Does the Bible contain any true information?

A man writes a detailed account of the life and times of Jesus and his teachings, and you are certain he wasn't a follower?

By definition, I would be comfortable to allege him a disciple yes.

I had a "pwersonal relationship" forced upon me regarding ST Luke the Evangelist. He was the patron saint of artists and, when I was a kid, he was to have written the Gospel that bears his name in the 2nd century AD. (Now we are certain that it was more like the 4th century AD). SO that doesnt really make him a disciple, disciple. He was more a cxult following wannabe historical biographer and a writer more like DAn Brown.

To the extent that he was a follower of what was alleged to be the teachings of your boy Jesus, he could be called a disciple. So, yes, you would be correct to make a distinction between a disciple and an apostle. He certainly was not the latter.

I take issue, though, with the claim that he wrote a detailed account of the life and times of Jesus. We have no way of confirming any of the claims written in the alleged gospels, no external, corroborating accounts upon which to rely. And, in fact, there are contradictions which are external to the bible, which i've never seen christians deal with reasonably. For example, the claim about Augustus calling for a census, which required everyone to go to the place of their birth. We have a record of Augustus, written in the first person singular, of all the cenusii and lustra which he ordered, and none of them remotely correspond to the "window" in time for the alleged birth of the putative Jesus. More than that, the Romans didn't count those who were not citizens during a census or a lustrum--those were conducted only to count citizens, and your boy Joseph was no Roman citizen. Finally, the empire's communications systems (roads and ports) would have collapsed under the stress of tens of millions of people attempting to return to the places in which they were born.

There just is no good reason to assume that any of the four "gospels" are either accurate or detailed accounts of the times within which the putative Jesus is said to have lived, and good reason to doubt that they accurate describe his life, if he ever existed. It is important to note, for example, that the orthodox canon of scripture which christians now use was determined upon by Origen of Alexandria. He lived in the late second century and the early third century. We have no way of knowing what happened to those texts in the two hundred years from the time when the putative Jesus was alleged to have died and Origen's review of church literature. Additionally, the synoptic canon (Matthew, Mark and Luke) can be critically distinguished from the gospel of John, who is the only evangelist alleged to have lived at the same time and to have known the putative Jesus. Finally, the earliest copies of what is now known as the new testament date from the mid-fourth century, more than three hundred years after the putative Jesus is said to have lived. That's shaky ground upon which to erect an edifice of accuracy.

An interesting turn of points you raise regarding the census of Augustus, I am unfortunately not well versed in roman censure, it would do me well to study my history as opposed to rebuttle something upon which I know little.

The gospel writers were eager to link your boy Jesus up with David. As a Galilean, Jesus would not have been born in Bethlehem, which is considered to be "the city of David." So, this story appears to have been cobbled together to give Joseph an excuse to go to Bethlehem, so that Jesus could be born there. This was important because of the alleged prophecy in II Samuel, Chapter seven. This would establish Jesus as "the son of David" (i.e., descended from David), and therefore a candidate for messiah, based on the prophecy from II Samuel. That explains the mental gymnastics of the two geneologies, and the story about Joseph going to Bethlehem at the time when Jesus is alleged to have been born--to link him up to David, and to legitimize his claim to be the Messiah.

On the walls of a Roman temple near what is now Ankara, the capital of Turkey, and inscription was found which is called Res Gestae Divi Augusti, the deeds of the Emperor Augustus. A part of the text includes a list of the censii and lustra which he odered to be performed. (One of the ancient offices he assumed when he became Princeps--First Citizen--was that of Pontifex Maximus, or High Priest of the civic religion. In that capacity, he would be responsible for ordering the Censor to conduct a lustrum or a census to count Roman citizens.)

The eighth paragraph of that inscription reads:

When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations.

The dates in parentheses are provided by the translator. None of the dates work out for your boy Jesus, and these are censii and lustra of Roman citizens. Jospeh would not have been a Roman citizen.

