மான்செஸ்டர்பழ்கலைக்கழகத்தில்வேதாகமவிமர்சனம்மற்றும்விவாதத்திற்கானரைல்ண்ட்ஸ்பேராசிரியராகஇருந்த, காலம்சென்றபேராசிரியர் F F புரூஸ்அவர்கள் தன்நூல் “The Real Jesus”பின்வருமாறுசொல்லுகிறார்-“ The Conclusion usually(and I think rightly) drawn from their comparative study is that the Gospel of Mark (or something like it) served as a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and that these two also had access to a collection of sayings of Jesus(conveninently called ‘Q’), which may have been complied as a handbook  for the Gentile mission around AD50.- P-25.

பெரும்பாலனா ஆராய்ச்சியாளர்கள் கூறுவது, (என் கருத்தும்-அது சரி)  மாற்கு சுவி(அல்லது அது போன்றது) கதையைக் கொண்டு, இத்தோடு இயேசு சொன்னவை எனப்படும் ஒரு 50 வாக்கில் எழுந்த குறிப்புகளும் கொண்டே மத்தேயு லூக்கா சுவி கதைகள் வளர்ந்தன

Biblical quotations are generally from the Revised Standard Version, but I have frequently made my own translation where it seemed better suited to the context or the argument. P-11 in Preface footnote. இப்புத்தகத்தில் RSV பைபிள் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு பயன்படுத்துகிறேன், ஆனால் பல இடங்களில் சொல்வதற்கு வசதியாக தேவைக்கு ஏற்ப என் சொந்த மொழி பெயர்ப்பை- பயன்படுத்தியுள்ளேன்.

Whereas in the synoptic record most of Jesus’ ministry is located in Galilee, John places most of it in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood. –P.27 ஒத்த கதை சுவிகள் இயேசு பெரும்பாலும் கலிலேயாவில் சீடரோடு இயங்கியதாகச் சொல்ல, நான்காவது சுவி ஜானிலோ பெருமளவில் ஜெருசலேமிலும் யூதேயாவிலும் இயங்கியதாக என்கிறது.

Dr. C.J. Cadoux, who was Mackennal Professor of Church History at Oxford, thus sums up the conclusions of eeminent Biblical scholas regarding the nature and composition of this Gospel:

“It was written after Peter's martyrdom (65 A. D.), and at a time when Mark, who had not himself been a disciple of Jesus, apparently had non of the personal disciples of Jesus within reach by whose knowledge he could check his narrative. These circumstances of its composition account for the existence in it, side by side, of numerous signs of accuracy and a certain number of signs of ignorance and inaccuracy."-   C.J. Cadoux : The Life of Jesus Penguin Bookds, P. 13

"The speeches in the Fourth Gospel (even apart from the early messianic claim) are so different from those in the Syoptics, and so like the comments of the Fourth Evangelist both cannot be equally reliable as records of what Jesus said : Literary veracity in ancient times did forbid, as it does now, the assingment of fictitious speeches to historical characters: the best ancient historians made a practice of and assigning such speeches in this way."I

------------------------------------

1. C.J. Cadoux: The Life of Jesus, p. 16.

Rev. T.G. Tucker writes:

"Thus Gospels were produced which clearly reflect the conception of the practical needs of the community for which they were written. In them the traditional material was used, but there was no hesitation in altering it or making additions to it, or in leaving out what did not suit the writer’s purpose"

The four Gospels included in the Bible were not the only Gospels written in the early centuries of Christianity.

------------------------------------------------------

1. T.G. Tucker : The History of the Christians in the Light of Modern Knowledge, p.320

Prophecies Allegedly Fulfilled in Jesus.

Born of the Seed of a woman-Prophecy-Alleged Fulfilment

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Gal 4: 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,

Every single man born on earth comes from the 'seed' of a woman. The alleged prophesy simply describes the hatred for snakes which is common to all people on earth.

Born at Bethlehem.

Micah 5: 2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." ........... He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders.

Jesus’ family came from Nazareth in Galilee, but is represented as having been born at Bethlehem in Judaea. Bethlehem, was a person, the son of Ephratah, who is mentioned among the descendants of Judah (1 Chron 4:4 — Penuel was the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These were the descendants of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah and father of Bethlehem.). Matthew misinterprets this

prophesy and through some exegetical contortions, arranging for Jesus' birth at Bethlehem. Moreover in his mistranslation of the prophecy, Matthew describes this Bethlehem as not the least among the princes of Judah — Mt 2:6 "`But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'"

David came from a village called Bethlehem (1 Sam. 17;12,58 Luke 2; 4). So that this alleged "prophecy" is nothing but a reference to the genealogy or birthplace of the great David, a descendant of whom was expected to restore the kingdom of Israel. The statement about this ruler "whose origins are from of old, from ancient times" seems to anticipate the Christian doctrine of the trinity and that Jesus is the eternal God himself — it is in this way that prophecies and doctrines are invented.

Jesus did not fulfil this prophecy, for he never was a ruler in Israel, and did not deliver Israel from the Assyrian when he came into the land. And even if we accept the baseless doctrine of the second coming — it can never be fulfilled because Assyria no longer exists.

Slaughter of the Innocents –Prophecy-Alleged Fulfilment

Jer 31:15 This is what the LORD says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more."

Matt 2:17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."

The Jews have been the most embattled people throughout history and Jewish women have frequently wept for their children from the time of Abraham — this alleged prophecy is so general as to be worthless in terms of Scriptural proof of some specific occurrence – the slaughter of the innocents by Herod — a disaster which remains unrecorded in any Jewish or contemporary literature.

Flight to Egypt-Prophecy-Alleged Fulfilment

Hos 11:1 ¶ "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.Hos 11: 2 But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.

Matt 2:14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

The second verse of the prophetic text clearly indicates that the "son" spoken of is the entire nation of Israel not Jesus of Nazareth.

Declared the Son of God-Prophecy-Alleged Fulfilment

Psalm 2:7 ¶ I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.

Matt 3: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

God obviously has a short memory as he could not remember the exact formula predicted. The nation of Israel is repeatedly referred to as the "Son of God" there is nothing in this unremarkable saying that could be a direct and affirmative reference to Jesus.

Galilean Ministry-Prophecy-Alleged Fulfilment

Isa 9:1 ¶ Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honour Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan— The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.

Matt 4:14 to fulfil what was said through the prophet Isaiah: "Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way to the sea, along the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles – the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned."

The alleged prophecy when read in context also declares that the person referred will —

Isa 9: 3-4 You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice when dividing the plunder. For as in the day of Midian's defeat, you have shattered the yoke that burdens them, the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor.

— since only one line of the entire prophecy can legitimately be applied to Jesus the context would indicate that the prophecy in its entirety refers to someone else.

Rejected by his own people-Prophecy-Alleged Fulfilment

Isa 53: 3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

John 1:11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

Mt 21:9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Hosanna in the highest!"

