Jesus, Socrates and Secularism

ABC News ^ | April 4 | John Allen Paulos

[presidio9]

By now, more than a month since its release, Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ has elicited countless reactions from Catholics, Jews and fundamentalist Christians. Millions of viewers have so far contributed to the movie's nearly $300 million in gross earnings. Film critics and cultural commentators have weighed in on it in large numbers. Scientifically flavored responses, however, have been relatively sparse. Here's mine.

Even about modern day mega-stories we're often clueless. Forty years ago in the full glare of the modern media, John F. Kennedy was assassinated, and we have only a hazy idea of the motivation of the killer or, possibly, killers. Only a bit more than 30 years ago, the Watergate controversy erupted before a phalanx of cameras and microphones, and we still don't know who ordered what nor the identity of Deep Throat. And only two and half years ago, well into the age of the Internet, the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked, and we have yet to learn the complete story. These (and many, many other) examples of our ignorance of the details of recent events don't seem surprising. We're accustomed to suspending judgment, to estimating probabilities. We realize that people dissemble, spin, exaggerate, and misinterpret. And we know that even more frequently events transpire with no witnesses, and so we've developed an appropriate skepticism about news stories (and personal opinion pieces such as this).

Absence of Historical Evidence

But such skepticism sometimes deserts people when they consider more distant historical happenings. This is very odd since historians are subject to even more severe limitations than those facing contemporary journalists and writers. After all, printing presses and Palm Pilots haven't been around that long, but hearsay and unreliable narrators have.

The occasion for these observations is Gibson's gory movie and an under-reported fact about its basis: There is little, if any, external historical evidence for the details presented in the somewhat inconsistent biblical versions of the Crucifixion.

Unless we take literally and on faith the New Testament accounts written many decades afterward (between 70 and 100 A.D.), we simply don't know what happened almost two millennia ago, at least in any but the vaguest way. (This, of course, is part of the reason that Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, which purports to fill in the details of the story and its aftermath, has been No. 1 on Amazon, selling about 7 million copies to date.)

But, just for the moment, let's pretend that compelling historical documents have just come to light proving that a group of Jews was instrumental in bringing about the death of Jesus, that Pilate, the Roman governor, was benign and ineffectual, etc. Even if all this were the case, does it not seem hateful, not to mention un-Christian, to blame contemporary Jews? Blame is all the more inappropriate if Jesus' suffering is, as many Christian theologians claim, a condition for others' being saved.

Comparison With Socrates’ Death

We can gain a little perspective by comparing the Crucifixion of Jesus with the killing of another ancient teacher, Socrates — the Passion of the Christ versus the Poisoning of Socrates, if you will. Again the standard story is somewhat problematic, but even if we give full credit to Plato's 2,400-year-old account of Socrates' death, what zealous coterie of classicists or philosophers would hold today's Greeks responsible?

To ask the question is to dismiss it. It would be absurd, not to mention un-Socratic, for anyone to attribute guilt to contemporary Athenians. (Incidentally, Socrates needs a Mel Gibson or Dan Brown; the Amazon rankings of the various editions of The Trial and Death of Socrates range from poor to abysmal.)

The case of Socrates suggests another comparison. Would a cinematic account of his death focus unrelentingly on his clutching his throat and writhing in agony on the ground after drinking the hemlock? Would such an imagined film's moving cinematography and its actors speaking in archaic Greek do anything at all to increase the likelihood that the events really occurred as depicted?

Whatever one's beliefs or lack thereof, Socrates and Jesus were great moral leaders, whose ideas constitute a good part of the bedrock of our culture. Their lives and teachings are, in my avowedly secular opinion, more important than the details of their deaths, which are likely to remain nebulous at best.

Many important stories of the recent and distant past contain large holes and blank spots. Acknowledging uncertainty about them requires a braver heart than denying it.

[presidio9]

Their lives and teachings are, in my avowedly secular opinion, more important than the details of their deaths, which are likely to remain nebulous at best.

"Enlightened" academics continue to miss the point: His Suffering, Death, and Resurrection were far more important than what He had to say.

[Support Free Republic]

Donate Here By Secure Server

[presidio9]

ping

[Vitamin A]

Amazing that the academics who emphasize Christ's teachings over his death fail to realize that His death was the exemplification of His teachings, i.e., that we should gladly suffer and carrying each others' burdens out of a motivation of pure love.

