated call regarding that system. You can't make a real decision based on some one elses opinion, can we? Then its up to the investigator to make the call.

Ummm.... Donald, I'd like to remind you this thread is about a historical study of Jesus. Not on the validity of Christianity or the Bible. No one is making any claims about the values of Christians or the Bible, only the empirical/historical assumptions many Christians make.

As I said, it doesn't apply in every sense of the world. I don't feel that there was a "book burning conspiricy," but I do conject that records were destroyed none-the-less. Example: It is understood that Peter was executed by an up-side-down crusifixion for being a traitor to the Roman Empire by propigating Christianity.

The problem once again, Paul, is you don't have a shred of empirical or historical evidence to back up any of those claims about Peter. Or to even back up the claim that he (or Jesus) even existed.

It is fine and dandy if you have 'faith'. I'm not contesting that. But this is supposed to be a discussion on history, not religious belief.

Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that Peter had a diary. Do you think that the Roman Empire would have kept this, or anything else that belonged to him. No...he was some traitor, "insignificant" to the Empire. They would have discarded any records, along with any of his other belongings, upon his execution. No conspiricy, just a logical assumption of what would have happened.

No offense, Paul, but your 'logical assumption' indicates a fair amount of ignorance concerning the history of Hellenistic Rome. There were dozens, perhaps hundreds, of would-be 'messiahs' parading about the empire. Most, if not all, of these individuals were much more pervasive than the Christians and much more violent and rebellious. Yet we are somehow to believe the evidence of the existence of these individuals was left untouched, but the 'peaceful' Jesus was felt to be a threat??

Its a very unlikely probability and can't claim the support of good science or good research.

Also, it is an interesting fact to note that not once in history has there ever been a record of the Roman authorities attempting to 'destroy' the evidence or teachings of any individual or group. They would certainly expel them from the city, or even the empire, but never attempt to 'erase' their existence. In fact, this practice was known to ONLY take place under the reign of Christian emperors. A very interesting paradox, neh?

The bare bones truth is that without any proof or documentation to back up any historical claims all you have is an interesting hypothesis. I really don't see what the big problem is. You make a claim and the burden of proof is on you. It's pretty basic science.

I don't mean this as an insult in any way, Paul, but using the logic you have demonstrated in your argument one could justify the existence of ANY individual, fictional or not, without having to draw back on the burden of proof.

Example: Santa Claus (not St. Nicholas) really did exist but all the evidence of his life was destroyed by the big bad European kings. But, still, I know he existed even though I don't have proof. Why, you ask?? Because the stories say so!!

The reality was that Christians were first viewed as a bunch of traitors who needed to be taught a lesson, but not as some major threat to Roman Society.

Contemporary study of the available evidence has demonstrated that idea to be lies invented by Christian authors of later centuries. The Christians were, in fact, only persecuted as a group for a total of 5 years under the Empire's rule. And none of these years were consecutive, mind you.

Historical evidence has shown that the Christians were not persecuted at all as a group (but sometimes as individuals) before 250 CE.

Even the reputed Tacitus 'excerpt' you used as a claim for Jesus' historical existence is identified as a forgery of the 15th century CE, and there is little other proof that Nero (or any Roman leader prior to 250 CE) persecuted the Christians.

When Christianity grew to a point where it might be a threat, the Empire made it the national religion, thus dispating the threat.

Wrong. Constantine made it the state religion because it would allow him to more easily amass control and power over his subjects. It had nothing to do with it being a 'threat'.

My point here is, they wouldn't have made a major issue in detailing in writing how to erase the Christians from history. However, they would have just considered any information found as insignificant rebel propaganda, and it would have been discarded.

I suggest you study the history of the Hellenistic Roman Empire in more depth. Your claim is very interesting in light of common imperial practices.

You forget about Oral tradition. Our first Christians weren't writing texts, they were wandering into different communities and spreading the religion through an oral tradition. So, just because things weren't written down when Jesus was alive you can't assume that these were stories made up later on.

Ahem. Oral tradition, without empirical support of some kind, cannot hold the claim of good science. I am not saying Christianity is bunk here, mind you, but that your support of oral tradition is an article of faith not research.

Also, the earliest Christian teachings, such as the authentic letters of Paul, demonstrate a complete ignorance of any 'biographical' information concerning Jesus. In fact, to Paul, 'Christ' seems to be little more than a Platonic form, Jungian archetype, or Gnostic aeon. There is definitely a docetic flavor to Paul's non-forged letters.

There isn't really a lack of historical evidence concerning the man, as you say. There is plenty of info available that implies that Jesus existed, considereing the time period, you just refuse to see it for what it is. I don't know why you feel you have to do this, but do what you want. I, and others have posted plenty here to give you more reading material, sources, and records.

Ahem. I don't know about you, but I don't consider texts written nearly 100 years after the events in question, and which do not draw upon any apparent primary sources or records, to be reliable historical sources. All of the 'sources' you cited (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, etc.) are all, at best, secondhand accounts based on hearsay. At worst, they are forgeries as, for example, Tacitus' "Jesus reference" has been demonstrated to be.

You, I am sure, will continue to argue, using sources written by who I believe are pseudo-historian's.

No, not unless you consider Sir Wallis Budge, the former head of the British Museum of Natural History, to be a 'pseudo-historian'. I would, however, consider most of the writers you have mentioned to be theologians and philosophers, not historians.

You also, in your arguement make superfluous and exaggerated assumptions that you presume to be a logical refutation of Christian beliefs, when most Christians do not follow your assumptions. I don't know Christians who believe that early followers were 'fairly ignorant', or that anyone 'magically' found lost documents or stories. You are arguing false assumptions that only you created.

*cough* Actually, if you reread my post, I posted those 4 steps as being the only way you could support you conspiracy hypothesis of evidence being destroyed. I said nothing at all about it being something Christians believe in.

Early Christian writers ademently believed that Jesus was not some mythic character, but was a real person, the son of God, and the Messiah. You again create false evidence by implying that early Christians believed he was a "mythical archtype" when you (once again) have no evidence to support this conjecture. Again, we have a case where we have some evidence that Jesus was a real person, and this was always the Christian belief, but not a lot of evidence. Your arguement behind why there is not a lot of evidence supporting that Jesus was real is that he was a mythical creature, a conjecture which has even less reliable evidence to support it then the original arguement

Complete incorrect. Paul, for example, has no knowledge of any 'biographical' details concerning Jesus and his writings are of a decidedly Gnostic orientation. Marcions, another gnostic/docetist was the first Christian to establish a canon of any kind.

In fact, there is no evidence that the Christians saw Jesus as a historical individual until around 110 CE. You are basing your assumptions on incorrect dates which give the highly questionable Synoptics precedence over the Pauline letters.

You twist the Christian belief into 4 "convoluted" steps, when there is really only one non-convoluted step. According to the Christian Belief, Jesus was a real person who was executed, so his followers who believed him to be the messiah went around spreading his teachings and what they believed. There...1 step, not your convoluted 2 step arguement with little evidence to support it.

