Closing The Circle From The Evaluation Report To Early: Fill & Download for Free

Most serious researchers into the Edmund Fitzgerald’s shocking destruction on 10 November, 1975, in a gale on Lake Superior believe that the ship sank from a combination of factors. This is largely due to widespread dissatisfaction with the conclusions reached by the US Coast Guard in the immediate aftermath of the sinking.Great Lakes Ore Carrier SS Edmund FitzgeraldEdmund Fitzgerald History, The Fateful JourneyThe Coast Guard’s official report on the loss of the Fitzgerald, dated 26 July 1977, stated that the most likely cause of the wreck was improperly sealed cargo hatch covers (the rectangular structures amidships which are clearly visible in the photo above), which led to gradually accumulating water in the non-subdivided cargo hold. As more and more “boarding seas” sent water crashing over the main deck, the ship sank lower and lower until finally, its bouyancy was overcome and it plunged to the bottom of Lake Superior. In short, the ship was lost due to the failure of its crew to properly secure it against the conditions caused by the severe storm in which it sank. This is probably the closest thing in maritime circles to citing “pilot error” as the cause of a plane crash. The Coast Guard’s document is located in its entirety here:http://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/INV/docs/boards/edmundfitz.pdfThe Lake Carriers Association—the professional trade group representing the shipping companies which owned the US-flagged ships on the Great Lakes—immediately and vociferously disagreed with the Coast Guard.Lake Carriers' AssociationPaul Trimble, a retired USCG vice admiral who was then the president of the LCA, wrote a letter to the National Transportation Safety Board on September 16, 1977, that specifically disputed the cornerstone of the Coast Guard’s theory on the sinking. His letter stated that:“The present hatch covers are an advanced design and are considered by the entire lake shipping industry to be the most significant improvement over the telescoping leaf covers previously used for many years. The one-piece hatch covers have proven completely satisfactory in all weather conditions without a single vessel loss in almost 40 years of use…and no water accumulation in cargo holds.”Having thus rejected out of hand the idea that the Fitzgerald’s crew had essentially been negligent or at least careless in securing the hatch covers, the LCA’s suspicions immediately centered on an event that occurred several hours before the sinking, soon after the ship had departed from Superior, Wisconsin, fully loaded with more than 26,000 tons of taconite iron ore pellets. This was a possible running aground or “shoaling” of the ship near Caribou Island.Caribou Island in Lake Superior, North America. Photo Courtesy of Morris Chisholm by way of Flickr dot com.Caribou Island - WikipediaDuring its final journey, Fitzgerald was traveling in concert with another large freighter, the SS Arthur Anderson, under the command of Captain Bernie Cooper. At around 1530 (3:30 in the afternoon), or roughly 4 hours before the Fitzgerald sank, Cooper received a radio transmission from Captain Earnest McSorley of the Fitzgerald. McSorley told Cooper:“Anderson, this is the Fitzgerald. I have a fence rail down, two vents lost or damaged, and a list. I’m checking down. Will you stay by me till I get to Whitefish?” By “checking down”, McSorley meant that he was reducing speed so the trailing Anderson could close the distance and keep an eye on the Fitzgerald in the gathering storm. Cooper radioed McSorley and asked if he had his pumps going, and McSorley said, “Yes, both of them.”Massive Storm Waves Breaking on the Shore of Lake Superior. Wave Heights of 35 Feet or More Have Been Observed During Storms on the Lake.It is crucial to note that the storm was already underway by this point in the day on 10 November. Winds had reached near gale force several hours earlier, at 7 AM that morning, with wave heights of 10 feet observed. Thus the Fitzgerald was in heavy seas well before it passed by Caribou Island, and more so at the time McSorley reported that his vessel had been damaged. Just prior to the Fitzgerald’s radio communication with his ship, Cooper and one of his bridge staff on the Anderson—sailing astern of the Fitzgerald and watching its course on the Anderson’s radar—both remarked to each other that each thought McSorley and his ship were far too close to Caribou Island and a known underwater hazard called “Six Fathom Shoal”. A “list” meant that the Fitzgerald had taken on enough water to make the ship lean over on its side. A downed fence rail could only have been caused by either a heavy impact with a large object of