I obviously agree with the opening post. I'd go a little further and say religion demands acceptance of the disproven. Watch how people twist themselves into knots over something they would dismiss coming from any other religion. The Book of Mormon contains a fictional history of the Americas. Anyone in their right mind would know that disqualifies the Book of Mormon as a reliable source of knowledge of history. But the Bible's nonsense about a global flood (and before you go there, the "regional flood" story is just as nonsensical because no such flood ever happened in that part of the world as described. More on that if you need it), nonsense about Israelite slaves in Egypt and a dramatic story about every family losing its firstborn, a story that makes it into not one single historical account from the country where it happened. You think Exodus happened? LOL. Name the Pharoah. What? The story doesn't even name the villain? Ok, that's easy. Just go to Egyptian historical records for who was Pharoah when the Hebrews were expelled and all the firstborn of all the families including livestock died in a single night and... and what do you mean it never happened? Never? Like, under any Pharoah? Well, that must mean...
And then Jesus gets baptized and immediately goes fasting for 40 days and gets tempted by the devil, according to Matthew.
And then Jesus gets baptized and immediately goes fasting for 40 days and gets tempted by the devil, according to Mark.
And then Jesus gets baptized and immediately goes fasting for 40 days and gets tempted by the devil, according to Luke.
And then Jesus gets baptized and three days later is at a wedding in Cana and what fasting and temptation in the wilderness according to John.
And then Pilate comes up with a new tradition of releasing a condemned criminal on the Passover. We know this is true because we actually know quite a bit from history about Pilate. For example, he never did any such thing. Oops. I mean, come on, he gives the people a choice between Jesus, the Son of the Father, and a criminal named Jesus Barabbas (which means son of the father)? IT'S A MADE UP STORY!
But instead of accepting the obvious, most believers try to shift the burden. Well, you can't prove it didn't happen! Fine. I can't prove that ridiculous and obviously contrived BS story didn't happen. But come on. Pilate never had a custom of releasing prisoners. Sheesh.
I obviously agree with the opening post. I'd go a little further and say religion demands acceptance of the disproven. Watch how people twist themselves into knots over something they would dismiss coming from any other religion. The Book of Mormon contains a fictional history of the Americas. Anyone in their right mind would know that disqualifies the Book of Mormon as a reliable source of knowledge of history. But the Bible's nonsense about a global flood (and before you go there, the "regional flood" story is just as nonsensical because no such flood ever happened in that part of the world as described. More on that if you need it), nonsense about Israelite slaves in Egypt and a dramatic story about every family losing its firstborn, a story that makes it into not one single historical account from the country where it happened. You think Exodus happened? LOL. Name the Pharoah. What? The story doesn't even name the villain? Ok, that's easy. Just go to Egyptian historical records for who was Pharoah when the Hebrews were expelled and all the firstborn of all the families including livestock died in a single night and... and what do you mean it never happened? Never? Like, under any Pharoah? Well, that must mean...
And then Jesus gets baptized and immediately goes fasting for 40 days and gets tempted by the devil, according to Matthew.
And then Jesus gets baptized and immediately goes fasting for 40 days and gets tempted by the devil, according to Mark.
And then Jesus gets baptized and immediately goes fasting for 40 days and gets tempted by the devil, according to Luke.
And then Jesus gets baptized and three days later is at a wedding in Cana and what fasting and temptation in the wilderness according to John.
And then Pilate comes up with a new tradition of releasing a condemned criminal on the Passover. We know this is true because we actually know quite a bit from history about Pilate. For example, he never did any such thing. Oops. I mean, come on, he gives the people a choice between Jesus, the Son of the Father, and a criminal named Jesus Barabbas (which means son of the father)? IT'S A MADE UP STORY!
But instead of accepting the obvious, most believers try to shift the burden. Well, you can't prove it didn't happen! Fine. I can't prove that ridiculous and obviously contrived BS story didn't happen. But come on. Pilate never had a custom of releasing prisoners. Sheesh.
Ok, so Josephus can tell us Herod was a terrible person. Not disputed. The kind of person who could order the slaughter of the innocents as recorded in Matthew? Absolutely. But does Josephus record the slaughter of the innocents? No, he does not. And neither does anyone else. Only "Matthew," whose ID we do not have. So the best we can say here is that Josephus presents Herod as a character who could have done the things attributed to him in the Bible. Not that he DID them, mind you.
