Jesus: Connections to Eyewitnesses and Extrabiblical Sources

[metis]

I guess the question I have is what difference does it really make?

First of all, there really is no way of knowing which sources are more or less accurate when we're dealing with material from that long ago written by people that we don't know operating from a subjective paradigm. Therefore, a position I feel much more comfortable with is to read what written, focus on the morals and values taught, and then use whatever seems reasonable and also may be usable.

Therefore, I can much appreciate what seems to be Jesus' basic message, namely that of compassion and justice, which all too often seems to get lost in the discussion.

 

[Berserk]

Melis, the answer to your question is the philosophical distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. For many intellectual seekers, connections with eyewitnesses and corroborating sources are a crucial issue for the rationality of faith. But in my view, such evidence is a necessary, but not a sufficient basis for faith because there can be no absolute proof. Put differently, theological understanding and historical evidence, though needed, are ultimately the booby prize because they offer just enough spirituality to inoculate against the real thing. And the real thing is self-authenticating spiritual experience. In the paranormal section of this site, I discuss and will continue to discuss the sort or paranormal experiences that made the decisive difference for me. But I don't expect readers to convert on the basis of my anecdotes because second-hand spirituality can at best inspire second-rate faith. Rather, I hope my testimonies will arouse the curiosity to develop a passionate spiritual quest, which, according to Scripture, is the right way to "find God."

 

[metis]

Melis, the answer to your question is the philosophical distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. For many intellectual seekers, connections with eyewitnesses and corroborating sources are a crucial issue for the rationality of faith. But in my view, such evidence is a necessary, but not a sufficient basis for faith because there can be no absolute proof. Put differently, theological understanding and historical evidence, though needed, are ultimately the booby prize because they offer just enough spirituality to inoculate against the real thing. And the real thing is self-authenticating spiritual experience. In the paranormal section of this site, I discuss and will continue to discuss the sort or paranormal experiences that made the decisive difference for me. But I don't expect readers to convert on the basis of my anecdotes because second-hand spirituality can at best inspire second-rate faith. Rather, I hope my testimonies will arouse the curiosity to develop a passionate spiritual quest, which, according to Scripture, is the right way to "find God."

If some want to take it that way, that's clearly their choice. As for me, I tend to have more respect for those seeking God/"spirituality" (however defined) than those who have claimed to have found and really know God.

 

[Berserk]

On what basis do you distinguish between "spirituality" and mystically 'knowing God?"

 

[metis]

On what basis do you distinguish between "spirituality" and mystically 'knowing God?"

I said "'spirituality' (however defined)". When someone talks about "spirituality", I have to read it in context to try and figure out how they're using the term. I don't use the term in regards to myself.

As far as "mystical" is concerned, that ain't me either-- I'm pragmatic to a fault.

 

[Hawkins]

I'll begin with 2 points and later expand them as the discussion proceeds.
(1) Papias (C. 60-125 AD) is famous for his preference for eyewitness testimony ("a living voice") to Jesus over written records. He has directly consulted disciples of the apostles and even a couple of living disciplesof Jesus (John the Elder and Aristion). What he learns is that the Gospel of Mark is based on Peter's teaching ministry and is therefore on eyewitness testimony. Mark is criticized by these disciples for changing the sequence of events in Jesus' life. Mark does not offer a chronologically historical narration, but rather on how each story fits his thematic purpose. This explains why Jesus' itinerary in Mark makes little sense as a continuous journey. So it is irresponsible to claim that Mark is poorly informed about Palestinian geography. Mark's role as Peter's assistant and translator is attested in 1 Peter 5:13. Peter was martyred in Rome and the Latanisms in Mark attest Rome as the place of the Gospel's origin. So the Gospel's origin in Rome attests its connection to eyewitness testimony (Peter's). This fits nicely with Justin Martyr's reference in Rome to Mark's Gospel as "his (Peter's) memoirs (Dialogue with Trypho 106:3)."


(2) The historical credibility of Mark's preservation of Peter's memoirs can be supported by striking details that are embarrassing and unlikely to be fabricated. Here are just 3 examples: (a) The Gospel concedes that Jesus' family considers him mad and actually tries to physically restrain Him (3:19-21). This rejection prompts Jesus to complain that no prophet is "honored among his own kin and in his own house (6:4)." Even John 7:5 sadly concedes, "His own brothers did not believe in Him." (b) Hostility at Nazareth creates an atmosphere in which Jesus "is unable" to perform miracles there. In other words, He apparently tries and fails! (The "except" clause in Mark 6:6 is recognized by scholars as a later gloss.). (c) Jesus does not succeed in curing the blind man at Bethsaida on His first attempt. A 2nd effort is needed to complete the healing (8:22-26). These embarrassing details are surely historical reminiscences.