Mt 15:30 Great crowds came to him, .......

Mt 20:29 As Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him.

Mark 10:13 People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them The gospels record that Jesus enjoyed great popularity among the masses who thronged in their thousands to hear him. So this prophecy can be applied to Jesus only by a very overdeveloped imagination.

Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem-Prophecy-Alleged Fulfilment

Zech 9:9 ¶ Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Mark 11: 7-10 When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it..... Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!" "Hosanna in the highest!"

The second part of the prophecy reveals an additional clause:—

Zech 9:10 I will take away the chariots from Ephraim and the war-horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.

None of these things were achieved by Jesus except the contrived riding on a donkey — even in a metaphorical esoteric sense Jesus still does not rule the universe.

Betrayed by a friend=Prophecy Alleged Fulfilment

Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.

Luke 22:47-48 ¶ While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them.

He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"

The entire context of the manipulated prophecy proves that the reference is by David to himself and has naught to do with Jesus. In the 4th verse he says:— Psalm 41:4 I said, "O LORD, have mercy on me; heal me, for I have sinned against you."

— Jesus was apparently sinless and was God himself.

Accused by ‘false’ witness Prophecy Alleged Fulfilment

Psalm 35: 11 ¶ Ruthless witnesses come forward; they question me on things I know nothing about.

Mark 14:57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

The supposed ‘false’ testimony was simply the twisting of words that Jesus was on record as having said — John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’. So it was not a case of "things I knew nothing about"!

Given a drink of Vinegar and Gall Prophecy Alleged Fulfilment

Psalm 69: 21 They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst. 23 May their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and their backs be bent for ever. 24 Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them.

27 Charge them with crime upon crime; do not let them share in your salvation.

Matt 27:34 There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it.

The alleged prophesy is spoken again by David referring to himself in the past tense — his enemies putting gall in his food and giving him vinegar to drink, in the case of Jesus the gall was mixed with the vinegar/wine — hardly an accurate fulfillment of a divine prophecy! Secondly the speaker of the prophecy goes on to curse his enemies, Jesus was alleged to have blessed them (Luke 23:34)

Silent to accusations

Isaiah 53: 7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

Luke 22:67 "If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."

Luke 22:70 They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

Mt 27:11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

Mark 15: 2 "Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate. "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. John 18:33 Pilate then ... asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

34 "Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"35 "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."37 "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."38 "What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him.

1. Rewards of serving God

Exo 23: 25-26 Worship the LORD your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you, and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span.

Such conditions have never obtained either among the most pious of Jews or Christians or will ever come to pass. We see all the pious believers and worshippers of Yahweh/Jesus experiencing suffering, sickness, miscarriages, infertility and early death just like everyone else. The holocaust, the genocide of the Christians in Rwanda and Sudan all testify this lie.

2. Adam was promised that he would die

Gen. 2;16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Gen. 5;3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

3. The snake was cursed to eat dust.

Gen. 3; 14 ¶ So the LORD God said to the serpent, ......... "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food.

Every school child knows that snakes do not eat dust. Christians will claim that this prophesy will only be fulfilled in the New Jerusalem after the second coming.

4. Cain cursed to be a restless wanderer.

Gen 4;10-12 The LORD said, ...... Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground,..... When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."

Gen 4;16 16 ¶ So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. ....... Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

In spite of the curse of the omniscient Lord Cain built a city. Some Christian apologists will rationalize that he only built the city but did not live in it.

5. God gives Noah and his sons control over every living creature.

Gen. 9: 1 ¶ Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.

Thus according to this blessing lions, leopards, tigers, crocodiles and sharks were all delivered into Noah's hands and fear mankind.

6. God promises that the harvest will never cease.

Gen. 8; 22 "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."

Gen 41; 56 When the famine had spread over the whole country, .....for the famine was severe throughout Egypt.

Gen 45; 6 For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be ploughing and reaping.

There were frequent periods of famine throughout the history of the land of Israel, so either God changed his mind or forgot his original promise.

7. The earth to be destroyed and to remain for ever.

Deut. 4;40. The earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, for ever.

Eccl. 1; 4 ¶ [One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

Ps. 104; 5 [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.

2 Peter 3; 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

One of these two conflicting, announcements will evidently be falsified.

8. Abraham & Sarah are to be the progenitors of many nations.

Gen 17;4 ¶ "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.

Gen. 17; 15 ¶ God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

The Jews are the only nation descended from Sarah, and only five nations appear to have descended from Abraham, namely the Jews, the Ishmaelites (Arabs), the Midianites, and the Edomites and the Ammonites. Today the Arabs and the Jews are the only two nations that claim descent from Abraham.

In the scheme of a multicultural world — two can hardly be reckoned as “many”.

9. God predicts that the Edomites will serve the Israelites.

Gen. 25: 23-26 The LORD said to her (Rebbekah), "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger."....... The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau..... After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau's heel; so he was named Jacob.

Esau was the father of the Edomites with whom the Israelites were constantly at war. Sometimes the Edomites prevailed and sometimes the Israelites, but there is no record in Scripture or in History of the Edomites ever serving the Israelites.

10. Pinhas and his sons are promised that they will retain the priesthood for ever.

Num. 25; 10-13 The LORD said to Moses, "Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, .................. He and his descendants will have a covenant of an everlasting priesthood,

The NIV tactfully changes the word everlasting to 'lasting' to soften the obvious untruth of this promise. The Hebrew term is 'olam which clearly means forever.

The "everlasting", priesthood was subsequently transferred to the descendants of another son of Aaron. It was taken from Abiathar by Solomon (1 Kings 2:27) and restored to Zadok, who was descended from Pinhas (I Chron. vi. 4,8), with whose family the 'eternal' priesthood continued as long as it lasted. 

11. Naphtali's possessions wrongly assigned.

Deut. 33; 23 And of Naphtali he said, O Naphtali, satisfied with favour, and full with the blessing of the LORD: possess thou the west and the south.

Naphtali received a district in the north in Galilee (see Jos 20:7) but none in the south or the west.

12. God revokes his promise to Eli, and makes another almost equally futile one concerning Samuel.

1 Sam. 2;27 ¶ Now a man of God came to Eli and said to him, "This is what the LORD says: ................. 28 I chose your father out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, and to wear an ephod in my presence. ................... 30 "Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before me for ever.' But now the LORD declares:..... 31 The time is coming when I will cut short your strength and the strength of your father's house,....... 35 I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in my heart and mind. I will firmly establish his house, and he will minister before my anointed one always. ............. 1 ¶ The boy Samuel ministered before the LORD under Eli.

The omniscient Lord of the Universe makes firm promises and then revokes them when it suits him. Samuel is clearly the faithful priest who was to replace Eli; but his house was far from being "firmly established" and his sons were almost as bad as Eli's (I Sam. 8:3). Neither he nor his descendants "always" ministered before God's anointed.

