Truth of resurrection and death of the apostles (for Willowtree)

Please read Josephus's History of the Jewish People and then tell me if all persons, places, and events jibe with the same persons, places, and events as related in either the Jewish or the Christian Bibles.If all that Josephus writes about everything other than Jesus coincides in fact with the Bible, then one can begin to use Josephus as a reliable source regarding Jesus too.

JosephusA) simply reported what people told him (Christians)B) His document was modified.B-1) For one, in the part that begins talking about christianity, the writing style suddenly changes into terms that he never used before (and terms that weren't even contemporary for use toward Christians, such as tribe). Josephus - not a Christian - is somehow expected to have written things like "if indeed one out to call him a man" and "he was the messiah". If Josephus believed that, why was he not a Christian (as Origen specifically stated)?B-2) Josephus doesn't even feel fit to mention Jesus or Christians in earlier works on the subject.B-3) The arabic version of testimonium flavianum - which is older - offers a different, less embelished version of the account of Jesus:"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."Even the arabic version was likely embellished, but not nearly so much as the Greek.C) The oldest manuscripts of testimonium have the particular passage inked out or cut out. Josephus was frequently fairly insulting to proported messianic figures. To believe that this was done by *non-Christians*, one would have to believe that they had a particular grudge against Christians in particular, but not against other groups. Hardly likely.In short, we have a text that is completely not in Josephus's style, contradicting an otherwise concordant arabic version of the text, where the arabic versionis older, and Josephus clearly didn't believe what was claimed that he wrote or he would have been a Christian, some of the words used weren't in use at the time in reference to Christians... you do the math. For much more detail on the subject, read this------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Hi, The point is that your sources said there were no mentions of Pilate until this inscription was found in 1961 and had actually used a source that mentioned Pilate from the 2nd century CE. The point is, your source is trying to make the bible appear to be super special by leaving out the fact that Pilate was attested to by historians a couple of thousand years ago. He even uses the common tactic of apologists when he makes the empty claim ‘sceptics claimed’ without actually mentioning the names of any of these ‘sceptics’. I know, this is the point I am making. Your source claims there was no independent evidence that Pilate existed until the inscription was found in 1961 yet he uses a source to support the historicity of Jesus that specifically mentions Pilate, how could he make this simple error? Do a Google for ‘Josephus Jesus forged’ and you will get over 1600 hits, even the description of the site gives information on why it is believed that Josephus was forged.I really know of no scholar who thinks that Josephus was not forged in some way, it is only the degree to which his work was forged that there is any controversy over. I fail to see the significance here, what is the big deal about archaeological data concurring with the bible over things such as the names of towns or cities, or of individual people? Do you think that because the Bible mentions Nazareth then the entire bible is true?
Well here is some news for you, archaeology cannot prove anything at all, archaeology can only disprove an historians hypothesis or theory.
Your source mentions evidence for King David, he doesn’t actually name the inscription but I am guessing it is the Tell Dan Stele found by Biran at Tell Dan no less. The ‘house of David’ claim by Biran and Naveh is not proven and many people doubt their translation.
But it shouldn’t be that much of a surprise that people mention towns and cities that were around when they were writing things down, I fail to see how anyone can be excited over this.If you want to impress me you could explain why Moses called Avaris by the name Pirameses c. 200 years before the city of Rameses was built, now that’s magic!Brian.

Rei:Thank you for the elaboration and detail. Lately I am pressed for time, and what you supply is very important for others to understand regarding Josephus and the various texts attributed to him especially those in a style suspiciously "Hellenized" and in some respects similar to "Luke" and Saul of Tarsus' style prose.One question though, by "arabic" texts do you mean those written in Aramaic, or do you mean texts by Muslim Arabs post 625 CE? I believe most of what was written in Judea between 200 BCE and 70 CE was written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew as Aramaic was the popular language of that time and place.

I have read a book by David Rohl who gives some good suggestions about the dating of the exodous. Here is a site which goes over some of those arguments. I have looked at some of the evidence in the book and it is pretty compelling. For example one of the first dynasty pharaohs tomb is partially built on top of a second dynasty pharaohs tomb. He lists other inconsistencies like this used in the dating of the pharaohs and kings of Isreal. He then demonstrates a new chronology and when you correct the chronology the stories match up.
The site also contains a statue which is thought to be that of Joseph.http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/joseph.htmlHere is another which goes over some of the same information.http://www.levitt.com/essays/joseph.html[This message has been edited by keith63, 12-11-2003]

