Events in the Bible not corroborated by contemporary historians

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobballen_18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bobballen_18

Guest
…according to this post I saw on facebook:

imgur.com/dpnvm

I honestly have no idea whether or not that’s true…and I wasn’t planning on commenting on the post or anything, but I just wanted to know how as a Catholic I would respond to this. Any ideas?
 
Ya the website seems to be a “simple image” website… so a picture website.

And if you look into the actual Roman records around the time of Christ, you will find the written death sentence and crucifixion of Jesus.

And besides:

Would you believe this picture or 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition?

I’m sticking with Sacred Tradition
 
Well, I as a Catholic know that it happened, I’m just wondering how I would respond to this person if confronted. I guess I’m trying to find non-Catholic evidence of these things.

Where would one find these Roman records?
 
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Can they honestly say they’ve scoured every available contemporary writing and found no such corroborating evidence? Besides, even if there were no contemporary historians writing, the Gospels cannot be excluded as historical record. If we exclude something arbitrarily simply because it is a religious text, then we loose much of the source material for a good chunk of history. Besides all that too–the Gospels were written much closer to the events than many other historical accounts of things going on at time.

-ACEGC
 
…according to this post I saw on facebook:

imgur.com/dpnvm

I honestly have no idea whether or not that’s true…and I wasn’t planning on commenting on the post or anything, but I just wanted to know how as a Catholic I would respond to this. Any ideas?
Regarding the massacre of the innocents in Bethlehem, it is true that there is no contemporary evidence from other sources. However, it is certainly something King Herod would have done. He banished his first wife and three-year old son when he took another to secure his position in Judea. He then killed his second wife and daughter some time later. It isn’t out of his character.

Bethlehem was also a small village at the time. The number of children, therefore, probably wasn’t that much to be written in other sources. The Catholic Encyclopedia says the following (emphasis mine):

“The Greek Liturgy asserts that Herod killed 14,000 boys (ton hagion id chiliadon Nepion), the Syrians speak of 64,000, many medieval authors of 144,000, according to Apocalypse 14:3. Modern writers reduce the number considerably, since Bethlehem was a rather small town. Knabenbauer brings it down to fifteen or twenty (Evang. S. Matt., I, 104), Bisping to ten or twelve (Evang. S. Matt.), **Kellner to about six **(Christus and seine Apostel, Freiburg, 1908); cf. “Anzeiger kath. Geistlichk. Deutschl.”, 15 Febr., 1909, p. 32.)”

ww.newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm

Also, regarding the earthquake, I believe there was recent excavation in Jerusalem during this time that showed there was some disturbance in seismic activity. I’m not sure what happened to the study, or whether it was reliable.
 
Well, I as a Catholic know that it happened, I’m just wondering how I would respond to this person if confronted. I guess I’m trying to find non-Catholic evidence of these things.

Where would one find these Roman records?
Jesus has 22,000 references in a standard encyclopedia more than any other person
 
Scripture wasn’t written for the sake of historical accuracy. Scripture was written for the sake of salvation.

Sacred Scripture does contain plenty of historical fact, and plenty of scientific fact. Much of the Bible is historical in nature, but it shouldn’t cause a crisis of faith when a date doesn’t line up or an event cannot be corroborated in the archeological record because historical accuracy is not the point of scripture.

Salvation is the point of scritpure. Those things which God placed in Scripture for the sake of salvation are taught solidly, faithfully and without error.

-Tim-
 
…according to this post I saw on facebook:

imgur.com/dpnvm

I honestly have no idea whether or not that’s true…and I wasn’t planning on commenting on the post or anything, but I just wanted to know how as a Catholic I would respond to this. Any ideas?
I could take a stab at them, but of course it would just be my opinion… Not answering as a Catholic, or as someone who knows history well,… just thoughts.

As far as the Herod killing baby boys thing… I could see how that would not have been written about. Aren’t the kings themselves in charge of what is written? Just like Saddam Hussein brushed off allegations that he killed his own people (if I remember correctly from his trial)… why would it be any different for a king back in that day? By the way, this is one town- Bethlehem- a country-bumpkin type town, not a bustling city.

This website (webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IXt6jGD_YasJ:www.welcometohosanna.com/LIFE_OF_JESUS/003_NazarethToBethlehem2.htm+In+Jesus’s+day,+was+Bethlehem+a+small+town%3F&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari) states- “At the time of Jesus’ birth, Bethlehem was a small town of maybe 500 inhabitants.” From that, we can assess that at any given time, maybe there were about 100 or so baby boys under the age of two, maybe less? (I don’t know I am guessing. -what would you say?) I do find it a bit odd that some records have not been found on this, but it is possible they did not survive. Also keep in mind who writes the history down… usually governments, or religious leaders. If it didn’t matter to them, it probably wasn’t written at all. I’m sure there are lots of things that occurred in history that we would consider ‘noteworthy’ but were not written down.

Also as I see it, Jesus’s triumphant entry into the town wouldn’t have been written down. I think that is silly to assess that it would have been so newsworthy to make ancient tablets. Its not like people had news agencies back then like we do today, telling us every scrap and detail of the smallest occurrence. It would have been an event not unlike a winning team came home to cheering crowds. Its not history making type of stuff. (Unless you were a Christian, and looking back saw it was prophetic.) The same for the money changers event… Really? They think this would have been written down somewhere??? Do you think they would have written about every riff raft ruckus that occurred in the temple?? raises eyebrow incredulously C’mon… weak!