The Promised Land-13. The promised land extended from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Gen. 15; 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— Exo. 23:31 "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River [Euphrates]. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you.

Deut.1;7,8.............. go to all the neighboring peoples in the Arabah, in the mountains, in the western foothills, in the Negev and along the coast, to the land of the Canaanites and to Lebanon, as far as the great river, the Euphrates. See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land that the LORD swore he would give to your fathers— to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them."

The territory ruled by the Israelites never extended from the River Nile or from the Red Sea to the Euphrates although it remains alive in the hopes and aspirations of radical right wing Israelis.

14. The promised land to be fertile and extensive.

Exo. 3; 8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey — the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.

The promised land was neither a fertile nor a spacious land except in the romantic sense. It was a land that required extremely hard work to produce anything from it and thus in reality could not be described as a land flowing with milk and honey — in fact famine was a regular occurrence. If not for chemical fertilizers and elaborate irrigation schemes and land would still be quite barren and unproductive.

15. God promises eternal proprietorship of the land of Canaan to Abraham his descendants.

Gen. 13; 14,15 ¶ The LORD said to Abram ...... "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring for ever.

Acts 7:5 He gave him [Abraham] no inheritance here, not even a foot of ground. But God promised him that he and his descendants after him would possess the land, even though at that time Abraham had no child.

Gen. 17; 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

Exo 32;13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance for ever.'

Abraham never received the land that God promised to him — The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians in the 8th century BCE. In 587 BCE Jerusalem was finally destroyed by Nebuchadnezzer and all the Jews were exiled to Babylon. In 538 BCE Cyrus allows the Jews to return to their promised land. From 304 — 200 BCE Judea was ruled by the Ptolomies, from 200 — 142 BCE by the Seleucids. Then Judea came under Roman rule, in 70 CE the Second temple was destroyed and the diaspora of the Jews began lasting until 1948, when the state of Israel was declared.

16. Canaan promised to Jacob.

Gen. 28; 13 There above it stood the LORD, and he said: "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you [Jacob] and your descendants the land on which you are lying.

Jacob never received the promised land, and it is questionable whether the spot [near Haran — a place in the middle of modern Syria] on which he then lay ever came into the possession of his descendants.

17. Israel to be established in their own land for ever.

2 Sam. 7; 8 "Now then, tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: ......... 10 And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people shall not oppress them any more, as they did at the beginning ..... I will also give you rest from all your enemies. "`The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you ... 16 Your house and your kingdom shall endure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.'"

The house of David is long since gone as has his kingdom and throne. Although the Jews who were scattered all over the world for 2000 years have returned to Israel they are still afflicted, the orthodox Jews do not accept this "return" as a fulfillment of the prophecy because the State established is not a Messianic Theocracy but a secular one. Most Christians would argue that this is a prophesy to be fulfilled in the future. One must then ask how David himself understood this prophesy, what would be the point of making revelations to someone about a utopia to exist in 5000 years time.

18. Restoration of Judah and the lost tribes under one king.

Ezek. 37;21-24 and say to them, `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites

out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms...... "My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees.

The Kingdom of Israel split up after the death of Solomon the son of David in about 10 BCE and was never united until 1948 when the state of Israel was created. This prophesy still has not been fulfilled because Israel is not a monarchy. This prophesy implies that David would be reborn to rule the restored kingdom, nevertheless some Christians pretend that it refers not to David himself but to Jesus who is related to David through his mother's marriage to Joseph, and that this prophesy will come about sometime in the distant future.

Bondage in Egypt

19. The Israelites to be afflicted as slaves in Egypt for 400 years.

Ge 15:13 Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and ill-treated four hundred years.

According to the orthodox, biblical chronology, the Israelites were only in Egypt for 215 years in all. Jacob entered Egypt in 1706 BCE and the Exodus under Moses took place in 1446 BCE. Of the 215 years the first portion under Joseph was a time of great prosperity for the Israelites. Exodus 12; 40 says "Now the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt for 430 years". In Gal. 3; 16:17 Paul loosely claims the period from the covenant with Abraham until the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai was 430 years. Act 7; 6, however, affirms the 400 years of affliction. Moses was only the great grandson of Levi a half brother of Joseph (Ex.6;16-20 — Levi (lived 137 years) ’ Kohath (lived 133) ’ Amram (lived 137) ’Aaron and Moses — even with this fantastic longevity it would still be difficult to make these four generations cover 430 years. Josephus (book ii., chap 15:2) says the Jews were in Egypt 2I5 years, and this agrees with the Samaritan and the Septuagint.

20. The Jews to return from Egypt in the fourth generation from Abraham.

Gen.15;15,16 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

The Jews returned from their captivity in Egypt in the 8th generation from Abraham.

21. God promises to bring Jacob back from Egypt.

Gen. 46; 3 "I am God, the God of your father,"he said. "Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make you into a great nation there. I will go down to Egypt with you, and I will surely bring you back again. And Joseph's own hand will close your eyes."

Gen 47; 28 Jacob lived in Egypt 17 years, and the years of his life were a 147. When the time drew near for Israel to die, he called for his son Joseph and said to him, "If I have found favour in your eyes, put your hand under my thigh and promise that you will show me kindness and faithfulness. Do not bury me in Egypt, God did not bring Jacob back again from Egypt, as he promised, he died in Egypt.

22. Judah to remain an independent state till the Messiah comes.

Gen 49:10 (KJV) The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him [shall] the gathering of the people [be].

Gen 49;10 (NIV) The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

Shiloh is a word of disputed meaning; it either refers to a national meeting place before Jerusalem or it can be taken to refer to the messiah. If Shiloh is taken to mean Jesus the prophecy was falsified, for Jerusalem and the temple were sacked and the king of Judah and all the leaders were carried away into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar 588 years before the birth of Jesus.

சுவிசேஷங்கள் கதைப்படியே- ஏசு கைதானபின் அவரை விட்டு சீடர்கள் கலிலேயாவிற்கு ஓடிவிட்டனர். இவர்கள் ஏசு சொன்னதைப் புரிந்து கொள்ளவே இல்லை. ஆனால் பின்னர் அத்தனையும் -ஞாபகத்திலிருந்து சொல்ல சுவிகள் வந்ததாம். நம்பாதது நினைவில் இருக்குமா?

NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus’ short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus’ birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian’s birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a “Christus” in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus’ mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote theAnnals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a “Chrestus,” a common name. Apologists assume that “Chrestus” means “Christ” (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant “Christ,” it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius’ birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their “evidence” of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 – 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 – 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? – circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 – 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 – 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 – ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? – 215 C.E.), Origen (185 – 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? – 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? – 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn’t matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes afterthe alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus’ existence, and nothing more.

Josephus (c37-100 AD)

Flavius Josephus is a highly respected and much-quoted Romano-Jewish historian. The early Christians were zealous readers of his work.