[sd-joe]

Straw men, straw men.

These idiot writers love to create straw men and then knock them down.

>> "does it not seem hateful, not to mention un-Christian, to blame contemporary Jews?" <<

OK, but WHO is blaming contemporary Jews. I have not heard anyone. I have certainly not heard any Christians blaming contemporary Jews. It is just a stupid straw man.

>> "Would a cinematic account of his death focus unrelentingly on his clutching his throat and writhing in agony on the ground after drinking the hemlock?" <<

Well no, because that is not the central point of the story. However, in the story of Jesus....

Straw men. Idiot writers.

[presidio9]

I am further amazed by the academic's observation that the Gospels are not historical accounts, and this author's acceptance as fact that all the Gospels were written sometime between 70 & 100 AD.

[tahiti]

"Even if all this were the case, does it not seem hateful, not to mention un-Christian, to blame contemporary Jews?"

I hope the author would write the same sentence when speaking about "reparations" and placing the "blame" of black enslavement on "contemporary" whites.

[NYer]

Well, doesn't this just fill in the gaps in last night's "Jenning's Report" on Jesus and Paul!

Just in case the Reverend JOHN SHELBY SPONG was unable to 'woo' you with his views that " that the traditional concept of a supernatural God is no longer relevant - that modern progress in thought has made such an idea obsolete", here we have yet another 'professional' analysis, compliments of ABC.

Over the centuries, many have come forward claiming to be from God - name one! Scripture clearly testifies to the fact that Jesus was indeed, sent by God.

Acts
Chapter 5

12

² Many signs and wonders were done among the people at the hands of the apostles. They were all together in Solomon's portico.

13

None of the others dared to join them, but the people esteemed them.

14

Yet more than ever, believers in the Lord, great numbers of men and women, were added to them.

15

Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and mats so that when Peter came by, at least his shadow might fall on one or another of them.

16

A large number of people from the towns in the vicinity of Jerusalem also gathered, bringing the sick and those disturbed by unclean spirits, and they were all cured.

17

³ Then the high priest rose up and all his companions, that is, the party of the Sadducees, and, filled with jealousy,

18

laid hands upon the apostles and put them in the public jail.

19

But during the night, the angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison, led them out, and said,

20

"Go and take your place in the temple area, and tell the people everything about this life."

21

When they heard this, they went to the temple early in the morning and taught. When the high priest and his companions arrived, they convened the Sanhedrin, the full senate of the Israelites, and sent to the jail to have them brought in.

22

But the court officers who went did not find them in the prison, so they came back and reported,

23

"We found the jail securely locked and the guards stationed outside the doors, but when we opened them, we found no one inside."

24

When they heard this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were at a loss about them, as to what this would come to.

25

Then someone came in and reported to them, "The men whom you put in prison are in the temple area and are teaching the people."

26

Then the captain and the court officers went and brought them in, but without force, because they were afraid of being stoned by the people.

27

When they had brought them in and made them stand before the Sanhedrin, the high priest questioned them,

28

"We gave you strict orders (did we not?) to stop teaching in that name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and want to bring this man's blood upon us."

29

But Peter and the apostles said in reply, "We must obey God rather than men.

30

⁴ The God of our ancestors raised Jesus, though you had him killed by hanging him on a tree.

31

God exalted him at his right hand ⁵ as leader and savior to grant Israel repentance and forgiveness of sins.

32

We are witnesses of these things, as is the holy Spirit that God has given to those who obey him."

33

When they heard this, they became infuriated and wanted to put them to death.

34

⁶ But a Pharisee in the Sanhedrin named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up, ordered the men to be put outside for a short time,

35

and said to them, "Fellow Israelites, be careful what you are about to do to these men.

36

⁷ Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be someone important, and about four hundred men joined him, but he was killed, and all those who were loyal to him were disbanded and came to nothing.

37

After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census. He also drew people after him, but he too perished and all who were loyal to him were scattered.

38

So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself.

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[Jaded]

Same tripe, different day. Yawn. Don't expect any better from abc.

[Quix]

WRONG.

The texts were written--at least some of them--within the lifetimes of those who saw the events. The evidence for this is conclusive, substantive, and sufficiently broadbased.

WHO MOVED THE STONE is one good source.

A better more recent one is

Josh McDowell's

EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT.