You, again, have no evidence to support this claim. It all comes down to an article of faith.

The reasoning that the Gospels were based off the Marcion text is not "imperical proof" of anything. None of what you say so far "imperically proves" that Jesus was not a real person. But again, you are trying to sound like you have some evidence which really isn't evidence at all.

Actually, I suggest you do more research. Marcion's gospel, dated around 140 CE, is the basis for the Gospel of Luke. The linguistic studies have demonstrated this time and time again... just as we know the 'pastoral letters' attributed to Paul are in fact forgeries. If you have a problem with these claims, take it up with whoever invented the scientific process.

It is rather curious, however, however, that no Christian father ever mentions the Synoptics until the time of Irenaeus (190 CE), which would be keeping in line with their dependency on Marcion.

How 'bout I give you the dates. The Gospels in the Bible were written between 70 c.e. and 110 c.e..

Incorrect. This is an assumption only Christian theologians hold to today. No independent historian agrees with these dates.

Many of the Gospels' dependence on Marcion (140 CE), the incredibly late dating of texts like the Pastoral Letters (190 CE), and the complete lack of citing the Synoptics prior to Irenaeus (180 CE or so) demonstrates the 'shakiness' of the 70-110 CE claim.

Sure...but that is irrelevent, bacause the "oldest" greek and hebrew versions still exist.

Incorrect. We don't have any versions of the Greek New Testament prior older than the 500's.

p.s. Heretic888(?) I propose a third alternative to your Christ did/didn't exist discussion[Buddhism advocates a middle path afterall]. The man did exist, looking at the helenistic society of Rome at the time, it provided the most fertile ground for the seed of Christianity to grow, and change. Thus the archetype was borne out of the man

The problem with that is that it makes an assumption that Jesus actually did exist whereas we have no evidence of documentation that he did.... and we should. Philo is completely silent, an odd paradox.

However, the conjecture that I was refering too was the idea that the miricles of Jesus, and the divinity of Jesus was fabricated during the council

Actually... the 'divinity' of Jesus predates any biographical or 'human' details about him.

Also, as an ending point... I completely agree with Jay's post.

Laterz.

 

[meni]

Originally posted by heretic888


No offense, Paul, but your 'logical assumption' indicates a fair amount of ignorance concerning the history of Hellenistic Rome. There were dozens, perhaps hundreds, of would-be 'messiahs' parading about the empire. Most, if not all, of these individuals were much more pervasive than the Christians and much more violent and rebellious. Yet we are somehow to believe the evidence of the existence of these individuals was left untouched, but the 'peaceful' Jesus was felt to be a threat??


Laterz.

Just a quick Hebrew lesson

The translation of the name Yeshua- Hebrew for Jesus
Meant in Hebrew salvation or redemption! And as far as I know in our books of records we had at list 3 people that had this name (and others) that alleged or declare that they are the promised "messiah"

But clearly by the obvious state of the world around us the promise redemption isn't here yet! (For example look at the book of Ezekiel chapter 37 verses 26, and many many others!)

!


And I'm going back to my form 4
( i'm testing for my 2nd brown )

M

 

[heretic888]

Just a quick Hebrew lesson

The translation of the name Yeshua- Hebrew for Jesus
Meant in Hebrew salvation or redemption!

And I'm going back to my form 4

That's not entirely true.

'Jesus' is an English transliteration of the Greek word 'Iesous', which is how it is found in the New Testament (originally written in Greek). Iesous is an incorrect and forced transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic word 'Yeshwah'.

Iesous (while similar, yet distinct, from the correct Greek transliteration of Yeshwah) was intentionally designed by the Gospel authors so it would have symbolic significance in the system of Pagan numerology/gematria.

The numerological value of the word 'Iesous' is 888. This number is very significant in a number of Hellenistic philosophical systems. It was for this reason that the Gospel writers chose the name 'Iesous' for their hero figure --- it combines the name Yeshwah/Joshua with Greco-Roman philosophical concepts.

Laterz.

 

[meni]

Originally posted by heretic888
That's not entirely true.

'Jesus' is an English transliteration of the Greek word 'Iesous', which is how it is found in the New Testament (originally written in Greek). Iesous is an incorrect and forced transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic word 'Yeshwah'.

Iesous (while similar, yet distinct, from the correct Greek transliteration of Yeshwah) was intentionally designed by the Gospel authors so it would have symbolic significance in the system of Pagan numerology/gematria.

The numerological value of the word 'Iesous' is 888. This number is very significant in a number of Hellenistic philosophical systems. It was for this reason that the Gospel writers chose the name 'Iesous' for their hero figure --- it combines the name Yeshwah/Joshua with Greco-Roman philosophical concepts.

Laterz.

Yeshwah?

How do you read this?
Ye sho ah? If yes, the exact translation both in Aramaic or Hebrew is redemption, or salvation.

if not please help out with the phonetically correct way so i can find a translation


Meni

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by heretic888
That's not entirely true.

'Jesus' is an English transliteration of the Greek word 'Iesous', which is how it is found in the New Testament (originally written in Greek). Iesous is an incorrect and forced transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic word 'Yeshwah'.

Iesous (while similar, yet distinct, from the correct Greek transliteration of Yeshwah) was intentionally designed by the Gospel authors so it would have symbolic significance in the system of Pagan numerology/gematria.

The numerological value of the word 'Iesous' is 888. This number is very significant in a number of Hellenistic philosophical systems. It was for this reason that the Gospel writers chose the name 'Iesous' for their hero figure --- it combines the name Yeshwah/Joshua with Greco-Roman philosophical concepts.

Laterz.

I'm not sure I buy this one. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The points are Hebrew and English. The line is the direct similarity and meaning behind the two. I don't think that curving around some diluted theory about the church using pagan symbols (albeit not that far fetched) is the straight line here. The similarity is there without adding in some theory of mistranslation and church conspiracy to involve pagan concepts. The name in Hebrew discribes what Christ would have been (self?) praclaimed as. Mabey the Greek name is a mistranslation of the Hebrew and the English is a direct phonetic translation of the Hebrew?

 

[meni]

Originally posted by OULobo
I'm not sure I buy this one. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The points are Hebrew and English. The line is the direct similarity and meaning behind the two. I don't think that curving around some diluted theory about the church using pagan symbols (albeit not that far fetched) is the straight line here. The similarity is there without adding in some theory of mistranslation and church conspiracy to involve pagan concepts. The name in Hebrew discribes what Christ would have been (self?) praclaimed as. Mabey the Greek name is a mistranslation of the Hebrew and the English is a direct phonetic translation of the Hebrew?

yep i agree with you!

 

[heretic888]

Yeshwah?

How do you read this?
Ye sho ah? If yes, the exact translation both in Aramaic or Hebrew is redemption, or salvation.

if not please help out with the phonetically correct way so i can find a translation

Yeshwah/Yeshua is the shortened form of Yehoshua or Jehoshua, which in English we render as 'Joshua'.

