Ironically as I sit down to compile the requested data regarding secular sources of antiquity of Jesus existence and crucifixion I momentarily flip channels on my television and find four programs discussing the very same topic. Of course, this is rather normal considering this Sunday is Easter Sunday. Still the world is remains enamored with this Jesus. Programs and documentaries about the historical Jesus abound, as this is one topic with scores of research being continually reviewed and discussed. As such I pulled down several books from my shelves to leaf through and compile some data to present. The following comes exclusively from the book The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus by Mike Licona and Gary Habermas. The other books I leafed through contained much the same sources.
For the purpose of this post, I kept only to the secular sources that referred to Jesus and his death by crucifixion. I give one modern quote at the end that I found of interest. I realize that there is some debate out there about these authors of antiquity. While I accept the validity of the Gospels and that they date within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses as well as the validity of the early creeds that date within five years of Christ’s crucifixion I will wait for another post to present that case.
Josephus – First Century Jewish Historian wrote in Antiquities c 94A.D.:
“When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified. . .”
Tacitus – First Century Historian who was not favorable toward Christians wrote in Annals:
“Nero fastened the guilt [of the burning of Rome] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of your procurators, Pontius Pilot.”
Mara Bar-Serapion a Syriac writer who is both non-Christian and non-Jew wrote possibly as early as 73A.D. (40 years after the crucifixion) or as late as third century (there seems to be some debate about this) writes:
“What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?”
The very skeptical scholar of the most liberal Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan writes in his book Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography:
“that he [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”
8 comments:
I hadn't heard of some of those. It's interesting the lengths that some go to prove or disprove Jesus.
Fail.
Choking on the Camel, Part 2 debunks this nonsense.
Thanks Kevin, I was going to post that.
Also, part I points out all the historians that lived during that time and even in that geographic location that didn't mention Jesus at all.
"While I accept the validity of the Gospels and that they date within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses as well as the validity of the early creeds that date within five years of Christ’s crucifixion I will wait for another post to present that case."
And, you go against the vast majority of scholars when you say this.
Oh yeah, I'd like to point out that none of these are contemporary accounts.
I'm just throwing it out there. I'm sure you can find anything you want on the internet to debunk anything anyone says.
It is difficult these days to navigate through research to find what is actually scholarly especially when you have scholars who disagree. But you do have scholars on both sides. So where do we go from there?
Just about all scholars agree that Jesus was crucified.
"I'm just throwing it out there. I'm sure you can find anything you want on the internet to debunk anything anyone says."
Um, it's the majority of scholars that debunk what you wrote.
"It is difficult these days to navigate through research to find what is actually scholarly especially when you have scholars who disagree. But you do have scholars on both sides. So where do we go from there?"
We find the ones that are using the most up-to-date information, and not recylcing old stuff that's already been discarded. It's like science and evolution. Yeah, we can listen to creationists talk about their debunked studies that they never seem to let go of, or listen to them act as if evolution hasn't progressed one iota since Darwin, or we can go to the state of the art and look for what really being done and how. It's also good to find people who are not biased. Going to Xian apologists for your information is like reading promotional material about someone in order to find out what the person is really like.
"Just about all scholars agree that Jesus was crucified."
No, they don't. That's the problem. Many Xian sources unscrupulously claim that this is the case, but many scholars don't take a definitive stance on the issue, because the evidence is too slim to suggest that Jesus was crucified.
Warning: This is being posted by a Christian and is, therefore, probably somewhat biased.
"It's also good to find people who are not biased."
This is a good point. I agree. The problem is, it is very difficult to do.
Based on the research I have done, I would say that most people who say anything definitively about anything are somewhat biased. They are biased that they are correct. What I am writing right now is biased because I am writing what I think.
Even those who don't appear to be biased because they don't present any opinions may still be. Are they really presenting all the facts to support both sides of the issue? Most of the time, they cannot present all of them, so they choose some. How? Do they choose based on their bias? How do they present the facts that they do choose? Oftentimes, there is still bias involved.
From what I have observed, most people end up coming to some conclusion about what they write/study/discuss, and are therefore biased. Some try harder to see both sides than others, and that is great when you can find it, but most of them are biased. At least if you know what their bias is, you can read or listen with that in mind.
And by the way, the author of "Choking on the Camel" is very biased. I could find no identification of the individual author, although it is written first person, but the author does claim in the preface that he/she is not a professional historian and professes to be a "skeptic." The essay is posted on an atheist website. Is this article biased? I think so.
Despite the bias, I think this article did make some good points. Even as a Christian myself, I will agree that Christians don't always look as closely at the evidence as they should. And Christianity does come down to faith, ultimately. It can't be undeniably proved. There will always be some way that it can be "debunked" to borrow the phrase being used so freely in the other comments. (Again, this is my opinion. It is biased, although I believe it is based on fact.)
On the other hand, when the author of Choking on the Camel got to Part 3, he/she lost me completely. Most of the Bible verses ignored the context and to anyone who has spent any time studying those verses, it made the author look like a hypocrite. The author blatantly ignored the multitude of verses which speak the gospel message (in the epistles) and only looked at those that appear at first glance (when pulled from context) to support his/her point.
Do many Christian writers do the same thing? Yes. And it is a constant source of frustration to me. However, my point is, bias is not isolated.
All of us are biased in one way or another, whether we specifically say so or not.
Anonymous, your answer was convictingly respectful and full of unrefutable wisdom. I was quite humbled to read your reply. I want to add that Christianity is a relationship with a loving God. If He were not real, what an empty relationship it would be. If He did not fulfil his promises how hopeless would Christianity be? But he is real and he does fulfil. So much so, that non-believers simply can't believe it without diminishing the message bearer or the message or both. It's too far off the grid. If only they would test it by calling out to God.
Post a Comment