[AnAmericanMother]

This guy is a fool.

Aside from his ignorant comments on the dating of the Gospels, he didn't even bother to read Plato's extremely detailed account of the death of Socrates for himself.

Crito made a sign to the servant, who was standing by; and he went out, and having been absent for some time, returned with the jailer carrying the cup of poison. Socrates said: "You, my good friend, who are experienced in these matters, shall give me directions how I am to proceed."

The man answered: "you have only to walk about until your legs are heavy, and then to lie down, and the poison will act."

At the same time he handed the cup to Socrates, who in the easiest and gentlest manner, without the least fear or change of color or feature, looking at the man with all his eyes, . . . as his manner was, took the cup and said: "What do you say about making a libation out of this cup to any god? May I, or not?"

The man answered: "We only prepare, Socrates, just so much as we deem enough."

"I understand," he said; "but I may and must ask the gods to prosper my journey from this to the other world--even so--and so be it according to my prayer."

Then raising the cup to his lips, quite readily and cheerfully he drank off the poison. And hitherto most of us had been able to control our sorrow; but now when we saw him drinking, and saw too that he had finished the draught, we could not longer forbear, and in spite of myself my own tears were flowing fast; so that I covered my face and wept, not for him, but at the thought of my own calamity in having to part from such a friend. Nor was I the first; for Crito, when he found himself unable to restrain his tears, had got up, and I followed; and at that moment, Apollodorus, who had been weeping all the time, broke out in a loud and passionate cry which made cowards of us all.

Socrates alone retained his calmness: "What is this strange outcry?" he said. "I sent away the women mainly in order that they might not misbehave in this way, for I have been told that a man should die in peace. Be quiet then, and have patience."

When we heard his words we were ashamed, and refrained our tears; and he walked about until, as he said, his legs began to fail, and then he lay on his back, according to the directions, and the man who gave him the poison now and then looked at his feet and legs; and after a while he pressed his foot hard, and asked him if he could feel; and he said, "No;" and then his leg, and so upwards and upwards, and showed us that he was cold and stiff. And he felt them himself, and said: "When the poison reaches the heart, that will be the end."

He was beginning to grow cold about the groin, when he uncovered his face, for he had covered himself up, and said--they were his last words--he said: "Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?"

"The debt shall be paid," said Crito; "is there anything else?"

There was no answer to this question; but in a minute or two a movement was heard, and the attendants uncovered him; his eyes were set, and Crito closed his eyes and mouth.

Such was the end . . . of our friend; concerning whom I may truly say, that of all the men of his time whom I have known, he was the wisest and justest and best.

- from the Phaedo, translated by Benjamin Jowett.

[Quix]

Besides all that . . .

Jesus was either

WHO HE SAID HE WAS

or he was, by any rational definitions,

a lunatic.

If HE WAS/IS
WHO HE SAID HE WAS,

then why won't you
obey Him?

IF HE WASN'T,
how do you
explain His
influence
as a lunatic,
on 2,000
years of history?

BTW, We have far
more evidence of the
accuracy of the Gospel accounts
than we have for any of the
Greek records.

[FreedomSurge]

Socrates was a traitor to the Athenian democracy and deserved to have been killed at least 20 years earlier.

[RobbyS]

Jesus the great moral teacher again. But such teachings as"
Love your enemy"ring rather hollow except in the light of his sacrifice and against the background of the darkness of his enemy's heart. When I saw the movie, I blanched at the thought that THIS is what carrying one's cross REALLY means!

[RobbyS]

That he has never read this is another example of the shallow education of the typical journalist.

[RobbyS]

I would say a victim of the mob.

[cyncooper]

does it not seem hateful, not to mention un-Christian, to blame contemporary Jews?

Yes. Which is why Christians have been trying to explain that they don't.

[Ciexyz]

Little evidence? I stopped reading right there. The life of Jesus is one of the best documented historical events in history. There's more written evidence to support the life of Jesus than is available for much of history.

[syriacus]

Straw men, straw men.

I was thinking the same thing. Lately a lot of libs are tossing so much extraneous material into their essays and speeches, that the essays are becoming too painful to read and the speeches are too painful to listen to.

They can't seem to compose their thoughts so they shout (like Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean), self-contradict (like Kerry, Gore and the Clintons) or pointlessly ramble. They seem to think that the guy who uses the most words, shouts the loudest, or agrees with every side wins the argument.