Iesous is the forced Greek transliteration of Yeshua/Yehoshua found in the original New Testament.

The points are Hebrew and English. The line is the direct similarity and meaning behind the two. I don't think that curving around some diluted theory about the church using pagan symbols (albeit not that far fetched) is the straight line here. The similarity is there without adding in some theory of mistranslation and church conspiracy to involve pagan concepts. The name in Hebrew discribes what Christ would have been (self?) praclaimed as. Mabey the Greek name is a mistranslation of the Hebrew and the English is a direct phonetic translation of the Hebrew?

I'm afraid you've got your history a little confused.

The original text of the New Testament, in whatever form you accept it, was Greek. The name we translate in English as 'Jesus' in that original form is 'Iesous'. Iesous itself is a forced and incorrect transliteration of the Aramaic name Yeshua or Yehoshua.

The name Iesous does, however, have a numerological significance according to the Greek/Pagan system of gematria. Namely, 888. Even church fathers such as Irenaeus admitted this, saying the Greek name of the 'savior' has 'magical' power.

Draw your own conclusions. But, to me, forced Greek transliteration + numerological significance = something to think about.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

But clearly by the obvious state of the world around us the promise redemption isn't here yet! (For example look at the book of Ezekiel chapter 37 verses 26, and many many others!)

Actually, if you asked any objective historian or anthropologist to compare the 'state of the world' now compared to earlier centuries, we ain't doing so bad.

Laterz.

 

[meni]

Originally posted by heretic888
Actually, if you asked any objective historian or anthropologist to compare the 'state of the world' now compared to earlier centuries, we ain't doing so bad.

Laterz.

i agree but its still not a perfect world!

 

[Cruentus]

I’ve seen a lot of claims made here, many that I believe are ludicrous. One of the biggest critiques by those who believe that Jesus was fictitious is this: “people who believe that Jesus was a real person ‘lack evidence.’” They usually use highly exaggerated terms like “absolutely no evidence” or “no imperical factual proof,” which usually alerts me to the fact that they are not only arrogant, but that their minds are well closed already. So, even if some evidence is brought forth, they already said that there is “absolutely no evidence.” Since it is more important for them to be correct then to look at all the evidence and come to a logical conclusion (and admitting that there just might be some evidence out there supporting Jesus’ existance would mean that their statement of “no evidence” would make them wrong), they will never try to get to the bottom of things and try to decifer what might be a likely possability. For these people, it is impossible to have an open discussion. No matter what you will say, all they will do is be an antagonist, which is very easy to do. It takes no brains to be an antagonist. “This isn’t right because of this, that isn’t right because of that”, etc., etc., etc.. They are only trying to prove that “your wrong” rather then trying to find out “what might be right,” or “what possibilities do we have.”

This lends an obvious problem when trying to have a discussion. Now, since they are the antagonist, they have to offer some alternative solution. And they do offer seemingly educated alternatives. But what they don’t realize is that their alternatives and antagonizing opinions have less of a logical, historical, archeological, sociological, (or whatever-o-logical) base then the simple idea that a guy names Jesus walked around on earth in the flesh, and developed a following that continues to this day.

It is easy to tell when they are just being antagonist. They pick apart arguments that contrast their opinions, rebuke people for not providing “proof,” then offer their solutions without providing proof themselves. They say things like, “An interesting FACT to note…” then proceed with a comment providing no FACTUAL proof or evidence. Or, “Contemporary studies say ….” Or “Evidence proves…” without stating the evidence. “This is wrong…” or “This is incorrect…” then proceed with an opinion with (once again) no proof to back up the opinion. The list goes on.

The antagonist faults people with varied opinions for not providing “imperical evidence,” even when evidence is provided. Yet, they provide no imperical evidence themselves to support their alternative solutions. When confronted with this, they usually respond with something like, “you’re the one trying to prove that Jesus existed, so the burden of proof is on you!” As if this now exempts them from having to prove their ridicules arguments. They forget that they are the ones trying to prove that millions of people out there are mistakenly worshipping a figure who never existed. They are the ones with the claim that millions are wrong, so the burden of proof is just as much on the antagonist then the believer.

It very illogical, but this occurs within any community. Whenever there is a theory, the antagonist lurks. The antagonist can be any idiot on an internet forum, or the antagonist can be an idiot with a PhD writing for the history channel. It doesn’t matter, we just need to recognize that they are idiots. They are idiots because they are not discussion with an open mind or trying to find answers. They are only trying to shoot down other arguments that they may consider “main stream” so that they can feel intellectually above the populus.

Now, not all of you are antagonists here. I like talking to you because even if you never agree with what I have to say, your at least trying to keep an open mind. I would consider you skeptics rather then antagonists. Some of you here are antagonists, though, and you are very annoying. Your close minded, only trying to discredit rather then trying to come up with a solution. Talking to you is a waste of my time.

Now, I won’t be an antagonist towards those skeptical of a historical Jesus either. I have done what was asked. When people asked for other documentation outside of the Bible, I gave it. When people asked for some evidence and explainations to support my views, I offered it. All this, only to be met by some antagonists with some kind of "hard on" to pick apart every thing I say, w/o offering “a shred of proof,” as they say to support their claims. So, I won’t be an antagonist. I will post some other proofs, from a historical perspective, to support the idea that Jesus "existed," and that the Gospels are ment to be taken as a historical account, in my next post.


:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Here are some other proofs, from a historical perspective, to support the idea that Jesus existed:

1. Historical proof #1: The New Testament document versions of these stories pass the “transmission test” better then many other historical document.

The transmission test (or Bibliographical test) works likes this: The original story is “lost” either through lack of evidence of an original document, or because the story was transmitted orally before it was written down. So, we don’t have the originals, which is a common occurance with ancient documents. So historians use a method that can be called the “transmission test,” where they check the trustworthiness of the “story” by looking at the evidence we do have today. People critique the New Testament all the time because the original gospel’s texts are lost. They argue that since there is no original source that can be found, then how do we know that this Jesus character wasn’t made up. Oral tradition doesn’t cut it for them either, because they argue that it could have been fabricated or changed that way as well.

Now it is right to question a document or story when the original is missing. This is the scholarly thing to do. However, just because the “proof” of the original story is missing, this doesn’t mean that the story was “made up” any more then it could mean that it was true.

So how do we narrow it down? How do we use the evidence that does exist to see if it points towards the idea that Jesus existed, or didn’t. We use the transmission test. The factors involved in this test are the number of copies that exist within a given time frame, how much time passed between the copies and the alleged original, and the accuracy of the copies (how similar are they). I maintain that the New Testament passes this test with accuracy far beyond ANY other ancient document.

