Huh. So... there's no contemporary evidence of Caesar, eh...
_m.jpg)
You were saying???
Posted on 01/31/2006 9:37:58 AM PST by SirLinksalot
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. The Jesus trial Posted: January 31, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah
If it wasn't so sad, you'd have to laugh at the Italian trial in which a Catholic priest is being sued by an atheist for deceiving people into thinking Jesus was an actual historical figure.
Of course, there is far more reason to believe Jesus actually walked the face of the Earth than there is to believe Socrates did. We not only have the biblical accounts of His life, but, for those who require them, extra-biblical ones from Roman historians Tacitus and Josephus.
But that really misses the point.
Simon Greenleaf, one of the principal founders of the Harvard Law School, was a skeptic like the Italian atheist. He set out from a scholarly and legal perspective to make a much narrower point – disprove Jesus was the Son of God and that He rose from the dead through a careful investigation of the Gospel witnesses.
But he came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the Resurrection actually happened.
"The great truths which the apostles declared, were that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in him, could men hope for salvation," wrote Greenleaf.
Greenleaf explained that the apostles had absolutely no motive for fabrication – and every human motive to recant their stories. But they did not.
"It would also have been irreconcilable with the fact that they were good men," Greenleaf continued.
Greenleaf concluded: "Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard."
I agree.
Yet it seems the more learned we supposedly become, the more difficult it is for some to see the Truth.
What do you think? Were the apostles ordinary men who witnessed the extraordinary? Or were they extraordinary men who gave their own lives for the strange purpose of deceiving others?
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business. |
> I'm not really interested in Apollonius
Why not? He lived about the same time as Jesus, and was reputed to have pulled off much the same set of miracles including the resurrection thing.
> what must have transpired to make this the commonly accepted view of historical fact?
The religion succeeded. Same reason why Mohammad and Buddha are "accepted" to have done a series of things that today in the west we'd find highly unlikely.
Why do you accept Jesus but not Apollonius?
Apollonius is not relevant to this topic and we have enough excuses for distraction without it.
We're discussing the basic facts of Jesus's existence.
And your position is that historians accept his existence because Christianity survived.
Would Thor's existence be accepted by historians if Greek mythology survived?
The Assyrian religion did not survive, yet historians agree Sargon existed.
Your premise holds only within believers of a religion. It does not outside, and it fails to explain why non-Christian historians hold that Jesus did exist.
Do you have a better theory?
Who were the "twelve?"
You are clearly challenged in your Bible knowledge. Read the first chapter of the book of Acts to find your answer.
Apollonius has been used by freethinkers to muddy the truth about the historicity of Jesus' life. Actually Apollonius lived a little later than Jesus, 2-98 AD, Jesus lived approximately 1BC - 32 AD. His life story which you are relying upon is based upon an account by Philostratus, who was not an eyewitness of Apollonius, wrote his biography anyway in about 215 AD, over one hundred years removed from the events, based upon hearsay. HIs 'miracles' are not compatable with those of Jesus. Philostratus', work is generally regarded as a religious work of fiction.
Contrast this with the documentary evidence for Jesus who was written by eyewitnesses, or in the case of Josephius nearly contemporary. The Gospel of Mark was written within 40 years of Jesus' death. Infact, most scholars have the Gospels finished no later than 90 AD (sixty years after the event) with many much sooner (50-70 AD). If Q and Matthew and Lukes sources are valid, then the written evidence pushes much much closer. Paul wrote within 30 years of Jesus' death. This is equivalent to making up a story about the Kennedy assassination and that he came back to life too. We know that didn't happen because we have the eyewitness testamony which would instantly debunk such a story. Christianity had to face the same standard in the first generation, and their chief antagonists of the era - the Jewish religious leadership, was unable to disprove the accounts. Paul's strong assertion that you refered earlier to in 1 Corinthians of the physical presence at that time of eyewitnesses (remember Paul, incase you didn't know, wrote this mid-50's AD) for doubters to interview and challenge. This aspect is totally lacking in the writings of Philostratus.
Do you believe Julius Caesar existed? There is far more historical evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar. Documentary evidence for Caesar is hundreds of years after the event. Throw out the evidence for Jesus, then you must throw out the evidence for Caesar.