Earthquakes in Jerusalem… I’d like to know how many ancient texts noted every earthquake. I simply don’t know if this was something always noted. You would think it would be, but I don’t know.

The last three are sort of ridiculous to think it would be written about in historical documents. No one would take it seriously that dead men came out of their graves and walked around. C’mon. And if you saw that, you aren’t going to be wanting to discuss it. I would think the sheer fear factor of trying to compute what you just saw would probably override and desire to having it documented publicly. Also people would think you were nuts so you’d probably keep quiet about it, unless with others whom you also know saw. (And its plain to see in Scripture that people had the same types of behaviors regarding that sort of stuff as they do today, only I think they might have been a bit more open to the existence of the supernatural.)

I think all the allegations are pretty silly if you ask me. I think they also come from a mind that is thinking like someone from the 21st century and not Christ’s day and culture. It would be important to study ancient texts to find out what types of things were actually documented and compare them if one were to really want to look into these allegations. Like, are there ancient texts that document ‘supernatural’ occurrences? (Just as like today, I kind of think not- AND no, “odd news” category does not count as no one really considers that ‘news’, that’s why its in the ‘odd news’ category.)
Code:
There could be simple sociological explanations for the reasons why these things weren't written in ancient texts..  Also...  just because there isn't a physical ancient text that we have now, doesn't mean that there never was.   I'm pretty sure somewhere along the line some texts were lost, or discarded or thought of having no real importance and fell into dust.  I used to do genealogical work.. sometimes you'd find that huge stores of written records were burned accidentally in a church fire and so all that information was lost.   

Like it is said they did in Scripture, if the Romans came back to guard the tomb to make sure nobody came to steal the body of Jesus to make it look like he resurrected as they expected might occur, you better believe they weren't 'up' to writing about anything amazing that really occurred with Jesus either.
Silly premises based off of silly conjecture. I really can’t stand the arrogance when people today think they can rewrite history because they believe we somehow know better. There is no way of really knowing, sure… but doesn’t mean we get the freedom to poke holes at our roots (history).
 
Ooh… one more thought… Most people were illiterate and only passed down knowledge through oral tradition. That can vouch for a lot regarding these allegations whether such and such was ‘documented’ / written.
 
As I understand it, Josephus is exactly the kind of historian that we might expect to report these kinds of events, but doesn’t. The things about Jesus that do appear in his works are generally regarded to be, at least, partially fabricated by others.
 
As I understand it, Josephus is exactly the kind of historian that we might expect to report these kinds of events, but doesn’t. The things about Jesus that do appear in his works are generally regarded to be either partially or completely fabricated by others.
Ok…I’m confused… Sorry. Who is Josephus and where is that mentioned in the original post? What does that have to do with anything I said or the OP?
 
Ok…I’m confused… Sorry. Who is Josephus and where is that mentioned in the original post? What does that have to do with anything I said or the OP?
Josephus was a nearly contemporary Jewish historian who wrote about the Palestine of Jesus’s time.
 
Do you have a source for this?
Yes, there are two major Roman Historians that non-Christian and Christian historians trust. They are Josephus and Tacitus. In Josephus’ work “Antiquities of the Jews” he provides valuable insight for 1st Century Judaism and Early Christianity.

This may also interest you (and its on Wikipedia but it is sourced a lot)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
 
Yes, there are two major Roman Historians that non-Christian and Christian historians trust. They are Josephus and Tacitus. In Josephus’ work “Antiquities of the Jews” he provides valuable insight for 1st Century Judaism and Early Christianity.

This may also interest you (and its on Wikipedia but it is sourced a lot)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
You wrote in post #2 of this thread:

And if you look into the actual Roman records around the time of Christ, you will find the written death sentence and crucifixion of Jesus.

Neither of those sources – or any other – provides actual Roman records for either the death sentence or the crucifixion. Some biblical historians assume Tacitus (who was not a contemporary) had access to Roman records for activities in the Levant, but there’s no evidence for that and nothing that he writes about Christians could not have learned from Christian informants.
 
Yes, there are two major Roman Historians that non-Christian and Christian historians trust. They are Josephus and Tacitus. In Josephus’ work “Antiquities of the Jews” he provides valuable insight for 1st Century Judaism and Early Christianity.

This may also interest you (and its on Wikipedia but it is sourced a lot)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Thank you, but I knew about Josephus and Tacitus. I was under the impression that you meant there was a Roman record c. 33 AD that ordered Christ’s death (such as, “I, Pontius Pilate, hereby sentence Jesus of Nazereth to death…etc.”). My mistake. Thank you though.
 
I’ve always found it funny that the Bible is never admissible as historical evidence. IIRC, there are very little in the way of writings on the Gauls and Druids outside of a couple of Roman accounts, yet there is little problem accepting these as gospel (no pun intended).
 
You wrote in post #2 of this thread:

And if you look into the actual Roman records around the time of Christ, you will find the written death sentence and crucifixion of Jesus.

Neither of those sources – or any other – provides actual Roman records for either the death sentence or the crucifixion. Some biblical historians assume Tacitus (who was not a contemporary) had access to Roman records for activities in the Levant, but there’s no evidence for that and nothing that he writes about Christians could not have learned from Christian informants.
Sorry about that… i worded it wrong. 😊
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top