People usually apply a non-existing ideal as a standard to judge what the Bible is. Ask them to show us another human book which they think that is credible then to compare it with the Bible.


The only difference could be that the knowledge set is different. A non-religious document is how humans record events/figures understandable to them. They understandable because what mentioned in the document are within their knowledge set. A religious document is how humans record supernatural events/figures may not understandable to humans.

Though today humans' arrogance assumes that they have understood everything (with the help of their god the science".

 

[Berserk]

(8) Atheist Morton Smith is a genuine scholar. In his unique book, "Jesus the Magician," he reconstructs the version of Jesus' life as told by His Jewish detractors. I have summarized his findings in the paragraph below. The main source is the Platonist Celsus (170 AD), who interviewed Jewish leaders to get their version of Jesus' life. Some of what they share can be independently corroborated by earlier sources traceable to the first century. I have cited other sources in parentheses for certain negative Jewish traditions about Jesus.

Jesus is the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier named Panthera and a spinner woman (Rabbi Eliezer--70 AD). Her husband disowned her for her adultery and Jesus was born while she was on the run. He got a job in Egypt as a laborer and took the opportunity to become an adept in magic there. Jesus even had himself tatooed with magical spells (Celsus--170 AD--also responsible for the ensuing claims). Returning to Galilee Jesus hung out with sailors of the worst sort, and wandered from place to place, making his living shamefully as a beggar. He recruited 10 (not 12) disciples and taught them to indulge in secret orgies in defiance of the Law of Moses. He pesuaded the masses that he was the Messiah by his miracles, which were either demonically powered or nothing more than magically induced hallucinations. His cures were not real and did not last (Quadratus--100-125 AD). Even his own family rejected his claims. He was tried and executed by Pilate for sedition and the practice of magic. His disciples stole his body and then claimed that they saw him after he rose from the dead. Some say the gardener at the tomb site removed the body to discourage sightseers from stepping on his lettuce (Tertullian--208 AD). But the false claim that he rose from the dead has gained him a huge following.

Some slanderous lies, to be sure; but perhaps this polemical portrait unwittingly provides independent confirmation of how Jesus' contemporaries experienced his faith healing ministry. Considering what these Jewish critics concede about Jesus, the following possibilities have varying degrees of merit for our consideration:

(a) Even the skeptics concede that Jesus put on a great show--that He seemed to perform miracles. They just dismiss these miracles as either demonic or as magically produced hallucinations. No one claims that Jesus was just a teacher and that all miracle claims about Him are legendary.

(b) We learn from Hegesippus's sources (180 AD) that Clopas was Joseph's brother. The bishop of Antioch, John Chrysostom (347-407 AD), claims that, after Joseph's death, Mary lived with Clopas as if she were his wife. Now marrying your husband's brother is deemed incestuous by contemporary Judaism, but is mandatory if the husband (Joseph) died childless. If Mary married Clopas after Joseph's untimely death, 2 spectacular inferences can be drawn: (1) Jesus' family recognizes the Jesus is not the natural child of Joseph, in which case we have another reason to believe in Jesus' virgin birth. (2) Jesus' so-called siblings are really children of Clopas after his marriage to Mary. This marriage would explain the puzzling early tradition that Jesus' former cousins are now by law his brothers as well. This would explain how the tradition arose of Jesus as the son of Panthera. In Greek pentherides" means "the husband's brother." In Aramaic, the suffix "ides" would be dropped, leaving just "panther." An intriguing hypothesis is that the Panthera tradition arises from the confusion of Penther with Panthera and masks an early recognition of the tradition preserved by John Chrysostom that, after Joseph's death, Mary entered a Levirate marriage with Clopas, Joseph's brother. Legally, at the time of Jesus' ministry, He would be the son of Clopas.

(c) Matthew tells us that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt to escape Herod's massacre of Bethlehem babies. The version of Jesus' life from His detractors suggests that Jesus stayed in Egypt much longer and became a laborer there. Probably untrue, but an interesting tradition!

(d) Paul says, "I bear on my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." These marks are normally construed as the marks of Paul's beatings incurred as torture for preaching the Gospel. What if they are imitations of Jesus' tattoos? Unlikely, but perhaps His Jewish detractors construed Paul's marks this way. In any case, they claim that Jesus was tattooed!

 

[metis]

I guess I have problems with the "miracles" parts because I find no reason to believe in miracles, although I fully admit there's always that possibility there could be some. To me, I think it's more likely that the "miracles" were probably assigned to Jesus and some others since the writings about Jesus were done mostly 2+ decades after Jesus' death, which is plenty of time for some folklore to creep in.