Josephus also verifies the existence of John the Baptist and his execution on the orders of the next Herod [not the same as the one discussed earlier]. Again, not in dispute. Josephus says nothing about Jesus being related to John, about John baptizing Jesus, or about John calling Jesus the Next Big Thing. But silence on a topic is not contradiction.
ok, so Josephus was a first century historian who wrote about Palestine.
He verifies the existence of some characters mentioned in the Bible. Both Herods, John the Baptist, Pilate and some others. He does not verify Jesus [one reference is an obvious forgery and the other does not match the Jesus of the Bible]. He does not verify the slaughter of the innocents or Pilate's bizarre custom of releasing condemned men on the whims of a crowd.
This article [from no less a disinterested source than Bible.org -- that was sarcasm] does not address any point I raised.
It's like that verse in Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning" and then Gen 1:2 says "and the earth was void" Stuff happened in between that the scriptures omit which appears to be the same here.
I agree with your prior statement that religion demands acceptance of the disproven. Christians even believe the preposterous on occasions.
ok, so Josephus was a first century historian who wrote about Palestine.
He verifies the existence of some characters mentioned in the Bible. Both Herods, John the Baptist, Pilate and some others. He does not verify Jesus [one reference is an obvious forgery and the other does not match the Jesus of the Bible]. He does not verify the slaughter of the innocents or Pilate's bizarre custom of releasing condemned men on the whims of a crowd.
This article [from no less a disinterested source than Bible.org -- that was sarcasm] does not address any point I raised.
One of the challenges is the lack of available source peers to Josephus. Maybe there are a lot. I’m not aware of any that are like that. I think Josephus was the common history book regarding the Jewish wars.
He was more focused on Herod than Pilate. Yes as you accurately observe mostly he just confirms the existence of these characters as opposed to a detailed account of any actions.
I mean I agree with your major premise - but would mod it. Faith asks for acceptance of the unprovable.
I view faith and religion as quite a bit different personally. I would offer that religion asks for acceptance and compliance. Faith is more of a motivation based change as opposed to a checklist to avoid hellfire.
I also would say that calling out Josephus for not including Pilates court history or Jesus is a bit disingenuous.
I mean we should also call out all American historians for not including the adventures of Pancho Villa.
Jesus was not on Josephus radar for whatever reason.
But you're disagreeing with my major premise by pointing out factors that don't address it. It is UNPROVEN, for example, that there was a slaughter of the innocents.
It is DISPROVEN that Pilate had a custom of releasing condemned men on the Passover. Yes, that's an argument from silence, but it's silence where one would not expect it if the custom were historically true. In other words, if I told you my house burned down yesterday, and you came by today and saw no trace of a house fire, just a perfectly fine house, you would conclude I was mistaken or lying about my statement. The absence of evidence in this case really is evidence of absence.
Pilate's custom falls into that category: it is so outside of his character that the best explanation for the failure to mention it is that it wasn't true.
Same with Noah's flood. There is no archaeological or geological record of a global flood, nor is there evidence of a regional flood that would cover mountains or move a boat to Mount Ararat.
Any flooding at all? Sure. But nothing like Gen 6-9.
Exodus of 2 million Hebrews from Egypt? Yeah, never happened.
SIT? Unprovable, not disproven. We discussed that. Personally, I think the absence of evidence there is glaring. But not everyone agrees. Ok.
So yes, Josephus does VERIFY some things. Pilate existed. But he verifies things that are not in dispute. Ben Franklin was a character in the John Jakes Kent Family Chronicles. He really existed. But his interactions with Phillip Kent were fictional. They never happened [in this case because Phillip Kent didn't exist]. That John Jakes inserted a historical figure into a fictional story does not make his story into history.
Same with the gospels. That Herod existed doesn't mean the slaughter of the innocents happened. That Pilate existed doesn't mean Barabbas existed. Or that Arimathea is a real place.
Oldies,
Nice catch. I would submit that is an argument similar to "Judas went away choked with grief" or "the fross Christ bore in John is metaphorical, Simon only bore the physical cross."
FYI: I'm not really calling out Josephus for failing to mention Jesus. I would call him out for failing to mention the annual custom of releasing a condemned prisoner on the Passover... IF I had any confidence there ever WAS such a custom.
Also calling out the attempts to inject Jesus into the writings of Josephus instead of just accepting the truth you just shared: he just wasn't on Josephus' radar for whatever reason.
I'll put an asterisk here... *... for anyone who wants to discuss Josephus' Jesus references further at any point. I'm not going to argue for no reason.
But you're disagreeing with my major premise by pointing out factors that don't address it. It is UNPROVEN, for example, that there was a slaughter of the innocents.
