Reliability of the NT when it comes to the prophecies and claims about Jesus

[Randy_Carson]

No, pious fiction which is something quite different but you’re right that I’m saying that we don’t have to ‘believe’ an entire narrative just because it contains some references to events or places that have an existence outside that text - in other words, the fact that there is a King’s Cross Station doesn’t mean that there’s a magician called Harry Potter.

This is a valid point.

Now, I’m not sure I understand the first sentence. Are you saying, “No, the gospels are not historical fiction. They are pious fiction.”?

If so, please explain the difference.

I would point out the following:

JK Rowling did not suggest to anyone that she was writing anything other than pure fiction. In contrast, in two of the gospels, we read explicit statements by the authors that they were attempting to write accurate accounts (whether they succeeded or were LYING about their intentions remains to be determined). These statements are:

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

and

John 21:24-25
This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

The historian, Eusebius, notes the following:

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to MARK, the author of the Gospel. It is in the following words: “This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning MATTHEW he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.14-17)

Isn’t it interesting, Kaninchen, that Eusebius cites Papias who said that Mark recorded the sayings of Jesus which he heard from Peter accurately but “not indeed in order” and that Luke specifically states that he is writing an “orderly account”.

Is that just a coincidence? Or was Luke aware of Papias’ comments and Mark’s un-ordered account and specifically stated that he was taking a different approach in the writing of his own reportage?

 

[Kaninchen]

This is a valid point.

Now, I’m not sure I understand the first sentence. Are you saying, “No, the gospels are not historical fiction. They are pious fiction.”?

If so, please explain the difference.

Ah, I’m saving that for later.

JK Rowling did not suggest to anyone that she was writing anything other than pure fiction. In contrast, in two of the gospels, we read explicit statements by the authors that they were intentionally writing an accurate account.

Stating something isn’t proving something and I don’t see citing old Christian polemicists as a sure route to the whole “that what historicity/reliability exists ‘proves’ that the rest of the text is accurate reportage and thus proves Jesus’ divinity,” stuff you’re supposed to be going to provide.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m afraid we’d diverge from the start, from the whole birth narrative onward and that’s the problem because, using that approach, we’d merely spend our time heading down a plethora of culs-de-sac.

It’s Josh McDowell time again.

:nope:

J. Warner Wallace.

But I recognize the pattern in your response, so I’ll move on.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ah, I’m saving that for later.

Stating something isn’t proving something and I don’t see citing old Christian polemicists as a sure route to the whole “that what historicity/reliability exists ‘proves’ that the rest of the text is accurate reportage and thus proves Jesus’ divinity,” stuff you’re supposed to be going to provide.

It’s just another link in the chain of evidence, Kaninchen.

1. The texts that we have today accurately contain the words of the original manuscripts.
2. The gospels were written early enough to contain actual eyewitnesses accounts.
3. The authors of the gospels intended to write accurate accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

So far, you have offered no argument suggesting that one or more of these three points is wrong.

If this were a public debate, how do you think the audience would be responding to the strength of your arguments v. mine as they now stand?

 

[Kaninchen]

It’s just another link in the chain of evidence, Kaninchen.

1. The texts that we have today accurately contain the words of the original manuscripts.
2. The gospels were written early enough to contain actual eyewitnesses accounts.
3. The authors of the gospels intended to write accurate accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

So far, you have offered no argument suggesting that one or more of these three points is wrong.

If this were a public debate, how do you think the audience would be responding to the strength of your arguments v. mine as they now stand?

Depends if they’re able to spot when somebody has stretched the ‘evidence’ well beyond breaking point, whether they’re able to tell the difference between assertion and proof, stuff like that. Or they may know that Christian biblical scholarship isn’t as uniform, nor as mechanistic as you’d like to present it.

Your assertions and a few Christian polemicists don’t add up to proof, Randy. For all your self-congratulation, proof seems terribly hard to come by.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Depends if they’re able to spot when somebody has stretched the ‘evidence’ well beyond breaking point, whether they’re able to tell the difference between assertion and proof, stuff like that. Or they may know that Christian biblical scholarship isn’t as uniform, nor as mechanistic as you’d like to present it.

Your assertions and a few Christian polemicists don’t add up to proof, Randy. For all your self-congratulation, proof seems terribly hard to come by.