Without going into the dating of all the volcanic destruction of the Minoan civilizaton and subsequent tital waves emptying the Sea of Reeds and "bloodying up" the Nile, and supplying a column of fire by night and smoke by day for the dead reckoning navigation of the desert by a wandering mass of over a million bickering, gold-laden, manna-subsistant, ex-slaves that left not one shard of pottery or a single chicken bone along the route, much less the bones of the half million souls unmercifully slaughtered at Mt. Sinai for the heretic metallugic manufactury, may I simply ask, Brian, wasn't Avaris simply the "House of Ramses" picked up and moved lock stock and barrel to Pirameses when the particular branch of the Nile on which Avaris was located silted up between the reigns of Ramses I and Ramses II?[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-11-2003][This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-11-2003]

quote:

---

One question though, by "arabic" texts do you mean those written in Aramaic, or do you mean texts by Muslim Arabs post 625 CE? I believe most of what was written in Judea between 200 BCE and 70 CE was written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew as Aramaic was the popular language of that time and place.

---

No early testimonium at all survives with that passage intact. Around 324 CE, Eusebius (who is rather solidly accused of forging numerous details of the life of Constantine as well) quotes from Testimonium. In the 10th century, however, Agapius (a Christian arab historian) quoted from the version of testimonium available in Hierapolis (since lost), the passage indicated above (in "Book of the Title", the history of the world from creation to 941/942 CE). The passage is far more Josephus's style, although still likely contains embellishments. Both cannot be correct; however, the Greek is written by a known forger, uses words not in Josephus's style (or even in wide usage at the time), portrays Josephus as a Christian when he was not... (etc).You be the judge. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-11-2003]

Hi, Is this more of Rohl's unsupported claptrap?My understanding is that the city of Ramses is built on the same site as Avaris (Wright, Van Seters, Habachi) or very close to the site of Avaris (Finkelstein)I have never heard of Avaris being moved 'lock, stock and barrel' before, do you have a reference for this?Brian.

Brian,I stand busted! I think I am quoting the information from a recent Discovery Channel special wherein some very modern-day Egyptian farmers took a group of archaeologists to a site in the middle of a farm field where several broken, large-scaled statues were found several miles south of the more accepted site for Avaris. The same archaeologists also are involved in the excavation of the site at the more accepted location for the "House of Ramses" farther north in the Nile Delta and closer to the sea coast. Their current theory (the particular group of archaeologists interviewed in the TV special) is that when the Nile channel on which the southern site silted shut, the Ramses dynasty salvaged what they could and moved to the northern site and rebuilt. I have no idea of the validity of this theory at this time and can provide no further documentation.The program actually was more focused on the documented use of mud bricks for construction of the lesser buildings and storehouses in the "House of Ramses" sites because of the Biblical references to Hebrews as assigned to making mud bricks for the Pharoah Ramses. The thought behind this focus is that since the current popular scholarly opinion is that the story of Exodus was written sometime between 600 BCE and 200 BCE by scribes several centuries removed from "Moses," and the fact that the common building material of that time in Judea was stone, the writers would not have direct or even historic knowledge of mud brick construction from a distant past.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-11-2003]

Pardon my interjection here but weren't these people familiar with the mud brick constructions of Mesopotamia? Pretty much everything in that region was made of mud brick; most notably their 'pyramids.'Surely there was information about Egypt available to scholars of the time. Don't the poor of Egypt and Mesopotamia still utilize mud brick for some constructions? It is certainly an 'available' material.db

quote:

---

I stand busted! I think I am quoting the information from a recent Discovery Channel special wherein some very modern-day Egyptian farmers took a group of archaeologists to a site in the middle of a farm field where several broken, large-scaled statues were found several miles south of the more accepted site for Avaris.

---

I saw that Discovery Channel special... it was one of the worst pieces of biblical scholarship that I've ever seen. The way they played fast and loose with their dates was almost obcene (at least they mentioned that the date was off on *one* occasion). Their level of omission was probably the worst I've seen from any Discovery Channel special.

quote:

---

The program actually was more focused on the documented use of mud bricks for construction of the lesser buildings and storehouses in the "House of Ramses" sites because of the Biblical references to Hebrews as assigned to making mud bricks for the Pharoah Ramses. The thought behind this focus is that since the current popular scholarly opinion is that the story of Exodus was written sometime between 600 BCE and 200 BCE by scribes several centuries removed from "Moses," and the fact that the common building material of that time in Judea was stone, the writers would not have direct or even historic knowledge of mud brick construction from a distant past.