It is DISPROVEN that Pilate had a custom of releasing condemned men on the Passover. Yes, that's an argument from silence, but it's silence where one would not expect it if the custom were historically true. In other words, if I told you my house burned down yesterday, and you came by today and saw no trace of a house fire, just a perfectly fine house, you would conclude I was mistaken or lying about my statement. The absence of evidence in this case really is evidence of absence.
Pilate's custom falls into that category: it is so outside of his character that the best explanation for the failure to mention it is that it wasn't true.
Same with Noah's flood. There is no archaeological or geological record of a global flood, nor is there evidence of a regional flood that would cover mountains or move a boat to Mount Ararat.
Any flooding at all? Sure. But nothing like Gen 6-9.
Exodus of 2 million Hebrews from Egypt? Yeah, never happened.
SIT? Unprovable, not disproven. We discussed that. Personally, I think the absence of evidence there is glaring. But not everyone agrees. Ok.
So yes, Josephus does VERIFY some things. Pilate existed. But he verifies things that are not in dispute. Ben Franklin was a character in the John Jakes Kent Family Chronicles. He really existed. But his interactions with Phillip Kent were fictional. They never happened [in this case because Phillip Kent didn't exist]. That John Jakes inserted a historical figure into a fictional story does not make his story into history.
Same with the gospels. That Herod existed doesn't mean the slaughter of the innocents happened. That Pilate existed doesn't mean Barabbas existed. Or that Arimathea is a real place.
Oldies,
Nice catch. I would submit that is an argument similar to "Judas went away choked with grief" or "the fross Christ bore in John is metaphorical, Simon only bore the physical cross."
But I'll remove the reference from my repertoire.
So it is perfectly feasible that Herod acted in a way different than “his custom” whatever that means - a standing judge “customarily” does pardons?
To appease the ruled Jewish populace releasing a prisoner would be an olive branch towards the Jewish Passover custom that a judge may or may not extend at any time during his rule.
The absence of something there really proves nothing. “Silence” as an introduced evidentiary item? Seriously? I mean there are plausible reasons on up to the dog ate the manuscript in translation. That is a super rigid fundamentalist line there.
Your example in the Franklin Chronicles is quite a different story. That is an author tactic to talk to himself and convey inner struggles to an audience. Apples and oranges my friend.
On the flood stuff there is this one old paper we had on carbon dating. I need a bit to locate that. There is a pretty interesting study to read on all that. So I’ll not agree with you there and hold off on that point for a bit.
As I said before summarizing Josephus.
He only is helpful in casting the characters on the stage as real.
Exodus of 2 million Hebrews from Egypt? Yeah, never happened.
Concerning the Exodus - like other ancient stories - we may find similar sounding accounts in non-biblical sources. For instance in a Jerusalem Post article:
“Bible scholars and especially archaeologists, if not most researchers, though, are skeptical that the narrative reflects historical events with any accuracy. They point to the lack of archaeological evidence in Egypt or in other locations mentioned in the story, as well as to the lack of records outside the Bible itself.
However, according to Prof. Joshua Berman from Bar-Ilan University’s Zalman Shamir Bible Department, some of his colleagues are making a fundamental mistake: They are looking for evidence of the Exodus in Egypt, instead of looking for marks of Egyptian culture in the Torah, the Five Books of Moses.
“The Torah is infused with Egyptian culture and its response to it,” Berman said.
“The Lord freed us from Egypt by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm and awesome power, and by signs and portents,” reads a verse in the book of Deuteronomy describing the Exodus.
The expression “mighty hand and outstretched arm” appears multiple times in the Bible, but only in the context of the Exodus. Berman said this is not by chance, as these praises were used in Egypt as well.
“When we look at inscriptions from the period of the New Kingdom, between 1500 and 1200 BCE, roughly the period of the enslavement, these expressions are routinely used to describe Pharaohs and their victories in battle, for instance, ‘Pharaoh defeated the Lybians with a mighty hand,’” he said.
The image was employed to refer to Pharaoh in that specific time. That makes it unlikely the Israelites or a more recent biblical author would have been aware of it centuries later, Berman said.”
And I think we will find a similar flip-flop in cultural perspectives. On page 137 of The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, in an article titled “Yahweh’s Victory” it notes there are parallels between the description of Yahweh’s victory in Exodus 15 and the victory of Baal recorded in Ugaritic literature, in which the terrible and monstrous character “Sea” demands that the high god El hand Baal over to him as a prisoner - El complies - and later craftsman-god Kothar fashions 2 mighty clubs with which Baal defeats Sea. El then grants Baal a palatial residence on Mount Zaphon.