Ironically, Kaninchen, all you have offered in response to the three points I have made thus far is your own assertion that my points are mere assertions.

Will you be quoting any scripture, citing any authors, or making a logical argument of any kind to dismantle any or all of the three?

This ought to be duck soup for someone with as much online apologetics experience as you…but so far, I have placed three arguments on my side of the scale and you have responded with bupkis.

The Ham Radio Infopreneur In You

Believe it or not, there is an infopreneur (online entrepreneur) in many of us! Often, all you need to make it bloom is proper guidance. You can get it here.

www.hamradiosecrets.com

 

[Randy_Carson]

Scott M. Sullivan, PhD

If general reliability is established, the assumption is that the whole is factual unless there is good reason to think otherwise. This is a way for a document to earn our trust. If that happens, then a historically favorable presumption prevails. Once established as a generally reliable document, a historically favorable presumption prevails at that point, and the burden of proof falls on the deniers.

Michael Licona, PhD

If we just allow a methodological skepticism or a hermeneutic of suspicion, typically we allow a world-view to guide our historical investigation, and it’s the world-view of the skeptic that is guiding that historical investigation. The problem is manifest, bad philosophy corrupts good history. And so, that’s why what we should do is approach the text with neutrality and let the facts speak for themselves. If a skeptic says, “Well, I don’t believe in the gospels” and then wants to show that the gospels aren’t historically reliable, then the burden of proof is on the skeptic to show that the gospel is not historically reliable.

Craig Blomberg, PhD

Scholars sometimes talk about a hermeneutic of suspicion. Hermeneutics is just a fancy word for an approach to interpretation, and so a hermeneutic of suspicion would mean that one begins, in the case of the Bible or in the case of some other ancient document, suspecting that what one has in front of one is likely not to be accurate until one finds enough reasons to reverse one’s position.

Hermeneutic of suspicion is not appropriate for ancient historical works in general. If it were followed, our world civilization textbooks would be blank until we reached very recent centuries. One has to develop a global perspective on the likely reliability of a given author, of a given work, and then if there are repeated places where they can be discredited, yes, move to a hermeneutic of suspicion. But otherwise, one begins with a hermeneutic of trust or one would not have ancient history to write at all. In fact, that’s what historians regularly do…except that some, when they come to the gospels, change the ground rules which is not fair and is not going to lead to the most reliable historical results, either. We want to have a level playing field.

Craig Evans, PhD

They would never hold these standards against other writers of antiquity; it’s always thrown against New Testament writers.

 

[Kaninchen]

Ironically, Kaninchen, all you have offered in response to the three points I have made thus far is your own assertion that my points are mere assertions.

Will you be quoting any scripture, citing any authors, or making a logical argument of any kind to dismantle any or all of the three?

This ought to be duck soup for someone with as much online apologetics experience as you…but so far, I have placed three arguments on my side of the scale and you have responded with bupkis.

The Ham Radio Infopreneur In You

Actually, I don’t have to do anything, Randy, you’re the one who is supposed to be doing the proving, I’m just waiting around until you come up with something approaching evidence.

So far, you’ve said that:

1 the gospel writers thought they were writing the truth;
2 some ancient Christian polemicist agreed with them; and
3 some modern Christians with a Phd each think the NT is an entirely good thing.

This is proof that:

1 you have a particular view of how the NT came about and how people wrote about stuff then;
2 some ancient Christian polemicist said something useful to you;
3 some modern Christians with a Phd each think the NT is an entirely good thing.

It’s proof of very little else, even with the addition of something from your clichéd clip art collection.

PS, I belong to a class of people who are not hugely impressed by the idea that we should be impressed by somebody putting Phd behind their name.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually, I don’t have to do anything, Randy, you’re the one who is supposed to be doing the proving, I’m just waiting around until you come up with something approaching evidence.

So far, you’ve said that:

1 the gospel writers thought they were writing the truth;
2 some ancient Christian polemicist agreed with them; and
3 some modern Christians with a Phd each think the NT is an entirely good thing.

I’ve said quite a bit more than this and anyone following this thread can see that you are avoiding dealing with the actual arguments I have presented.

Among the many points I have made (which remain unrefuted and unchallenged) are these:

1. 
   *]The texts that we have today accurately contain the words of the original manuscripts.
   *]The gospels were written early enough to contain actual eyewitnesses accounts.
   *]The authors of the gospels intended to write accurate accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
   
   Review posts 107, 109, 114, 115. These contain actual facts and information. Your posts contain no facts, no references to books or scholars, nothing but your empty assertions. You’re certainly entitled to your opinions, but you need to provide substance if you wish me to take them seriously.
   