[Ace's Dad]

His Suffering, Death, and Resurrection were far more important than what He had to say.

Actually, his Resurrection (which means we always have his spirit with us) and what He had to say are the important things: Love kind of is important to many of us. The manner of death is a technical detail.

[syriacus]

There's more written evidence to support the life of Jesus than is available for much of history.

Yes!

[Psycho_Bunny]

Apology is one of my absolute favorite pieces of writing.  Comparing the motivations of Socrates to Christ; and comparing the paths to their deaths - is problematic at best.

This author is an idiot.

[AnAmericanMother]

That he has never read this is another example of the shallow education of the typical journalist.

But the fact that he did not even bother to Google "death of socrates" before he committed such a howler shows that he is not only poorly educated . . . he doesn't even follow journalistic ethics or properly research his subject.

And no matter how defective his classical education may be, THAT is inexcusable.

[AnAmericanMother]

You got it.

Jesus was very clear on who and what he was. As C.S. Lewis said, you can pity him as a lunatic, you can spurn him as a demon of hell, or you can fall down and worship him. But let's have none of this nonsense about a "great human teacher," because he did not leave us that alternative.

[FreedomSurge]

Remember Alcibiades and Critas, the great betrayers of Athens were Socrates best friends and pupils.

[Elliott]

Actually, I agree with the original commentary. The JESUS AND PAUL show was a bit slanted, if not corny at times. The music chosen was not fitting for the seriousness of the subject. I like Joan of Arcadia...but the "tune" What if God was one of us....just a slob like one of us...really doesn't give dignity to the discussion.
First off, the scholar Crossan is noted for not believing in the resurrection...and the show seemed to rely heavily on his opinion. Oft quoted Crossan has several books in which he refutes the divinity of Jesus...And, to insinuate that JESUS WAS ILLITERATE is an insult. Peter Jennings is on one of his ego trips again, sadly, at the expense of Jesus Christ.

[syriacus]

Would a cinematic account of his death focus unrelentingly on his clutching his throat and writhing in agony on the ground after drinking the hemlock?

Let's hope no one will make the mistake of saying Socrates' death was an agonizing one.

Hemlock Poisoning and the Death of Socrates: Did Plato Tell the Truth?

The long, persistent controversy over the death of Socrates may finally have reached its end. By moving back and forth between the ancient and modern records, by uncovering the many layers of botanical and linguistic confusion, by learning the lessons of modern neurology, and by entering fully into the centuries-old debate, we have been able to bring every piece of the puzzle together.

After so much complexity, the answer is almost simple. Socrates died gently and peacefully, just as Plato said he did. For Plato not only told the truth, he did so with astounding medical accuracy.

[Ciexyz]

The earliest known fragment of the New Testament is a thumbnail size parchment fragment of the Gospel of John dating from approx. 120 AD. This is significant because this parchment could have been held in the hands of someone who personally witnessed John the Beloved Disciple preach the gospel. According to tradition, John died approx. 90 AD, the last of the original twelve to die.

[RobbyS]

You are assuming that Athenian democracy was worth his loyalty, or even that of a low-life such as Alcibaides.

[RobbyS]

To assume that Jesus ws illiterate is to ignore that he was is pictured reading Sxripture. There is little little doubt in my mind that he came from a good family and was a man of property.

[narses]

"Unless we take literally and on faith the New Testament accounts written many decades afterward (between 70 and 100 A.D.), we simply don't know what happened almost two millennia ago,..."

Please help. A recent archeological discovery of a parody of one of the Gospels by a Jweish anti-Christian author (Josephus?) written shortly after the Crucifiction makes clear that at least ONE of the Gospels was a contemporary account. I just don't have the details at my fingertips. Do you? Can you post them?

[narses]

Here!

