Is there any evidence to back the bible?

Great Debates
41

I think that there is evidence that many Old Testament locations did exist or had a base in real places, but it looks like several locations did not. The New Testament has problems with key locations:

http://www.free-thinker.org/where_jesus_never_walked.php

One WAG: could it be that Nazareth the necropolis was used as a symbol by the early Christians to represent that Jesus had power to escape death? It could be also that the evangelists attached a retroactive title to the necropolis in memory of Jesus the Nazirite?:
http://www.jesusarchive.com/books_reviews_Eisenman.html

42

Well, the Nazis attempted to slaughter the Roma in the Holocaust, and some estimates say they killed between 70-80% of all the Romani. Before that, in most of Eastern Europe, up to the beginning of the 20th century, in eastern Europe, they were considered slaves, with no rights, and any landholder could sieze them and make them work or kill them. In Western Europe, they were often expelled from cities, provinces, or entire countries. So, there’s been a lot of discrimination.

43

There is serious doubt that Josephus ever wrote any such thing as “doer of wonderful works” etc in the Antiquities. If you look at the language which he uses, and the surrounding passages, it is almost certainly a later redaction. I do not have the resources at my fingertips to show this, but if you give me a few days, I can have several citations from people who study classics to this effect, if anyone is interested.

The upshot is that the lines in question, although they are in Josephus’ work, almost certainly do not represent the writing of Josephus or his views but rather the views of later editors of the book.

As for the other two citations, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus, Pliny’s letter deals with a question of how to treat the Christians, c. 100AD and only mentions Jesus (as Christus, using it as a proper name and not a title) only tangentially, and the Tacitus cite is not very much more related.

The important thing to remember is that until ~350, Romans didn’t really care very much at all about the Christians, so they don’t show up in the Literature. The same way that newspapers don’t put “New Hindu Sect in Guam!” on the front page of their papers. Nobody cares too much, and it doesn’t make all that much of an impact.

Tenebras

44

We ain’t Cecil! [:)]

IMHO, yes for some, and no for others. For example…
Humans exist? Yes. Humans were created from dust and lived for hundreds of years? No.
Floods happen? Yes. There was a global flood? No.
There was a Roman empire? Yes. Acts of God destroyed whole cities? No.

IMHO, the Bible is a compilation of myth, morality, history, & wisdom. You need to make the distinctions between which is which.

IMHO, God & religion are a matter of faith & not physical evidence.

The Bible does not say. Neither does science.

45

Albright was, indeed, an excellent archaeologist and did much to perfect techniques to turn archaeology from the art of grave-robbing to the science of discovering the past.
However, he was no scholar of Scripture and most of his claims on Scripture are based in his personal theology in the face of actual evidence.

The overwhelming opinion of scholars (especially those not bound to a theological premise that all the gospels had to have been written before 70 so that all of the statements of Jesus are cast as predictions of the fall of Jerusalem), is that Mark was written not much earlier than the 60s up to 70, that Matthew and Luke were written in the 70s (or possibly early 80s), and that John was written in the 90s.

The letters of John were probably written just before 100 and there is substantial (not conclusive) evidence that the letters to Timothy and Titus and to Jude were written after 100. The first letter attributed to Peter most likely dates to the early to mid-90s. The second letter attributed to Peter is so clearly based on a copy of Jude, that it cannot be earlier than that letter. External evidence overwhelmingly gives Revelation a date in the 90s. The letters of James and to the Hebrews have, so far, resisted firm dating.

The oldest physical evidence of any New Testament writing is a papyrus fragment containing the verses Jn 18: 31-33 and part of verse 37 datingg from the early second century. It is labeled B52, using a Gothic B and a superscript 52.

46

Even if we assume that he was “no great scholar,” this would not have prevented him from treating the Gospels and the Epistles as historical documents to be verified. It also does not preclude him from investigating extra-biblical accounts, such as those describing the martyrdom of the Apostles.

Those scholars are typically bound to the premise that the gospels must have been written AFTER that date. After all, they predict the fall of Jerusalem, and so they must have been written after the fact, no? As Polycarp pointed out, that’s a clear case of circular reasoning.