   As for Christians with PhD’s, do you have credentials that justify the belief that what you write is more credible? If not, will you be citing anyone who does in support of your positions?

 

[Kaninchen]

I’ve said quite a bit more than this and anyone following this thread can see that you are avoiding dealing with the actual arguments I have presented.

Among the many points I have made (which remain unrefuted and unchallenged) are these:

1. 
   *]The texts that we have today accurately contain the words of the original manuscripts.
   *]The gospels were written early enough to contain actual eyewitnesses accounts.
   *]The authors of the gospels intended to write accurate accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
   
   Review posts 107, 109, 114, 115. These contain actual facts and information. Your posts contain no facts, no references to books or scholars, nothing but your empty assertions. You’re certainly entitled to your opinions, but you need to provide substance if you wish me to take them seriously.
   
   As for Christians with PhD’s, do you have credentials that justify the belief that what you write is more credible? If not, will you be citing anyone who does in support of your positions?

1. 
   Erm, Randy, you’re supposed to be proving that what historicity exists within the NT is proof of it all being reportage. How did you put it:
   1. The texts that we have today accurately contain the words of the original manuscripts.
   2. The gospels were written early enough to contain actual eyewitnesses accounts.
   I’m going to go on to show that they were
   1. corroborated by Jewish and Roman sources and
   2. they were accurate in the smallest details.
   3. I’m going to explain that the authors had no ulterior motive.
   Ultimately, all of the evidence points to the fact that the gospels are historically reliable. This approach (evaluation of circumstantial evidence) puts criminals in jail every day, and it should be sufficient to warrant our conviction about Jesus, as well.
   
   So far, we’ve had proof that:
   
   1 you have a particular view of how the NT came about and how people wrote about stuff then;
   2 some ancient Christian polemicist said something useful to you;
   3 some modern Christians with a Phd each think the NT is an entirely good thing.
   
   Now, if you’re going to prove your case, I suggest that you stop getting cross and get on with it.

 

[eddie_too]

what are proofs or what evidence is available to demonstrate that the NT is unreliable?

as many have pointed out many times in these forums, doubts without any evidence are about as pointless and useless as thoughts get.

why doubt the reliability of the NT is a much better question than why believe the reliability of the NT.

the reasons for believing in the reliability of the NT are many, varied, good and reasonable.

I know of no evidence or reason to doubt the reliability of the NT.

unsupported doubt is as bad as blind faith.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Erm, Randy, you’re supposed to be proving that what historicity exists within the NT is proof of it all being reportage. How did you put it:

1. The texts that we have today accurately contain the words of the original manuscripts.
2. The gospels were written early enough to contain actual eyewitnesses accounts.

I’m going to go on to show that they were

1. corroborated by Jewish and Roman sources and
2. they were accurate in the smallest details.
3. I’m going to explain that the authors had no ulterior motive.

Ultimately, all of the evidence points to the fact that the gospels are historically reliable. This approach (evaluation of circumstantial evidence) puts criminals in jail every day, and it should be sufficient to warrant our conviction about Jesus, as well.

So far, we’ve had proof that:

1 you have a particular view of how the NT came about and how people wrote about stuff then;

No, I’ve shown how the science of textual criticism works, documented the number of available manuscripts that are available for review, and provided the opinions of leading experts who have examined these manuscripts.

Your response to that evidence? Silence.

2 some ancient Christian polemicist said something useful to you;

Right. An ancient Christian polemicist quoted an even earlier source regarding the writing of Mark’s gospel and how it relates to a passage in Luke - all of which supports the idea that the gospels were written EARLY enough to have been the work of eyewitnesses or those who interviewed them.

Your response to that evidence? Silence.

3 some modern Christians with a Phd each think the NT is an entirely good thing.

No, some modern Christians who have the credentials to warrant our paying attention to what they have to say have pointed out that general reliability based upon a hermeneutic of trust is a reasonable position.

Your response to these scholars? Silence.

Now, if you’re going to prove your case, I suggest that you stop getting cross and get on with it.