Writer shines new light on Matthew's Gospel
By Neil Altman
Biblical critics have offered many theories that challenge the credibility of the Gospels and the events described in the New Testament. But out of the catacombs of history has come new information that will startle skeptics and make the heart of believers rejoice.
Long buried in ancient texts are surprising accounts that will revolutionize old assumptions that Thomas was the only apostle who went to India, that the Jews of Jesus time spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew, that the four gospels were originally written in Greek and that Mark's Gospel was the first of them.
This newly uncovered information further confirms that Matthew, an eyewitness to the miracles and events of Jesus' ministry, was indeed the author of the first Gospel and verifies both the Jewishness and early date of the first Gospel.
Now, we have a clear mention that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew - not Greek or Aramaic, as widely thought - and was carried out of Israel by one of the original apostles to the Far East. Two of the earliest Church Fathers and historians, Eusebius and Origen, wrote that a second, long-overlooked apostle, Bartholomew, also went to India and took a Gospel text with him, aacording to Princeton scholar and author Samuel Moffett.
In his ground-breaking book, "A History of Christianity in Asia," Moffett reveals that Pantaenus, a church historian and missionary who traveled to India in 180 A.D., discovered the copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew that Bartholomew had taken with him.
"It is reported," wrote Eusebius, a fourth century bishop and church historian, "that among person there who knew Christ, (Pantaenus) found the Gospel according to St. Matthew (which had arrived ahead of Pantaenus by more than a century). For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left them (in India) the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language which they had preserved."
"There is a shock hidden in that matter-of-fact statement. ...The surprise, of course, is the mention of Bartholomew as the pioneer to the East," Moffett says.
Many scholars are unaware of an apostle other than Thomas ever going to India, and some even doubt that Thomas himself went.
Moffett ponders, "What was Bartholomew...doing in India with a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew?"
WHY INDIA?
"Jewish colonies are known to have existed in India from very early times," Moffett writes. "If there were, as tradition asserts, Hebrew and Aramaic copies of the Gospel in circulation as early as that, it is unreasonable to imagine a Jewish missionary using one in his evangelistic work, for it was the apostolic missionary tradition to preach first to the Jewish community."
Interestingly, two historical records - the New Testament's Book of Acts and the writings of the church fathers - confirm some of Moffett's assertions.
Because the Gospels were so thoroughly Jewish, there was no concept among Jewish believers of preaching to Gentiles. According to Acts, Jewish believers in Israel were horrified to learn that Peter entered a gentile home and preached to gentiles. Jews did not preach to gentiles until the Jewish believers fled from persecution to the Greek city of Antioch in Asia Minor.
While the Book of Acts list the 11 apostles - Judas having hanged himself - it doesn't say how they were paired. But what is known is that Jesus instructed to work and travel by twos.
So, it would be natural for Thomas to travel with a companion to India and for Bartholomew to have taken along a freshly copied text of Matthew's Gospel, especially if it were the first and only Gospel written at the time. Jews customarily took their sacred text with them, as we see from the New Testament accounts of Paul's travels, and it was this Gospel of Matthew that Pantaenus found a century and a half later in India.
Like many Jews of the early centuries, Pantaenus became a follower of Jesus. But it is not only Pantaenus' academic background as philosopher, his founding of the great theological school in Alexandria and his two renowned disciples, Clement and Origen, that make him so important here.
As Moffet writes, "The fact that Pantaenus was ... Jewish ... explains his particular attention to the Hebrew copy of the Gospel of Matthew. The fact that he returned to Alexandria with the same Gospel adds enormous validity to its discovery."
These discoveries about Bartholomew going to India, the existence of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew that was probably written before 50 A.D. and the same text being returned to the West add "another piece of evidence of once again very early dating of the New Testament," said Douglas Cecil, associate professor or pastoral ministries at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Not only do we know where some of the apostles traveled but also Hebrew was far from a dead language at the time of Christ, as many scholars espouse, and it evidently was used by Jews all over the world.
A Jewish scholar, Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University, discloses another important piece of evidence about Matthew's Gospel in his 1999 book, "Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times."
Gamaliel
Yuval writes that Rabban Gamaliel, a leader of rabbinical scholars about 70 A.D., is "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew."
Clearly, Matthew's eyewitness account of Jesus' early life must have been written by then, causing Gamaliel to answer with a parody of Matthew's Gospel.
If Mark were the first Gospel, it would seem that Gamaliel would have responded to it instead.
In search of what language was used during the time of Christ, we find some interesting clues. Scholar George Howard, in his book "The Gospel of Matthew According to the Primitive Hebrew Text," quotes an early second century writing by Papias (ca. 60-130 A.D.), bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, as stating that "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language."