---

Pretty much every river-based city-state has used mud bricks for construction; the concept that Israel would not have traded with one is almost unthinkable. Semitic people even ruled Egypt at one point (although whether they were Canaanites is still in question); likewise, Egypt ruled over Canaan (the date of the supposed exodus was actually during the height of Egyptian power, when Egypt was firmly in control of Canaan). The two cultures intermingled extensively, both on a conquest/slavery/occupying basis and on the basis of free citizens and merchentile activity.By the way, I listed a theory on the source of the exodus myth here; the basic premise is that (given the utter absense (and, in effect, physical impossibility) of any enslavement of the ~2,000,000 people and their subsequent exodus, and subsequent conquest of Canaan - and the ample evidence rendering this virtually impossible), the Israelites, over the generations, confused being conquered and ruled over by the Egyptians with actually having their entire population be dragged to Egypt and be slaves *in* Egypt, then returning; this got merged with various local conquest legends between different warring tribes through the ages.In fact, back to what you said earlier, the very name Moshe (Moses) was supposedly given to him by a Pharaoh's daughter because she drew him out from the water, and it sounds like the word for "to draw out" - and yet, it sounds like the *Hebrew* word for to draw out, not the Egyptian word.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Hi, It’s fine, no problem, just took me a bit by surprise.
There are literally dozens of these types of stories that have circulated over the last 30 years or so, but they are really aimed at taking advantage of the general public’s lack of knowledge. David Rohl is a prime example of this, his work is full of unsupported assertions, he really is taking his readers for a ride. David Rohl is a sort of Eric von Daniken figure, he takes one or two established ‘facts’ and then just makes things up, and his audience, who are usually very eager to latch on to something that anything supports in the Bible, buy his books and swallow everything he says. Maybe he is very clever and realises that he is on to a nice earner here.I am also very surprised about the claims made for the mud-brick buildings, some others have pointed this out too. But, to add a little, it is well-established that Canaanites wandered freely to and from Egypt and some even settled there during times of famine, also the whole of Palestine was a province of Egypt for many centuries and I think it would be no problem for the concept of brick buildings to have been firmly established in Palestine.One of the leading scholars concerning Avaris is Manfred Bietak who has led many excavations at Tel-ed-Daba, the modern day site of Avaris.Thanks for taking the time to reply.Brian.

As Dr. Bill, Rei, and Brian have pointed out, it is most certain that any cognizant resident of Judea would have ample physical, political, and intellectual contact with both Egyptian and Babylonian cultures over extended periods of time to acquire sufficient knowledge or have at hand folklore from which to draw an accurate literary picture of cities constructed with mud bricks.The faulty "theory" that I repeated and thereby perpetuated regarding "how could Hebrew scribes centuries removed from Ramses' period know about building materials other than those commonly used in Jerusalem" is bogus and simply a result of my own couch-potato, Discovery Channel mental laziness.

I have seen several people use Finkelstien to show the bible is not correct but newer evidence is showing that Finkelstein was not correct on his dating of many of the sites.Just a moment...http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/solomon.html

Jim,You said:
"When Xians are debating the resurrection issue, inerrantists like to forget the principle of argumentation that says, "He who asserts must prove." They insist that their opponents have an obligation to prove that the resurrection did NOT happen or at least to offer a better hypothesis for the "data" than their claim that the resurrection literally happened."Proving the Bible is first of all, impossible. All we can do is like in a court of law, look at the evidence and see if it sufficiently supports the claims or not. Opinions will vary on this and you are free not to believe. I happen to believe. The resurrection is impossible to prove either way. What does the evidence say? If you have a better hypothesis for the "data" then please put it forward. I think a literal resurrection best fits the facts and I believe it actually took place. One of piece of data that contributes to this belief for me is the martyr of the disciples.You claim that all religions have martyrs and so the Christian martyrs, if they even happened, prove nothing. You are overlooking one very important point.IN THE CASE OF THE APOSTLES, IF THE RESURRECTION WASN'T TRUE, THEN THEY KNEW IT!Jesus stressed truth his whole life. He predicted His death and even His resurrection. He told his disciples to take this message into the whole world. Was He telling them to spread a lie? Do you think the disciples would actually dedicate their whole lives to spread a boldface lie after all the teaching and training they received from Jesus?Now, if lying about the resurrection somehow benefitted them, then perhaps they would have had a motive to lie. For instance, if they got rich or greatly prospered through their lie, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would welcome persecution, leave family and friends, travel around the globe, suffer all kinds of personal hardships, etc. all for a lie. Go to II Corinthians and read about Paul's life. Would you have lived a life like that if you knew it was all for a lie? No way. These eyewitnesses knew it was true. So your portrayal of the Christian argument on the resurrection is not right. It may not persuade you, but it seems pretty powerful to me.Sure all kinds of religions have martyrs. But I doubt that any of those hijackers that smacked into the WTC if they were religious martyrs, did it believing that their religion is really a lie. It may be a lie, but they don't think so. They actually believed that they would spend heaven surrounded by many beautiful virgins. I think you get the idea of what I'm trying to say.Regards,Tokyojim