Oh, I’m proving my case, alright. So, next up…extra-biblical corroboration or should we look at the archaeological discoveries that have proven the authors of the NT knew what they were talking about?

Your pick.

 

[DCNBILL]

It would seem that there is one piece of the puzzle that is always missing here.

Christ came to earth to do His thing.

He established a group of followers and taught them about how God is.

He also made the claim that He was indeed God Himself.

He ratified His assertion that He was God by rising from the dead.

He gave His Holy Spirit (also God) to His followers and told them to go into the world and teach all that He had taught and to Baptize those that they taught in the name of The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit (the 3 persons in the 1 God)

The followers form a “Church” and write the story of this Jesus Christ so that it may be passed from generation to generation.

Now comes the crux of the biscuit. Not everyone in every generation believe this story or in this God who became man, not even all of the people who were around and saw and heard what He did and said believed.

Why would God go through all of that trouble and not even convert all of the people who He interacted with let alone all of those of the Jewish faith whom He was born into?

And while the Church has grown throughout the centuries it still has not converted the world, if this Christ was truly God then why does not everyone believe by now?

2 answers

1. This whole free will thing. God does not force us to do anything. We are called to either believe or not. If God unquestionably revealed Himself to a nonbeliever that would take away that persons free will.
2. Does everyone have to believe to be saved? Apparently not according to the document Lumen Gentium from Vatican II, salvation does come through the Church by the virtue of the works of The Christ but this salvation does extend to those who are outside of the Church, with some stipulations.

So here again we have choices, if one is a Christian outside of the Catholic Church then they must choose to be a “good” Christian following the message of the Gospel then they can be saved.

If one is of the Jewish religion then they are still a member of the chosen people of God so as long as they choose to be a “good” Jewish person, following the Commandments and prayer prescriptions then they can saved.

And so on.

So it appears that God calls each person according to their situation and one has to respond to that call as best as one can given their abilities. The parable of “The Talents” comes to mind here.

It is obvious that God wants there to be some kind of “leap” of faith in everyone especially Christians, especially Catholics they must make that choice to believe and love God using their free will and that apparently not everyone is called to the Faith.

So our free will does not seem to entail choosing to do anything we want to do, apparently our free will is to be used for choosing to believe in our God and to follow His will for us or to not choose God and His will for us.

So it would seem that, while good active Catholics would like everyone to be Catholic because that is what a fully indoctrinated Catholic lives for (evangelization with the heart of a martyr) there will always be those who do not believe yet may be saved through the mercy of God.

 

[Kaninchen]

Oh, I’m proving my case, alright. So, next up…extra-biblical corroboration or should we look at the archaeological discoveries that have proven the authors of the NT knew what they were talking about?

The thing is Randy that I’m quite aware that what you’re presenting as ‘Gospel Truth’ is, basically, smoke and mirrors - that libraries have been filled with Christian scholars arguing about the nature of the text, who wrote what and when, stuff like that. Hence my observation that you’d ‘proved’:

1 you have a particular view of how the NT came about and how people wrote about stuff then

Now, which particular interpretation/set of interpretations is correct is of little importance to me and quite why you expect me to be fascinated by Christian ‘lit crit’ is beyond me.

What you decide to do next is entirely up to you but less smoke and mirrors, I’d suggest.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

5. The authors did write accurate accounts which are verified and corroborated.

Jewish and Roman accounts corroborate the basic story.
The gospels are accurate according to careful studies of geography, topography, culture, style and the names of people in key roles.

Having already covered my points #3 & #4, I will move on to the support for point #5 starting with the archaeological evidence.

Historical details are found in the Gospels and the other books of the New Testament. These include numerous mentions of secular rulers and leaders (Caesar Augustus, Pontius Pilate, Herod, Felix, Archelaus, Agrippa, Gallio), as well as Jewish leaders (Caiaphas, Ananias)—the sort of names unlikely to be used inaccurately or even to show up in a “myth.” Anglican scholar Paul Barnett, in Is The New Testament Reliable? , provides several pages’ worth of intersections between biblical and non-biblical sources regarding historical events and persons. “Christian sources contribute, on an equal footing with non-Christian sources,” he observes, “pieces of information that form part of the fabric of known history. In matters of historical detail, the Christian writers are as valuable to the historian as the non-Christian” (167).

