Attacks From Historians

[ATeutonicKnight]

Recently, I heard someone say that they found what they thought to be Jesus’ tomb, and it was opened from the inside by something. However, they said it had an entrance hole somewhere in it. This person also stated that there is no historical aspect of Jesus and there is no one who even says that he existed other than the Bible. I don’t believe any of this, since Tim Staples stated once explained how the Bible fit in with history, and he also stated some historians from that time to stated that he existed. I sometimes wonder why idiot historians/atheists are allowed to exist. All they cause is trouble.

Anyway, does anyone have any thoughts about these dubious claims?

Dominus Vobiscum.

:knight1:

 

[DavidFilmer]

Recently, I heard someone say that they found what they thought to be Jesus’ tomb, and it was opened from the inside by something.

If that were true you would not need to be asking about it on CAF; you would just need to look at the front page of any newspaper. It would be the story of the century.

This person also stated that there is no historical aspect of Jesus and there is no one who even says that he existed other than the Bible.

Has this “historian” actually never heard of the Early Church Fathers? The First Epistle of Clement and the Didache were written around the same time as the Book of Revelation (perhaps earlier). We have many writings from the First and Second Century.

Furthermore, the (pro-Roman) Jewish historian Josephus makes a passing reference to “Jesus, who was called Christ” in his Antiquities, also written before Revelation.

 

[JackVk]

Notice how so many of the early Christians were stoned, crucified, and beheaded by the pagans. What other time in history did anyone die for what they knew was false? Who dies for a lie? Why would the pagans kill the Christians if their God was just a rehashing of the myths of their gods?

 

[GEddie]

The tomb of our LORD has long been known. It’s below Calvary in Old Jerusalem.

And if it was opened from inside, then we know Who did it, since no one would spend the night in a tomb with a dead body. He let Himself out.

ICXC NIKA!

 

[valentino]

Someone told me he spotted Elvis in downtown Fairbanks yesterday.Then he told me that Elvis was a myth because he never saw Elvis perform in Fairbanks.

 

[mcteague]

It is quite a stretch to call these people “historians”. There is nothing in your post to suggest historians are attacking. The most recent historical accounts of Jesus that I know of are “A marginal Jew” and “The historical Jesus”. There may be more recent work. And there is of course Gibbon.
It is also quite true that there is little independent historical information. Jesus and Christianity did not get much press in the very early days. We might like to believe the events in the Bible were significant throughout the empire. But it is just not true.

This does not mean the things people here believe are not true, or that you are fools. It just means there is not a lot of evidence. In any event I recommend that you not depend on the “National enquirer” or the “Weekly World News” for “historical” analysis.

By the way, your slight at Atheists was uncalled for.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

It is quite a stretch to call these people “historians”. There is nothing in your post to suggest historians are attacking. The most recent historical accounts of Jesus that I know of are “A marginal Jew” and “The historical Jesus”. There may be more recent work. And there is of course Gibbon.
It is also quite true that there is little independent historical information. Jesus and Christianity did not get much press in the very early days. We might like to believe the events in the Bible were significant throughout the empire. But it is just not true.

This does not mean the things people here believe are not true, or that you are fools. It just means there is not a lot of evidence. In any event I recommend that you not depend on the “National enquirer” or the “Weekly World News” for “historical” analysis.

By the way, your slight at Atheists was uncalled for.

I didn’t really mean the “slight” at atheists. I was just annoyed because everywhere I go there’s an atheist/Catholic-hating Protestant who’s so sure they know everything they’d die for it. I’m just sick of meeting one of these people everywhere I go. I wouldn’t actually wish death upon anyone, no matter how many things they did that would make people think they deserved it.

Dominus Vobiscum.

:knight1:

 

[Contarini]

Recently, I heard someone say that they found what they thought to be Jesus’ tomb, and it was opened from the inside by something. However, they said it had an entrance hole somewhere in it. This person also stated that there is no historical aspect of Jesus and there is no one who even says that he existed other than the Bible.

Was this person a historian? If not, what is the reason for the title of your thread?