By way of question, does the report have any information upon census conducted of non roman citizens? I do not ask from a position of knowedge, although i am intrigued to the point of wanting to delve deeper.

Well, I admit I am not intrigued enough to dig deeper. Takes too much time. Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Caesar Augustus ordered "all the world" to be taxed. (not counted for a census) So Joseph registered him and his wife in Judea (Bethlehem) because he was from the house of David.

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.



Regarding the Mary thing, Setanta, you're right about apologist after the fact trying to cobble together stuff without real proof. I personally think by reason of logic it has be Mary's genealogy, but there is no proof of such.

There's also no proof that Augustus ordered "all the world" to be taxed.

You probably would know if there was some kind of secular history regarding the tax thing, so your probably right, there is no proof.

Is there any proof (or good evidence) that Jesus even existed at all?

One of the apologist positions is that this refers to the tax enrolment of the Province of Syria by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was the governor. Like all apologist positions, it has as many problems as it seeks to solve. Quirinius did indeed order that enrolment--in about 6 CE (or 6 AD, if you prefer). It doesn't work out any better for the time of the birth of the putative Jesus, either.

By the way, referential to what Revelette has posted, in the New International version:

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register.

In the King James version:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

In the American Standard version:

Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled.

This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

And all went to enrol themselves, every one to his own city.

For whatever the importance that the residents of Palestine may have attached to their homeland, that's not all the world. Such an enrolment within a single senatorial province would not have been unusual, but it would not have been a case of the emperor ordering a census of "all the world." The emperor would have had good reason to take a census of Roman citizens--only a provincial governor would have been interested in anyone else.

It would not have been unreasonably disruptive for the citizens of a province to return to the place of their respective births. But the point, which seems to need to be repeated again and again, is that it is clearly an error in the text, and that beggars the contention that the scripture is divinely inspired and therefore inerrant.

None that i know of.

I was afraid you would say that.

Among biblical scholars (those with a respected reputation), is there any consensus on the subject? Or is it an equally balanced slug-fest of opinions?

It would depend upon what you mean by "biblical scholars." There are a great many "biblical scholars" whose work is to history what "intelligent design" is to science. They start from the proposition that Jesus did exist, and they work from there to bend the data to fit the assumption.

There are two main documentary sources of contention, and reputable scholars consider them to be interpolations (new text inserted into existing text). One is in The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, which alleges that Nero blamed the fire at Rome on the christians and persecuted them for it. There are several problems for it, such as that even christians did not call themselves christians at that time, and that Seutonius, who was born a few years later, doesn't mention it. But there are two major objections. One is that, as is the case with all interpolations, if you remove the suspect text, the passage still scans, and it reads reasonably. But the real clincher is that the interpolation was not found until the 15th century in a copy of Tacitus (there are not complete copies of that book by Tacitus) in the Vatican library. Even the Vatican has declared that it is an interpolation, and them boys are no friends of those who claim there was no Jesus. There is no other copy of Tacitus which contains that passage, and which is as old as or older than the Vatican copy.

The other alleged source for non-christian evidence is a passage in one of the histories of Flavius Josephus. Once again, there are several objections of an inferential nature (like the objection that even christians didn't call themselves christians either when the fire took place at Rome, or when Tacitus wrote his book), one of the strongest being the way all the Essenes, and according to scripture, Jesus himself constantly bad-mouthed the Pharisees. Well, Flavius Josephus was a Jew, and he was a Pharisee. It's rather a bit much to think that a Pharisee would go out of his way to tout someone who constantly condemned the Pharisees. Once again, if you remove the interpolation, the text scans properly, and it makes sense even though you've removed that portion of the text.

You have the same problem with the text of Josephus that you do with the account of fire in Tacitus--no one in the lifetime of Josephus called themselves christians, and no one else called them christians, either. Origen of Alexandria, who lived from the late 2nd to the mid-3rd century, and who wrote more than 250,00 words of textual and scripture commentary and criticism, and who frequently mentions Josephus as a source for Jewish history, never metions that passage. In fact, it doesn't show up until the fourth century, and the soruce is Eusebius, called "the father of church history." Eusebius, for obvious reasons, had a stake in making the claim.