Then there are the specifically Jewish details, including references to and descriptions of festivals, religious traditions, farming and fishing equipment, buildings, trades, social structures, and religious hierarchies. As numerous books and articles have shown in recent decades, the beliefs and ideas found in the Gospels accurately reflect a first-century Jewish context. All of this is important in responding to the claim that the Gospels were written by authors who used Greek and Egyptian myths to create a supernatural man-god out of the faint outline of a lowly Jewish carpenter.

Pay Dirt

Various modern archaeological discoveries have validated specific details found in the Gospels:

• In 1961 a mosaic from the third century was found in Caesarea Maritima that had the name “Nazareth” in it. This is the first known ancient non-biblical reference to Nazareth.
• Coins with the names of the Herod family have been discovered, including the names of Herod the king, Herod the tetrarch of Galilee (who killed John the Baptist), Herod Agrippa I (who killed James Zebedee), and Herod Agrippa II (before whom Paul testified).
• In June 1961 Italian archaeologists excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) uncovered a limestone block. On its face is an inscription (part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar) that reads: “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea.”
• In 1968 an ossuary was discovered near Jerusalem bearing the bones of a man who had been executed by crucifixion in the first century. These are the only known remains of a man crucified in Roman Palestine, and verify the descriptions given in the Gospels of Jesus’ Crucifixion.
• In 1990 an ossuary was found inscribed with the Aramaic words, “Joseph son of Caiaphas,” believed to be a reference to the high priest Caiaphas.

Numerous other finds continue to demolish the notion that the Gospels are mythologies filled with fictional names and events. For example:

John 5:2
Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.

Until the 19th century, there was no evidence outside of John’s Gospel for the existence of this pool; therefore, scholars argued that the gospel was written later, probably by someone without first-hand knowledge of the city of Jerusalem, and that the ‘pool’ had only a metaphorical, rather than historical, significance.

In the 19th century, archaeologists discovered the remains of a pool fitting the description in John’s Gospel. The skeptics were wrong, and the gospel writer was proved right, again.

But there’s more. In addition to the Bethesda Pool, the Gospel of John also says that Jesus healed the blind man at the Siloam Pool.

John 9:7
“Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

The Siloam Pool was discovered in 2005 and was quickly identified with the pool mentioned in John.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Historical Jesus – Jewish, Roman and Pagan References

Josephus (c. 93-94 AD)

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” (Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)

• this text, which definitely mentions Jesus and his crucifixion under Pilate by a well-known Jewish historian of the first century, is hotly disputed because of possible later ‘Christian interpolation’ but the above is the Arabic text found without these ‘Christian’ additions;
• this version leaves the question of Jesus’ messianic status neutral (“perhaps the Messiah”);
• this is another piece corroborating a ‘neutral reconstruction’ of the Testimonium (which is the preferred view among scholars);
• the neutral reconstruction, which isolates and removes the later pro-Christian interpolations, makes good sense of the pattern of ancient Christian witnesses to Josephus (e.g. Van Voorst, page 95-97).

“Upon Festus’ death, Caesar sent Albinus to Judea as procurator. But before he arrived, King Agrippa had appointed Ananus to the priesthood, who was the son of the elder Ananus [or Annas of the Gospels]. This elder Ananus, after he himself had been high priest, had five sons, all of whom achieved that office, which was unparalleled. The younger Ananus, however, was rash and followed the Sadducees, who are heartless when they sit in judgment. Ananus thought that with Festus dead and Albinus still on the way, he would have his opportunity. Convening the judges of the Sanhedrin, he brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law, and condemned them to be stoned to death.” (Antiquities XX, 197; from Josephus, Maier, page 275-276; another translation in Van Voorst, page 83)

• we have a passing but clear reference to Jesus here, and to Jesus’ brother named James (cf. Gal 1:19);
• the overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words ‘the brother of Jesus called Christ’ are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found;
• the passage fits in well with its own context;
• a Christian ‘interpolator’ would have used laudatory language to describe James and especially Jesus, calling him ‘the Lord’ or similar language.