Howard goes on to say, "It has become commonplace (for the past century and a half) to suppose by 'Hebrew,' Papias meant 'Aramaic.' The subsequent discovery of many ... Hebrew documents from Palestine from the general time period of Jesus now show Hebrew to have been alive and well in the first century."
He also writes of a Hebrew text of the Gospel of Matthew that appears in a 14th century rabbinical text by Shem-Tob, which Howard says is written, "in a kind of Hebrew one would expect for a document composed in the first century." That is, before 100 A.D. He suggests that this Hebrew text, going back to the time of Christ, may have "served as a model for the Greek."
It is a common scholarly assumption that the original language of the Gospels was Greek. Yet the church fathers tell us otherwise. Iranaeus, in the second century A.D., tell that Matthew was not the only Gospel writer who write to the Hebrews "in their own dialect."
Historians Epiphanus and Eusebius, both from the fourth century A.D., tell us that "Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew" and that he wrote his Gospel "in his native language."
A Dallas Theological Seminary professor of New Testament, Darrell Bock, said that according to the tradition of the early church, the language Jesus originally spoke was a Semitic language. He also said that anti-Semitism was involved in some New Testament research and that "some German scholars in the 1930's and even earlier were anti-Semitic.
William Farmer, a New Testament professor at the University of Dallas and author of the recently published book, "Anti-Judaism and the Gospels," sees a concerted effort by modern scholars to divorce Jesus from his Jewish roots and language.
"There is an unconscious attempt to remove Judaism from Christianity by making Mark the first Gospel instead of Matthew, which is more Jewish. By making Mark the first Gospel, it discredits Matthew as only a Jewish makeover of Mark and offers and excuse to disregard Matthew."
But there is other evidence that, if anything, Aramaic and Greek took a backseat to Hebrew among Jews.
Philadelphia Orthodox rabbi and Talmudic scholar Dov Brisman said the Talmud implies that the two great sages of Judaism in 100 BC, Hillel and Shammai, "spoke Hebrew to one another." He also said the Aramaic version of the Bible was discontinued because Jews only read the Holy Scriptures in the original Hebrew so that nothing would be lost in translation.
Aramaic
The two scholars also assert that Aramaic was not the only Semitic language used by Jews in Israel before and at the time of Christ.
In a paper presented to the Leeds University Oriental Society in 1966 called "Qumram to Edessa," J.C.L. Gibson wrote, "No doubt that Jews of the homeland continued to speak Hebrew in the everyday life still in the Christian epoch - otherwise how can we explain the emergence of the late form of Hebrew known as Mishnaic Hebrew?"
Milton Fischer, professor of Old Testament at Philadelphia Theological Seminary and the seminary's former president, provided the coup de grace to the whole matter saying, "Did not Paul to Jews at Jerusalem in Hebrew?"
How could scholars miss this well-known passage of Scripture in the Book of Acts dealing with Paul's arrest by the Romans and his defence before Jewry?
"And when he (the chief captain) had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs. ... And there was a great silence, he spoke to them in the Hebrew tongue. ... And when they heard that he spoke in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kep the more silence" (Acts 21:39 through Acts 22:2).
It is not only in the language of the Gospels and of Jewry that Biblical critics take issue with the facts of history, but in the historical truth and validity of the Bible.
With a subtle anti-Semitic agenda behind liberal scholarly theories about the Old and New Testaments, biblical critics have developed, according to Ben Levi's book "Revelation," a "dogma tha nothing original came from the Jews" and that "the existence of miracle, prophecy, and revelation (without which no understanding of the Bible is possible) were denied in a dogmatic fashion."
These anti-supernaturalists theorized that Matthew and Luke borrowed the language, style and, most importantly of all, the viewpoint of Mark's condensed version of Jesus' life, and they expanded on Mark's account.
This so-called Synoptic (i.e. similar viewpoint) theory was developed and exploited by liberal scholars who did not accept the possibility that four different men who knew Jesus and were his disciples could be divinely inspired to write similar accounts from what they witnessed from their own personal perspectives.
But, the 1993 Catholic Dictionary tells us, "It is the unanimous tradition of Christian antiquity that (Matthew) was the author of the first of the four Gospels."
Dating Matthew
"The trend of contemporary opinion is that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written after and dependent upon the Gospel of St. Mark. ... It is highly unlikely that one of the 12 apostles would have taken his material from Mark, who had not been an (original) apostle." The Catholic Dictionary also dates Matthew as having been written before 50 A.D. By bringing Matthew's Gospel to India, Bartholomew would also confirm this early dating. thereby refuting the contemporary theory that Matthew was written between 70 and 125 A.D.
Another aspect of the anti-supernaturalist theory is that the Gospels were written long after the fact. There are still many diehards among biblical critics who accept their own dating of the Gospels and say they were not written by eyewitnesses. It is precisely here, in the clash between unbelief and belief, that liberals and believers cross swords.
Yet the testimony of the early church reminds us that the Gospels have as much to historical as ethical value and that apostles such as Bartholomew and Thomas, eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus, did not give their lives for a mere myth.
-Neil Altman is a Philadelphia-based writer who specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls and religion. He has done graduate work at Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning. Conwell School of Theology, and Temple University. He has a master's degree in Old Testament from Wheaton Graduate School, Ill., and was an American Studies Fellow at Eastern College.