In the Exodus account Yahweh too shows his mastery over the sea. By means of the victory there, Yahweh receives praise as the greatest among the gods. After the victory, Yahweh and the Israelites head for the mountain of God.
I think it is significant to find events with some similarities recorded in different cultures. Of course, It does not prove an event actually happened - if anything it shows the power and relevance of myths - even across different cultures. Myths have some point of origin. It’s probably impossible to figure out where and when some myths originated and to observe direct linkage across cultures. To me it’s like watching a mystery movie that at the end leaves a lot unexplained - and gets a lot of the audience talking.
FYI: I'm not really calling out Josephus for failing to mention Jesus. I would call him out for failing to mention the annual custom of releasing a condemned prisoner on the Passover... IF I had any confidence there ever WAS such a custom.
Also calling out the attempts to inject Jesus into the writings of Josephus instead of just accepting the truth you just shared: he just wasn't on Josephus' radar for whatever reason.
I'll put an asterisk here... *... for anyone who wants to discuss Josephus' Jesus references further at any point. I'm not going to argue for no reason.
Considering Josephus was at Jerusalem during the first Jewish revolt (66-70A.D.) I wouldnt expect him to extoll a Jewish messiah in anyway shape or form, especially one known as the King of the Jews because he was there with the Romans. He wouldve had a hard way to go on that one. History is written by the victors and is as biased as anything else. Josephus was a slave to Vespasian, Titus father. Josephus defected to Rome and was granted citizenship by Vespasian. But I wouldnt expext a historian with that sort of pressure on him to maintain pro-Romish views in his historical accounts to say much about Jesus.
I'll let Bart Ehrman address why we know [to a reasonable degree of certainty] that Pilate did not have a custom of releasing violent insurrectionists at Passover.
So we have A. no outside evidence Pilate ever had such a custom and B. ample evidence that it was completely outside his character.
You may keep this in the category of an unproven story. I mean, ok, fine. Personally, I think it's a disproven story on par with George Washington and the cherry tree.
This thread is about religion demanding the acceptance of the unprovable. We can agree this story falls in that category. I would go a step further. You would not. Fine.
***
Your summary of my point about Herod was the exact opposite of my point about Herod, which means either you misunderstood me or I mistyped something. I meant to say the slaughter of the innocents was CONSISTENT with his character. It remains unproven, but at least it's not nonsense.
The release of Barabbas was nonsense.
***
You can probably find tons of evidence of regional floods. None will match the Genesis flood in scope and timing. It didn't happen.. That's not unprovable or unproven. It's disproven. The best you will be able to do is track down an event that might have served as inspiration for the various flood stories throughout cultures. But that's not the same thing.
***
My point is that religion expects us to believe not only that which can't be proven, or that which hasn't been proven. It expects us to believe that which is disproven.
Like the confusing of languages at Babel. That's not how we got different languages! Or Joseph traveling to Bethlehem to register for the census because he was of the House of David. That's not how censuses work, then or now!
But we will twist ourselves into knots trying to explain why these things, that aren't so, are so.
So we have A. no outside evidence Pilate ever had such a custom
Im not involved in the discussion but decided to jump in the pool for a few minutes.
I do have one question on your points of view regarding the Bible. If something is recorded in the Bible does it need to have a corresponding secular source to verify it's records?
Im not involved in the discussion but decided to jump in the pool for a few minutes.
I do have one question on your points of view regarding the Bible. If something is recorded in the Bible does it need to have a corresponding secular source to verify its records?
It helps to bolster the case for historicity. This is how historians do history.
But wisdom literature and scripture need not be historically accurate to effectively articulate Truth.
Reading the Bible as a historical document to confirm historical facts will be problematic. But is this why one reads the Bible? Is historical fact the fruit? Or is there a deeper, higher fruit?
It helps to bolster the case for historicity. This is how historians do history.
But wisdom literature and scripture need not be historically accurate to effectively articulate Truth.
Reading the Bible as a historical document to confirm historical facts will be problematic. But is this why one reads the Bible? Is historical fact the fruit? Or is there a deeper, higher fruit?
I agree, but scripture also contains the history of an entire group of people as they grew into a nation. So then does the Bible fail because history doesnt record something thats in the Bible or does history fail? I feel you can trust historical accounts in scripture out of faith. However, if history doesnt record something in the Bible it doesnt mean the Bible is wrong.