some kind, or—much more likely—”hogging” of the ship. This would have snapped the steel rail as it was bent to the breaking point by the ship’s hull itself being forced upward from an impact with something on the lake floor beneath the vessel. Although Cooper’s sometimes excitable and occasionally inconsistent testimony led the majority of investigators to discount the idea that the Fitzgerald had struck rocks jutting up from the lake bottom, others were convinced.Subsequent radio transmissions from the stricken ship indicate that McSorley was worried. Between 4:30 and 5:00 he called the Coast Guard on the emergency channel—the “distress frequency”—and also put out a general call asking for information about the lighthouse and the radio beacon at Whitefish Point, at the southeastern end of the Lake. The comparitive safety of Whitefish Bay was just beyond the Point.Further, although McSorley did not tell Cooper that he was particularly concerned by whatever had happened near Caribou Island, around 5:30 he reported to another ship captain, Cedric Woodard of the Swedish cargo vessel Avafors, that:"I have a bad list, lost both radars. And am taking heavy seas over the deck. One of the worst seas I've ever been in."Woodard replied: "If I'm correct, you have two radars."McSorley: "They're both gone."It should be noted that McSorley said something at this time that was apparently picked up in his transmission to Woodard because McSorley was shouting to the crew while leaving his radio mic on. As described by writer Hugh Bishop in his Lake Superior Magazine article “Edmund Fitzgerald: Decades of Speculation, Fascination and Grieving”:“Captain Woodard, who was acquainted with McSorley and had talked with him many times previously, said in testimony that he didn’t recognize the voice when first they spoke and that McSorley sounded strange.Still later, at about 6 p.m., Woodard called the Fitz to report that the light had just come on at Whitefish Point. During that conversation, he stated that McSorley inadvertently left the microphone on when he said to someone in his pilothouse, “Don’t allow nobody on deck,” also saying something about a vent that Woodard couldn’t understand.In Lake Superior Port Cities Inc.’s newly released book, The Night the Fitz Went Down, Captain Dudley Paquette vividly describes his voyage through the massive seas of the November 9-10, 1975, storm as master of the downbound Inland Steel Company’s SS Wilfred Sykes. He is particularly intrigued by the command that Woodard overheard.“In those seas, such a command goes without saying, so why did McSorley have to emphasize it?” he asks. “There had to have been something happening on the deck that a mate thought they had to get control of - even if it meant putting lives in danger.”Whatever prompted that command just a little over an hour before the sinking, Paquette analyzes that it would have been catastrophic and visible from the pilothouse in the darkness of an early November evening. That would likely mean that it was at the forward end of the weather deck. Previously suggested possibilities are that a hatch cover washed off or the heavy deck crane or the spare blade for the propeller broke loose and crashed about.“I wouldn’t be surprised if a hatch cover came off, because I loaded right beside him in Superior on November 9 and the deck crew was still putting on hatch covers when they left the Superior Entry into Lake Superior,” Captain Paquette says. “It’s likely that they didn’t latch a lot of the hatch cover clamps because the crew was on Sunday overtime pay and they were so late getting covered up - and the weather was very nice at that time.” Captain Paquette thus sided with the Coast Guard and essentially blamed the crew.Edmund Fitzgerald: Decades of Speculation, Fascination and GrievingBy this point, then, at around 6 PM, the Fitzgerald was badly damaged, listing from increasing amounts of water in its cargo hold and in other spaces—too much for the ship’s powerful pumps to stay ahead of—and sailing blind.Worse, meteorological reconstructions of the 10 November 1975 storm show that it was exceptionally powerful even by the Great Lakes’ notoriously vicious standards.Unusual and Violent Waves on Lake Erie in a Recent NovemberThe Spectacular, Rip-Roaring Waves of Lake Erie’s ‘November Witch’The November Witches Of The Great Lakes | WeatherBugWhy the Edmund Fitzgerald sankIn some ways the seas during the worst storms on the Great Lakes are more difficult than what ships would encounter in the open ocean. This is due to the “Bathtub Effect” that produces oscillating waves which collide with each other from two or more directions. A “seiche”—similar to a tsunami—can also develop as sustained winds blow enormous amounts of water ahead of them down the Lakes. Similar factors have led to ten foot waves being seen even on as small a body of water as the 50 square mile Sea of Galilee (referenced in the New Testament in Matthew 8:23–27).Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 8:23-27 - New International VersionSIDEBAR – The Bathtub Effect — This blog post is discussing the Bathtub Effect as observed in the Gulf of Mexico and not the Great Lakes, but is still a good overview of the phenomenon.What Is a seiche?Captain McSorley knew that his ship was badly wounded and in mortal danger. Knowing also that he was not far from Whitefish Bay, he decided to run for it. Unfortunately this decision put him squarely in the worst possible place at the worst possible time. The Fitzgerald sailed into the exact spot where the storm reached its maximum power, and at the center of the worst waves and seiche storm surge produced by the 80-plus MPH winds and “bathtub effect”.The Final Voyage of the Edmund Fitzgerald on Lake Superior. The Ship Sank 17 Miles Northwest of Whitefish Bay.The last communication with the doomed vessel came via radio at about 7:10 PM. Anderson first mate Morgan Clark radioed the Fitzgerald to notify him of a radar contact about 19 miles ahead. McSorley acknowledged this and asked if he “was going to clear”, ie, if there was any danger of a collision. Clark said that there was none, then asked how things were going. McSorley replied, “We are holding our own”.Soon after this, the Fitzgerald entered a snow squall and radar contact was lost. Just prior to Clark’s transmission, Cooper later testified, the crew of the Anderson had felt “a bump”, an impact that hit their vessel from behind. Looking back from the pilothouse, the bridge crew saw two huge waves partially engulf the ship, moving forward from the stern. The second of these struck the back of the pilothouse, which forced the bow of the Anderson down into the seas. As Cooper described:“We took two of the largest seas of the trip. The first one flooded our boat deck. It had enough force to come down on the starboard lifeboat, pushing it into the saddles with a force strong enough to damage the bottom of the lifeboat.… The second large sea put green water (the powerful center of a wave) on our bridge deck! This is 35 feet above the waterline.”SS Arthur Anderson, a Great Lakes Freighter That Traveled With the Edmund Fitzgerald on 10 November 1975. Note the Height of the Ship’s Pilothouse in the Bow of the Vessel.Cooper’s ship, though badly rattled, quickly recovered from the force of the blow, and the crew watched the two giant waves move down the Lake—toward the struggling Fitzgerald. All contact with the Fitzgerald was lost about 10 minutes later.The subsequent report by the Coast Guard was based on extensive video of the wreck on the bottom of Lake Superior. The footage was taken by the US Navy’s CURV III (Cable-controlled Undersea Recovery Vehicle).CURV - WikipediaConditions on the lake bottom, 535 feet down, were somewhat muddy and so the quality of the video was not ideal.Following the Lake Carriers’ Association letter to the NTSB that disputed the Coast Guard’s conclusions, a second report—this one by the NTSB itself—was issued.https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55fd6fdbe4b0154e882ba4d7/t/562e1f79e4b04e54c8a031bd/1445863289573/EdmundFitzgeraldNTSBReport.pdfTaking a somewhat broader view of the tragedy, the NTSB document considered in more detail several possible contributing factors. Most of these had been briefly touched upon by the Coast Guard but not discussed comprehensively.One of these was the near-certainty that the Fitzgerald was overloaded on its last trip.An Early Photo of the Fitzgerald, in Light Condition at Pierside, Probably in the late 1950s or Early 1960s. The Ship Was Launched in 1958.The Fitzgerald Riding Low in the Water While Fully Loaded, Sometime in 1971. The Ship Would Have Looked Much Like This As It Sailed Into the Storm on 10 November 1975.The distance from the waterline to the main deck of a ship is known as “freeboard”. On the night before its destruction, the Fitzgerald probably left port with as little as 11 and a half (11.5) feet of freeboard and possibly even less. This was a dangerously thin margin of safety, particularly in a storm, even had the ship not been damaged.There was also the possibility that the Fitzgerald was not entirely seaworthy in other respects when it sailed from Superior, Wisconsin. The NTSB noted:“A former chief mate of the FITZGERALD testified that between September 13 and October 3, 1975, the FITZGERALD discharged at Toledo, Ohio. Because of the FITZGERALD’s deep draft, she was not able to pull up to the dock and had to lay off some 12 feet each time. The ship seemed to plow its