First, let's count the number of New Testament manuscripts. There are 5,686 Greek manuscripts (which continue to grow with archeological work). Additionally, there are copies of ancient translations of the Bible which include over 10,000 in Latin, over 4,000 in Slavic, over 2,500 in Armenian, over 2,000 in Ethiopian, and hundreds more in other languages. Combining the Greek texts with the translated documents gives the New Testament over 24,000 manuscripts. By comparison, other ancient documents, which are relied on commonly by historians, are dwarfed by the New Testament numbers. Let's tour some of the best attested and highly prized sources we have from ancient history. We have 643 copies of Homer's Iliad, 200 copies of Demosthenes' works, 20 copies of Tacitus' Annals, 10 copies of Ceasar's triumphs in the Gallic Wars, and 8 copies of Herodotus' History. Clearly, the New Testament has enough copies to exceed the standards secular history places on ancient texts to pass this part of the bibliographical test.

Before moving on to the question of time span, I want to address the issue of consistency in the copies. Often people charge that the many copies we have of the New Testament contain enough variant readings to hurt rather than help the case for the accuracy of the New Testament. Rather than debate every variant reading, I will make two points that refute this objection. (1) Most variant readings are inconsequential to the text. Many variants include spelling errors, inverted word order (which matters very little to Biblical Greek), repeated words, and other variations where it is easy to see what the document from which it was copied contained. The stories themselves with Jesus’ divinity and all remain the same. (2) There are very few variant readings on important essential texts, and even for those texts there are methods for navigating through the variant readings to reach a version of the original document. Most scholars estimate that the Biblical stories as we have it today is 99% accurate compared with the original manuscripts. So, the problem of variations within the many copies of the New Testament is not a problem after all.

The original manuscripts of the Gospels are believed by most scholars to have been written between A.D. 50 - A.D. 90 (although some say 70-110; but it is very difficult for the historians to pin down exact dates, so this issue as to when the first ones were written is still up for grabs). Jesus' death on the cross occurred around A.D. 30 (give or take about 10 years, again we do not know exactly), so the events of Jesus were recorded within a short time span of the original events. In fact, they were written when eyewitnesses were still alive who could confirm or invalidate its testimony. History does not record that the earliest enemies of the Gospels who were alive from A.D. 50 - A.D. 90 tried to discredit the Bible by claiming it is full of lies. Instead, their most frequented attack against the Gospels attempts to discredit Jesus by claiming His mighty works were done through demonic powers, not God's. The eyewitnesses of the first century could not deny that the Gospels record an accurate description of Jesus' life and teaching. The enemies of the Gospel could only debate about the source of Jesus' mighty power. So, the original New Testament manuscripts were recognized by its contemporaries as historically accurate. Eyewitnesses at least believed the very things that were written in the Gospels. However, since we do not have the originals, it is important to look at the time span between the copies and the originals.
The last evidence we must examine for the bibliographical text is the span of time between the original documents and the copies. The earliest fragment we have of the New Testament is the John Rylands Fragment, which contains pieces of John's Gospel and is dated around A.D. 125. Although this sounds like a very long time after 30 AD, that would still be less than one generation from the original text. This is not far. We have whole books copied within 100 years of the originals and entire copies of the New Testament as one corpus within 250 years from the date of its completion. The time span of other ancient documents cannot compare with the New Testament's numbers. 1,000 years separate the copies of Tacitus and Ceasar with their original texts. Herodotus' writings were copied 1,300 years after the original manuscripts, and 1,500 years separate the copies of Demosthenes' writings with their originals. Once again, the New Testament proves itself when compared with other ancient texts.
Based on the information given above, it is safe to conclude that the New Testament stands as the best transmitted manuscript we have of any document from the ancient world. We have more evidence to back its content and check its transmission than any other ancient source, yet other ancient texts are questioned much less then the Biblical texts. One has to ask themselves: why? It was asked to me what I ment by me saying that other historical occurances with less evidence to prove it are more readily acceptable then Biblical texts. Well, this is what I am talking about. To question the New Testament on the grounds of its merits under the transmission test would call into question every ancient manuscript. Classic historians accept the works of Tacitus, Ceasar, and Herodotus as fairly reliable and well-transmitted, and the New Testament far exceeds their credentials. The New Testament clearly passses the bibliographical test, which demonstrates the accuracy of its transmission. However, a document that is transmitted with precise accuracy may still be a fallacious text. So, we must look into other historical tests to see if Jesus was a living person, or was it all fabricated.

#2. The New Testemament texts pass the “internal tests,” proving consistency.

The internal test checks whether the document in question is consistent with itself. In other words, it asks whether the text contradicts itself or provides a harmonious picture.
Most critics of the New Testament constantly allege that the Gospels contradict themselves repeatedly; thus, crippling the integrity of their accuracy. However, I have yet to be shown a true contradiction in the Gospels. Most examples of contradictions in the Gospels go like this: "One Gospel account claims there were two angels at the empty tomb, while another claims there was one angel! So, there is a blatant contradiction!" But this is not an example of a contradiction because it is entirely possible for one account to mention one angel, while another account mentions two, and for both to be true. For whenever there are two angels, there necessarily is at least one angel. (This would be different if each Gospel claimed "only one angel" or "only two angels" were present, but they don't.) The point is that the Gospels do not contain any “hard” contradictions. Jesus performed miracles, and Jesus didn’t perform miracles is an example of a “hard” contradiction. There are different accounts of the same event, but it is possible to harmonize those accounts into one coherent picture.

However, in order to pass the internal test, Historians do not have to prove the difficult claim that the Gospels do not contain any contradictions. For present purposes all that they need to show is that the Gospels agree to the major facts about Jesus' life and teachings. In fact, all the Gospels agree about the "big picture" decription of Jesus. All of them agree that He performed supernatural acts like healings, exorcisms, and commands over nature. Every single Gospel records that Jesus was an amazing teacher who believed He was the Jewish Messiah. Additionally, all the Gospels agree that He was killed by a conspiracy between the Jewish religious leaders and the Roman state. Finally, the Gospels all agree that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the grave. The New Testiment letters and writings beyond the Gospels further support rather then contradict the conjectures made in the Gospels. So, the Gospels present an overall harmonious description of the essentials of Jesus' life and teachings. Therefore, we can conclude that the Gospels pass the internal test.

#3. The Gospels pass the “external tests,” in that they are supported by outside verification other then the stories themselves.

This was a major topic of discussion, and I gave other sources outside of “the Bible” to support the stories. I will cover some more items here.

The external test checks other ancient sources to see if they agree on material commmon to both sources. The Gospels make several claims which can be checked with other historical sources such as ancient government records, archeology, other classic writers, and other historical witnesses. In what follows I will survey a mere smattering of cases which are typical of the entire New Testament.