Personally, I am a fan of Josephus. I read most of his works when I was in-residence. I am actually an old/new testament history buff. So Im down discussing history as well.
Context: we're talking about religion compelling people to believe the unprovable, not why people read the Bible.
Excellent question, OldSkool.
The answer is: to an extent. It really depends on the claim being made.
It should be noted that historicity is crucial to the truth claims of Christianity. If these things didn't happen, then Christianity is false regardless of the morals and priciples it teaches. Take the good and cherish it. Take the silliness and trash it.
Homework: Read the preceding paragraph. Then read the Jefferson Bible. Then read the preceding paragraph again. Repeat until it hits you.
Anyway, where were we? Oh yeah:
I would not expect independent verification of some things. Others, yeah, there'd better be corroboration.
For example, we know King David existed. We also know the size and influence of his kingdom was a wee bit exaggerated.
We know Nebuchadnezzar existed. We know Daniel did not. The book of Daniel claims Belshazar was king and that he was Nebuchadnezzar's son. Neither is true. Daniel is no more real than the Kent family in the John Jakes novels: a fictional character interacting with real people from history to tell a compelling tale.
Moses? No more real than Perseus. Egypt kept records, man.
...
I got interrupted and you posted again while I was writing, so I'll stop here and read and respond if necessary.
but scripture also contains the history of an entire group of people as they grew into a nation.
No, it does not. It contains a mythology of the growth of that nation.
See, that's the thing. Exodus is not part of Egypt's history. Or Israel's.
In the Bible, Joshua is credited with destroying the city of Ai. That city had been destroyed centuries earlier. Conservative, Bible believing archaeologists came to that conclusion reluctantly.
Never picked one up but you encourage me to do so. Is this a pretty good summary of it?
"The letters intimate great appreciation of the life and words of Jesus as the true cynosure of republican government. It is understood by some historians that Jefferson composed itfor his own satisfaction, supporting the Christian faith as he saw it."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
10
12
12
Popular Days
Mar 4
22
Feb 24
15
Mar 3
9
Mar 1
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 18 posts
oldiesman 10 posts
chockfull 12 posts
OldSkool 12 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
22 posts
Feb 24 2023
15 posts
Mar 3 2023
9 posts
Mar 1 2023
9 posts
Popular Posts
Stayed Too Long
I recall VPW saying something to the affect that the bible was not written for unbelievers, agnostics, or god rejectors. Assuming no one is born with a knowledge of god, then somewhere during their de
T-Bone
Give me a little time and I could come up with some correlation Learned behavior is probably the easiest to find similarities with this thread. As the thread title states, religion demands accep
T-Bone
I think you’re right…and oddly enough our cat is or rather was a feral cat. We adopted him 3 years ago. First 3 days I thought he was a mute. Then while I’m cleaning out his litter box he got on a cha
Raf
I obviously agree with the opening post. I'd go a little further and say religion demands acceptance of the disproven. Watch how people twist themselves into knots over something they would dismiss coming from any other religion. The Book of Mormon contains a fictional history of the Americas. Anyone in their right mind would know that disqualifies the Book of Mormon as a reliable source of knowledge of history. But the Bible's nonsense about a global flood (and before you go there, the "regional flood" story is just as nonsensical because no such flood ever happened in that part of the world as described. More on that if you need it), nonsense about Israelite slaves in Egypt and a dramatic story about every family losing its firstborn, a story that makes it into not one single historical account from the country where it happened. You think Exodus happened? LOL. Name the Pharoah. What? The story doesn't even name the villain? Ok, that's easy. Just go to Egyptian historical records for who was Pharoah when the Hebrews were expelled and all the firstborn of all the families including livestock died in a single night and... and what do you mean it never happened? Never? Like, under any Pharoah? Well, that must mean...
And then Jesus gets baptized and immediately goes fasting for 40 days and gets tempted by the devil, according to Matthew.
And then Jesus gets baptized and immediately goes fasting for 40 days and gets tempted by the devil, according to Mark.
And then Jesus gets baptized and immediately goes fasting for 40 days and gets tempted by the devil, according to Luke.
And then Jesus gets baptized and three days later is at a wedding in Cana and what fasting and temptation in the wilderness according to John.
And then Pilate comes up with a new tradition of releasing a condemned criminal on the Passover. We know this is true because we actually know quite a bit from history about Pilate. For example, he never did any such thing. Oops. I mean, come on, he gives the people a choice between Jesus, the Son of the Father, and a criminal named Jesus Barabbas (which means son of the father)? IT'S A MADE UP STORY!