As far as the 'resurrection thing' the question boils down to which account is better supported Apollonius or Jesus. According to Philostratus "Concerning the manner of his death, if he did die, the accounts are various.". However, for Jesus' manner of death and His resurrection, the accounts are uniform and supporting - not various
. The foundation message of the first generation Christian church was the resurrection and the testamony of the eyewitnesses. This testamony is absent from the Apollonius myth.
> There is far more historical evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar.
Riiiight.
Do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously after trotting *that* out?
>Apollonius is not relevant to this topic...
Couple that with this howler:
> Would Thor's existence be accepted by historians if Greek mythology survived?
See if you can work out your major mistakes here.
> The Assyrian religion did not survive, yet historians agree Sargon existed.
And Christians agree that Mohammad existed. Heck, most of 'em are even reasonable sure that L.Ron Hubbard was an actual person. Does that mean they performed miracles?
Bump for later
Ah, I see the problem with our discussion. I should have made it more clear. I am not and have not brought miracles into it. I am asking solely about the main focus of the Italian trial.
So, perhaps, I should ask you clearly: Do you agree with historians in the basic fact of the existence of Jesus? That he existed in the time and place?
> Do you agree with historians in the basic fact of the existence of Jesus? That he existed in the time and place?
Don't know.
However, there's a problem: when it comes to characters like this, it's difficult to separate the man from the mriacles. Let's say for the purposes of arguement there *was* a feller named Jesus (Yeshua, whatever) who lived at that time and palce. Further, let's say he annoyed the local priesthood in some way... say, he nailed the head honchos daughter, or publicly argued with him on theological grounds. So they had him nailed up. A few of his drinking buddies got together and cobbled together the gospels over a few gallons of wine, passed them around and after a few years, BLAM! New religion.
This is a *very* different Jesus. But there was, in this hypothetical, a guy by that name in that place. Would it thus be fair to say that "Jesus really existed?" I woudl argue "no." When someone is so intrinsically wrapped up in a certain set of events, events that define him... you take those events away and the man ain't there no more.
There are cults that arise around and after the death of some - it happened with Napolean for example. And with Julius Ceasar.
However, the historical figure's existence does not disappear because of these future events.
So, I still don't understand, rather can't believe, your answer here:
> Do you agree with historians in the basic fact of the existence of Jesus? That he existed in the time and place? Don't know.
You have no agreement/disagreement one way or the other? Would you reconsider the question?
Do you discount historians on it completely? Is it 50/50 for you? There is as much evidence for you that he did not exist as there is that he did? If so, how do come to that conclusion, based on what evidence? Excepting your religious views or faith that is.
> You have no agreement/disagreement one way or the other?
Pretty much accurate. History is replete with chracters who are described by numerous independent observers... observers who are themselves described by others as being reliable. At some point, it becomes easy to accept the existence of soem historical figure... Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Orville Wright, so on, because of the vast preponderance of the evidence. For them, the "greater miracle" would be that there was some great conspiracy to invent them. But for Jesus, who is inconsistently described by people who are pretty much unknwons, and who was described doing things that sure ring as fictional, and who has no *other* verifying documentation... well...
Who is John Galt?
So you think historians have been duped, hoaxed, on this one?
So, I would still appreciate your reply to my second major question: How do you think it all came about. The synoptics, Paul and Peter, the Jerusalem Council, the Apostolic Fathers, Polycarp, Justin Martyr on up...?
You weren't serious about "A few of his drinking buddies got together and cobbled together the gospels over a few gallons of wine.." I don't think.
So what's your likely scenario for the hoax's beginning and development into Christianity today?
A hoax theory without a historical Jesus of course..
In your view, how would that have gone to get from A.D 50 to today?
Or possibly you don't take the time to understand what you perceive is a dilemma because of your preconception that it is false.
Here is the answer to your dilemma. The day of Preparation is the day he was crucified. The "next day" begins at sundown. The problem you have is in not taking the time to understand the writers words. For Hebrews the day begins (like creation) in darkness and becomes light.
Ever hear of Matthias? Prolly not because he was sworn in in a low key ceremony.