First, let's look at some of the archeological finds that coincide with data in the Gospels and see if they support or disconfirm the historical witness of the Gospels. Many secular archeologists assumed that certain places mentioned in the Gospels were made up by the New Testament writers. However, some of these questionable locations have been identified by archeologists. These include the pavement mentioned in John 19:13, the pool of Bethesda, Jacob's well, the pool of Siloam, several ancient cities [Bethlehem, Cana, Nazareth, Capernaum, and Chorazin], and the residence of Pilate in Jerusalem. Furthermore, there have been important archeological finds like the remains of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol. Yohanan's skeletal remains were found among a number of other persons killed by the Roman government for the Jewish uprising in A.D. 70. Yohanan was executed by crucifixion, and his remains exemplified that the New Testament's description of Roman crucifixion is accurate. He had a spike driven into both feet, and nails driven between the lower bones of the arms. Furthermore, Yohanan appeared to have had his legs broken, which also dovetails with the New Testament account of Roman crucifixion. There are more archeological finds that support the New Testament and no credible disconfirmations I am aware of. Therefore, I think it is safe to conclude that the external witness of archeology supports the Biblical account of history. But you do not have to take my word on it. Millar Burrows, an archeologist from Yale University, concludes:

On the whole, archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by experience of excavation of Palestine. (What Mean These Stones? [New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941], 1.)

In addition to archeology, there are significant non-Christian textual sources that share common materials with the Gospels, which can be compared. Lets review Flavius Josephus again. In his famous writing, the Antiquities, xvii, 3.3 he writes this:

And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, “if indeed we should call him a man”; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who received the truth with pleasure. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Greeks. “This man was the Christ [or Messiah]”. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross on his impeachment by the chief men among us, those who had loved him at first did not cease; “for he appeared to them on the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of wonderful things about him”; and even now the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out.

The “” parts of the above quote are disputed among scholars whether they belong in the original text or not. Many antagonists are quick to point this out, for it seems that the manuscript would fail the internal test, since Josephus is a Jew, he would not likely refer to Jesus as the Messiah or speak so highly of Jesus.

However, some scholars defend the authenticity of this document by claiming that Josephus may be speaking tongue-in-cheek in parts of this section, and that the reference to Jesus as the Christ may be a general reference to Jesus, since he was known as "Christus" to the Roman world. If the “” portions are granted as authentic, then this passage of Josephus confirms much of the Gospels' portrayal of Jesus. However, it doesn’t matter if they are or not. Even without the questionable “” parts, Josephus reports many facts of Jesus' life which coincide with the Gospels and confirm their truth from an independent non-Christian source. There are other significant texts from Josephus that confirm the Gospels historical claims, which I will not get into for the sake of saving space (lol, look at all the space I wasted already), but from the information given above, I think it is safe to conclude from Josephus' writings, and some of the others I have mentioned, that we have a corroborative source for some of the major claims of the Gospels like the fact that Jesus existed and was considered a great teacher and miracle worker. Let's look at some other external sources which can be used to test the Gospels.

There are a number of other non-Christian and even non-Jewish sources which match the historical picture given by the Gospels. The Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, records that Jesus Christ is the man from whom Christians derive their name when he wrote about Nero's burning of Rome. I mentioned this already, but was discredited without evidence to support the discrediting, of course. Furthermore, from Pliny the younger's letter to Emperor Trajan (dated A.D. 112), we learn of some of the beliefs and practices of the early church, which correspond with the New Testament. Additionally, ancient manuscripts from Suetonius, Lucian, Mara Car-Serapion, Emperor Trajan, Emperor Hadrian, other Jewish sources (like the Talmud), and heretical sources (such as works from Gnostic writers) supports the historical facts given in the New Testament. So, many other ancient texts match the same picture of history given by the New Testament.

Finally, I will assess the information we have from the writings of Luke - the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Luke lists many places, names, and other historically verifiable events, which could be checked to test his accuracy. If Luke was in the habit of making up his history as he saw fit, then he left himself vulnerable to critics who could go and check his story-telling. Historians have confirmed many things Luke records (although not everything), but they have not shown a credible discrepency in all of his work. Among the many confirmation include:

· The census and governorship of Quirinius (Luke 2:1-3)
· Description of Athens (Acts 17), including the agora, the altar to the "unknown god", and designation of "Areopogite" for a member of the court (Acts 17:34)
· Accurate record of Gallio as Proconsul (Acts 18:12)
· Correct description of two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28)
· Accurate explanation of provincial penal procedure (Acts 24:1-9)
· True depiction of invoking one's roman citizenship (Acts 25:18), including the legal formula, de quibus cognoscere volebam (Acts 25:18)
· Description of being in Roman custody (Acts 28:16) and conditions of being imprisoned at one's own expense (Acts 28:30-31)

Indeed there are literally dozens and dozens of more confirmations of historical data given in Luke's writings. With so many confirmations, and no credible discrepencies, it is fair to say Luke's writings have earned respect as historical documents that show accuracy and scrutiny for detail.

So, the Gospels also pass the external test. For they have shown that they dovetail with other historical sources that share information in common with them. These sources include archeology, Jewish writings, Gentile writings, government records, and many other informants not reviewed above. The Gospels have shown with incredible accuracy that whenever their is information that can be verified by other sources that it is going to be on the side of truth. In short, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the New Testament based on the external test.

Conclusion
If you have followed what I wrote above, then you have learned several things. (1) There is a method for investigating historical sources. (2) The Gospels pass the bibliographical test, proving their faithful transmission, and exceeding any other ancient document in this respect. (2) The Gospels pass the internal test because they provide a unified picture of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. (3) The Gospels pass the external test because they report accurately information that can be cross-checked by a variety of sources.

So what do we conclude from all of this? I have not demonstrated that the Bible is infallible or that it is God's inspired word. (I did not intend to, that isn’t the argument here.) Rather, I think I have shown that the Bible's historical accuracy and faithful transmission is impeccable. There are grounds by which a person can reject the Christian message, but one option that is not available as an intellectually sound choice is the argument that the Gospels are corrupt documents with historically inaccurate information. It is not intellectually sound either, given the evidence, to say that Jesus was some made up Character.

Here are some books that I heard were also good reads:

Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels

F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

Also, I must disclaim that although most of my arguments have been my own, I “plagerised” most of the material above regarding the historical arguments from something I copied off the net a long time ago. I thought the arguments were good, so I kept it in my pile of crap that I keep for situations like these. I hope whoever the author was, that he won’t mind me borrowing his arguments.

 

[arnisador]

I'm looking into the references given previously but I must say that the consistency checks PAUL cites are used for other documents and are, to the best of my knowledge, pretty standard for historical work of this nature. I don't doubt that Aristotle existed either--even though he was centuries before Jesus.

I understand the argument that a figurehead could have been created and certainly Christian philosophy echoes aspects of many previous belief systems, but the issue is whether a person named (something that has been transliterated to) Jesus lived around 2000 years ago and either started, or had started around him, a religion. Given the age of the synoptic gospels (70CE-110CE) and the many parallels between them, they appear to have been based on an earlier book(s) (and some absed on others of them). It points to a (near-)contemporary account of an individual.

