I've recently read some critique of the non-biblical references to Christ, such as Josephus and another I cannot recall, as being highly questionable from a historian's point-of-view. And I've heard others make similiar comments that outside biblical literature there are no other well-established sources, with a similar view of Josephus' comments as the early church's redaction. What sort of non-biblical references are you aware of, and are you aware of the above scrutinies? The argument seems to be that a figure of Christ's importance would have provoked much more commentary among contemporary Roman and Jewish writers than we currently have record of.
Having just completed teaching a survey of the Bible at a local university, I'm kind of on top of this issue. What you're saying is what I keep coming across, namely that the few non-Biblical references to Jesus in Josephus' "Antiquities" and Pliny's account were documents altered by the early Christians. It's impossible to know for sure, of course, as we don't have access to the original documents, and there are hardly any copies from the earliest dates to compare with each other.
See this web page for a good listing of some of those early references.
I've always thought that the existence of the Christian Church itself was proof enough of the existence of Jesus. How else to account for Christianity?
I've often considered the implication of having more and better detailed accounts of Jesus. What if he had come today instead of 2000 years ago? But I have only to turn on the television and watch the news to realize that modern global communication is not necessarily a guarantee of better information!
While I may not totally understand or experience faith I do recognize it (or just that general "buzz" of goodness that one may recognize in one's own heart from time to time), and that no amount of information is a substitute for faith.
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001
As it said somewhere in the Bible, attributed to Judas, but don't hold me to this because it was during my adolescence: If you would have come today, you'd've reached the whole nation; Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.
dontcha get me wrong dontcha get me wrong dontcha get me wrong no, dontcha get me wraw -awe -ou -wung
I've often wondered if it would really make any difference at all if we had total proof of Christ's resurrection--a videotape of the event, for example. What we already have is suggestive evidence so strong in favor of it that I think the burden of proof is almost on those who deny the possibility to explain a lot of things--none the least of which is the willingness to be martyred for the faith by the Apostles.
Still, believing that it happened is not yet spiritual faith. As someone on another thread has noted, even the demons probably believe in the resurrection.
Well, thanks to you, JB, we all had another listen to JC Superstar here at the office (ahhh�self-employment does have its advantages). We usually turn it off not far past the 39 lashes. It gets rather depressing after that. I know that the actual dialogue is not verbatim, but the album does a wonderful job of showing the political side of the whole event. I, of course, find that fascinating. I�ll not challenge the �God�s plan� aspect of all this, but one could make an argument in a �normal� case that if Jesus wasn�t perceived as a threat to someone else�s political power that he would have been left alone.
Phil mention what difference it might make if we had actual video tapes of Jesus' life events. I would submit that if those video tapes showed something that seemed impossible that people would hardly give a notice. They would be written off as fakes. Eye witness accounts from trusted journalists might prove more influential. People can easily ignore the evidence of their own eyes if it doesn't fit what they already believe or want to believe.
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001
and just look at me now
