Evidence for Jesus

[_rcrocket]

Where are the historical protests to the false claim?


Jersey Girl

There are too many to recall and mention. See CARM's own website at http://www.carm.org/evidence/fakedresurrection.htm. "The disciples stole Jesus' body and faked his resurrection. This possibility has been raised by critics ever since Jesus rose from the dead."

See references to early Jewish critics especially seen in Justin Martyr's work, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_body_hypothesis.

crock,

The first link doesn't work for me. Justin Martyr's dialogue is a second century work. I should have been more specific and narrowed my question to first century historical protests. My apologies for the non-carefully worded posts.

You will NOT find any first century criticisms. Zippo; none; nada. Justin's works refer to on-going debates with Jews.

[_richardMdBorn]

I'm not discussing Joseph Smith here.

Course not. I just could not resist a chance to point out your glaring inconsistencies.

Please cite a quote from me that is inconsistent.

Just look above. You, or at least EVs, criticize JSs first vision accounts because they are many years after the event yet you rely on accounts about Jesus that came after him far longer and are quite comfortable with it. That is just for starters. The accounts vary. So do the accounts of Paul's visions. EVs are fine with that.

You argued that I am inconsistent. That requires your citing a statement of mine that is inconsistent. If you want to change it from to Evs in general, you can, but you have changed it nonetheless.

[_richardMdBorn]

GoodKWell, I'm not an expert, but Gilgamesh is believed to have ruled around 2600 BC. We don't know when it was written exactly, but why would that matter?

A basic historical principle is that documents which are closer in time to the events they describe tend to be more accurate. It’s not an absolute rule; but memory tends to dim over time. And in general, primary sources are superior to secondary ones. Thus, most journalists' articles about the invention of GPS are nonsense because they copy the last inaccurate article on the subject. Primary sources, such as my father, are superior to secondary sources on this subject. He developed the key ideas for GPS in 1964 and is a primary source (and his memo 112 from 6/9/64 is also important in this regard).

GoodK This is a flimsy argument and I really wished you would have elaborated on it a bit more. What do you mean by the appearance of historical documents? How do you differentiate between historical documents and what just has the appearance of historical documents?

Let’s examine Luke-Acts

Any examination of the book of Acts is incomplete without some reference to Luke's original purpose for writing as recorded in Luke 1:1-4. Luke's first volume, the Gospel of Luke, is actually the real preface to Acts as well as the Gospel itself.5 The first thing that should be observed is that Luke does indeed claim to be writing an accurate historical account of the life of Christ in the preface to his Gospel, and there is general agreement amongst scholars that Luke intends this statement to extend to his second volume.6 Carson, Moo and Morris have observed how some scholars say that those who claimed to be historians in ancient times were well known for writing from their own biased agenda and therefore cannot be trusted to give an accurate historical account.7 But it should be noted that although it is true that some 'historians' did write more fiction than fact, the best ancient writers were careful to give an accurate presentation of the facts in much the same way that would be expected of modern historians.8 Luke deserves to be placed amongst these ancient historians and only differs from modern historians because he does not set out to present every historical detail but is deliberately selective, choosing to concentrate only on events relevant to the growth of the Church.9 Like the Gospel, the second volume of Luke's history is dedicated to Theophilus who is addressed as "most excellent" (1:1-3). Bruce observes how it has been suggested that because the name Theophilus means 'dear to God', it is simply being used by Luke to refer to the Christian reader in general, and not to a specific historical individual as such.10 However, Bruce continues to point out that this is unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, the use of the title "most excellent" suggests an individual (c.f. 23:26; 24:3; 26:25), and secondly, the literary style in which Luke writes his dedication bears striking resemblance to other historical documents of antiquity.11

It has often been observed that from Acts 16:10 onwards, Luke writes in the first person plural form (16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16).12 Although the most obvious explanation of these particular occurrences is that the material was written by an eyewitness to these events, various efforts have been made to explain these passages otherwise.13 Marshall observes how scholars such as Robbins have suggested that Luke used the word "we" as a mere literary device in the context of sea voyages to give the impression that the writer was experienced in travel and therefore competent as a writer.14 But as Marshall continues to note, such an interpretation seriously brings the honesty of the writer into question.15 A more plausible explanation is that the use of the first person plural sections in the second part of Acts suggests the use of participation by the writer to the events described. This is certainly how Luke's original readers would have evaluated it.16 As for some the earlier chapters of Acts, when Luke is describing the events in the life of Paul, it should be remembered that as a travelling companion to the apostle he would have had immediate access to the information recorded in 9:1-31; 11:25-30; 12:25- 28:31.17 For the rest of Luke's sources Guthrie offers the following explanation. It is known from Colossians 4:10, 14 that Luke was with Mark when Paul wrote this particular letter and could certainly obtained much useful information from him regarding the early growth of the Church. Due to the reference in Acts 12:12 of a prayer meeting in the house of Mark's mother, it is reasonable to assume that this home was a regular meeting place for local Christians and the apostles. On account of this, Mark would certainly have been well aquatinted with much, if not all of the events that preceded the council of Jerusalem.18 Therefore, as one who knew Mark and was a travelling companion with Paul, Luke was certainly in a position to write a reliable and trustworthy historical account of the growth of the early Church.