Besides, there is ample evidence that these were written at an earlier date. The Acts of the Apostles, for example, focuses greatly on Jerusalem, yet remains mysteriously silent on that city’s destruction in A.D. 70. Nor does it mention Nero’s persecution in A.D. 64, or the martyrdom of three of its central figures: James, Paul and Peter (A.D. 62, 64 and 65, respectively). This would, in turn, put the book of Luke at an even earlier date.
The letters of John were probably written just before 100 and there is substantial (not conclusive) evidence that the letters to Timothy and Titus and to Jude were written after 100. The first letter attributed to Peter most likely dates to the early to mid-90s. The second letter attributed to Peter is so clearly based on a copy of Jude, that it cannot be earlier than that letter. External evidence overwhelmingly gives Revelation a date in the 90s. The letters of James and to the Hebrews have, so far, resisted firm dating.

The oldest physical evidence of any New Testament writing is a papyrus fragment containing the verses Jn 18: 31-33 and part of verse 37 datingg from the early second century. It is labeled B52, using a Gothic B and a superscript 52. **
[/QUOTE]

47

The Jewish evidence for Jesus is well set out by Jewish writer, Joseph Klausner in Jesus of Nazareth for those who would wish to examine the matter further. This covers his historicity, unusual birth, miracles, teaching, disciples, Messianic claims, crucifixion, resurrection and promised return.

Tacitus writes, ‘The name Christian comes to them from Christ, who was executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate; and the pernicious cult, suppressed for a while, broke out afresh and spread not only through Judea, the source of the disease, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home.’ Annals, 15.44

The fact is that both the Roman and Jewish authorities were opposed to Jesus and Christianity. Is not the very fact that they provide testimony of any description all the more significant and valuable?

48

The matter of whether Jerusalem is described as having been destroyed is almost never referenced by the overwhelming number of scholars as evidence of the dates of the writings. Dates are determined by internal evidence (language, references to other writings, references to other events, (occasionally, but not often including the destruction of Jerusalem), theology directed against known “heresies” (such as the Gnostics), etc.) and external evidence (citations by other writers of knowledge of the writings).

The basis is not circular reasoning.

Acts does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem or the persecution of Nero for the simple fact that its intent as a story ends with Paul carrying the Word to Rome. There are traditions that Paul went on to Spain after his first Roman imprisonment that are also not mentioned, because they do not carry the purpose of the narrative to show the Word of God being preached, first in Jerusalem, then through the Empire, and finally to Rome, itself. (It also ignores the fact that Paul was invited to preach in Rome by Christians who had preceded him, because that would interrupt the point of the narrative.)

Albright’s comments are entirely based in his theology and make no reference to any extra-scriptural dating.

Revelation describes a city as wealthy that had suffered complete destruction in an earthquake before Nero’s coming to power, but which had rebuilt and regained its wealth in the 90s during the Asian persecution of Domitian (Nero’s persecution hardly made it out of Rome).

There are many similar dating techniques. The dating that I outline is the one preferred by the overwhelming number of Scripture scholars.

49

First of all, thank you all for the response. Second, Furt and Waverly both said my post was or might be a “troll”. What the hell is a “troll”?? Wildest Bill… you do sound reminiscent of a nut-case, but I’m willing to accept that you have good ideas/beliefs that aren’t coming out the right way, (and some that are just a tad ignorant like you singling out Jews to be smart and talented, some are… some aren’t. They aren’t naturally selected to be good business people, it’s all in upbringing. My mother used to claim that Italians are naturally wonderful people… I would only say one word to shut her up: “Mafia”). Anyway, I have some GRAND ideas that sound completely idiotic when I try to put them into words, so no points off for trying.

   Phobos writes:	 "IMHO, the Bible is a compilation of myth, morality, history, & wisdom. You need to make the distinctions between which is which."

   I believe this too... and IF it's true, and the writings as a whole is a mixture of fact and fiction, morality and wisdom... What an amazing work of art. It blows my mind! Look at the influence it has on everybody's life, whether they believe or they don't believe. I'm not a brilliant man, nor do I have the same level of brain capacity for factual "smarts" as most of you do, but I know creative story telling when I see it.

   I was sort of hoping that people would comment more on the Big Bang inquiry. All in all... I didn't know my post would get the attention it did. Someone IMed me, (after reading my post I guess), asking me what my beliefs are... and I told her that I believe in what ever's out there... that goes for anything, not just religion.

another thing, I’m a dyslexic fool… so please go easy on the spelling and grammar errors.