Louis Feldman, an American expert in Hellenistic history and culture (i.e., the cutlure and history of the middle east after Alexander and before Islam), who holds a chair at Yeshiva University, did a review of modern scholars' views of the Josephus passage. Referring to 87 articles and textual passages, he stated that the overwhelming majority of scholars question the authenticity of the passage in whole or in part.

Seutonius only refers to the Jews, and it's a piece of christian gymnastics to make that out to be about the Christians. More importantly, Seutonius is the source for the report that Nero didn't blame anyone (major fires in Rome were common, and had occured a few years before and occured again and again after the particular fire to which Tacitus refers), and that the only measures Nero took were for the relief of the population of the city.

There is correspondence between Pliny and the emperor Trajan about christians who refuse to pay lip service to the civic religion. All people in the empire were required, occasionally, to offer sacrifice at the local temple to the Roman civic religion. As long as you did that, you were free to espouse and practice any other religion. The burden wasn't onerous, either--from time to time, the local governor would be required to report on compliance (that's why Pliny was writing to Trajan), and people would hurry on down to the temple, buy a chicken and give it to the priests to sacrifice (and literally a chicken--from the earliest days, the Romans performed diviniation by examining the entrails of birds). The Jews were odious to their fellow citizens because they would steadfastly refuse to do this, and soon, the christians attracted the same resentment. Most of the early accounts of persecution of christians were actually cases of the locals going batshit on these clowns who, in the view of the local population, might bring the wrath of the empire down on their collective heads.

Pliny wrote to the emperor to ask how he should handle it, and Trajan basically articulated a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. So long as there were no civil strife, and so long as the locals met the occasional and light obligations of the civic religion, Trajan didn't see any resason for Pliny to hunt down Jews and christians, nor anyone else, or that matter.

Among reputable scholars, who are prepared to defend their work among other scholars, the majority do not find credible evidence of contemporary or even near contemporary corroboration. Two obvious problems arise--the first is that mentioning christians (nevermind that they didn't even call themselves christians then) is not evidence that your boy Jesus ever existed--just that people might have thought he did (see the objection to the use of the term christian at the time of Nero). The real problem, though, is that none of the gospels had been written at that time, and no church scholar until Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century even mention these alleged sources.

Personally, i don't have a problem with the proposition that Jesus might have existed. I have real objections, though, to the bullshit which is contained within the so-called gospels, and the major problem that the three synoptic gospels don't agree with the gospel of John, the only evangelist who is claimed to have known Jesus. The reason i don't have a problem with the issue of whether or not the boy ever actually existed is that people believe he did, and that's more important than whether or not he actually did.

I'm not nearly as well read on the historical Jesus as Set, but I've done quite a bit of reading on the historical Jesus and early Christianity. I've never come across anyone who took the position that there wasn't an individual who was revered as a great teacher and healer, but there are differences among them as to his divinity. Many scholars use Josephus' (37-100 c.e.) Antiquities of the Jews as a basis of historical relevancy, but even that has purportedly been manipulated and changed by early Christian scribes.



Here is the quote in question and a redacted modification of what one scholar feels it most likely stated originally.





Source

Thanks for the info guys.

Outside of the realm of biblical scholars, where do historians who deal with physical evidence stand on the question. Is there any physical evidence which corresponds to ancient writing and has it lead to any consensus of opinion from historians?

But all those miracles just overrides all the subsequent reporting of this person called "Jesus."

I don't know what you mean by "overrides". Taken in the context of the Greco-Roman world of 2000 years ago, the concept of a healer/miracle worker was not all that unusual.

Please see the remark made by Professor Feldman of Yeshiva University. He reviewed textual entries from books, and published papers--87 passages and papers--and he records that the "overwhelming majority" (Professor Feldman's term, not mine), consider the Josephus passage to be in part or entirely false.