Psalms 22 is an historic account by its author, King David, rather than "messianic text" that foretells the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus. Psalm 22 does not mention Christ by name, nor does it mention a son of God, nor even a Messiah. There are also serious questions about translation errors which happened over a thousand years after Christ. In the King James Bible there is a serious, misleading mistranslation—“They pierced my hands and my feet …” The text should read: “Like a lion (Hebrew KeAri), they are at my hands and feet.” The Christian interpreters in King James time, actually changed the spelling of the word from KeAri (like a lion) to Kari. If one then totally ignores Hebrew grammar, one can twist this to mean “He gouged me,” then, as in the King James Version, they make it read: “They pierced my hands and feet.” PSALM 22: NAILING AN ALLEGED CRUCIFIXION SCENARIO The Jewish translation of the ancient Hebrew is: "For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers encompassed me; like a lion [they are at] my hands and my feet." But in the King James Version it became: "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet."
Centuries later is not contemporary, it is hearsay. Josephus is a religious historian working from earlier sources. He and Tacitus were not contemporary with Jesus and write from oral tradition a century later. This suggests that the Jesus story is very old, but it is not "evidence" of his existence.
These dudes both died less that 100 years after Christ. They were not centuries removed. More likely they were 20 years removed from the crucifixion. There are numerous other histories quoted by later writers that have been lost to us. The evidence you are demanding is kind of silly. Not too many historians who were actual contemporaries of Christ would have cared much about some Jew extremist who got nailed to a tree. There were a bunch of those in the first century. A generation and tens of thousands of followers later he may warrant mention in a history.
There is no factual proof that has not been translated, writen, translated again, rewritten and translated yet again. And until Doc Brown shows up with the Time Machine NO one ALIVE will ever know the truth. A couple things that have always made me wonder... The arguement of if Jesus was God in human form or truely the human son of God or just a man that was enlightened with the presence of God. Greek days there was Zeus, God of the Gods and then other lesser gods. And then there is GOD, the one true God and then other Angels Zeus defeated the Titans and banished them to a pit. God defeated the devil and banished him to THE PIT Zeus was able to have human offspring. Jesus is the son of God. The gods live on top of a mountain for from anyones sight and reach. Heaven is somewhere up high not within sight. The thing I have a problem with people believing that faith is a truth is that if you believe that your belief is the right way then that means that all other ways are WRONG! If there is only one way and all others are wrong, then you have to accept the possibilty that your beliefs are wrong too!
Red ,you use a decidedly biased interpretation that claims christians added to or changed the text .Then THEY changed the text.The bracketed words or added .Actually the pierced interpretation makes more sense of the text. " . . . we find in the MT of Psalm 22:17 (16 Eng.) the strange phrase "like the lion my hands and my feet" (kaari yaday we raglay) in a context that reads "dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men have encircled me- like the lion my hands and my feet!" This really makes no sense, for lions do not surround the feet of their victims. Rather, they pounce on them and bite them through with their teeth. Furthermore, this spelling of the word "lion" (ari) is rendered more doubtful by the fact that in v.13 (14MT) the word "lion" appears in the normal way 'aryeh. it is most unlikely that the author would have used used two different spellings of the same word within three verses of each other. Far more likely is the reading supported by most of the versions: ka'ru (They [i.e. the dogs or evildoers] have pierced" my hands and my feet). This involves merely reading the final letter yodh as a waw, which would make it the past tense of a third person plural verb. This is apparently what the LXX read, for oryxan ("they have bored through") reflects a a karu from the verb kur ("pierce, dig through"). The Vulgate conforms to this with foderunt ("They have dug through"). The Syriac Pe****ta has baz'w, which means "they have pierced/penetrated." Probably the ' (aleph) in ka'ru represents a mere vowel lengthener that occasionally appears in the Hasmonean manuscripts such as 1QIsa and the sectarian literature of the second century B.C."
I demand no evidence. I just ask people about their sources when they cite the existence of historical or archaeological evidence. Many assume it exists when it does not. I do think it strange that The Romans do not account for a man with the following that Jesus had, especially a purported King of the Jews. Or that they would not note a day that turned dark at midday. Or a resurrection--that doesn't happen every day. I find it unusual that a man had such a great following but they have left no artifacts with his name on them or that the Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention him.
All interpretations are biased, kedo, yours is no different. You are trying to use English grammar rules in Ancient Hebrew, a language with only about 8,000 words (compare to 120,000 in English) and you make assumptions not based in fact. Context is everything in old Hebrew and 4 millenia of oral tradition, tranlsations, copying, and biased editing have robbed us of the context needed to make an absoute translation. Bottom line . . . neither translation is evidence of the existence of Christ, only that subsequent authors borrow from earlier authors. This happens a lot in the Bible and in ancient documents in general.
Again Christ's following blossomed after his crucifixion. To the Romans he was a Jew extremist who claimed some connection to God. That was not all that uncommon in that time. I would hesitate to claim that artifacts were not left. They may yet to be discovered, and would have been hidden during the first 3 centuries, and there are plenty of first century works about Jesus, the new Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls are Jewish works. Why would they mention Jesus?
A Question for those that quote and believe the Bible to be factual... Do you follow and believe the bible with your whole heart, even the bad stuff and the stuff that is truely unbelieveable?
