Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logic?

[McCulloch]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

2. The Bible is God's Word*

Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logical deduction?

[jimvansage]

It seems to me that part of what is written in Josephus concerning Jesus is a Christian interpolation, but is all of what is being said?

If the entire paragraph is a Christian interpolation, wouldn't all of the language be complimentary to Jesus or Christian language?
But it's not entirely:

1. Jesus is called “a wise man.� Though the phrase is complimentary, it is less than one would expect from Christians.
2. “For he was one who wrought surprising feats.� This is not necessarily a statement that could only have come from a Christian.
3. “He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks� is simply an observation.
4. “Those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him,� conforms to Josephus’ characteristic style.
5. “and the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.� Most scholars would agree that the word phylon “tribe� is not a Christian expression.

Wilkins, Michael J. and J. P. Moreland. Gen. eds. Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. p. 213

Without the shameless Christian references ("if it possible to call him a man" and the like) one would be left with something like this:

"[A]t this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders" (qtd. in Blaicklock p. 30)

The above quote is a translation from an Arabic copy of Josephus, untarnished by any overt Christian interpolations

Blaicklock, E. M. Jesus Christ: Man or Myth? Nashville: Nelson, 1984.

I have extensively researched these historical references outside the Bible, and without giving you all eleven pages of quotes and citations, I present my conclusion:

"Josephus portrays Jesus as a wise man who performed remarkable feats and was followed by a motley assortment of both Jews and Greeks despite his crucifixion and death at the hands of Pilate. The Talmud admits that he was executed, allegedly, for practicing sorcery. Tacitus mentions his receipt of the death penalty during the reign of both Pilate as procurator of Judea and Tiberias as emperor, as well as the Christian persecution under Nero. Pliny the Younger admitted that Christians sang to Christ as if to a god. Lucian made it clear that Christians worshipped a man. Porphyry of Tyre and Hierocles claimed Greek magicians were superior to Jesus. Mara Bar-Serapion mentioned that the Jews had rejected their wise King and put him to death. Thallus and Phlegon did not deny the darkness that enveloped the land the day Jesus died. By accepting only the unbiased testimony of these men, it can be affirmed that a wise man named Jesus from Nazareth lived in the first century and died by crucifixion by the request of the Jews allowed by their Roman procurator Pontius Pilate"

Any reference in particular you want to explore, we can explore.

[Goat]

Another reason this debate is going nowhere is because it is continually being affirmed that there is no extra-biblical mention of Jesus of Nazareth. This is simply not the case.

Say what you want about the Testimonium Flavianum, but Josephus also mentions John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]"
Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.23

There were many who claimed to be Christ at that time, but one named Jesus.

Do know know what 'Christ' means in Greek?? It means 'Anointed one'. In the Jewish culture of that time, there were two 'anointed ones'. One was the King, the other was the High Priest. who was appointed to that position on a yearly basis.

Now, let's look at that entire paragraph, so we can look at it in context. I love context, myself

CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Now, was there a high priest called Jesus mentioned.. (The high priest was a christ).Why, yes there was. There is no reason to think that the Jesus being mentioned was Jesus of Nazareth.

Besides, if the only record of Jesus of Nazareth is the New Testament, it is still a record, whether one accepts all of it as true or just in part.

Between Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, and others' records who do speak of Jesus
I would need 14 pages to spend on the subject

OH, I am SURe. however, did you notice one thing that ALL those have in common. They were authors that were in the Second century. Pliny got his information from the torture of Christian slaves. Tacitus was a close friend of Pliny, and wrote after him and Suetonius wrote about a Chrestus who was apparently in Rome They would confirm the existence of Christians, but since they got their information FROM Christians, it is not an independent account.

Of course, even if Jesus did exist, that is hardly an indication that 'The bible's authorship can be demonstrated by logic'. All it means is that you had someone who motivated the start of a new religion. None of that shows the 'divine authorship of the Bible.

[jimvansage]

Nifty interpretation.
Do you recognize that John the Baptist was a real person I wonder?
Josephus has a lot to say about him...
But, as you say, it's beside the point.