~Scott

50

Myfootszzz,

A troll is a word that was made up by internet users that means something like someone is posting something just to cause controversy without really caring about what they are talking about.(that was probably a run on sentence) But usually a troll is someone who post something then never again responds to the thread. I don’t think your trolling or a troll btw.

51

A troll is someone who posts a message merely to invoke an argument. You’ll have to excuse their suspicion of your sincerity, a troll is often someone who is new to a message board and starts off making big contraversal statements.

:slight_smile:

Try reading through some of the old Great Debates (search for “Big Bang” or “universe” or stuff like that). It’s been discussed often. The bottom line is that the source of the Big Bang is beyond our ability to obtain direct evidence, so it’s left to either speculation or faith.

52

Which begs the question of WHY it ended at that point. It would have been very odd to end that way if Jerusalem had already been destroyed; after all, the book discussed the Apostle’s works, which were centered about that city. It also fails to make ANY mention whatsoever of the Apostles’ martyrdoms, yet discussed the stoning of Stephen (a more obscure character) at great length. Since the book was about the Apostles themselves, such repeated omissions would have been most bizarre.

The most logical conclusion is that Acts ends at that point because the fall of Jerusalem had not yet occured, thereby placing its authorship before A.D. 70.

53

What is bizarre is making the claim that Acts is “about the Apostles.” Seven of them are mentioned only a single time in a single verse and nowhere else in the book. None are given any serious attention after the first few chapters.

Acts was written to show the Word of God being nurtured in Jerusalem, then moving out into Asia Minor, and finally traveling to Rome, in the process losing its Jewish audience and becoming very much a message to the Gentiles. That is the structure of the work.

It is not a simple historical narrative of the early Church. There is no mention of missionary work in Egypt, even though Alexandria was nearly as important as Antioch in the early church. There is no mention of Apostolic journeys to Syria (other than Paul and Barnabbas working in Antioch). Stephen’s martyrdom is mentioned because the flight of many Christians following that event led them to Antioch. We not only do not hear of the deaths of the Twelve (besides James), we do not hear of the works or words of the Twelve.

In structuring the work, the growth of the Word is shown to occur in Jerusalem, then Israel and Samaria, then Antioch (with the opening of the Word to the Gentiles), then Greece, then, finally, to Rome with the ever increasing reluctance of the Jews to listen to the Word. All other events are subservient to this schema. In fact, once Paul takes center stage, nearly all the other players simply fall away and the narrative focuses on Paul, alone.

If Acts was intended as a simple church history, then the fierce confrontation between Paul and the leaders of Jerusalem regarding the acceptance of Gentiles and Jewish Law should appear the way that Paul describes it in Galatians 2. Since the intent is to simply show that the Word has spread to the Gentiles, those disputes are couched in different words to minimize the original opposition to the acceptance of Gentiles. In other words, the book has a different purpose than a simple journal.

We cannot use the book to establish dates beyond its writing, because it was not written to identify dates or to provide a timeline. Dates within its narrative appear to be accurate, but events outside its narrative are simply outside its narrative, not necessarily unknown to the author.

54

Not at all. There’s a reason why the book is called “The Acts of the Apostles.”

The book doesn’t always mention them by name, but it does make general references to “the Twelve.” Moreover, while the book does focus on the more prominent characters such as Peter and Paul, this is done in the context of their apostolic acts.

Not true. Paul is referred to as an Apostle (albeit not one of the originals), and he is cited throughout the latter chapters. He may not have been one of the Twelve, but he testified to having met the resurrected Lord (Acts 26), just as the other apostles had.

Which in no way negates the fact that the book is about the Apostles. The missionary work that you describe, after all, was THEIR work.

In which case there would have been no need to focus specifically on the death of Stephen, describing the event in great detail. It would have been more than sufficient to explain that Christians were being hounded and chose to flee. But no… the Book of Acts discusses Stephen’s martyrdom in great detail, yet remains mysteriously silent on the death of Peter – despite Peter’s prominence in early chapters and his primacy in the early church!

55

Short of a time machine that let’s us watch Luke write it, we will probably never know the exact date that Acts was written. However, the “evidence” you provide is not particularly strong, either.