As posted in the High Point Enterprise, Focus section, pp. 1F, 2F, October 15, 2000

[FreedomSurge]

Socrates' good friends and prize students Alcibiades and Critas did great damage to both Athens and Athenian democracy. Socrates was killed because both Critas and Acibiades were out of reach.

I would have infinitely rather have lived under the Athenian democracy then the Spartan constitution, which Socrates' pupil ripped off and wrote up as his nutter utopia The Republic.

Like any democracy it was messy but infinitely more appealing to live under than a totalitarian tyranny like Sparta.

[syriacus]

Unless we take literally and on faith the New Testament accounts written many decades afterward (between 70 and 100 A.D.), we simply don't know what happened almost two millennia ago, at least in any but the vaguest way.

Paulos ignores the fact that everyday people knew all about scourgings and crucifixions...People were crucified before Christ was, and people were crucified after He was.

[AnAmericanMother]

Bingo. See post No. 11.

[RobbyS]

It was democracy without liberty, as totalitarian as Sparta but without the military ethic.

[ultima ratio]

This is not an answer to your question, but it is perhaps pertinent. An extended fragment of Matthew's Gospel was recently found which was able to be precisely dated. The papyrus on which it was written and the style of the scribe exactly matched a dated business document found at the same location. The date would place both at 65 A.D. That would be only around three decades after the death of Jesus.

[ultima ratio]

This is nonsense. People who were alive during Kennedy's assassination can relate exactly where they were and what they were doing and what they saw and remembered. Yes, there are unknown facts that remain in mystery--but we still know a lot. Oswarld shot Kennedy from the Textbook warehouse in Dallas. Ruby shot Oswald in broad daylight. Jacqueline stood beside Johnson on Air Force One as he took the oath of office. She led the funeral march amidst a host of foreign dignitaries. Little John-John saluted as the riderless horse passed by. For most who were alive back then it remains very vivid--not at all nebulous--despite the unknown facts.

The Gospels have exactly this kind of exact and detailed recall that people have when an important event occurs. They remember a great deal. Historians wish to undermine the historical truth of all this by saying we don't know anything at all. This is false.

[ultima ratio]

Not true. The earliest fragment was recently found and has been dated at 65 A.D.

[ultima ratio]

I just wrote that little John K. saluted the riderless horse. But then I wondered if it might not have been the flag-draped casket rolling by on a casson. Thus it is that the memory of some details--unimportant ones--will be different among various eyewitnesses. The important fact is remembered--the little son saluting his father. The further detail may be mistaken--whether he saluted the riderless horse or the flag-draped coffin. This always happens when eyewitnesses tell of what they remember--but it is further evidence of the truthfulness of the eyewitness accounts comprising the Gospels, not proof of their untrustworthiness as some scholars would maintain. Had they been false, in fact, you can bet there would have been total unanimity.

[qam1]

IF HE WASN'T,how do you explain His influence as a lunatic, on 2,000 years of history?

So I guess Buddha, Mithra, the Hindu Gods, Mohammad, etc. were all also who they said they were since they all influenced history for almost as long or longer than Jesus. Plus Christianity has always been the minority religion among the world population.

BTW, We have far more evidence of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts than we have for any of the Greek records.

Ummmm, No. There are no such writings on Jesus or many of the accounts in the Gospels (i.e. Herold's massacre of the innocents) at the time he was supposed to live and the Gospels accounts are often contradictory of each other (i.e Did he appear to his disciples after he rose from the dead at Galilee or Jerusalem, names of the apostles,Jesus ascended from Bethany or Mt. Olivet, Was Jesus silent or did he make a speech at his trial with Pilate). Not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or even follower who lived during the time of Jesus ever mentions him.

