I whent away and did some reserch. I will probably add more later. I have tried to approach from bothe angles.
FOR
-The Gospels and other early Christian writings.
pro-Some of these writings are very close to the time of Christ, some authors even living through it, and there sheer quantity may indicate some historical truth (or a very large conspiricy).
con-can be expected to be incredibly bais hence, as stand alone evidence, almost useless.
-Josephus
pro-a devout Jew (at least at the time of writing) hence had no reason to write for the history of Christ (indeed, exactly the opposite) hence can be considered more reliable than the Gospels. Shown by refrence to Christ as 'SO-CALLED Christ' which indicates imparsiality.
con-we'll get to that latter.
-Tacitus
pro-anti-christian hence can be more reliable in recording history of Christ than Christians (in a way)
-Writings such as 'The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).The lanuge in this and other writings suggests that it has not been tampered with-too negitive.
-Other Roman chroniclers such as Lucian ect
Same as above.
AGAINST
-Josephus fake
pro-Early Church Fathers do not mention these lines which suggests they did not exist at the time.
-the lack of quantity about such a large topic suggests a copy and paste exercise.
con-ECF debating divinity of Christ, not existence, hence had no need of the historian Josephus.
-Origin makes a breif mention of the work (although doubt is placed on the authenticity)
-Josephus was a devote Jew hence did not belive than Jesus was the Christ ('So-called Chist'). This means the figure would have been relitivly unimportant to him.
-There are no copies which ommit the extract which suggests it was in place in the original (or pretty close anyway).
-The qestion is raised about who forged the extract and for what purpose.
-No DNA or primary accounts
pro-second hand accounts only get us so far.
con-Israel is one of the most volitile areas on earth, in the last 2,000 years who knows what could have been lost.
FOR
-The Gospels and other early Christian writings.
pro-Some of these writings are very close to the time of Christ, some authors even living through it, and there sheer quantity may indicate some historical truth (or a very large conspiricy).
con-can be expected to be incredibly bais hence, as stand alone evidence, almost useless.
-Josephus
pro-a devout Jew (at least at the time of writing) hence had no reason to write for the history of Christ (indeed, exactly the opposite) hence can be considered more reliable than the Gospels. Shown by refrence to Christ as 'SO-CALLED Christ' which indicates imparsiality.
con-we'll get to that latter.
-Tacitus
pro-anti-christian hence can be more reliable in recording history of Christ than Christians (in a way)
-Writings such as 'The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).The lanuge in this and other writings suggests that it has not been tampered with-too negitive.
-Other Roman chroniclers such as Lucian ect
Same as above.
AGAINST
-Josephus fake
pro-Early Church Fathers do not mention these lines which suggests they did not exist at the time.
-the lack of quantity about such a large topic suggests a copy and paste exercise.
con-ECF debating divinity of Christ, not existence, hence had no need of the historian Josephus.
-Origin makes a breif mention of the work (although doubt is placed on the authenticity)
-Josephus was a devote Jew hence did not belive than Jesus was the Christ ('So-called Chist'). This means the figure would have been relitivly unimportant to him.
-There are no copies which ommit the extract which suggests it was in place in the original (or pretty close anyway).
-The qestion is raised about who forged the extract and for what purpose.
-No DNA or primary accounts
pro-second hand accounts only get us so far.
con-Israel is one of the most volitile areas on earth, in the last 2,000 years who knows what could have been lost.