A native of Judea, living in the 1st century AD, Josephus was actually governor of Galilee for a time (prior to the war of 70 AD) – the very province in which Jesus allegedly did his wonders. Though not born until 37 AD and therefore not a contemporary witness to any Jesus-character, Josephus at one point even lived in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle.

Josephus's two major tomes are History of The Jewish War and The Antiquities of the Jews.In these complementary works, the former written in the 70s, the latter in the 90s AD, Josephus mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era.

At face value, Josephus appears to be the answer to the Christian apologist's dreams.

In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:

1. Jesus's existence 2. his 'more than human' status 3. his miracle working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests 8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophesy 14. the successful continuance of the Christians.

In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything – now that is a miracle!

BUT WAIT A MINUTE ...

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was"not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.

Consider, also, the anomalies:

1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?

In fact, Josephus relates much more aboutJohn the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee,Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed'Egyptian Jew' messiah.

It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, headds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.

3. The question of context.

Antiquities 18 is primarily concerned with "all sorts of misfortunes" which befell the Jews during a period of thirty-two years (4-36 AD).

Josephus begins with the unpopular taxation introduced by the Roman Governor Cyrenius in 6 AD. He presents a synopsis of the three established Jewish parties (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), but his real quarry is the "fourth sect of philosophy ... which laid the foundation of our future miseries." That was the sect of Judas the Galilean, "which before we were unacquainted withal."

At the very point we might expect a mention of "Christians" (if any such sect existed) we have instead castigation of tax rebels!

"It was in Gessius Florus's time [64-66] that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and made them revolt from the Romans; and these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."

"Nor can fear of death make them call any man Lord." Sound a tad familiar?

Chapter 2 notes the cities built to honour the Romans; the frequent changes in high priest (up to Caiaphas) and Roman procurators (up to Pontius Pilate); and also the turmoil in Parthia.

Chapter 3, containing the Testimonium as paragraph three, is essentially about Pilate's attempts to bring Jerusalem into the Roman system. With his first policy – placing Caesar's ensigns in Jerusalem – Pilate was forced to back down by unexpected Jewish protests in Caesarea. With his second policy – providing Jerusalem with a new aqueduct built with funds sequestered from the Temple, Pilate made ready for Jewish protests. Concealed weapons on his soldiers caused much bloodshed.

At this point the paragraph about Jesus is introduced!

Immediately after, Josephus continues:

"And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ..."

There is no way that Josephus, who remained an orthodox Jew all his life and defended Judaism vociferously against Greek critics, would have thought that the execution of a messianic claimant was "another terrible misfortune" for the Jews. This is the hand of a Christian writer who himself considered the death of Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy (fitting in with his own notions of a stiff-necked race, rejected by God because they themselves had rejected the Son of God).

With paragraph 3 removed from the text the chapter, in fact, reads better. The "aqueduct massacre" now justifies "another terrible misfortune."

4. The final assertion, that the Christians were "not extinct at this day," confirms that the so-called Testimonium is a later interpolation. How much later we cannot say but there was no "tribe of Christians" during Josephus' lifetime. Christianity under that moniker did not establish itself until the 2nd century. Outside of this single bogus paragraph, in all the extensive histories of Josephus there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere.

5. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of the historian:

'... as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."

This is the stuff of Christian propaganda.

REALITY CHECK

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.

Bishop Eusebius, that great Church propagandist and self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD. This was after the Christians had become the custodians of religious correctness.

Whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians. Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.

Do we need to look any further to identify Eusebius himself as the forger?

Sanctioned by the imperial propagandist every Christian commentator for the next thirteen centuries accepted unquestioningly the entire Testimonium Flavianum, along with its declaration that Jesus “was the Messiah.”

And even in the twenty first century scholars who should know better trot out a truncated version of the 'golden paragraph' in a scurrilous attempt to keep Josephus 'on message.'

 McDowell's "Sources for the Historicity of Jesus"

What about the relevant body of alleged evidence for the historicity (or existence) of Jesus? It can be conveniently grouped under two main headings: (1) Christian sources, and (2) non-Christian sources.

Christian Sources

Again, we can conveniently divide McDowell's Christian sources for the historicity of Jesus into two categories: (1) the New Testament, and (2) other Christian texts.

The New Testament

McDowell quotes John Montgomery, who states the New Testament documents are reliable and therefore provide good evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Although I disagree with McDowell (and Montgomery) over the degree of reliability of the New Testament, that disagreement is irrelevant here. There is simply nothing intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a historical Jesus.[3] On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the Christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q.'[4]

Other Christian Texts

The other Christian texts cited by McDowell do not provide any support for the historicity of Jesus:

1. The Church Fathers do not provide any independent confirmation of Jesus. Under the heading "Christian Sources for the Historicity of Jesus," McDowell refers his readers back to his discussion of the church fathers in his chapter on the historical reliability of the Bible. In particular, he draws attention to Polycarp, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin, and Origen.[5] Turning to He Walked Among Us,[6] McDowell and Wilson suggest two reasons why the church fathers confirm the existence of Jesus: (a) the Church fathers did not base their belief solely on Christian tradition (he cites the 'Acts of Pilate' as an example); and (b) most of the church fathers died as martyrs for their beliefs.

Concerning (a), McDowell only cited one example of church fathers relying on non-Christian tradition--Justin Martyr's reference to an alleged 'Acts of Pilate'--so I will have to restrict my comments to that.[7] There are three problems with Justin's reference. First, Justin Martyr was not known for his historical accuracy. For example, in his Apology (1.31), Justin incorrectly claimed that the Ptolemy who had the Septuagint translated was a contemporary of Herod; he has also been caught referring to documents which ostensibly support his exaggerated claims but in fact do not.[8] This leads to my second objection. Given Justin's inattention to historical detail, he probably just assumed that such documents must exist. According to Felix Scheidweiler,

Justin in his First Apology refers twice (c. 35 and 48) to documents of the trial of Jesus before Pilate. The same author in c. 34, however, and in the same terms, invites us to examine the schedules of the census under Quirinius, which certainly did not exist. This prompts the suspicion that Justin's reference to the acta of Pilate rests solely on the fact that he assumed that such documents must have existed.[9]

Perhaps Scheidweiler's use of the word "certainly" is too strong, especially if one is inclined to regard the report in Luke as fundamentally historically reliable. Yet the fact remains that even if we assume the existence of an 'Acts of Pilate', it is not at all clear that such a document would have referred to a Judaean decree, since that would not have been binding on the independent province of Galilee. There is simply no evidence that the results of criminal trials of non-citizens would be sent to Rome. But in fact it begs the question to assume that such documentation ever existed. Such documentation surely did not exist in the fourth century, when Christians apparently felt the need to forge the apocryphal 'Acts of Pilate'.[10] Moreover, when Pliny (see below) writes to Trajan asking for advice on his trials of Christians, he describes these trials. If records of these trials were in Rome, such a description would not be necessary. And when Trajan replies to Pliny, he mentions no precedents and no decrees.[11] Thus, it is unlikely that any such records existed.