Probably one of the most convincing arguments for the historicity of Acts is the way that Luke presents information that has shown itself to be accurate from the field of archaeology (some of which will be examined below).28 Details are given of titles, names, various groups of officials, descriptions of the customs and practices of widely differing places; and other historical events are referred to, the result being "a masterpiece of historical accuracy."29 The historian who presents such details has to do it carefully so that they are not shown to be inaccurate. Luke shows himself as accurate every time. 30
Titles used in Acts to describe various authorities have been proven to be correct. McDowell observes how some scholars assumed that Luke's use of the word 'politarchs' (17:6), as a title for civil authorities in Thessalonica was thought to be an inaccurate description since the word was not known to exist in classical literature.31 However, more recent discoveries have shown Luke to be perfectly accurate in his use of this word, since some nineteen inscriptions were discovered that make use of the title, five of which are used in specific reference to Thessalonica.32 The title "chief man" is also an accurate description used by Luke to describe the Roman governor (Publius) of Malta where Paul was shipwrecked (28:7). This official title has been archaeologically attested with the discovery of two Maltese inscriptions, one in Greek and the other in Latin.33

Acts specifically mentions individuals by name and is accurate in describing their positions in society as well as their surrounding circumstances. For example, the proconsul, Gallio is named in Acts 18:12-16. He governed over Achaia and was also known as the brother of Seneca, the famous Roman philosopher and tutor of Nero.34 In ancient Delphi a letter of the Emperor Claudius indicates that Gallio must have become Proconsul of Achaia in A.D. 51.35 Achaia was a Senatorial province from 27 B.C. to A.D. 15, and also from A.D. 44 onward.36 It is particularly interesting to note that Luke accurately calls Gallio by his official title, "proconsul of Achaia." By doing this, Luke departs from his usual custom of calling countries by their general titles and instead of referring to the province of Achaia by the more ordinary name of Greece he does not call Gallio the proconsul of Greece but of Achaia.37 Luke's mention of the Agabus' prophecy of a great famine extending over all the world, being fulfilled in the days of Claudius Caesar (11:27-30) has also been proven to be an historically correct reference when compared with other ancient writings. For example, the historian Suetonius spoke of frequent famines transpiring under Claudius (A.D. 41-54), Eusebius speaks of famine in Greece, and Tacitus, along with Dion Cassius, both make reference to two famines in Rome at this particular time.38 In addition to these sources, Marshall notes that Josephus describes how Helena of Adiabene contributed towards helping the hungry of Jerusalem by sending corn in A.D. 46.39

Archaeology has shown the book of Acts to be accurate in its references to commerce. For example, Acts 16:11-15 records how at Philippi, Paul and his companions converse with some of the cities local women, one of whom is specifically named as "Lydia...a purple merchant from the city of Thyatira..." The womans name is a reminder that Thyatira was situated in the ancient kingdom of Lydia; a place that was well known for the manufacturing of purple dyes extracted from the juice of the madder root.40 In addition to this, there is also inscriptural evidence to show that the trading in purple dye was prevalent in Philippi at this time.41

http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/acts.htm
These are the types of details that lead me to assert that Luke-Acts is historical.

The classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White collaborates Ramsay's work regarding the Book of Acts:
Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted5.

. http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm not discussing Joseph Smith here.

Course not. I just could not resist a chance to point out your glaring inconsistencies.

Please cite a quote from me that is inconsistent.

Just look above. You, or at least EVs, criticize JSs first vision accounts because they are many years after the event yet you rely on accounts about Jesus that came after him far longer and are quite comfortable with it. That is just for starters. The accounts vary. So do the accounts of Paul's visions. EVs are fine with that.

