Events in the Bible not corroborated by contemporary historians

[cornbread_r2]

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).

Aside from the fact that little in the Gospels is independently corroborated, another problem is that they are without provenance: that is, we don’t know who wrote them, where they were written or when they were written. Even taken at face value, inconsistencies such as the disparities between nativity stories of Matthew and Luke, for instance, would indicate that they were not intended to be historical accounts.

 

[steve53]

Aside from the fact that little in the Gospels is independently corroborated, another problem is that they are without provenance: that is, we don’t know who wrote them, where they were written or when they were written. Even taken at face value, inconsistencies such as the disparities between nativity stories of Matthew and Luke, for instance, would indicate that they were not intended to be historical accounts.

But they served a purpose for the times.
In the gospels are secondary and tertiary characters that are well-known from secular Roman historians.
A certain author who is known to all but nameless to many charted the histories of these characters and came to several interesting conclusions, like placing the crucifixion at A.D.36, and realizing that the Romans actually protected the early Christians from their Jewish persecutors- for the most part- prior to Nero.

 

[aragonjohn1]

But they served a purpose for the times.
In the gospels are secondary and tertiary characters that are well-known from secular Roman historians.
A certain author who is known to all but nameless to many charted the histories of these characters and came to several interesting conclusions, like placing the crucifixion at A.D.36, and realizing that the Romans actually protected the early Christians from their Jewish persecutors- for the most part- prior to Nero.

one other thing is The amount of records and literature we’ve lost from the first century A.D. is, without a doubt, vast. One need only mention the Library of Alexandria. Other major and ancient texts may have survived only by chance and many other ancient and contempory texts that we only have a hint of (like fragments of works written and passed on before 52 A.D. ) have also pretty much dissappeared.

• catholictruths.com/articles/jesusoutsideevidence.html
• catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-historical-evidence-for-jesus
• google.com/#hl=en&safe=active&q=+site:forums.catholic-questions.org+Catholics+evidence+of+Jesus&sa=X&ei=dLxrUKz1Aoa29gS60oCQAw&ved=0CDoQrQIwAg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=b8685a810d33f364&biw=1273&bih=555

Shalom
God Bless

 

[gus]

The credibility of contemporary historians can not be corroborated.
They have there own bias that cloud history.
As a history student for 60 years the different versions of the same events I have read are mind boggling.

 

[po18guy]

The credibility of contemporary historians can not be corroborated.
They have there own bias that cloud history.
As a history student for 60 years the different versions of the same events I have read are mind boggling.

This. Unless they live in a vacuum, just what on earth is wrong with today’s historians? Is today the first instance in which the losers are attempting to write the history?

 

[steve53]

This. Unless they live in a vacuum, just what on earth is wrong with today’s historians? Is today the first instance in which the losers are attempting to write the history?

Its not the losers necessarily, it’s the people who scream the loudest who are trumping solid historians and the concept of critical analysis.

 

[COPLAND_3]

One thing that I would have someone consider is the age of a document from those times and the chances of it surviving 2000 years. There are a lot of apocrypal accounts that do exist which are also to be considered. But as for a single document that would have be written 2000 years ago in which it just states a fact such as Christ, the chances of it surviving time is highly unlikey compared to the mass volumes of documents written by people who lived and died for Christ and would have preserved those documents by maki.ng copies and protecting them. I can only imagine all the things written about Christ that has not survived the test of time. I would guess that we only have about 1 percent of written documentation from 2000 years ago.

 

[Publisher]

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

Yes…I would be very interested to see this “Roman record” providing this unknown Jewish rabble rousers death sentence. Hopefully you will be kind enough to direct us in the direction as from what I’ve read…no such account exists.

 

[nordskoven]

An “argument from silence” is a logic error. This is a spin on “no archaeological evidence to support the Bible” then the evidence turns up and the critics slink away. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD did not eradicate Messianic Jews i.e. Christians who were told to spread the Gospel. Contemporary fragments do survive to support later transcriptions of the Gospel.

Contemporary news accounts in America made no mention of Stalin’s starvation of the Catholic farmers in the Ukraine numbering in the millions. Contemporary news accounts in America were virtually silent on the slaughter of high school and college-age students at a party in Juarez, Mexico, with Fast & Furious weapons until Univision did a Spanish-language documentary. Arguing from silence in any age is naive.