The Greatest Question: History or Hoax

Last night I attended a very very interesting discussion on the story and history of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The lecture was put on by the organization called Veritas and was titled "The Story of Jesus: History or Hoax?"

I found it absolutely fascinating. It really has a lot to do with history and with the concept of historical documentation versus a story or ideology which can have some basis of historical truth but is generally fictional and told more with a purpose than to get believers or to tell a moral. The question posed to these two presenters: was is the story of Jesus based in history or does it only have some nice morals and really is the greatest hoax of all time? Which is a pretty interesting/controversial discussion. . . because pretty much if either decision is made people are gonna be angry or offended. . .

The two presenters (or scholarly debaters shall we say) were:
Peter J. Williams and Bruce Zuckerman. Do you believe either of these men are worthy of talking about such an explosive topic?? Well let's take a look at their credential: Peter Williams is from Tyndale House, Cambridge. Before that he studied ancient Biblical languages at Cambridge University. Later he taught Hebrew and the Old Testament and was a Senior Lecturer in History and Philosophy. He has a vast knowledge of the Bible and its writing style and the history of the the time period in which it was written.

Bruce E. Zuckerman is a Professor in the School of Religion at USC! Which is pretty cool (I have had a couple of my friends actually have taken a class from him) he teaches about the Hebrew Bible and Archaeology. He studied at Yale and is a specialist in Northwest Semitic languages and biblical studies. He directs the USC Archaeological Research Center. He is actually really well known for taking pictures of really really really important archaeological/biblical works like the Dead Sea Scrolls (that's just too cool).


It was really quite fascinating to hear what Peter called to his defense against the idea of the bible as a hoax and the claim it was history. Professor Zuckerman however held the opposing position that the story of Jesus was a religious text that whether it was of historical accuracy was of little importance and more or less assumed it was not. I find it very interesting that two men faced with the exact same data can come to such different (but also logically supported) decisions it is quite impressive! And that distinction really does make their lives look quite different

There were also some opportunities for questions and it was really great the questions that people asked someone asked about the issue of the ethics of Jesus and the Bible writers and about the "bible" works which came after that were found in the 1990's (however these "gospels" are written completely differently style and knowledge wise from the rest of the accepted biblical works. . . which leads men like Peter to believe these new gospels are not actually connected to the rest of the gospel but were later additions that were based more off of beliefs afterward than actual historical events). When Peter was addressing the discovery of "new gospels" that occurred in the 1990's (link) and the support for or the problems against them he really brought in some mouth wateringly-good archaeological evidence. Much of the gospel Peter notes is written (especially the gospels) paying close attention to details and information as an actual historical occurrence (like the news instead of a fairy tale).

They also addressed connections to Mesopotamian cultures and how the Hebrew and biblical traditions did not live in a vacuum and were influenced by the surrounding nations and beliefs (either to show to be less like them or connect to them through stories).

Anyway at the end the decision for history or hoax was left to the listeners to think on. . . in a very logical and interesting intellectual and ethical dilemma.