I have never run across the "tatoos" in my readings, and I have to think maybe that it's more of a symbolic reference-- but then what do I know? Tatoos violate halacha because of body piercings, but then it's always possible that maybe just some sort of dye was used? Don't know.

Finally, the pseudepigrapha make all sorts of claims about Jesus that are pretty difficult to swallow, but not all are that "far out".

 

[roger1440]

In all likelihood neither Jesus nor Paul had tattoos. If they did have tattoos you would think it would have been mentioned somewhere in the New Testament. If Jesus did have a tattoo maybe it was of the Virgin Mary with the word “mom” under it.

 

[Berserk]

I mean, Jesus hung around with sailors. C'mon, tattoos are to be expected. Not! Seriously, what intrigued me about the tattoo claim is that we have no reliable descriptions about His physical appearance. That's one of the reasons why the new evidence for the Shroud of Turin's authenticity interests me. This omission seems to be a function of the lack of interest in Jesus' personality as opposed to His character and authority . For precisely this reason, I once preached a sermon on Jesus' personality, focusing on His sense of humor, His penchant to give nicknames to many of His disciples, and His love of shock tactics like His Semitic hyperbole in His pedagogy. Here are some of His nicknames: Simon the Rock (Aramaic: "Cephas"),, James and John, "the Thunder boys"), Simon the Zealot, Judas the Twin (Aramaic: "Thomas;" Greek: "Didymus"); and Mary the Tall (Aramaic: "Migdol"--nott Mary Magdallene or Mary from Magdala. and Herod the Fox, More controversial is the caim that Juaas Iscariot means "Judas the Assassin (Latin: Sicarius"--not "Judas, the man of Kerioth), The nickname "ary the Tall" seems to be part of a new and growing scholarly consensus.

As for Jesus the miracle worker, even His Jewish detractors agreed that this was part of His act and that He certainly created the impression that this is what He was doing. Remember, that faith healers are a passing fad in Jesus' day. Other contemporary Jewish miracle workers include Honi the Circle Drawer, Hanina ben Dosa, and the unnamed Jewish exorcist in Mark 9.

 

[metis]

The change of names usually fell into two categories: one is that the new name may be given so as to state what the person's purpose or destiny was to be, and the second was that people back then in eretz Israel did not have last names, therefore they sometimes had to have an additional "name" to identify which person was being referred to.

I think part of Jesus' schtick that probably caught him attention was his use of parables, which was sort of a socratic method sometimes matched with a use of symbolism. It would sorta add some mystery to his persona.

 

[Berserk]

I think part of Jesus' schtick that probably caught him attention was his use of parables, which was sort of a socratic method sometimes matched with a use of symbolism. It would sorta add some mystery to his persona.

True, and what in intrigues me about this is His refusal to explain the parables to outsiders (so Mark 4:12). Jesus wanted ;people to project themselves into His stories and meditate on what each parable might mean for them. In other words, Jesus felt that spirituality is better caught than taught.

 

[metis]

True, and what in intrigues me about this is His refusal to explain the parables to outsiders (so Mark 4:12). Jesus wanted ;people to project themselves into His stories and meditate on what each parable might mean for them. In other words, Jesus felt that spirituality is better caught than taught.

True, but it begs the question whether this part of his explanation only to the Twelve was put in there to elevate them to create more of an image of their authority on such matters? Just a thought.

This concept of authority is an important part of creating leadership, especially as played out in Acts, but it also is a reoccurring theme in many of the epistles. With the fear of fragmentation, this approach could be quite self-serving but understandable.

Maybe.

 

[Berserk]

Jesus rarely gives a direct answer to a question. He typically answers a question with another question, or responds with a parable, or digresses to an issue He deems more important for the questioner. Also, I'm struck the implication of Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus never directly told His disciples that He was the Messiah. He waited for Peter's discernment: "Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah; for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father..." (Matthew 16)." Add the fact that Jesus often upbraids the disciples for being slow learners, and it seems clear that Jesus dislikes spoon-feeding and expects us to sharpen our intuition by living the big questions.

 

[metis]

Jesus rarely gives a direct answer to a question. He typically answers a question with another question, or responds with a parable, or digresses to an issue He deems more important for the questioner. Also, I'm struck the implication of Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus never directly told His disciples that He was the Messiah. He waited for Peter's discernment: "Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah; for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father..." (Matthew 16)." Add the fact that Jesus often upbraids the disciples for being slow learners, and it seems clear that Jesus dislikes spoon-feeding and expects us to sharpen our intuition by living the big questions.

If I can add a bit to the above, and that is that there's a Jewish writing tradition to have each major figure as having at least one flaw, and we tend to see this coming into play with the apostles. Even Jesus self-humbled himself when he said that he came to serve and not be served.