Pliny the Younger (c. 112 AD)

“An anonymous accusatory pamphlet has been circulated containing the named of many people. I decided to dismiss any who denied that they are or ever have been Christians when they repeated after me a formula invoking the gods and made offerings of wine and incense to your image [or statue], which I had ordered to be brought with the images of the gods into court for this reason, and when they reviled Christ [Christo male dicere]. I understand that no one who is really a Christian can be made to do these things. Other people, whose names were given to me by an informer, first said that they were Christians and then denied it. They said that they had stopped being Christian two or more years ago, and some more than twenty. They all venerated your image and the images of the gods as the others did,and reviled Christ. They also maintained that the sum total of this guilt or error was no more than the following. They had met regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as if to a god [carmenque Christo quasi deo decere secum invicem]. They also took an oath not for any crime, but to keep from theft, robbery and adultery, not to break any promise, and not to withhold a deposit when reclaimed.” (Letter 96:10; Van Voorst, page 25)

• Christ is mentioned three times in this letter to the emperor Trajan;
• the text of the two letters (Pliny’s Letter 96, and Trajan’s reply Letter 97) are well-attested and stable, and their authenticity is not seriously disputed;
• supposed ‘Christian interpolators’ would not have testified to Christian apostasy or speak disparagingly of Christianity calling it ‘madness’ (amentia), etc.
• Christ here is the divine leader of this religion, worshiped by Christians, so that cursing him is tantamount to rejecting Christianity (cf. 1 Cor 12:3).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Tacitus (c. 116 AD)

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called ‘Chrestians.’ The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate [Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat]. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race [odium humani generis]. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer’s clothing, or standing on his racing chariot.” (Annals 15:44; Van Voorst, page 41-42)

• Christ is definitely mentioned here by a major Roman historian as being ‘the founder’ of Christianity and as ‘executed in the reign of Tiberius’ under Pontius Pilate;
• there are good reasons to conclude with the vast majority of scholars that the passage is fundamentally sound, despite some difficulties (e.g. compressed style);
• Christian forgers would not have made such disparaging remarks about Christianity;
• the only textual difficulty is the word Christians, Christianoi or Chrestianoi, with the latter being the ‘earliest reading’ although more difficult.

Seutonius (c. 120 AD)

“He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of this instigator Chrestus [Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit].”(Lives of the Caesars, book 5, Claudius 25:4; Van Voorst, page 30)

• Christ appears to be mentioned by this Roman historian under the name ‘Chrestus’;
• besides one textual variant that reads ‘Christ’ (instead of ‘Chresto’) the Latin text is sound;
• a Christian interpolator would more likely have spelled his name correctly, and would not have placed him in Rome in 49 AD or called him a ‘troublemaker’;
• the overwhelming majority of modern scholarship concludes this sentence is genuine, and that ‘Chrestus’ is indeed Christ.

Mara bar Serapion (c. after 73 AD)

“What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews [by killing] their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.” (Letter in Syriac to his son; Van Voorst, page 54)

• while Jesus is not named, and ‘wise king’ is not a common Christological title, Jesus is doubtless meant by ‘their wise king’;
• Mara a Jew writing to his son, speaks of this ‘wise’ Jew as a king, and ‘king [of the Jews]’ is prominently connected to Jesus at his trial (e.g. Mark 15:26);
• the link between the destruction of the Jewish nation and the death of the ‘wise king’ is parallel in Christianity to the destruction of Jerusalem as a punishment for Jewish rejection of Jesus (cf. Matt 23:37-39; 24:2; 27:25; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 19:42-44; 21:5-24; 23:28-31);
• the mention of ‘the new laws he laid down’ is probably a reference to the Christian religion, especially its moral code;
• Mara probably doesn’t mention Jesus directly because it was the Romans who desolated and dispersed the Jews – he does not want to offend his captors, the people who hold his loved ones.

 

[Kaninchen]

What’s all this copy and pasting supposed to prove, Randy?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The overall impression of the information presented in the two previous posts suggests that:

1. 
   *]The gospels were written by people who had firsthand knowledge of Jerusalem, the culture of the Jewish people, the names of cities and obscure villages, the rulers and important people of the day, and so forth. The accuracy of their use of these background bits of information suggests that the authors wrote early, with personal knowledge, and with attention to detail.
   
   *]The Jewish and Roman references to Jesus, James and the early Church powerfully corroborate a number of points contained in the the core message and history of Christianity including: Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he was revered as God by the early Church, and Christians were tortured and martyred for their refusal to worship another God (Caesar).

 

[Randy_Carson]

What’s all this copy and pasting supposed to prove, Randy?

That sometimes I post for the benefit of the lurkers.

Oh, and that the gospel writers were reliable in their accounts of the life of Jesus.