There was a claim a few years ago that Jesus’ tomb had been found, though I didn’t hear anything about an entrance hole. At any rate, the claim was made by some rather dubious folks and wasn’t taken too seriously by scholars.

I don’t believe any of this, since Tim Staples stated once explained how the Bible fit in with history

Maybe you should study some history yourself instead of just trusting Tim Staples. Or, if that’s not something to which you are called, how about trusting the Church as a whole instead of one contemporary apologist? What does Tim Staples have to offer that centuries of Popes and saints and scholars don’t?

The early non-Christian references to Jesus are rather dubious. The pagan ones seem to be simply reporting what Christians said and are thus not independent evidence. Josephus is the most solid of the lot, but pretty much everyone agrees that the text as we have it has been interpolated by Christians, so it’s hard to be sure just what the original text said. I believe there has been an Arabic version of the text discovered which has a more plausible reading of the passage in question.

sometimes wonder why idiot historians/atheists are allowed to exist.

Allowed by whom?

All they cause is trouble.

It is not clear from your post that you have actually read or talked to any historians, so your opinion may not count for much. However, truth is often troublesome. (That has nothing to do with the silly claim you refer to in the OP.)

Anyway, does anyone have any thoughts about these dubious claims?

That real historians are the best people to refute them.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It is quite a stretch to call these people “historians”. There is nothing in your post to suggest historians are attacking. The most recent historical accounts of Jesus that I know of are “A marginal Jew” and “The historical Jesus”.

There are a lot of them. Ben Witherington wrote a good survey of them (though it came out in 1996 and there have been more since) called *The Jesus Quest. *You can also go to his blog for up-to-date reviews of various books relating to the Bible and to Christianity generally. (Note: he’s an evangelical Protestant and Catholics should note his bias–for instance, when the “James ossuary” was found he was too quick to accept it as authentic and to claim that it contradicted the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I often disagree with him, but he’s a prolific scholar who writes in ways that non-scholars can understand and upholds the basic claims of Christianity, so he’s a very valuable resource.)

N. T. Wright is one of the more conservative “Jesus questers.” E. P. Sanders is a good representative of the more liberal (but not radical) historical-Jesus scholarship. Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eye-Witnesses argues that the Gospels were based on eye-witness testimony.

One point raised by the OP that I didn’t address is that yes, our knowledge of Jesus does almost entirely depend on the NT. (Josephus is the rather complicated and qualified exception.) However, that doesn’t provide a reasonable basis for claiming that Jesus didn’t exist, only for claiming that apart from faith it’s hard to be sure which parts of the Gospels are historically reliable. But we have this problem with other important religious figures, like Buddha and Muhammad. In fact, the first biographies of Buddha weren’t written till centuries after his death–yet no one questions that there was a historical Gautama and that the stories about him have a core of truth.

And there is of course Gibbon.

Who is worth reading (in fact I’m reading him at the moment) but not the best source for modern historical information.

By the way, your slight at Atheists was uncalled for.

And the slight at historians far less called-for!

Edwin

 

[patrick457]

Recently, I heard someone say that they found what they thought to be Jesus’ tomb, and it was opened from the inside by something. However, they said it had an entrance hole somewhere in it.

Are you referring to the Talpiot Tomb, or to something else?

This person also stated that there is no historical aspect of Jesus and there is no one who even says that he existed other than the Bible.

Ah, the ‘Jesus-is-Myth’ theory, which proposes that He was just a fictional figure made up by some folks.

In a sense, the claim that the New Testament is our primary source for the existence of Jesus is correct. While most folks would point to, say, early Christian testimony or even Josephus’ short passage on Jesus or Tacitus’ and Suetonius’ short references to Chrestians (sic) and their founder, a certain Chrestus (sic), what they only really tell us is that these historians knew of people living at the time they wrote who believed that the founder of their group was someone named Jesus (Christ), so in a sense, they are indirect, dependent, testimony.

Unlike other figures in the Gospels such as, say, Pontius Pilate or the Herods or Caiaphas, we don’t have direct physical evidence for Jesus. Pilate has his inscription; Caiaphas has his ossuary; Herod the Great has his infrastructures. But we don’t have, say, letters written by Jesus’ own hand or individual artifacts from the 30s AD listing His name or portraits from His lifetime. All we know about Jesus of Nazareth stems from the memories of His disciples, who later committed those same memories into writing.

