Some historians are adamant in demanding historical proofs of the existence of Jesus independently of the biblical references to him. It is worth noting that we have both Roman and Jewish sources mentioning the existence and activities of Jesus in Palestine. The Roman sources are: Pliny, Suetonius, Claudius, Nero and Tacitus. The Jewish sources: Flavius Josephus, Philo of Alexandria and the Talmudic literature. Let us add here that if the same method used by some authors to discredit the historicity of Jesus Christ is applied to others as well, one could prove that personalities like Julius Caesar or Alexander the great never existed!. Let us give approximate dates pertaining to the birth and life of Jesus:
6 B.C. Birth of Jesus. The Roman monk Dionysius Exiguus of the sixth century made a slight mistake in calculation working out Jesus' birth to 1 A.D. Certain details of the birth in the New Testament may not be historical. Mathew's Gospel makes use of the imageries from the Old Testament like the virgin birth, calling the son from Egypt, the massacre of the innocents etc., along with the arrival of the Magi from the East all of which are irretrievably mingled with what really happened. The use of imageries from the Old Testament in the case of the virgin birth, for instance, does not mean that it is from one's imagination as the question of inspiration to the author cannot be ignored. On the other hand, the reference to king Herod has placed the event of the birth of Jesus in history. Similarly, Luke's Gospel refers to emperor Augustus and the census ordered by him, which we know is historical placing the birth of Jesus at a definite place and time.Mathew only mentions that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, whereas Luke gives us the reason why Joseph and Mary had to travel from Nazareth, where they lived, to Bethlehem. From Mathew's perspective, it was not important to indicate where Joseph and Mary came from that turned out to be crucial for Luke in the context of the census, which was really held under the orders of emperor Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria from 12 to 6 B.C.
5 to 4 B.C. Flight of the Holy Family to Egypt and slaughter of the innocents.
4 B.C. Death of Herod the Great. This date corroborates the historicity of the New Testament story involving Herod.
6 A. D. Jesus visits the Jerusalem Temple as a child in the company of his parents.
12 A. D. Augustus makes Tiberius co-regent.
14 A. D. Tiberius becomes Caesar.
25 A. D. Pilate and Caiaphas appointed to their respective offices.
29 A. D. The ministry of John the Baptist begins.
30 A. D. The ministry of Jesus begins when the ministry of John almost ended.
31 A. D. Tiberius executes Sejanus who was the political godfather of Pilate.
33 A. D. The crucifixion of Jesus.
36 A. D. Pilate dethroned and exiled and Caiaphas deposed.
37 A. D. Tiberius Caesar dies.
Some might wonder about how these details of secular history are connected to the real Jesus of history. The connection is that one who accepts these facts of history cannot at the same time deny the details about Jesus' life in the Gospels as they are intertwined! The main objection of those who deny the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels is that these are not historical records, but theological views based on faith. The objection derives from the notion that there can be 'pure history' without any perspectives, which we have countered in the previous posts. However, for further clarification, our next post 'The meaning of History' may be referred to.
6 B.C. Birth of Jesus. The Roman monk Dionysius Exiguus of the sixth century made a slight mistake in calculation working out Jesus' birth to 1 A.D. Certain details of the birth in the New Testament may not be historical. Mathew's Gospel makes use of the imageries from the Old Testament like the virgin birth, calling the son from Egypt, the massacre of the innocents etc., along with the arrival of the Magi from the East all of which are irretrievably mingled with what really happened. The use of imageries from the Old Testament in the case of the virgin birth, for instance, does not mean that it is from one's imagination as the question of inspiration to the author cannot be ignored. On the other hand, the reference to king Herod has placed the event of the birth of Jesus in history. Similarly, Luke's Gospel refers to emperor Augustus and the census ordered by him, which we know is historical placing the birth of Jesus at a definite place and time.Mathew only mentions that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, whereas Luke gives us the reason why Joseph and Mary had to travel from Nazareth, where they lived, to Bethlehem. From Mathew's perspective, it was not important to indicate where Joseph and Mary came from that turned out to be crucial for Luke in the context of the census, which was really held under the orders of emperor Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria from 12 to 6 B.C.
5 to 4 B.C. Flight of the Holy Family to Egypt and slaughter of the innocents.
4 B.C. Death of Herod the Great. This date corroborates the historicity of the New Testament story involving Herod.
6 A. D. Jesus visits the Jerusalem Temple as a child in the company of his parents.
12 A. D. Augustus makes Tiberius co-regent.
14 A. D. Tiberius becomes Caesar.
25 A. D. Pilate and Caiaphas appointed to their respective offices.
29 A. D. The ministry of John the Baptist begins.
30 A. D. The ministry of Jesus begins when the ministry of John almost ended.
31 A. D. Tiberius executes Sejanus who was the political godfather of Pilate.
33 A. D. The crucifixion of Jesus.
36 A. D. Pilate dethroned and exiled and Caiaphas deposed.
37 A. D. Tiberius Caesar dies.
Some might wonder about how these details of secular history are connected to the real Jesus of history. The connection is that one who accepts these facts of history cannot at the same time deny the details about Jesus' life in the Gospels as they are intertwined! The main objection of those who deny the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels is that these are not historical records, but theological views based on faith. The objection derives from the notion that there can be 'pure history' without any perspectives, which we have countered in the previous posts. However, for further clarification, our next post 'The meaning of History' may be referred to.
No comments:
Post a Comment