Board index ‹ Bible

[Grover]

I have looked at evidence for the reliability of the bible, the only stuff I've found however, is that evidence is scarce, and reputable evidence of the events surrounding jesus is practically non-existent.

[jimwalton]

> The only stuff I've found however, is that evidence is scarce

If you've only looked on the Internet, of course that's all you've found. Anyone can say anything they want on the Internet, and the 'net is full of mockers and minimalists.

If you look in the academic sector, you'll find that there's quite a bit of evidence for the reliability of the Bible. The Old Testament has thousands of points of corroboration with artifacts and documents that have been found. As a matter of fact, not a single artifact has ever been found that proves that ANY part of the Old Testament is untrue. Granted, many items there cannot be corroborated, but that doesn't make them untrue, rather only unconfirmed.

In the New Testament, again, there has been much corroboration with the historical things written there. Of course there's no way to confirm any of the words Jesus spoke or any of the theology about which Paul writes. Those have to be confirmed through other means.

> reputable evidence of the events surrounding jesus is practically non-existent

On the basis of historical sources, there is no reasonable doubt that Jesus existed as a man. He was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 4 BC and died between AD 26-36. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere, was called Christos in Greek, had a brother named James, and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek. It is believed even from non-Christian sources that he had both Jewish and Gentile followers, and that Jewish leaders held unfavorable opinions of him. Although there are great differences (outside of the Gospels) trying to reconstruct the details of his life, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.

There is no evidence from antiquity that the existence of Jesus was ever denied by those who opposed Christianity. It is also widely agreed as implausible that Christians invented him.

Today nearly all historians, whether Christian or not, accept that Jesus existed. The claim that Jesus was simply made up can be debunked at every turn. The total evidence is overpowering.

We can talk about any specifics you want, if there are specific questions or doubts in your mind, or you want to talk about things you've heard.

[Grover]

I don't doubt that jesus existed, but even for that evidence is scarce. What I do doubt is that any of the miracles he supposedly performed actually occurred, if we want to accept extraordinary claims then we must have extraordinary evidence for them.

> The Old Testament has thousands of points of corroboration with artifacts and documents that have been found.

This I've never heard of, do you have any resources showing this?

> In the New Testament, again, there has been much corroboration with the historical things written there.

Haven't there been multiple contradictions between the gospels? For example, getting the location of Israel wrong multiple times.

Also, how can you attest to the reliability of the documents if they were made by anonymous authors.

> It is believed even from non-Christian sources that he had both Jewish and Gentile followers, and that Jewish leaders held unfavorable opinions of him.

Do you have any source for the evidence of followers during his life?

There are far more events that claim supernatural causes, that have far more evidence than jesus, John Frum for example. Why should I chose to believe Jesus's over the other thousands of examples. Simply because he had a large following after his death?

[jimwalton]

> I don't doubt that jesus existed, but even for that evidence is scarce.

It's actually not scarce. The existence of Jesus is attested by Tacitus, Ignatius of Antioch, Josephus, The Apostle Paul (a once hostile person), Suetonius, and The Egerton Papyrus, and possibly by Mara bar Sarapion, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, the James Ossuary, and the Babylonian Talmud. He is actually one of the most well-established personages from ancient history.

> What I do doubt is that any of the miracles he supposedly performed actually occurred

None of his miracles left behind material remains to be examined 2000 years later. We have to go on the reliability of the reporters, which we can evaluate, and in that category, the Gospel writers shine.

> if we want to accept extraordinary claims then we must have extraordinary evidence for them.

This is not true. We just need a reliable source. As long as we have an authentic, trustworthy, and reliable source of the information, the evidence doesn't have to be extraordinary.

>> The Old Testament has thousands of points of corroboration with artifacts and documents that have been found.

> This I've never heard of, do you have any resources showing this?

Sure. The Old Testament. Just to name a few of thousands:

• The Tel Dan stele mentioning the "house of David"
• Numerous bulla mentioning King Hezekiah
• Hezekiah, king of Judah, is mentioned on Sennacherib's prism
• The Kurkh Monolith Inscription (Assyrian) mentions King Ahab of Israel
• The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser mentions Jehu, son of Omri, king of Israel
• The monument at Tell Al-Rimah mentions Israelite king Jehoash
• King Manasseh of Judah is mentioned in a Ninevite inscription as providing building materials for Esarhaddon (Esarhaddon's prism)
• An inscription from Asurbanipal also mentions Manasseh, king of Judah
• King Uzziah (Azariah) of Judah is mentioned in a funerary plaque
• We have a bulla that mentions "Ahaz, son of Jotham, king of Judah"
• King Jehoiachin of Judah is mentioned on a Babylonian tablet
• King Omri of Israel is mentioned on the Mesha stele
• There is a royal seal of King Jeroboam II of Israel
• The Iran Stele of Tiglath Pileser III mentions King Menahem
• The annals of Tiglath Pileser III mention King Pekah
• We have the royal seal of king Hoshea

> Haven't there been multiple contradictions between the gospels?

These are no different than other historical reports. From Dr. Licona: There are discrepancies among our primary sources pertaining to the burning of Rome (Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Tacitus). Despite these discrepancies, we would be hard-pressed to find a historian claiming that Rome may not have burned since the discrepancies among the accounts cast doubt on the event.

"Xenophon’s reports of Socrates’s teachings differ from those provided by Plato, both students of Socrates.

"We have four non-identical narratives of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

"Compared to the sources for Greco-Roman history, the Gospels stand head-and-shoulders above what Greco-Roman historians have to work with, which are usually hundreds of years after the events they report, usually involved very few eyewitnesses, and are usually told by people who are completely biased. And yet Greco-Roman historians reconstruct the course of history of the ancient world."

From the writings of Plutarch, who wrote over 60 biographies, we learn that the Gospel writers follow the same practices as all ancient historiographers, yet with more reliability because the documents are multiple (4 of them) and so close to the subject (Jesus).

> For example, getting the location of Israel wrong multiple times.

No. I don't know where you got this, but it's simply not true that the Gospel writers did this.

> how can you attest to the reliability of the documents if they were made by anonymous authors.

The position you're taking has no strength. No anonymous copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John have ever been found. They do not exist, and possibly never have. In addition, there are no actual examples in early Christian history of a document known to have been written by someone other than the person to whom it is attributed, which were deemed acceptable by a sizable segment of the Church. Certainly there are no known examples of books being accepted into the New Testament that were believed to have been written by someone other than the person to whom they are ascribed, with the possible, partial exception of 2 Peter.

We have no evidence at all that early Christianity accepted pseudonymity as a legitimate device in the testimony that exists. (That came in the second century.)

There are plenty of other historical works that are anonymous that we accept. For example:

• Aristotle's Poetics
• Plato's Republic
• Aristophanes' Birds
• Livy's The Early History of Rome
• Tacitus' The Annals of Imperial Rome

> Do you have any source for the evidence of followers during his life?

Sure. Lucian mentions that Jesus "started a new cult," which requires followers. He said Jesus persuaded people that they were all brothers. Josephus mentions that Jesus drew to himself people who wanted to receive the truth. Also, "He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles." Josephus mentions that some people loved Jesus and didn't forsake him at his crucifixion. Tacitus talks about Jesus's followers during his life.

Of course, then there is also Luke (a proven reliable historian), Paul (a proven authentic source), and the Gospel writers (no information has ever been discovered to discredit them).

> Why should I chose to believe Jesus's over the other thousands of examples.

Because of the historical evidence and using reason and logic.

> Simply because he had a large following after his death?

No.