Let's get serious:
I feel like I could rest my case on Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53
knowing they were written before 132 BC if not earlier
and that Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross around AD 30

[Danmark]

It seems to me that part of what is written in Josephus concerning Jesus is a Christian interpolation, but is all of what is being said?

If the entire paragraph is a Christian interpolation, wouldn't all of the language be complimentary to Jesus or Christian language?
....

No one said the forgers were idiots. The essence of a good forgery is to make it believable. Why do we today assume the people of antiquity are less shrewd than we are?

[jimvansage]

Because it's not particularly a good forgery
I'm a Christian, and I can recognize words that Josephus would never had said

So if a Christian is going to impute whatever they want into the text, it could have said anything, but there are traces of an objective historical record of Jesus of Nazareth and the things he was alleged to do, and remark about his followers.

The existence of an alternate document that has no Christian overtones lends credence to the idea that Josephus wrote Something about Jesus which was tampered with in one language but not another.

[Danmark]

Because it's not particularly a good forgery
I'm a Christian, and I can recognize words that Josephus would never had said

So if a Christian is going to impute whatever they want into the text, it could have said anything, but there are traces of an objective historical record of Jesus of Nazareth and the things he was alleged to do, and remark about his followers.

The existence of an alternate document that has no Christian overtones lends credence to the idea that Josephus wrote Something about Jesus which was tampered with in one language but not another.

Ok, so we agree it's a forgery. . . . or not. But let's examine it. As you say, experts agree Josephus, a Jew supposedly used words we agree he would not as a Jew use.

So a Christian Father, Eusebius or whomever, forges a text and interjects it into a Josephus document to give some extra biblical support for a historical Jesus. I guess we are in agreement

[jimvansage]

Yes, but an interpolation neither proves that
1. Josephus did not say something regarding Jesus of Nazareth in his writing
2. Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist

Just that a dishonest Christian added words into the document

Josephus is not the only historian who mentions Jesus, but its the one most want to spend time on because it contains obvious interpolations
Oh, another thing it doesn't prove:
3. All other historical references to Jesus are interpolations

Even lack of historical evidence outside the New Testament proves nothing.
I doubt there will be many historical documents that will mention either of us,
it doesn't mean we never existed.

[McCulloch]

Even lack of historical evidence outside the New Testament proves nothing.
I doubt there will be many historical documents that will mention either of us,
it doesn't mean we never existed.

The writers of the New Testament claim that Jesus had huge numbers of followers, performed mighty miracles and on the event of his death there was a solar eclipse, an earthquake and hundreds of zombies walking about in Jerusalem. It is highly unlikely that these events would go by unnoticed by contemporary chroniclers. I doubt that any historical documents will mention me, I have done nothing worthy of notice. Neither apparently did Jesus of Nazareth.

[Jester]

The writers of the New Testament claim that Jesus had huge numbers of followers, performed mighty miracles and on the event of his death there was a solar eclipse, an earthquake and hundreds of zombies walking about in Jerusalem.

And we are certain that some or all of this isn't simply apocalyptic language?

Even if miracles did occur, are we assuming that anyone reporting their validity would be a "christian source" and is, therefore, not trustworthy?

It is highly unlikely that these events would go by unnoticed by contemporary chroniclers. I doubt that any historical documents will mention me, I have done nothing worthy of notice. Neither apparently did Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth's life was chronicled. Whether or not the fact that every chronicler was convinced that he did miraculous things is good reason to think that was the case, it clearly isn't a reason to think he did not do these things.

[jimvansage]

Granted McCulloch (except that the resurrected dead were not "zombies")

But suppression and persecution of Christianity by both Jews and Rome might have prevented some from even mentioning Jesus, whether they thought he was a fraud or not

If all that is written in the NT is true about Jesus, this explains why the historical evidence is scant, but it's no reason to turn Jesus into a legend, discredit reputable historians, and cry conspiracy when no conspiracy may exist