Of course it could be otherwise, but the story apepars to meet the usual criteria for acceptance by historians.

 

[heretic888]

I’ve seen a lot of claims made here, many that I believe are ludicrous. One of the biggest critiques by those who believe that Jesus was fictitious is this: “people who believe that Jesus was a real person ‘lack evidence.’” They usually use highly exaggerated terms like “absolutely no evidence” or “no imperical factual proof,” which usually alerts me to the fact that they are not only arrogant, but that their minds are well closed already. So, even if some evidence is brought forth, they already said that there is “absolutely no evidence.” Since it is more important for them to be correct then to look at all the evidence and come to a logical conclusion (and admitting that there just might be some evidence out there supporting Jesus’ existance would mean that their statement of “no evidence” would make them wrong), they will never try to get to the bottom of things and try to decifer what might be a likely possability. For these people, it is impossible to have an open discussion. No matter what you will say, all they will do is be an antagonist, which is very easy to do. It takes no brains to be an antagonist. “This isn’t right because of this, that isn’t right because of that”, etc., etc., etc.. They are only trying to prove that “your wrong” rather then trying to find out “what might be right,” or “what possibilities do we have.”

This lends an obvious problem when trying to have a discussion. Now, since they are the antagonist, they have to offer some alternative solution. And they do offer seemingly educated alternatives. But what they don’t realize is that their alternatives and antagonizing opinions have less of a logical, historical, archeological, sociological, (or whatever-o-logical) base then the simple idea that a guy names Jesus walked around on earth in the flesh, and developed a following that continues to this day.

It is easy to tell when they are just being antagonist. They pick apart arguments that contrast their opinions, rebuke people for not providing “proof,” then offer their solutions without providing proof themselves. They say things like, “An interesting FACT to note…” then proceed with a comment providing no FACTUAL proof or evidence. Or, “Contemporary studies say ….” Or “Evidence proves…” without stating the evidence. “This is wrong…” or “This is incorrect…” then proceed with an opinion with (once again) no proof to back up the opinion. The list goes on.

The antagonist faults people with varied opinions for not providing “imperical evidence,” even when evidence is provided. Yet, they provide no imperical evidence themselves to support their alternative solutions. When confronted with this, they usually respond with something like, “you’re the one trying to prove that Jesus existed, so the burden of proof is on you!” As if this now exempts them from having to prove their ridicules arguments. They forget that they are the ones trying to prove that millions of people out there are mistakenly worshipping a figure who never existed. They are the ones with the claim that millions are wrong, so the burden of proof is just as much on the antagonist then the believer.

It very illogical, but this occurs within any community. Whenever there is a theory, the antagonist lurks. The antagonist can be any idiot on an internet forum, or the antagonist can be an idiot with a PhD writing for the history channel. It doesn’t matter, we just need to recognize that they are idiots. They are idiots because they are not discussion with an open mind or trying to find answers. They are only trying to shoot down other arguments that they may consider “main stream” so that they can feel intellectually above the populus.

Now, not all of you are antagonists here. I like talking to you because even if you never agree with what I have to say, your at least trying to keep an open mind. I would consider you skeptics rather then antagonists. Some of you here are antagonists, though, and you are very annoying. Your close minded, only trying to discredit rather then trying to come up with a solution. Talking to you is a waste of my time.

Now, I won’t be an antagonist towards those skeptical of a historical Jesus either. I have done what was asked. When people asked for other documentation outside of the Bible, I gave it. When people asked for some evidence and explainations to support my views, I offered it. All this, only to be met by some antagonists with some kind of "hard on" to pick apart every thing I say, w/o offering “a shred of proof,” as they say to support their claims. So, I won’t be an antagonist. I will post some other proofs, from a historical perspective, to support the idea that Jesus "existed," and that the Gospels are ment to be taken as a historical account, in my next post.

*rubs head* This entire post was nothing but an overtly emotionalized rant against anybody that disagrees with you. Its entire content consisted of condemning anybody that asks for primary historical sources for your rather dubious claims.

I already rebutted the supposed "evidence" you brought forth (including the forged excerpt from Tacitus), so you have yet to provide any "proof" for your claims. Secondary sources and hearsay are not "evidence" to me.

*shakes head*

 

[heretic888]

Here we go again....

1. Historical proof #1: The New Testament document versions of these stories pass the “transmission test” better then many other historical document.

The transmission test (or Bibliographical test) works likes this: The original story is “lost” either through lack of evidence of an original document, or because the story was transmitted orally before it was written down. So, we don’t have the originals, which is a common occurance with ancient documents. So historians use a method that can be called the “transmission test,” where they check the trustworthiness of the “story” by looking at the evidence we do have today. People critique the New Testament all the time because the original gospel’s texts are lost. They argue that since there is no original source that can be found, then how do we know that this Jesus character wasn’t made up. Oral tradition doesn’t cut it for them either, because they argue that it could have been fabricated or changed that way as well.

Now it is right to question a document or story when the original is missing. This is the scholarly thing to do. However, just because the “proof” of the original story is missing, this doesn’t mean that the story was “made up” any more then it could mean that it was true.

So how do we narrow it down? How do we use the evidence that does exist to see if it points towards the idea that Jesus existed, or didn’t. We use the transmission test. The factors involved in this test are the number of copies that exist within a given time frame, how much time passed between the copies and the alleged original, and the accuracy of the copies (how similar are they). I maintain that the New Testament passes this test with accuracy far beyond ANY other ancient document.

First, let's count the number of New Testament manuscripts. There are 5,686 Greek manuscripts (which continue to grow with archeological work). Additionally, there are copies of ancient translations of the Bible which include over 10,000 in Latin, over 4,000 in Slavic, over 2,500 in Armenian, over 2,000 in Ethiopian, and hundreds more in other languages. Combining the Greek texts with the translated documents gives the New Testament over 24,000 manuscripts. By comparison, other ancient documents, which are relied on commonly by historians, are dwarfed by the New Testament numbers. Let's tour some of the best attested and highly prized sources we have from ancient history. We have 643 copies of Homer's Iliad, 200 copies of Demosthenes' works, 20 copies of Tacitus' Annals, 10 copies of Ceasar's triumphs in the Gallic Wars, and 8 copies of Herodotus' History. Clearly, the New Testament has enough copies to exceed the standards secular history places on ancient texts to pass this part of the bibliographical test.

Before moving on to the question of time span, I want to address the issue of consistency in the copies. Often people charge that the many copies we have of the New Testament contain enough variant readings to hurt rather than help the case for the accuracy of the New Testament. Rather than debate every variant reading, I will make two points that refute this objection. (1) Most variant readings are inconsequential to the text. Many variants include spelling errors, inverted word order (which matters very little to Biblical Greek), repeated words, and other variations where it is easy to see what the document from which it was copied contained. The stories themselves with Jesus’ divinity and all remain the same. (2) There are very few variant readings on important essential texts, and even for those texts there are methods for navigating through the variant readings to reach a version of the original document. Most scholars estimate that the Biblical stories as we have it today is 99% accurate compared with the original manuscripts. So, the problem of variations within the many copies of the New Testament is not a problem after all.