Bruce Catton spent a great deal of effort, publishing many books about the politics and warfare in the U.S. in the middle of the 19th century. Since he never mentions the Fight at Beecher’s Island of 1868, it is clear that either he died before 1868 or that his books were written before 1868. Valid conclusion?

56

And yet, it mentions the death of James only in passing–as if it is concentrating on specific events that carry forward its theme of the Word of God being carried first to the JEws, who generally reject it, and then to the Gentiles.

57

Well, on any reasonable assumption as to Paul’s psychology, it would seem clear that witnessing Stephen’s martyrdom was an influence leading him towards the Damascus Road experience. And on most reasonable assumptions of Luke’s motive, depicting Paul as the Hellenized cosmopolitan who finds his way to Christ and becomes a major force in the spread and conceptualization of Christianity is key to his
“story line.”

58

Nevertheless, it DOES mention the death of James. In contrast, the book maintains an absolute and eerie silence regarding the deaths of, say, Peter and Paul. (It is also worth noting that Stephen, while otherwise obscure, had been appointed to a position of leadership, as per Acts 6:5. It’s not clear if this put gave him greater authority than that of James, but it does suggest a reason why Stephen may have received greater emphasis. In addition, there simply may not have been much to say regarding James’ death, which seemed less dramatic than that of Stephen.)

It silence on the death of Paul is most curious of all. Paul is undeniably the most prominent character in the book of Acts, yet the book fails to make any reference to his martyrdom. In fact, the Book of Acts ends abruptly, with Paul merely living and preaching for two years within a rented house.

If Paul had already been executed, the author (commonly believed to be Luke) could have provided a much more obvious and dramatic ending to the book – something that befits the energy and aplomb that pervades his earlier chapters. Instead, he ends it anti-climactically, leaving this reader to ask, “Well, what comes next?”

Did Luke deliberately fail to mention Paul’s death? That would be like writing about the World Trade Center, yet failing to report that it was destroyed by two hijacked airplanes! The more plausible explanation is that Paul was still alive at the time Acts was written.

59

Not being familiar with Catton’s work, I hesitate to offer any conclusive opinions on the matter. There may be many reasons why someone would report certain matters, and not others. The martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, however, would be extraordinarily odd omissions for Luke to make in his record.

For example, it would have been a trivial matter for Luke to end his book by saying, “The Apostle Paul lived for two years in a rented house, preaching the Word… He later endured a lengthy imprisonment, during which he wrote lengthy exhortations to the people of Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi and Collose. He was later tortured and beheaded by Nero, proclaiming God’s Word to the very end.” In other words, it’s not merely an omission on his part, it’s a most curious omission that can be explained most logically by dating Acts before A.D. 67.

60

Catton wrote extensively about the Civil War in the 1950 and 1960s. In other words, later events were outside his “message”.

Similarly with Acts. It “might” have been trivial to add a coda briefly mentioning the later deaths of any specific Apostles, but it would not have been part of the work as it is laid out.

It is not either a journal or an annal.
It is not a “record” of the events.

A reading of the events Paul relates in Galatians 2 gives a very different picture of the early Church than a reading of Acts 15 (especially in light of statements made in Acts 11). I have no problem with the author of Acts “tidying up” the events to present a smoother flow and to minimize the very real conflicts that probably occurred as the new Christian community sorted out its beliefs, but one cannot compare Galatians 2 and Acts 15 and continue to claim that Acts is simply a “record” of the early church.

It is a very specific work that is designed to show Christianity spreading in a very specific way. It has a purpose and a theme and it omits anything that does not carry forward that theme. In the same way, it portrays Paul arriving in Rome to be greeted by some “brethren” of whom nothing more is said, yet in Paul’s letter to the Roman’s, he says that the fame of the faith of the Christians in Rome is known throughout the world and goes on to say “Hi” to 26 people he expects to see there.

Acts seems to leave that information out because the author is interested in showing the Word reaching Rome through Paul (with a sideline effort to show that the promise is being transferred from the Jews to the Gentiles as the Jews reject Paul’s efforts).

I cannot proove that Acts was written in the early 60s, but the idea of a later work using specific events to convey a message–that the Word of God traveled from the center of Revelation (Jerusalem) to the center of Culture (Greece) and finally to the center of Power (Rome)–makes more sense to me than the idea of an historic narrative that leaves out so many details and modifies other details to suit the story.