But instead of accepting the obvious, most believers try to shift the burden. Well, you can't prove it didn't happen! Fine. I can't prove that ridiculous and obviously contrived BS story didn't happen. But come on. Pilate never had a custom of releasing prisoners. Sheesh.
Lo Shanta away!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
For the sake of accuracy, I believe the full quote is, "Hi Ho Lo Shanta, away!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Mostly ignoring this guy?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Not at all!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
What does Josephus say that's relevant to what I said? Let's explore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Here is a start:
https://bible.org/article/josephus’-writings-and-their-relation-new-testament
This is a first century historian in case readers need the background.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Ok, so Josephus can tell us Herod was a terrible person. Not disputed. The kind of person who could order the slaughter of the innocents as recorded in Matthew? Absolutely. But does Josephus record the slaughter of the innocents? No, he does not. And neither does anyone else. Only "Matthew," whose ID we do not have. So the best we can say here is that Josephus presents Herod as a character who could have done the things attributed to him in the Bible. Not that he DID them, mind you.
Continuing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Josephus also verifies the existence of John the Baptist and his execution on the orders of the next Herod [not the same as the one discussed earlier]. Again, not in dispute. Josephus says nothing about Jesus being related to John, about John baptizing Jesus, or about John calling Jesus the Next Big Thing. But silence on a topic is not contradiction.
Continuing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
ok, so Josephus was a first century historian who wrote about Palestine.
He verifies the existence of some characters mentioned in the Bible. Both Herods, John the Baptist, Pilate and some others. He does not verify Jesus [one reference is an obvious forgery and the other does not match the Jesus of the Bible]. He does not verify the slaughter of the innocents or Pilate's bizarre custom of releasing condemned men on the whims of a crowd.
This article [from no less a disinterested source than Bible.org -- that was sarcasm] does not address any point I raised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
This may fall into one of those cases that isn't an exact representation. Here's a commentary on it:
To the Wilderness—or a Wedding? - Apologetics Press
It's like that verse in Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning" and then Gen 1:2 says "and the earth was void" Stuff happened in between that the scriptures omit which appears to be the same here.
I agree with your prior statement that religion demands acceptance of the disproven. Christians even believe the preposterous on occasions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
One of the challenges is the lack of available source peers to Josephus. Maybe there are a lot. I’m not aware of any that are like that. I think Josephus was the common history book regarding the Jewish wars.
He was more focused on Herod than Pilate. Yes as you accurately observe mostly he just confirms the existence of these characters as opposed to a detailed account of any actions.
I mean I agree with your major premise - but would mod it. Faith asks for acceptance of the unprovable.
I view faith and religion as quite a bit different personally. I would offer that religion asks for acceptance and compliance. Faith is more of a motivation based change as opposed to a checklist to avoid hellfire.
I also would say that calling out Josephus for not including Pilates court history or Jesus is a bit disingenuous.
I mean we should also call out all American historians for not including the adventures of Pancho Villa.
Jesus was not on Josephus radar for whatever reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
But you're disagreeing with my major premise by pointing out factors that don't address it. It is UNPROVEN, for example, that there was a slaughter of the innocents.
It is DISPROVEN that Pilate had a custom of releasing condemned men on the Passover. Yes, that's an argument from silence, but it's silence where one would not expect it if the custom were historically true. In other words, if I told you my house burned down yesterday, and you came by today and saw no trace of a house fire, just a perfectly fine house, you would conclude I was mistaken or lying about my statement. The absence of evidence in this case really is evidence of absence.
Pilate's custom falls into that category: it is so outside of his character that the best explanation for the failure to mention it is that it wasn't true.
Same with Noah's flood. There is no archaeological or geological record of a global flood, nor is there evidence of a regional flood that would cover mountains or move a boat to Mount Ararat.
Any flooding at all? Sure. But nothing like Gen 6-9.
Exodus of 2 million Hebrews from Egypt? Yeah, never happened.
SIT? Unprovable, not disproven. We discussed that. Personally, I think the absence of evidence there is glaring. But not everyone agrees. Ok.
So yes, Josephus does VERIFY some things. Pilate existed. But he verifies things that are not in dispute. Ben Franklin was a character in the John Jakes Kent Family Chronicles. He really existed. But his interactions with Phillip Kent were fictional. They never happened [in this case because Phillip Kent didn't exist]. That John Jakes inserted a historical figure into a fictional story does not make his story into history.
Same with the gospels. That Herod existed doesn't mean the slaughter of the innocents happened. That Pilate existed doesn't mean Barabbas existed. Or that Arimathea is a real place.