The original manuscripts of the Gospels are believed by most scholars to have been written between A.D. 50 - A.D. 90 (although some say 70-110; but it is very difficult for the historians to pin down exact dates, so this issue as to when the first ones were written is still up for grabs). Jesus' death on the cross occurred around A.D. 30 (give or take about 10 years, again we do not know exactly), so the events of Jesus were recorded within a short time span of the original events. In fact, they were written when eyewitnesses were still alive who could confirm or invalidate its testimony. History does not record that the earliest enemies of the Gospels who were alive from A.D. 50 - A.D. 90 tried to discredit the Bible by claiming it is full of lies. Instead, their most frequented attack against the Gospels attempts to discredit Jesus by claiming His mighty works were done through demonic powers, not God's. The eyewitnesses of the first century could not deny that the Gospels record an accurate description of Jesus' life and teaching. The enemies of the Gospel could only debate about the source of Jesus' mighty power. So, the original New Testament manuscripts were recognized by its contemporaries as historically accurate. Eyewitnesses at least believed the very things that were written in the Gospels. However, since we do not have the originals, it is important to look at the time span between the copies and the originals.
The last evidence we must examine for the bibliographical text is the span of time between the original documents and the copies. The earliest fragment we have of the New Testament is the John Rylands Fragment, which contains pieces of John's Gospel and is dated around A.D. 125. Although this sounds like a very long time after 30 AD, that would still be less than one generation from the original text. This is not far. We have whole books copied within 100 years of the originals and entire copies of the New Testament as one corpus within 250 years from the date of its completion. The time span of other ancient documents cannot compare with the New Testament's numbers. 1,000 years separate the copies of Tacitus and Ceasar with their original texts. Herodotus' writings were copied 1,300 years after the original manuscripts, and 1,500 years separate the copies of Demosthenes' writings with their originals. Once again, the New Testament proves itself when compared with other ancient texts.
Based on the information given above, it is safe to conclude that the New Testament stands as the best transmitted manuscript we have of any document from the ancient world. We have more evidence to back its content and check its transmission than any other ancient source, yet other ancient texts are questioned much less then the Biblical texts. One has to ask themselves: why? It was asked to me what I ment by me saying that other historical occurances with less evidence to prove it are more readily acceptable then Biblical texts. Well, this is what I am talking about. To question the New Testament on the grounds of its merits under the transmission test would call into question every ancient manuscript. Classic historians accept the works of Tacitus, Ceasar, and Herodotus as fairly reliable and well-transmitted, and the New Testament far exceeds their credentials. The New Testament clearly passses the bibliographical test, which demonstrates the accuracy of its transmission. However, a document that is transmitted with precise accuracy may still be a fallacious text. So, we must look into other historical tests to see if Jesus was a living person, or was it all fabricated.

This supposed "transmission test" is not a reliable criteria for establishing historical viability. A large number of copies of any document can produced in a very short amount of time.

Mass production says absolutely nothing of historical reliability, or else Little Red Riding Hood would be the standard historical textbook in most classrooms.

#2. The New Testemament texts pass the “internal tests,” proving consistency.

The internal test checks whether the document in question is consistent with itself. In other words, it asks whether the text contradicts itself or provides a harmonious picture.
Most critics of the New Testament constantly allege that the Gospels contradict themselves repeatedly; thus, crippling the integrity of their accuracy. However, I have yet to be shown a true contradiction in the Gospels. Most examples of contradictions in the Gospels go like this: "One Gospel account claims there were two angels at the empty tomb, while another claims there was one angel! So, there is a blatant contradiction!" But this is not an example of a contradiction because it is entirely possible for one account to mention one angel, while another account mentions two, and for both to be true. For whenever there are two angels, there necessarily is at least one angel. (This would be different if each Gospel claimed "only one angel" or "only two angels" were present, but they don't.) The point is that the Gospels do not contain any “hard” contradictions. Jesus performed miracles, and Jesus didn’t perform miracles is an example of a “hard” contradiction. There are different accounts of the same event, but it is possible to harmonize those accounts into one coherent picture.

However, in order to pass the internal test, Historians do not have to prove the difficult claim that the Gospels do not contain any contradictions. For present purposes all that they need to show is that the Gospels agree to the major facts about Jesus' life and teachings. In fact, all the Gospels agree about the "big picture" decription of Jesus. All of them agree that He performed supernatural acts like healings, exorcisms, and commands over nature. Every single Gospel records that Jesus was an amazing teacher who believed He was the Jewish Messiah. Additionally, all the Gospels agree that He was killed by a conspiracy between the Jewish religious leaders and the Roman state. Finally, the Gospels all agree that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the grave. The New Testiment letters and writings beyond the Gospels further support rather then contradict the conjectures made in the Gospels. So, the Gospels present an overall harmonious description of the essentials of Jesus' life and teachings. Therefore, we can conclude that the Gospels pass the internal test.

This entire part of the post is completely incorrect. The Synoptics are self-contradictory at many parts:

1) There are two different lineages attributed to Jesus, one in Luke and one in Matthew. From one generation past Joseph onward, these patrilineal lines of descent have completely different names ---- meaning, Joseph must have had two granddaddies on his poppa's side. And, who said the Bible promoted homophobia??

2) The Bible is theologically contradictory. On one point the lineages are established to trace Joseph's line through to David to "prove" Jesus is the messiah and is of the "seed of David". On the other hand, Jesus is the messiah because of the virgin birth and isn't blood-related by Joseph at all. These two "messiah proofs" don't mix, friends. Either he is of the seed of David and Joseph and Mary did the nasty-nasty, or he is not of the seed of David --- and Mary was a virgin momma.

3) Many events in the Bible are contradictory. How and when the angel comes to tell Mary she is impregnated with Jesus is contradictory in different gospels. The number of people that witness Jesus resurrect differs in the Gospels. Oh yeah, and the places people witness Jesus resurrect is contradictory in the Gospels (in one account, its in Bethlehem; in another, its a town 100 miles away).

Not internally consistent at all.

3. The Gospels pass the “external tests,” in that they are supported by outside verification other then the stories themselves.

This was a major topic of discussion, and I gave other sources outside of “the Bible” to support the stories. I will cover some more items here.

The external test checks other ancient sources to see if they agree on material commmon to both sources. The Gospels make several claims which can be checked with other historical sources such as ancient government records, archeology, other classic writers, and other historical witnesses. In what follows I will survey a mere smattering of cases which are typical of the entire New Testament.