 

[Berserk]

T(9) The Church of the Holy Sepulchre now covers the traditional site of Jesus' tomb and Golgotha, the rocky hill on which Jesus was allegedly crucified. The church is visited by countless tourists each year. Jerusalem church tradition recognized that the tomb had been covered by a Roman pagan temple to Venus ("Aphrodite" in Greek) on the orders of emperor Hadrian in the early second century. In 326 AD, by order of Constantine and in the presence of Helena, his mother, this pagan temple is torn down and the church father Eusebius and Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, witness the uncovering of Jesus' tomb (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:28). Eusebius goes overboard by claiming this discovery as proof of Jesus' resurrection. . More interesting is the fact that there were 4 tombs to choose from in identifying Jesus' tomb. How did they know which tomb was Jesus?' Well. the house of Peter in Capernaum is identified by an inscription on a wall in an early 2nd century house church there. So it seems likely that a first-century inscription identified one tomb as that of Jesus. Only the inner chamber of this tomb is preserved; so the inscription is no longer there, if it ever was. The tomb is about 40 yards from the rock pile that is the alleged remains of Golgotha, the place of Jesus' crucifixion that was largely taken down to accommodate the Roman temple.

Besides this ancient tradition, 4 additional facts support the location of Jesus' tomb and Golgotha within this church complex:
(1) Jesus' tomb in the Church is rock hewn from a quarry, just as the Gospels specify.
(2) The Gospels locate Jesus' tomb in a garden and archaeologists have proven that this quarry was beautified by gardens in Jesus' day.
(3) The Gospel testimony that Jesus was crucified outside the city walls is contradicted by the tomb's location inside Jerusalem's walls. The contradiction is resolved when it is realized that around 41-42 AD Herod Agrippa had the city walls moved out a sufficient distance, so that both Golgotha and Jesus' tomb were now located inside the city. Remember, it was against Jewish law to locate tombs inside the city.
(4) The site fits the Gospel testimony that Golgotha was near a well traveled road and the testimony that Jesus was crucified "outside the [city] gate" in Hebrews 13:12.

I regret the fact that my tour of Israel's holy sites a few years ago excluded the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in favor of the very appealing but historically discredited Garden Tomb, also known as Gordon's tomb.

 

[metis]

Peter's house in Capernaum was certainly not a church but there was a synagogue a stone's throw from his house. I was at that site in 1991. Capernaum is quite far from Jerusalem, so it is certainly not the burial or crucifixion site. The inscription said that Jesus stayed there, although I don't recall the exact translation of the words. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre appears to be the most likely site of Jesus' entombment. As you say the Garden 'tomb area is not at all likely to be that location. Also, as you say, some of the walls were moved. The supposed tomb is really a shot in the dark as there were a fair number in that location.

 

[Berserk]

Metis: "Peter's house in Capernaum was certainly not a church ?"

To see why you're likely mistaken about the house's remodeling into a house church, see:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...ouse-of-peter-the-home-of-jesus-in-capernaum/

Metis: "Capernaum is quite far from Jerusalem, so it is certainly not the burial or crucifixion site."

Nor did I say or imply that it was. You must learn to read. I was merely citing it as an example of how ancient inscriptions help identify holy sites in Israel.

 

[metis]

Metis: "Peter's house in Capernaum was certainly not a church ?"

To see why you're likely mistaken about the house's remodeling into a house church, see:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...ouse-of-peter-the-home-of-jesus-in-capernaum/

Metis: "Capernaum is quite far from Jerusalem, so it is certainly not the burial or crucifixion site."

Nor did I say or imply that it was. You must learn to read. I was merely citing it as an example of how ancient inscriptions help identify holy sites in Israel.

First of all, I didn't know that the home was reworked after Peter and Jesus were long gone, plus I was referring to it in eregards to when they were alive anyway.

Secondly, let me reply to your insult by posting what you wrote in your previous post: "Well. the house of Peter in Capernaum is identified by an inscription on a wall in an early 2nd century house church there. So it seems likely that a first-century inscription identified one tomb as that of Jesus. Only the inner chamber of this tomb is preserved; so the inscription is no longer there, if it ever was. The tomb is about 40 yards from the rock pile that is the alleged remains of Golgotha, the place of Jesus' crucifixion that was largely taken down to accommodate the Roman temple."

Notice how you ran one sentence into the other, which led me to interpret it differently from what you apparently intended.

 

[Berserk]

Metis, your academic background prompted my assumption that you were aware of how holy sites can be preserved and remodeled with inscriptions, etc. (e. g. the first century Nazareth house celebrated in tradition as the home of Joseph and Mary; the Upper Room, etc.). The tombs discussed in my post are clearly referring to the tombs in the Jerusalem church. Capernaum is not near Jerusalem. The nearby synagogue in Capernaum is irrelevant because it was constructed in the 4th-5th century.