Oldies,
Nice catch. I would submit that is an argument similar to "Judas went away choked with grief" or "the fross Christ bore in John is metaphorical, Simon only bore the physical cross."
But I'll remove the reference from my repertoire.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
FYI: I'm not really calling out Josephus for failing to mention Jesus. I would call him out for failing to mention the annual custom of releasing a condemned prisoner on the Passover... IF I had any confidence there ever WAS such a custom.
Also calling out the attempts to inject Jesus into the writings of Josephus instead of just accepting the truth you just shared: he just wasn't on Josephus' radar for whatever reason.
I'll put an asterisk here... *... for anyone who wants to discuss Josephus' Jesus references further at any point. I'm not going to argue for no reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So it is perfectly feasible that Herod acted in a way different than “his custom” whatever that means - a standing judge “customarily” does pardons?
To appease the ruled Jewish populace releasing a prisoner would be an olive branch towards the Jewish Passover custom that a judge may or may not extend at any time during his rule.
The absence of something there really proves nothing. “Silence” as an introduced evidentiary item? Seriously? I mean there are plausible reasons on up to the dog ate the manuscript in translation. That is a super rigid fundamentalist line there.
Your example in the Franklin Chronicles is quite a different story. That is an author tactic to talk to himself and convey inner struggles to an audience. Apples and oranges my friend.
On the flood stuff there is this one old paper we had on carbon dating. I need a bit to locate that. There is a pretty interesting study to read on all that. So I’ll not agree with you there and hold off on that point for a bit.
As I said before summarizing Josephus.
He only is helpful in casting the characters on the stage as real.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Concerning the Exodus - like other ancient stories - we may find similar sounding accounts in non-biblical sources. For instance in a Jerusalem Post article:
“Bible scholars and especially archaeologists, if not most researchers, though, are skeptical that the narrative reflects historical events with any accuracy. They point to the lack of archaeological evidence in Egypt or in other locations mentioned in the story, as well as to the lack of records outside the Bible itself.
However, according to Prof. Joshua Berman from Bar-Ilan University’s Zalman Shamir Bible Department, some of his colleagues are making a fundamental mistake: They are looking for evidence of the Exodus in Egypt, instead of looking for marks of Egyptian culture in the Torah, the Five Books of Moses.
“The Torah is infused with Egyptian culture and its response to it,” Berman said.
“The Lord freed us from Egypt by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm and awesome power, and by signs and portents,” reads a verse in the book of Deuteronomy describing the Exodus.
The expression “mighty hand and outstretched arm” appears multiple times in the Bible, but only in the context of the Exodus. Berman said this is not by chance, as these praises were used in Egypt as well.
“When we look at inscriptions from the period of the New Kingdom, between 1500 and 1200 BCE, roughly the period of the enslavement, these expressions are routinely used to describe Pharaohs and their victories in battle, for instance, ‘Pharaoh defeated the Lybians with a mighty hand,’” he said.
The image was employed to refer to Pharaoh in that specific time. That makes it unlikely the Israelites or a more recent biblical author would have been aware of it centuries later, Berman said.”
From: Jerusalem Post article
End of excerpts
~~~~
And I think we will find a similar flip-flop in cultural perspectives. On page 137 of The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, in an article titled “Yahweh’s Victory” it notes there are parallels between the description of Yahweh’s victory in Exodus 15 and the victory of Baal recorded in Ugaritic literature, in which the terrible and monstrous character “Sea” demands that the high god El hand Baal over to him as a prisoner - El complies - and later craftsman-god Kothar fashions 2 mighty clubs with which Baal defeats Sea. El then grants Baal a palatial residence on Mount Zaphon.
In the Exodus account Yahweh too shows his mastery over the sea. By means of the victory there, Yahweh receives praise as the greatest among the gods. After the victory, Yahweh and the Israelites head for the mountain of God.
End of excerpts
from: NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible
~~~~
I think it is significant to find events with some similarities recorded in different cultures. Of course, It does not prove an event actually happened - if anything it shows the power and relevance of myths - even across different cultures. Myths have some point of origin. It’s probably impossible to figure out where and when some myths originated and to observe direct linkage across cultures. To me it’s like watching a mystery movie that at the end leaves a lot unexplained - and gets a lot of the audience talking.