But then again, one could argue that the only reason we only know that a good number of people from antiquity (aside from those who did leave behind artifacts proving their existence) actually existed is because of indirect testimony: because somebody cared enough to write about them. Yet no one questions the historicity of most of these personages.

That being said, mythicists do throw the baby with the bathwater. The disciples, from early on, when they talk about Jesus, speak of Him mainly in the post-Resurrection context. For His followers, Jesus is not just some wandering preacher from the Galilee who was eventually executed, He is the Messiah and the Son of God to boot. Those who argue for the non-historicity of Jesus often seem to be misled by the rather exalted language Christians use for Christ, mistakenly thinking that it rules out the possibility that Jesus is an historical figure.

 

[patrick457]

There are a lot of them. Ben Witherington wrote a good survey of them (though it came out in 1996 and there have been more since) called *The Jesus Quest. *You can also go to his blog for up-to-date reviews of various books relating to the Bible and to Christianity generally. (Note: he’s an evangelical Protestant and Catholics should note his bias–for instance, when the “James ossuary” was found he was too quick to accept it as authentic and to claim that it contradicted the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I often disagree with him, but he’s a prolific scholar who writes in ways that non-scholars can understand and upholds the basic claims of Christianity, so he’s a very valuable resource.)

Dr. Ben has another blog as well!

N. T. Wright is one of the more conservative “Jesus questers.” E. P. Sanders is a good representative of the more liberal (but not radical) historical-Jesus scholarship. Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eye-Witnesses argues that the Gospels were based on eye-witness testimony.

I actually like both Tom Wright and Ed Sanders (in fact, I have Sanders’ The Historical Figure of Jesus on my shelf right now): looking at their views provides me IMHO with a certain balance. I haven’t gotten around to Bauckham yet, but his views seems to be interesting.

 

[roger_pearse]

It is quite a stretch to call these people “historians”. There is nothing in your post to suggest historians are attacking.

Quite right. There is a tendency for cranks to pretend that scholars support their theories. But this sort of stuff is pure rubbish. Always ask for details on just who the “historians” are, and whether they are fringe or mainstream.

Better still, than this process of arguing from authority, consult the primary sources and discuss those.

By the way, your slight at Atheists was uncalled for.

Um, well we do know what the religious affiliation of most of these headbangers is, you know? But good to encounter an atheist who isn’t one of that seemingly endless league.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

If that were true you would not need to be asking about it on CAF; you would just need to look at the front page of any newspaper. It would be the story of the century.

Has this “historian” actually never heard of the Early Church Fathers? The First Epistle of Clement and the Didache were written around the same time as the Book of Revelation (perhaps earlier). We have many writings from the First and Second Century.

Furthermore, the (pro-Roman) Jewish historian Josephus makes a passing reference to “Jesus, who was called Christ” in his Antiquities, also written before Revelation.

Whoa, back up there. Let’s not be too greedy.

Josephus is not a contemporary source for the physical existence of Jesus. There are no contemporary sources.

As an historian, it disappoints me that people go off half-cocked on this all the time.

@Patrick: Agreed for the most part. Historians have little in the way of evidence for the physical existence of Jesus. This matter is further complicated by the woeful standards of history practiced at that time.

 

[Uranage]

Recently, I heard someone say that they found what they thought to be Jesus’ tomb, and it was opened from the inside by something. However, they said it had an entrance hole somewhere in it. This person also stated that there is no historical aspect of Jesus and there is no one who even says that he existed other than the Bible. I don’t believe any of this, since Tim Staples stated once explained how the Bible fit in with history, and he also stated some historians from that time to stated that he existed. I sometimes wonder why idiot historians/atheists are allowed to exist. All they cause is trouble.

Anyway, does anyone have any thoughts about these dubious claims?

Dominus Vobiscum.

:knight1:

Here’s an article dealing with the “lost tomb” of Jesus: garyhabermas.com/articles/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus/losttombofjesus_response.htm