Turning to (b), McDowell and Wilson state that Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Origen died for their faith, and that Irenaeus suffered for his faith.[12] For their sacrifices to have any value at all as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, at least two conditions would have to be met. First, they would have needed sources other than what is now included in the New Testament. Second, they would have to have been in a position to know if Jesus existed.

Does the testimony of any of the church fathers meet both conditions? At the outset, we may note that Origen (CE 185-ca. 254) was simply too late to have been in a position to know if Jesus existed. Irenaeus may also be dismissed as a possible independent source to the historicity of Jesus since, according to McDowell and Wilson, Irenaeus obtained his information from Polycarp. Polycarp, in turn, is said to have converted around 109. While he may have had access to one or more sources independent of the New Testament, our knowledge of his sources is uncertain. As for Ignatius, there is no evidence that he had any sources other than the New Testament and so he cannot be used as an independent source. Finally, we have already noted that Justin Martyr was not known for his historical accuracy and that his reference to an 'Acts of Pilate' is dubious. While he certainly may have had sources other than the New Testament, this is unknown. In sum, the evidence presented by McDowell and Wilson is simply too inconclusive to justify the conclusion that the church fathers had independent sources of information. Therefore, the church fathers cannot be used as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

2. Tertullian's reference to Tiberius provides inconclusive confirmation of Jesus. Tertullian (c.160-c.230), a Christian theologian, converted to Christianity (c.197) and became a vocal Christian apologist. He later (213) left the church to join the Montanists. Around CE 197 he wrote the following passage in his Apology:

Tiberius accordingly, in those days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all the accusers of the Christians.[13]

Unfortunately for Christian apologists who like to use this passage as independent confirmation of Jesus, this passage is highly doubtful. There is an extremely high probability that Tiberius never converted to Christianity, in which case this passage is unreliable and can't be used as independent confirmation of Jesus. The reasons for believing that Tiberius never converted to Christianity are as follows:

(a) Tiberius was extremely intolerant of cults. It is difficult to believe that Tiberius would have threatened "all the accusers of the Christians," for he "had little tolerance for foreign cults and expelled all the Jews from Rome in 19 C.E. (Jos Ant 18.3-5)."[14]

(b) Paul never mentions the emperor converting to Christianity. The passage has Tiberius (in Rome) converting to Christianity before 37 CE, long before Paul arrived there to preach it. Yet Paul never mentions this conversion. Paul's silence on the matter is inexplicable apart from the fact that Tiberius never converted to Christianity.[15]

(c) No other ancient writers mention the conversion. Obviously Tiberius' deeds were of interest to contemporary writers of the time. (After all, he was Caesar.) Moreover, had Tiberius become a Christian, this would not have been just another one of his deeds; this would have been the most significant event in Roman history: the Pontifex Maximus, priest of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, renouncing the protection of the gods of Rome in favor of a hated foreign Jewish cult? Yet not one contemporary writer corroborates Tertullian's second- or third-century report.[16]

(d) The passage is very late and is therefore unreliable. Even McDowell will admit that one hundred years is enough time for legendary development. Since we have no hint of this tradition before Tertullian's writing in the late second- or early third-century, this passage is therefore highly suspect.

Non-Christian Sources

Turning to the second category of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, we now evaluate McDowell's evidence from non-Christian sources: Jewish sources and Pagan sources. Again we shall consider first the evidence as stated by McDowell inETDAV and then briefly interact with objections to his evidence.

Jewish Sources

McDowell quotes two lines of evidence for the historicity of Jesus from Jewish sources.

1. Josephus provides independent confirmation to the life of Jesus. The most important non-Christian witness to the historical Jesus is Josephus, who wrote five works in Greek: Life, his autobiography; Contra Apion, a defense of Judaism;The Jewish War, an eyewitness account of the revolt against Rome (66-74 CE); Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades; and The Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jews from Adam to his generation. McDowell cites two references to Jesus in The Jewish Antiquities; I will discuss them in reverse order.

(a) The reference to James as the brother of Jesus. Josephus described how the high priest Ananus took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus in 62 CE to organize a mob to stone James. McDowell mentions this passage because Josephus identifies James as "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ:"

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought it before the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.[17]

According to Josephus scholar Louis Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged."[18] However, since there a few scholars who deny the authenticity of this passage, let's consider the arguments for and against authenticity.

Of course, McDowell does not consider any of those arguments in ETDAV, but in his book He Walked Among Us (co-authored with Bill Wilson) he presents three arguments in favor of the authenticity of this passage.[19] Let's consider each argument in turn:

(1) "The phrase 'James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ' is too noncommittal to have been inserted by a later Christian interpolator who would have desired to assert the messiahship of Jesus more definitely as well as to deny the charges against James." This is probably the single most important argument in favor of authenticity; in my opinion, McDowell and Wilson are right about this. The phrase is incidental to the story. If this passage were an interpolation, it is surprising that so little is said about Jesus and James.[20]

(2) "Origen refers to this passage in his Commentary on Matthew 10.17, giving evidence that it was in Josephus prior to his time (approximately A.D. 200)." This is true but inconclusive. The fact that the passage was referenced by Origen around 200 is simply inconclusive as evidence for the authenticity; that still leaves well over a century when the passage could have been interpolated.

(3) The passage identifies 'Jesus' as the one 'called the Christ,' which "betrays an awareness that 'Messiah' was not a proper name, and therefore reflects Jewish rather than Christian usage." Unfortunately, this is also inconclusive. From the fact that Josephus needed to distinguish this Jesus from other people in his book named Jesus, it does not follow that the phrase "called the Christ" was the most likely way Josephus could have identified Jesus. Josephus could have also said, "the one who was crucified by Pilate," since Josephus' earlier reference to Jesus (see below) did mention that point.[21]

McDowell and Wilson also have occasion to consider an objection by G.A. Wells to this passage, that "it is unlikely that Josephus would have mentioned Jesus here simply--as it were--in passing, when he mentions him nowhere else."[22] In response, McDowell and Wilson argue that Wells' "statement demonstrates that even he recognizes that the James passage is incomplete without the Testimonium."[23] However, it is false that the James passage is incomplete without the Testimonium. Just read the passage: the meaning of the passage is quite clear without reference to the Testimonium. Moreover, McDowell's and Wilson's rejoinder completely neglects the primary flaw in Wells' objection. Even if we assume that the Testimonium is completely inauthentic, there is simply no reason to expect Josephus to have said anything more about Jesus.