Edited by T-BoneClarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Considering Josephus was at Jerusalem during the first Jewish revolt (66-70A.D.) I wouldnt expect him to extoll a Jewish messiah in anyway shape or form, especially one known as the King of the Jews because he was there with the Romans. He wouldve had a hard way to go on that one. History is written by the victors and is as biased as anything else. Josephus was a slave to Vespasian, Titus father. Josephus defected to Rome and was granted citizenship by Vespasian. But I wouldnt expext a historian with that sort of pressure on him to maintain pro-Romish views in his historical accounts to say much about Jesus.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'll let Bart Ehrman address why we know [to a reasonable degree of certainty] that Pilate did not have a custom of releasing violent insurrectionists at Passover.
https://ehrmanblog.org/pilate-released-barabbas-really/
So we have A. no outside evidence Pilate ever had such a custom and B. ample evidence that it was completely outside his character.
You may keep this in the category of an unproven story. I mean, ok, fine. Personally, I think it's a disproven story on par with George Washington and the cherry tree.
This thread is about religion demanding the acceptance of the unprovable. We can agree this story falls in that category. I would go a step further. You would not. Fine.
***
Your summary of my point about Herod was the exact opposite of my point about Herod, which means either you misunderstood me or I mistyped something. I meant to say the slaughter of the innocents was CONSISTENT with his character. It remains unproven, but at least it's not nonsense.
The release of Barabbas was nonsense.
***
You can probably find tons of evidence of regional floods. None will match the Genesis flood in scope and timing. It didn't happen.. That's not unprovable or unproven. It's disproven. The best you will be able to do is track down an event that might have served as inspiration for the various flood stories throughout cultures. But that's not the same thing.
***
My point is that religion expects us to believe not only that which can't be proven, or that which hasn't been proven. It expects us to believe that which is disproven.
Like the confusing of languages at Babel. That's not how we got different languages! Or Joseph traveling to Bethlehem to register for the census because he was of the House of David. That's not how censuses work, then or now!
But we will twist ourselves into knots trying to explain why these things, that aren't so, are so.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im not involved in the discussion but decided to jump in the pool for a few minutes.
I do have one question on your points of view regarding the Bible. If something is recorded in the Bible does it need to have a corresponding secular source to verify it's records?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It helps to bolster the case for historicity. This is how historians do history.
But wisdom literature and scripture need not be historically accurate to effectively articulate Truth.
Reading the Bible as a historical document to confirm historical facts will be problematic. But is this why one reads the Bible? Is historical fact the fruit? Or is there a deeper, higher fruit?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I agree, but scripture also contains the history of an entire group of people as they grew into a nation. So then does the Bible fail because history doesnt record something thats in the Bible or does history fail? I feel you can trust historical accounts in scripture out of faith. However, if history doesnt record something in the Bible it doesnt mean the Bible is wrong.
Personally, I am a fan of Josephus. I read most of his works when I was in-residence. I am actually an old/new testament history buff. So Im down discussing history as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Context: we're talking about religion compelling people to believe the unprovable, not why people read the Bible.
Excellent question, OldSkool.
The answer is: to an extent. It really depends on the claim being made.
It should be noted that historicity is crucial to the truth claims of Christianity. If these things didn't happen, then Christianity is false regardless of the morals and priciples it teaches. Take the good and cherish it. Take the silliness and trash it.
Homework: Read the preceding paragraph. Then read the Jefferson Bible. Then read the preceding paragraph again. Repeat until it hits you.
Anyway, where were we? Oh yeah:
I would not expect independent verification of some things. Others, yeah, there'd better be corroboration.
For example, we know King David existed. We also know the size and influence of his kingdom was a wee bit exaggerated.
We know Nebuchadnezzar existed. We know Daniel did not. The book of Daniel claims Belshazar was king and that he was Nebuchadnezzar's son. Neither is true. Daniel is no more real than the Kent family in the John Jakes novels: a fictional character interacting with real people from history to tell a compelling tale.
Moses? No more real than Perseus. Egypt kept records, man.
...
I got interrupted and you posted again while I was writing, so I'll stop here and read and respond if necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, it does not. It contains a mythology of the growth of that nation.
See, that's the thing. Exodus is not part of Egypt's history. Or Israel's.
In the Bible, Joshua is credited with destroying the city of Ai. That city had been destroyed centuries earlier. Conservative, Bible believing archaeologists came to that conclusion reluctantly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Never picked one up but you encourage me to do so. Is this a pretty good summary of it?
"The letters intimate great appreciation of the life and words of Jesus as the true cynosure of republican government. It is understood by some historians that Jefferson composed it for his own satisfaction, supporting the Christian faith as he saw it."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
lol no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.