[Quix]

I find your research flawed.

I will merely refer you to Josh McDowell's

EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT.

As to Buddha, He tried to instruct his disciples to avoid making of his teachings a religion. He never claimed to be God.

Mohammed never claimed to be God.

It's difficult to trace the Hindu Gods to a historical figure.

I don't find the Gospels contradictory at all. They are narratives written from 4 different perspectives.

It remains that of the great religious figures of history that Jesus was the only one who claimed to be God.

And, there are portions of the Gospels from the time of the eyewitnesses who wrote them.

[Quix]

Also, Josephus is not that far removed.

The closest we get to Homer's original documents is several hundred years later, as I recall.

[TradicalRC]

Like any democracy it was messy but infinitely more appealing to live under than a totalitarian tyranny like Sparta.

Although, considering the death penalty for Socrates philosophical musings, I guess freedom of speech wasn't as important as the State.

[qam1]

I find your research flawed.

I will merely refer you to Josh McDowell's EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT.

I merely refer you to the Roman and other records of the time Jesus was supposed to have lived which despite the importance and historical significance of Jesus not one makes any mention of him.

As to Buddha, He tried to instruct his disciples to avoid making of his teachings a religion. He never claimed to be God.

Mohammed never claimed to be God.

Neither did Jesus, He was the Son of God not God himself kind of like Hercules.

It's difficult to trace the Hindu Gods to a historical figure.

The same can be said of many characters in the Bible.

I don't find the Gospels contradictory at all. They are narratives written from 4 different perspectives.

There is a big difference between different writing styles or being off on some minor details (like the time of day) than major inconsistencies of the Jesus story. The places (Jerusalem or Gaillie, Mt. Olivet or Bethany), people (Lebbaeus or a second Judas, Cleopas, Cephas or Mary Magdalene) and events (Multiple tomb stories) are all so widely different in the different versions of the resurrection story that it's impossible to know what exactly if anything happened.  

It remains that of the great religious figures of history that Jesus was the only one who claimed to be God.

There is Mithra and Horus who both predate Jesus and whose stories/attributes are too similar to Jesus to be just coindence.   

And, there are portions of the Gospels from the time of the eyewitnesses who wrote them.

No there's not, At best it's hearsay well after the fact. Hearsay isn't allowed as evidence in modern courts during current trails and it's not evidence 1900 years ago on an event that happened 40+ years previous when there wasn't even printing presses.

Also, Josephus is not that far removed.

Are you talking about the forged passage in his book? Even if we were to accept it as authentic he was born in 37 AD which was after Jesus supposed death so we are still talking about hearsay.

[melsec]

Unless we take literally and on faith the New Testament accounts written many decades afterward (between 70 and 100 A.D.)

Written by people who new the people of the gospels especially Mark who was kin to some like Peter and Barnabas. If you love reading the Gospels then you can find internal evidence of John Marks authourship. Let me know how you go. These books are far more trustworthy than anything we have supposedly written by Socrates or Plato. People seem to implicitly trust that the writings we have by them were written by them. It is, however, highly unlikely that that is true.

It all however still must to some extent come down to faith - areasonable one I would contend. God Bless

Melk

[Aquinasfan]

Josephus?

Josephus on Jesus

[Aquinasfan]

Neither did Jesus, He was the Son of God not God himself kind of like Hercules.

John 10:30

"I and the Father are one."

[presidio9]

I merely refer you to the Roman and other records of the time Jesus was supposed to have lived which despite the importance and historical significance of Jesus not one makes any mention of him.

Jesus had no historical significance at that time. When significant numbers of Romans began to hear and accept His message, plenty was written about Him.

[qam1]

Jesus had no historical significance at that time.

Agreed but the same with Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas, Benjamin the Egyptian and plenty of other would be Messiahs, Yet the Romans dutifully recorded their names down. So let me get this straight the Romans wrote down the names of false Messiahs and other run of the mill criminals but they and nobody else bothered to note the supposed real Messiah even though he apparently had large followings?

When significant numbers of Romans began to hear and accept His message, plenty was written about Him.

And that's where the story grows and grows with many additions taking on many attributes of other God figures of the time.