You argued that I am inconsistent. That requires your citing a statement of mine that is inconsistent. If you want to change it from to Evs in general, you can, but you have changed it nonetheless.

Ok

Let me ask, do you think the fact that there are no written accounts of JSs first vision until 12 year after the event allegedly took place is reason to cast doubt on the claim? Does the fact that their are variations in the different accounts place reason for you to cast doubt on the claim?

[_GoodK]

Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted5.

. http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm[/quote]

I read your post carefully, and am afraid I can still find little historicity in the gospels, especially in regards to Jesus.

You'd be well off to read the entire article, but if you don't have time, here is a good excerpt:

The gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus's death -- 35 or 65 years after his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gospes were written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second or third generation. They're not written by Jesus' Aramaic-speaking followers. They're written by people living 30, 40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from. I should point out that the Gospels say they're written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that's just in your English Bible. That's the title for these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn't call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Mathew simpley wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it's the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it. The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts. So where did they get their stories from? .....
How do we know that the stories got changed in the process of transmission? We know the stories got changed because there are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be reconciled with one another. You don't need to take my word for this; simply look yourself...
Year after year Christians trying to cnovert others told them sotires to convince them that Jesus was raised from the dead. These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling all these years. Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed. For that resaon, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical puposes. They're not contemporary, they're not disinterested, and they're not consistent.

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi GoodK. Am enjoying the discussion.

I read your post carefully, and am afraid I can still find little historicity in the gospels, especially in regards to Jesus.

Well, the question first is whether you accpt the assertion that Acts shows that Luke is a careful historian. If it does, why would he suddenly become a lousy historian in the gospel of Luke. The question you raised was the existence of Jesus. Luke was a companion of Paul who knew the disciples. Are you asserting that this careful historian believed within 20 years in a made up person. As I wrote before, that type of assertion creates more problems than it solves.

The gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus's death -- 35 or 65 years after his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gosples were written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second or third generation. They're not written by Jesus' Aramaic-speaking followers. They're written by people living 30, 40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from. I should point out that the Gospels say they're written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that's just in your English Bible. That's the title for these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn't call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Mathew simply wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it's the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it. The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts.

Well, CS Lewis thought that the detail in Jn 8:6 indicated that it was written by an eyewitness or else the testimony of an eyewitness.. Many scholars, including Ehrman, think that the author of the gospel of John was not the disciple but there are strong arguments for asserting that he was and thus was an eyewitness. As Leon Morris mention in his commentary on John, the disciple John is not mentioned in the book. “It’s not easy to think of a reason why any early Christian, other than John himself, should have completely omitted all mention of such a prominent disciple.” (p11) However, there are many mentions of the beloved disciple who almost certainly was John. He also states that “most agree that Aramaic thinking lies behind our Gospel [John] and often Aramaic expressions.” P13 New Int’l Commentary on the New Testament.

Your argument is that Jesus never existed. It seems to me that documents so close to the time of his death by at least one careful historian are evidence to the contrary.

[_GoodK]

Hi GoodK. Am enjoying the discussion.

Hi Richard, I am also enjoying this discussion. I appreciate the tone (Celestial Forum, while lonelier, seems like a much nicer place:)

I read your post carefully, and am afraid I can still find little historicity in the gospels, especially in regards to Jesus.

Well, the question first is whether you accpt the assertion that Acts shows that Luke is a careful historian. If it does, why would he suddenly become a lousy historian in the gospel of Luke. The question you raised was the existence of Jesus. Luke was a companion of Paul who knew the disciples. Are you asserting that this careful historian believed within 20 years in a made up person. As I wrote before, that type of assertion creates more problems than it solves.

To be honest, I'm not sure if Luke is the writer of Acts, or if Acts shows he is a careful historian. Thank you for pointing out where Acts is historically accurate, and I don't doubt that you are correct. But the key is who wrote Luke? Was it really someone who knew Jesus, or knew the disciples of Jesus personally? Or was it

by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second or third generation

?

I think if it is the latter, then the discussion is pretty much over regarding the evidence for Jesus, at least in respect to the gospel of Luke being evidence.

The gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus's death -- 35 or 65 years after his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gosples were written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second or third generation. They're not written by Jesus' Aramaic-speaking followers. They're written by people living 30, 40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from. I should point out that the Gospels say they're written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that's just in your English Bible. That's the title for these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn't call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Mathew simply wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it's the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it. The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts.

