AWAKE! NO. 5 2016 - Did Jesus Really Exist?

by ttdtt 31 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ttdtt

  So again we go to the QUALITY of evidence used by the WT.

  You can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/

  You see the WT refer to experts with quotes. As is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are EXPERTS (so take their word). Also they seem to only be find old old references not any new DATA or Evidence.

  Michael Grant - born 1914

  William Durant - born 1885

  Rudolf Bultmann - born 1884

  Albert Einstein who was as much an expert in jewish history as I am - born in 1879

  Is this the best they got?

  It's like quoting Fred Hoyle on the Expanding Universe.

  Again - this article presents NO evidence!
• 

  sir82

  Also they seem to only be find old old references

  What are you talking about?

  All those guys are of "this generation"! How much more current can you get?
  
• 

  bohm

  Yah that was predictably awfull. I dont doubt jesus existed, but it is amazing the wt cant even make a good argument when they are right.
• 

  Mephis

  I'm agnostic on a historical Jesus. But agree with bohm that the WBTS manage to make a real mush of even a decent attempt to prove it. I suppose the problem they have is that going to modern scholarship turns up lots of inconvenient issues which would need to be airbrushed out. Not least the problem that acknowledging the plausability of a historical Jesus says nothing about the accuracy of the gospel accounts.
• 

  Saename

  Yes, I was extremely surprised about that. The existence of Jesus—as a historical figure who was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher in the first century—is well-documented. It's not even a matter of debate amongst the scholars now since the likelihood of Jesus' existence was established long time ago. As far as historians are concerned, the actual existence of Jesus is the most likely explanation for all the evidence we have.

  Having that said, I was really surprised that they didn't talk about it in more detail. The whole Awake publication could have been about Jesus' historical existence, yet all it suggests is something that would convince literally nobody. I bet it was written by someone with no historical training whatsoever. I mean, citing Albert Einstein? What the heck is this all about? Recently, there have been two scientists—very good published scientists at that—who talked publicly about how Jesus' did not exist. But that's all they were: scientists—with no knowledge of history.

  Now, when it comes to the other three persons, Michael Grant, William Durant, and Rudolf Bultmann, I wouldn't necessarily say it's wrong to classify them as "experts." William Durant was the only historian of those three; Michael Grant had a degree in literature, and Rudolf Bultmann was a theologian. And although literature and theology are not the same as history, they are still fields relevant to Jesus' existence. Nonetheless, it does surprise me that they did not cite actual experts like Bart Ehrman, who is one of the leading scholars in the field of the New Testament studies. He additionally specializes in textual criticism and has training in history. But I suspect the Watchtower was unwilling to cite people like him because... they are atheists who were convinced of the lack of consistency within the books of the Bible because of thoroughly studying it.
• 

  jwleaks

  I wonder why they didn't quote from the 19th century writings of Charles Taze Russell. He believed there was enough evidence to support the existence of Jesus and wrote volumes about it.

  Oh that's right ... Russell founded a religious book publishing cult who's teachings are contrary to what the JWs currently believe.
• 

  Saename

  "I suppose the problem they have is that going to modern scholarship turns up lots of inconvenient issues which would need to be airbrushed out."

  Sort of true. Whilst there would be no problem if they wanted to use modern scholarship to explain Josephus' and Tacitus' references to Jesus, they would have to deal with certain inaccuracies in the Bible if they wanted to use the Bible itself to "prove" Jesus' existence. For those who have no or little knowledge of how history works, the Bible can be used to explain Jesus' existence. Let me explain.

  For example, one of the evidences that Jesus did exist is the fact that Jesus dies in the gospels. The problem is that in this period of time, Jews did not believe that the Messiah would die. They had many different ideas about who the Messiah would be and what he would do; however, there was no notion that he would die. "Messiah is sent by God, and then dies—on a cross, at that? How the heck does that work!?" would a Jew of that time answer. The belief that the Messiah would die developed after Jesus' death to explain why he died when he was the Messiah.

  Now, if the Watchtower wanted to use the Bible to "prove" Jesus' existence, they would have to refer to such explanations that would be inconsistent with their own beliefs. In their publications, they have numerously claimed that the Jews expected the Messiah to be the priest, the king, and the prophet all at the same time. I believe there was a study edition of Watchtower last year which explained this concept. This is a completely inaccurate assumption.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I take it they don't engage scholars who doubt the existence of a historical Jesus: Robert M Price, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier, Raphael Lataster, Thomas L Thompson, Thomas L Brodie.
• 

  Mephis

  Saename wrote: Sort of true. Whilst there would be no problem if they wanted to use modern scholarship to explain Josephus' and Tacitus' references to Jesus, they would have to deal with certain inaccuracies in the Bible if they wanted to use the Bible itself to "prove" Jesus' existence.

  The purpose of the article is to use scholarship, not internal bible logic, to try and prove Jesus existed though. Grant, for example, wrote on Tacitus and was one of many who believe/d that Tacitus' comments about 'Christians' isn't a later interpolation. But to open that can of worms is to introduce the idea that every text can be subject to such manipulation and so every one of those passages by ancient authors they cite must be buttressed against it. Josephus in particular has been subject to later editing, although there's a good case for something there being original to him. To introduce doubt to a world of black and white fundamentalism is what they are very keen to avoid.

  So really it's very true that the WBTS' writers seem to exercise great care in the source materials they use because even the case for a historical Jesus opens up all kinds of questions. Perhaps the greatest amongst them being just how accurately something written decades after an event can relate what happened - as that applies not only to every non-biblical source for Jesus but also every biblical source too!
• 

  ttdtt

  Great comments guys! Thanks.

  Again the WT just shows they are HACKS at everything they do.