But the above objection is hardly the only objection to the authenticity of this passage, and it is certainly not Wells' only objection. In Wells' 1982 book, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Wells objects that "the Greek does not have 'so-called' but 'him called Christ,' and this, so far from being non-Christian, is the exact wording of Mt. 1:16."[24] Furthermore, in Wells' later books, he presents additional objections to the authenticity of the passage.[25] So while I think McDowell's and Wilson'sconclusion concerning this passage is correct, their discussion is incomplete. Readers interested in a complete summary of the debate concerning this shorter passage will need to go elsewhere.

(b) The Testimonium Flavianum probably contained an authentic, independent witness to Jesus. Josephus was known as "Flavius Josephus" from his patrons the Flavian emperors, Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian. Testimonium Flavianum means literally "Testimony of Flavius" and refers to Antiquities 18.3.3 §63-64:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Unlike Josephus' shorter reference to Jesus, this passage is extremely controversial. Indeed, even McDowell admits this when he writes that the Testimonium Flavianum is "a hotly-contested quotation."[26] Most scholars suspect there has been at least some tampering with the text on the basis of some or all of the italicized sections. Thus scholarly opinion can be divided into three camps: those who accept the entire passage as authentic; those who reject the entire passage as a Christian interpolation into the text (perhaps authored by the fourth-century church historian Eusebius); and those who believe that the original text contained an authentic reference to Jesus but was later embellished by Christian copyists.

In He Walked Among Us, McDowell and Wilson seem to favor the third option. They begin their discussion of the evidence by considering several arguments favoring the authenticity of the Testimonium: (i) the passage exists in all extant manuscripts of Josephus; (ii) Eusebius quotes it around the beginning of the fourth century; (iii) the vocabulary and style are basically consistent with other parts of Josephus; and (iv) the passage blames for the crucifixion of Jesus on Pilate rather than on Jewish authorities.[27] However, contrary to what McDowell and Wilson assert, not all of these arguments are "strong." (i) is irrelevant; the extant Greek manuscripts of Josephus' Antiquities all date to the tenth century or later![28] (ii) is also irrelevant; three centuries is still plenty of time for an interpolation. (iii) is inconclusive. While the vocabulary and style are basically consistent with the writings of Josephus, McDowell and Wilson present no evidence that the vocabulary and style of Josephus would have been hard to imitate.[29] Finally, (iv) is the one good argument in the bunch. Whereas the gospels tend to blame the Jews for Jesus' death, the Testimonium blames the Romans. Furthermore, it does not mention anything about Jewish authorities sentencing Jesus. It is difficult to explain how the hands of a Christian interpolator near the time of Eusebius would have left this intact.

McDowell and Wilson next consider several objections to the authenticity of the Testimonium: (i) it is unlikely that Josephus would have called Jesus the Messiah; (ii) it is unlikely that Josephus would have written the other italicized phrases; (iii) the passage is never quoted by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Origen, despite its enormous apologetic value; and (iv) the passage interrupts the narrative flow of the surrounding text. I find McDowell's and Wilson's answers to all four of these objections convincing. As they correctly point out, removing the italicized sections from the passage answers objections (i)-(iii).[30] Turning to (iv), I think McDowell's and Wilson's answer is incomplete. In response to Gordon Stein's objection that "the passage comes in the middle of a collection of stories about calamities which have befallen the Jews,"[31] McDowell and Wilson rightly note that in Josephus' chapter containing the Testimonium, "[o]nly two of the five paragraphs ... are true calamities."[32] While this is certainly correct, this does not answer the objection by Wells (quoted by McDowell and Wilson), that "if the passage is excised, the argument runs on in proper sequence."[33] Given that this objection is a common one, it deserves an answer.

My answer would be as follows. Even if the passage were out of context, that would still not make it likely that the passage is an interpolation. It was common for ancient writers to insert extraneous texts or passages which seemingly interrupt the flow of the narrative (whereas today the material would be placed in a footnote):

A further main reason why ancient historiography differed from its modern counterparts was provided by digressions. They were far more frequent in Greek and Roman writings than in our own. For one thing, there was a simple technical explanation for such digressions. Nowadays we have footnotes; the ancients did not, so that what would now be relegated to a footnote had to appear in the text. But there was also a deeper philosophical explanation. The Greek and Roman historians wanted to supply background....[34]

Moreover, as E. Mary Smallwood argues, this was particularly characteristic of Josephus:

One feature of Josephus' writing which may be disconcerting to the modern reader and appear inartistic is the way in which at times the narrative is proceeding at a spanking pace when it is unceremoniously cut short by a paragraph or a longer passage of material unrelated or only marginally related to the subject in hand, and then resumed equally abruptly. Basically, these interruptions are of two types, with different reasons behind them, and it may therefore be helpful if a word is said here about the conventions of ancient historiography, which differed considerably from ours.

One type of interruption, such as a sudden move to another theatre of war, occurs because ancient historians usually wrote annalistically---literally, by years ...

A quite different explanation lies behind other interruptions to the flow of the narrative. The ancient world never invented those useful lay-bys in which the modern author can park essential but intractable material, and thus avoid breaking the main thread of his argument, the footnote and the appendix ... what we relegate to notes and appendixes appeared as digressions.[35]

But in fact I see no reason to believe the Testimonium occurs out of context. For example, New Testament scholar R.T. France has argued that Josephus is simply listing events that happened during or near Pilate's reign.[36] And Steve Mason thinks that Josephus is merely "trying to paint a picture of escalating tension for Jews around the world."[37] It is therefore unclear why the Testimonium is "out of context."

There was one objection which McDowell and Wilson did not discuss, but which I think deserves to be taken seriously by anyone who defends a reconstructed Testimonium. According to that objection, the fact that there has been any tampering with the text at all makes the entire passage suspect; a heavy burden of proof falls upon anyone who defends partial authenticity. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide what to think about this objection.

As further evidence for the authenticity of the Testimonium, McDowell and Wilson cite the Arabic version of the Testimonium preserved by tenth-century Bishop Agapius of Hierapolis in his World History. Schlomo Pines, the Israeli scholar who rediscovered the Arabic text, translates the passage as follows:

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 them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.[38]

McDowell and Wilson believe that this text "provides textual justification for excising the Christian passages and demonstrating that Josephus probably discussed Jesus in Antiquities 18."[39]

However, this text is far from conclusive. Although McDowell and Wilson claim the Arabic version actually dates to the fourth century, they provide no defense or justification for that claim.[40] Yet even if the Arabic version can be dated to the fourth century, the text would still not provide any additional evidence for the authenticity of the Testimonium. Again, three centuries would still have been plenty of time for the Testimonium to have been interpolated. Indeed, for all we know, the extant Greek versions and the Arabic version have a common source, perhaps the original interpolation itself! Though McDowell and Wilson quote Pines' translation of the text, they neglect to mention that Pines himself is quite cautious about claiming that the Arabic text represents Josephus' original. Indeed, Pines admits there are other explanations for the text besides the one favored by McDowell and Wilson.[41]

In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. However, given the centuries-old debate over how much, if any, of the Testimonium is authentic, McDowell's mere quotation of the full Testimonium (combined with an acknowledgement that the quotation is "hotly-disputed") is simply inexcusable. By itself, the unqualified quotation of the Testimonium in ETDAV gives readers the misleading impression that, although there is some unspecified controversy concerning the passage, McDowell accepts the full authenticity of the Testimonium. Furthermore, since skepticism concerning the authenticity of the Testimonium is fairly widespread, I think McDowell did a disservice to his mostly Christian audience by not answering these objections. Indeed, if McDowell had made it clear inETDAV that his own view is that the Testimonium is partially authentic, that would have answered most of the objections. Of course, McDowell and Wilson have discussed the objections at some length in their 1988 book, He Walked Among Us. But many of their arguments for authenticity are weak; their response to one of the objections against authenticity is incomplete; and they neglected what I consider to be a very serious objection against their view.