Well, CS Lewis thought that the detail in Jn 8:6 indicated that it was written by an eyewitness or else the testimony of an eyewitness.. Many scholars, including Ehrman, think that the author of the gospel of John was not the disciple but there are strong arguments for asserting that he was and thus was an eyewitness. As Leon Morris mention in his commentary on John, the disciple John is not mentioned in the book. “It’s not easy to think of a reason why any early Christian, other than John himself, should have completely omitted all mention of such a prominent disciple.” (p11) However, there are many mentions of the beloved disciple who almost certainly was John. He also states that “most agree that Aramaic thinking lies behind our Gospel [John] and often Aramaic expressions.” P13 New Int’l Commentary on the New Testament.

[/quote]

Your argument is that Jesus never existed. It seems to me that documents so close to the time of his death by at least one careful historian are evidence to the contrary.

Right, well, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed, but yes, same thing.
But we still need to clear up some things about WHO was the careful historian and how reliable the book of Luke is. I think more than 30 years after someone's death (especially considering the time period) is far too long to be considered "close to the time of his death".

[_huckelberry]

Hi Jason, Somebody hid this thread up here in Siberia. That may be part of the reason you are not gettng a lot of response to your comparison to Joseph Smith history and his first vision. You seem to have made the comparison a couple of times.

As far as a twelve year reporting delay I do not see any problem. It doesn't hurt Joseph Smith story at all. I found myself wondering caustiosly if age influences peoples reaction to 30 or 40 year reporting delayss. I am just old enough that I remember interesting historical stuff from 30 or 40 years ago. I suprises me to see those time periods being referenced as a wall against knowledge. But if a person is 25 then fourty years ago could easily seem like something beyond a historical wall.

The variations in the first vision story are more interesting but hardly a sure indicator of truth or falseness of his his story or his undrestanding of some event in his past. It might be noted that unlike the story in Luke which the author admits was researched instead of known firsthand, Joseph Smith first vision stories are actually first person. He was the person who experienced what ever it was he experienced. I might expect a tighter spread in story variation. Yet even with first person there would be natural variations in story telling. They do seem to reflect changing understanding in Joseph Smith mind. I could easily conclude something happened but what it was was understood differntly by Joseph Smith at different times.

I think it is so obvious that the Gospels are second or third hand collections of tradition that I cannot work up any suprise over saying they are not first person. But the variations and conflicts mean there were traditions before theres was a coherent story. That is the exact opposite pattern of what happens when a tradition starts with a vivid fiction.

Consider the comparison, The Book of Mormon is excellent evidence that Joseph Smith actually existed. It is excellent evidence that other early involved Mormons really existed and really believed God was establishing a new church. To make the comparison to a different question, does Nephi exist, simply is a different comparison. Evidence for Nephis existence is comparitively week as there are great big breaks in the historical chain between his time and the story. It is similar to asking whether the New Testament is evidence that Noah actually exited. Not much. I doubt Noah actually did exist while at the same time I see little reational reason to doubt Jesus existed.

[_Jersey Girl]

rcrocket

However, nowhere does Paul quote any saying of Jesus contained in the Gospels. If there was an oral tradition of witnesses to Jesus Christ, one of two things occurred. Paul didn't think they were important enough to quote. Paul didn't know they existed.

When Paul does quote Jesus, the quotes are nowhere found in the Gospels, thus further compelling the conclusion that Paul didn't have the witnesses. If he didn't have the witnesses, one wonders whether they were contemperaneous as you claim.

Robert,

I have to take exception to the above. The nature of the writings attributed to Paul, are largely that of a "church planter" corresponding with his newly founded congregations. That is to say, the message has already been delivered, accepted and the nature of the correspondence is that of encouragement and cautionary. They are not intended to be "gospels".

[_Jersey Girl]

holycross link

I should point out that the Gospels say they're written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that's just in your English Bible. That's the title for these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn't call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Mathew simpley wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it's the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it. The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts. So where did they get their stories from? .....
How do we know that the stories got changed in the process of transmission? We know the stories got changed because there are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be reconciled with one another. You don't need to take my word for this; simply look yourself...

GoodK,

I don't see that the gospels say that they're written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John internally. I agree with the above in that the gospels are that OF Matthew, Mark, Luke and John however to the best of my recollect, internally they do not identify the four as authors. I think they are eye witness accounts that were transmitted via oral tradition however, not authored by eye witnesses.

I can agree that the stories got changed in the process of transmission and I do think that some consideration should be given to changes that took place in the process of transcription. Such details as how many times the cock crowed and that sort of thing are inconsistent between gospels however, for the most part there is overall harmony between them.