First, let's look at some of the archeological finds that coincide with data in the Gospels and see if they support or disconfirm the historical witness of the Gospels. Many secular archeologists assumed that certain places mentioned in the Gospels were made up by the New Testament writers. However, some of these questionable locations have been identified by archeologists. These include the pavement mentioned in John 19:13, the pool of Bethesda, Jacob's well, the pool of Siloam, several ancient cities [Bethlehem, Cana, Nazareth, Capernaum, and Chorazin], and the residence of Pilate in Jerusalem. Furthermore, there have been important archeological finds like the remains of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol. Yohanan's skeletal remains were found among a number of other persons killed by the Roman government for the Jewish uprising in A.D. 70. Yohanan was executed by crucifixion, and his remains exemplified that the New Testament's description of Roman crucifixion is accurate. He had a spike driven into both feet, and nails driven between the lower bones of the arms. Furthermore, Yohanan appeared to have had his legs broken, which also dovetails with the New Testament account of Roman crucifixion. There are more archeological finds that support the New Testament and no credible disconfirmations I am aware of. Therefore, I think it is safe to conclude that the external witness of archeology supports the Biblical account of history. But you do not have to take my word on it. Millar Burrows, an archeologist from Yale University, concludes:

On the whole, archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by experience of excavation of Palestine. (What Mean These Stones? [New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941], 1.)

In addition to archeology, there are significant non-Christian textual sources that share common materials with the Gospels, which can be compared. Lets review Flavius Josephus again. In his famous writing, the Antiquities, xvii, 3.3 he writes this:

And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, “if indeed we should call him a man”; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who received the truth with pleasure. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Greeks. “This man was the Christ [or Messiah]”. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross on his impeachment by the chief men among us, those who had loved him at first did not cease; “for he appeared to them on the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of wonderful things about him”; and even now the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out.

The “” parts of the above quote are disputed among scholars whether they belong in the original text or not. Many antagonists are quick to point this out, for it seems that the manuscript would fail the internal test, since Josephus is a Jew, he would not likely refer to Jesus as the Messiah or speak so highly of Jesus.

However, some scholars defend the authenticity of this document by claiming that Josephus may be speaking tongue-in-cheek in parts of this section, and that the reference to Jesus as the Christ may be a general reference to Jesus, since he was known as "Christus" to the Roman world. If the “” portions are granted as authentic, then this passage of Josephus confirms much of the Gospels' portrayal of Jesus. However, it doesn’t matter if they are or not. Even without the questionable “” parts, Josephus reports many facts of Jesus' life which coincide with the Gospels and confirm their truth from an independent non-Christian source. There are other significant texts from Josephus that confirm the Gospels historical claims, which I will not get into for the sake of saving space (lol, look at all the space I wasted already), but from the information given above, I think it is safe to conclude from Josephus' writings, and some of the others I have mentioned, that we have a corroborative source for some of the major claims of the Gospels like the fact that Jesus existed and was considered a great teacher and miracle worker. Let's look at some other external sources which can be used to test the Gospels.

There are a number of other non-Christian and even non-Jewish sources which match the historical picture given by the Gospels. The Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, records that Jesus Christ is the man from whom Christians derive their name when he wrote about Nero's burning of Rome. I mentioned this already, but was discredited without evidence to support the discrediting, of course. Furthermore, from Pliny the younger's letter to Emperor Trajan (dated A.D. 112), we learn of some of the beliefs and practices of the early church, which correspond with the New Testament. Additionally, ancient manuscripts from Suetonius, Lucian, Mara Car-Serapion, Emperor Trajan, Emperor Hadrian, other Jewish sources (like the Talmud), and heretical sources (such as works from Gnostic writers) supports the historical facts given in the New Testament. So, many other ancient texts match the same picture of history given by the New Testament.

Finally, I will assess the information we have from the writings of Luke - the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Luke lists many places, names, and other historically verifiable events, which could be checked to test his accuracy. If Luke was in the habit of making up his history as he saw fit, then he left himself vulnerable to critics who could go and check his story-telling. Historians have confirmed many things Luke records (although not everything), but they have not shown a credible discrepency in all of his work. Among the many confirmation include:

· The census and governorship of Quirinius (Luke 2:1-3)
· Description of Athens (Acts 17), including the agora, the altar to the "unknown god", and designation of "Areopogite" for a member of the court (Acts 17:34)
· Accurate record of Gallio as Proconsul (Acts 18:12)
· Correct description of two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28)
· Accurate explanation of provincial penal procedure (Acts 24:1-9)
· True depiction of invoking one's roman citizenship (Acts 25:18), including the legal formula, de quibus cognoscere volebam (Acts 25:18)
· Description of being in Roman custody (Acts 28:16) and conditions of being imprisoned at one's own expense (Acts 28:30-31)

Indeed there are literally dozens and dozens of more confirmations of historical data given in Luke's writings. With so many confirmations, and no credible discrepencies, it is fair to say Luke's writings have earned respect as historical documents that show accuracy and scrutiny for detail.

So, the Gospels also pass the external test. For they have shown that they dovetail with other historical sources that share information in common with them. These sources include archeology, Jewish writings, Gentile writings, government records, and many other informants not reviewed above. The Gospels have shown with incredible accuracy that whenever their is information that can be verified by other sources that it is going to be on the side of truth. In short, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the New Testament based on the external test.

A few problems with this external consistency claim:

1) The Bible in fact has many historical events wrong. There was no census during the reign of Herod, for example. Most, if not all, of the 'historical events' also cannot be verified by outside sources so this entire claim of external consistency is bunk.

2) Contrary to what has been stated, there is little (if any) evidence to support dating the Synoptics at such an early date. It has been linguistically proven that Luke is dependent on Marcion (dated at 140 CE). John's gospel is an attempted repudiation of the gnostic leader Cerinthus (145 CE) and is partially derived from his writings. Matthew (with its identification of Peter as 'the rock' of the Church) shows evidence of the developing Roman hiearchy which had not come into effect until around 170 CE. Justin Martyr (150 CE) is completely ignorant of the existence of the 4 Synoptics yet only one generation later Irenaeus (175 CE) is defending their existence as the "true canon". As other scholars have pointed out, Irenaeus' "artificial arguments" are indicative of the fact that the notion of the 4 Synoptics as the "only canon" was a novel and new idea that needed defending.

3) As we accurately date the Synoptics at a later date (Luke and John at the very least date past 160 CE), the idea that they are a primary historical source is less and less viable. As before, hearsay and secondary sources are not reliable historical records.

4) There is no mention in any reliable historical sources outside the Bible of the existence of Jesus or Christians prior to approximately 115 CE. That is nearly 100 years after the events in question and hardly reliable sources.

Rather, I think I have shown that the Bible's historical accuracy and faithful transmission is impeccable.

Then why were there so many versions of it at the same time as the precious "Four Synoptics"??

but one option that is not available as an intellectually sound choice is the argument that the Gospels are corrupt documents with historically inaccurate information. It is not intellectually sound either, given the evidence, to say that Jesus was some made up Character.

*chuckles* That depends on how much weight you give to pseudo-science. Personally, I will never regard a religious text as a primary historical source. Especially one that dates to decades after the events in question.

Laterz.