> How do you think it all came about.
In an era with very little in the way of accurate and complete written records.... once you've "established" that a person existed, then it's pretty hard to prove that person *didn't* exist. Remember the newpaper reporter about two decades ago who wrote a series of Pulitzer-prize winning articles featuring a (IIRC) 10-year-old heroin addict? Turns out the reporter made the kid up. Didn't exist. I know.... shocking that someone in our media would do such a thing. But if the reporter hadn't fessed up... people would still believe that kid existed. And why wouldn't they?
> You weren't serious about "A few of his drinking buddies got together and cobbled together the gospels over a few gallons of wine.."
Of course not. As I said, hypothetical.
> So what's your likely scenario for the hoax's beginning and development into Christianity today?
Explain the success of Scientology in an era when information is infinitely faster and available than in 50 AD. Explain the rise of Mormonism when based on what sure sounds like a patently silly tale. Explain the success of Muslims finding converts among westerners.
Once a religion gets going, it's hard to stop. And having a shaky or downright fraudulent foundation does not seem to slow down many religions.
You are either historically challenged or are being intellectually dishonest in regards to evaluating the evidence of the historic person of Jesus. The following article written by Edward Warren summarizes the comparison better than I could in my own words.
Much of our knowledge of the Caesars is dependent upon the writings of the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, who wrote about A.D. 100-115. We have no originals from his hand and only half of the thirty books of histories which he wrote have survived the ravages of time in the form of two manuscript copies. One of these manuscripts is from the tenth century and the other from the eleventh century. That means that there are time gaps of 800 to 1000 years from the originals written by Tacitus himself to the only two copies of his work that we presently possess. Now, while that is quite a distance in time removed from the original writings, this kind of manuscript evidence does not cause undue concern among our classical scholars.
About this same quality of manuscript evidence is characteristic of all the classical histories. Consider Julius Caesar's account of his Gallic Wars, which he wrote between 58 and 50 B.C. While there are several good manuscript copies, the oldest is about 900 years removed from Caesar. Quite a gap! Then, there are two historians from deep antiquity, Thucydides and Herodotus, who wrote during the fifth century before Christ. Of the eight manuscript copies from Thucydides, the earliest is about A.D. 900. That leaves a gap of some 1300 years from the original history to our best copy! And the manuscript attestation for Herodotus is said to be about the same. Yet there is not a classical scholar who would yield a single manuscript copy simply because they are removed by such a gap of time from the originals.
A striking contrast exists between the abundance of New Testament manuscripts and the comparative poverty of the classical copies. There are right now some four thousand copies of the Greek New Testament. Some of these are very ancient, two of them dating back to A.D. 350, leaving a time gap of only 250 years from the original writers to our copies. These two oldest and best copies (each in a book form called a codex) are the Codex Siniticus (so called since it was found in 1844 in the monastery of St. Catherine at the foot of Mt Sinai by the German Bible scholar Constantine Tischendorf) and the Codex Vaticanus (so named because it is kept in the Vatican in Rome). This evidence alone is superior to that for Tacitus' writings. Then there is the Codex Alexandrinus, which is displayed along with the Sinaiticus in the British Museum, and the Codex Bezae from the fifth or sixth century, now located at Cambridge University. And in addition to these, there are hundreds more copies of the quality of the classical manuscripts.
Inasmuch as the classical writings are received as authentic histories on a manuscript basis, which is not nearly as qualitative as that for the New Testament, then how much more should we be confident of the authentic nature of the New Testament. Professor Bruce makes an observation from this basis, apparently with tongue-in-cheek, that "If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."(27) Also, the Jewish scholar, J. Klausner, said, "If we had ancient sources like those in the Gospels for the history of Alexander or Caesar, we should not cast any doubt upon them whatsoever."(28)
27. Bruce, New Testament Documents, p. 15.
28. Will Durant quoting Klausner, Caesar and Christ, p. 557.
My credability has withstood external review. Too bad yours hasn't on this topic.
Huh. So... there's no contemporary evidence of Caesar, eh...
You were saying???
True.
But the motivation of the individual elicting the devotion also has to be considered as it impacts the effects of that devotion - sometimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.