2. The Talmud contains inconclusive evidence of Jesus. The Talmud [42] is a massive compilation divided into two parts, the Mishna [43] and the Gemara [44]. The Mishna was codified by Rabbi Jehudah ha-Nasi circa 200 CE but was not actually committed to writing until the fifth century; it discusses numerous subjects, including festivals, sacred things, etc. TheGemara was completed in the fifth century and is really a commentary on the Mishna.

McDowell cites six lines of evidence for the historical Jesus from the Talmudic writings:

(a) The Tol'doth Yeshu. At the outset, note that the Tol'doth Yeshu is not in any sense a part of the Talmud; in ETDAVMcDowell erroneously lists the Tol'doth Yeshuas if it were a part of the Talmud. (In fairness to McDowell, I should note that he does not repeat this error in his later book, He Walked Among Us; in that volume, the Tol'doth Yeshu is listed under the heading of "References from the Rabbis."[45]) Anyway, McDowell states that the Tol'doth Yeshu is a reference to Jesus; in that document "Jesus is referred to as `Ben Pandera'".[46] Yet Joseph Klausner--who McDowell relies on heavily in his section on the Talmud--believed the Tol'doth Yeshu "contains no history worth the name."[47] Furthermore, Klausner stated, "The present Hebrew Tol'Doth Yeshu, even in its simplest form, is not earlier than the present Yosippon, i.e. it was not composed before the tenth century. Therefore it cannot possibly possess any historical value nor in any way be used as material for the life of Jesus."[48] Even on McDowell's view, this is more than enough time for legendary development. And inHe Walked Among Us, McDowell and Wilson list the Tol'doth Yeshu among the "unreliable [rabbinic] references to Jesus."

(b) The Babylonian Talmud. McDowell next lists the opinion of the Amoraim that Jesus was hanged on the eve of Passover.[49] However, Klausner thinks that the Amoraim traditions "can have no objective historical value (since by the time of the Amoraim there was certainly no clear recollection of Jesus' life and works)."[50] Morris Goldstein states that the passage "cannot be fixed at a definite date within the Tannaitic time-area."[51] The value of this passage as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus is therefore uncertain.

(c) The tradition about Jesus as the son of Pantera. Commenting on the Talmud's references to Jesus as "Ben Pandera (or 'Ben Pantere')" and "Jeshu ben Pandera," McDowell writes, "Many scholars say `pandera' is a play on words, a travesty on the Greek word for virgin `parthenos,' calling him `son of a virgin.'"[52] However, "Jesus is never referred to as `the son of the virgin' in the Christian material preserved from the first century of the Church (30-130), nor in the second century apologists."[53] As Herford argues, this passage "cannot be earlier than the beginning of the fourth century, and is moreover a report of what was said in Babylonia, not Palestine."[54]

(d) The Baraitha describing hanging Yeshu on the eve of Passover. McDowell considers "of great historical value" the following Jewish tradition about the hanging of Jesus:

On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going forth to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defence come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defence and hanged him on the eve of Passover.[55]

It is unclear whether this passage refers to Jesus. As Goldstein admits, "the possibility of the Jesus named in the Talmud being someone other than Jesus of Nazareth, and identified as such only because of confusion, cannot be entirely dismissed."[56] But even if the passage does refer to the Jesus of the New Testament, according to Goldstein, "it is of no help one way or the other in the question of the historicity of Jesus."[57]

Following this Baraitha are some remarks of the Amora 'Ulla, a disciple of R. Yochanan and who lived in Palestine at the end of the third century. McDowell quotes these remarks as follows:

'Ulla said: And do you suppose that for [Yeshu of Nazareth] there was any right of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: Thou shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him. It is otherwise with Yeshu, for he was near to the civil authority.[58]

Both McDowell and Klausner conclude, "The Talmud authorities do not deny that Jesus worked signs and wonders, but they look upon them as acts of sorcery."[59] However, given our ignorance of both the date of these passages as well as the author's sources, we simply can't assume these passages represent independent traditions about Jesus.

(e) Talmudic references to the disciples of Jesus. McDowell writes, "Sanhedrin 43a also makes references to the disciples of Jesus."[60] Turning to Joseph Klausner, we read:

Immediately after this Baraita comes a second (Sanh. 43a): Jesus had five disciples, Mattai, Naqai, Netser, Buni and Todah.[61]

Yet as Klausner notes, "In any case the Baraita itself is lacking in accuracy, for although the names are those of real disciples, they include some who were not disciples of Jesus himself, but disciples of the second generation."[62] In other words, the list of names is simply a list of Christians, not a list of contemporaries of Jesus.[63]

Laible has suggested that "the story refers to the prosecution of Christians under Bar Cocheba"[64] because (1) the story occurs in the same passage which describes the death of Jesus and (2) "the key to the understanding of the statements there made about Jesus in the anti-Christian hatred of Bar Cocheba, and more especially of Aqiba, his chief supporter."[65] If that is the case, then the passage can be dated to the second century, which would prevent it from providing independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

(f) The reference to such-an-one as a bastard of an adulteress. McDowell, following the lead of Klausner, cites the following passage from the Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 4.49a:

R. Shimeon ben Azzai said: 'I found a geneaological roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress.'"[66]

McDowell takes this to be a reliable reference to Jesus.[67]

However, there are good reasons to doubt that this passage represents an independent tradition about Jesus. First, the passage comes from the Babylonian Talmud, which dates to around the sixth century. Second, the gospel of Matthew begins with the words, "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ."[68] This "genealogical roll" or "Book of Pedigrees" may have been influenced by the gospels. Third, this passage fits the pattern of Rabbinical polemic. Thus this reference may not be based upon an independent source. Of course, it's also possible that this passage was based on independent sources. The available evidence does not favor one view over the other; thus, we can't use this passage as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

(g) The reference to the 'hire of a harlot.' Finally, McDowell quotes the following passage from the Talmud:

He answered, Akiba, you have reminded me! Once I was walking along the upper market (Tosefta reads 'street') of Sepphoris and found one [of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth] and Jacob of Kefar Sekanya (Tosefta reads 'Sakkanin') was his name. He said to me, It is written in your Law, 'Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, etc.' What was to be done with it--a latrine for the High Priest? But I answered nothing. He said to me, so [Jesus of Nazareth] taught me (Tosefta reads, 'Yeshu ben Pantere'): 'For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them, and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return'; from the place of filth they come, and unto the place of filth they shall go. And the saying pleased me, and because of this I was arrested for Minuth. And I transgressed against what is written in the Law; 'Keep thy way far from here'--that is Minuth; 'and come not nigh the door of her house'--that is the civil government.[69]

What is crucial to the evidential force of this passage is the words in parentheses; yet McDowell never defends them. He simply quotes Klausner, who in turn quoted an obscure, 19th century manuscript.[70] Nonetheless, most scholars would reject the passage as McDowell has it:

To establish the reliability of this passage, Klausner must engage in a contorted argument that includes an appeal to Hegesippus' account of the martyrdom of James--something that would not inspire confidence in many scholars today. Joachim Jeremias weighs the pros and cons of the argument about authenticity and decides in the negative--rightly in my view. The saying is a polemical invention meant to make Jesus look ridiculous.[71]

In conclusion, the value of the Talmud as a witness to the historicity of Jesus is at best uncertain. John Meier argues that theTalmud contains "no clear or probable reference to Jesus."[72] And Twelftree states that the Talmud is "of almost no value to the historian in his search for the historical Jesus."[73] Of course, as McDowell and Wilson point out, the Talmud never questions the historicity of Jesus.[74] But that fact cannot itself be used as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, for two reasons. First, as Goldstein points out,

we must be careful not to make too much of [the] argument [that had Jews doubted the historicity of Jesus, they would have said so]. It is not conclusive. Can we attribute to ancient peoples our modern concept of myth, or historicity? Furthermore, this manner of logic lends itself to fallacious extension whereby one could attempt to prove that whatever the early Jewish tradition does not specifically mention in contradiction to the Christian tradition must have taken place.[75]

Second, the Talmud can only provide independent confirmation of Jesus's existence if it relied on independent sources. Given our ignorance of the sources for the Talmud as well as its late date, it simply can't be used as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

http://pagadu.blog.com/2012/01/30/%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AE-%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%B5%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%B9%E0%AF%80%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%85%E0%AE%A3%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A3%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%9C%E0%AF%86/#comment-2168

நண்பர் ரப்பீக் அவர்கள் அழுப்பியது நியாயமான கேள்வியே. இவ்விவாதத்தின் முதல் பகுதிகள் தவிர மீதம் பற்றி இங்கு விவாதிக்கப்படவில்லை.

பழைய பைபிள் ஏடுகள் 27000 உள்ளன என்பதை மிக அழகாக உடைத்தனர். ஆனால் அவற்றின் நம்பிக்கைதன்மைக்கும் ஏடுகளுக்கும் சம்பந்தமில்லை.

மேலும் ஏடுகள் நம்ப்பிக்கைகுரியவை என பைபிள் அறிஞர் புரூஸ் சொன்னார், என்றனர், ஆனால் அவரும், பல உண்மைகளை சொல்லி உள்ளார்.

அதே போலா தௌரத் நூல்கள் இன்றைய பைபிளியல்படி, மினிமலிசம் என்பதுபடி பொ.மு. 300 - 200 வாக்கில் தான். இதற்கு பழைய ஏற்பாட்டில் பல ஆதாரங்கள் உள்ளது.

அதே போல புதிய ஏற்பாட்டில் 27 புத்தகத்தில் ஒன்றைக்கூட ஏசுவை பார்த்தவர்களால் எழுதப்படவில்லை. இதை தமிழில் பைபிளைத்தரும் கூழுள்ள இணைய தளத்தில் காணலாம்.

http://www.arulvakku.com/biblecontent.php?book=Mat&Cn=1

இவற்றைக் கூட குழு சொல்லவில்லை.

பைபிள் புனிதமானதா என்பதற்கு - ஆதாரமாக ஒரு வாதத்தைக் கூடத் தரவில்லை.

பீஜே தரப்பு- விவாதத் தலைப்பை அர்வருப்பானது பைபிளா- குரான்,  ஹதிஸா என மாற்றி விட்டது.

இயேசுவைக் கைது செய்தது யார்?

பகுதி-1
   
யூதர்கள் என்னும்படியான ஒரு கதை பரப்ப்பப் பட்டுள்ளது. நாம் நான்காவது சுவி- யோவான் விருப்பப்படியான சுவியில் காண்போம்.
KJVயோவான்: 18
2. இயேசு தம்முடைய சீஷருடனேகூட அடிக்கடி அங்கே போயிருந்தபடியினால், அவரைக்காட்டிக்கொடுக்கிற யூதாசும் அந்த இடத்தை அறிந்திருந்தான்.3. யூதாஸ் போர்ச்சேவகரின் கூட்டத்தையும் பிரதான ஆசாரியர் பரிசேயர் என்பவர்களால் அனுப்பப்பட்டஊழியக்காரரையும் கூட்டிக்கொன்டு, பந்தங்களோடும் தீவட்டிகளோடும் ஆயுதங்களோடும்அவ்விடத்திற்கு வந்தான்.

.12. அப்பொழுது போர்ச்சேவகரும், ஆயிரம் போர்ச்சேவகருக்குத் தலைவனும், யூதருடையஊழியக்காரரும் இயேசுவைப்பிடித்து, அவரைக் கட்டி
 

From Ecumenial Translation யோவான் 18

2 அவரைக் காட்டிக் கொடுத்த யூதாசுக்கு அந்த இடம் தெரியும். ஏனெனில், இயேசுவும் அவருடைய சீடர்களும் அடிக்கடி அங்குக் கூடுவர்.3 படைப் பிரிவினரையும் தலைமைக் குருக்களும் பரிசேயரும் அனுப்பிய காவலர்களையும் கூட்டிக் கொண்டு யூதாசு விளக்குகளோடும் பந்தங்களோடும் படைக்கலங்களோடும் அங்கே வந்தான்.
12 படைப்பிரிவினரும் ஆயிரத்தவர் தலைவரும் யூதர்களின் காவலர்களும் இயேசுவைப் பிடித்துக் கட்டி

John 18:1-12-New American Standard Bible (NASB)

 ² Now Judas also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples. ³  Judas then, having received the Roman cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons.

¹²  So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him,

ரோமன் 1000 படைவீரர்களின் தலைவன் இயேசுவைக் கைது செய்ய சென்றான் எனில் அது ரோமன் கவர்னர் ஆணையில், அப்படி என்றால் ரோமன் விசாரணை மட்டுமே. யூத மத சங்கக் கூட்டம் எல்லாம். கட்டுக்கதைகளே.