way toward the dock every trip, he said. Similar "groundings" of other Great Lakes bulk cargo vessels during discharge at various ports were observed by Coast Guard Marine Inspectors during the winter of 1976 and the spring of 1977 and by Safety Board personnel during the summer of 1977.”In other words, there may have been unrepaired damage to the bottom plating of the ship’s hull that was the result of literally plowing its way the last short distance to various unloading docks around the Great Lakes shoreline.This idea has some corroboration from one of the ship’s surviving previous crewmen, Jim Woodard, who had sailed on the Fitzgerald for some time in the 60s and 70s. He told a recent interviewer that the Fitz “was a wet ship”—meaning it leaked noticeably and often shipped water while underway—and that he just did not have a good feeling about it, even though it was widely known as “the pride of the American side” and an assignment on board was greatly prized among Great Lakes mariners.Forty years after the sinking of the Fitzgerald, untold stories...It is also possible that the vessel’s design itself was inherently flawed and at least somewhat structurally unsound. Support for this point comes from the fact that the Fitzgerald’s sister ship, the SS Arthur M. Homer, which had undergone a very expensive lengthening and reconstruction to increase its cargo capacity, was suddenly and unexpectedly removed from service by its owner, Bethlehem Steel Corporation (now defunct) just 5 years later, in 1980. A similar conversion had been planned for the Fitzgerald itself.The following passage from the Wikipedia article about the sinking explains:“Retired Great Lakes Engineering Works naval architect Raymond Ramsey, one of the members of the design team that worked on the hull of Fitzgerald,reviewed her increased load lines, maintenance history, along with the history of long ship hull failure and concluded that Fitzgerald was not seaworthy on November 10, 1975.He stated that planning Fitzgerald to be compatible with the constraints of the St. Lawrence Seaway had placed her hull design in a "straight jacket ." Fitzgerald's long-ship design was developed without the benefit of research, development, test, and evaluation principles while computerized analytical technology was not available at the time she was built.Ramsey noted that Fitzgerald's hull was built with an all-welded (instead of riveted) modular fabrication method, which was used for the first time in the GLEW shipyard. Ramsey concluded that increasing the hull length to 729 feet (222 m) resulted in a L/D slenderness ratio (the ratio of the length of the ship to the depth of her structure) that caused excessive multi-axial bending and springing of the hull, and that the hull should have been structurally reinforced to cope with her increased length.”The Great Lakes Engineering Works The Shipyard And Its VesselsThe Launch of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald at the Great Lakes Engineering Works in Detroit, MI, 7 June 1958. The GLEW Was for Many Years a Major Shipbuilder on the Lakes, and Has Since Gone Out of Business.Eventually the NTSB report gave its “Findings” and “Probable Cause”, which largely echoed the Coast Guard’s previous findings but with additional detail:“Findings:1. The FITZGERALD’s hatch covers were not weathertight and allowed water to enter the cargo hold over an extended period. This water was not detected because it migrated down through the cargo. There was no method provided for sounding the cargo other than visual observations, nor was there any method for dewatering the cargo hold with the vessel trimmed by the bow.2. Amendments to the Great Lakes Load Line Regulations in 1969, 1971, and 1973 allow Great Lakes bulk carriers to load deeper. This deeper loading increased deck wetness which caused an increase in the flooding rate through nonweathertight hatches or other nonweather-tight openings.3. The topside vents and fence rail were damaged before 1520 either by a heavy object coming adrift on deck or by a floating object coming aboard with the seas. The FITZGERALD’s hull plating probably was damaged also; the damage propagated and caused flooding of the ballast tanks and tunnel.4. Flooding of ballast tanks and the tunnel caused trim and a list. Detection of ballast tank flooding prompted the ballast pumps to be started. However, the flooding rate through the hull damage, which was propagating, increased and exceeded the capacity of the pumping system.5. The hull stress levels, even with a substantial amount of flooding, were low enough that the hull girder did not fail before the sinking.6. The forces on the hatch covers caused by boarding seas were sufficient to cause damage and collapse. These forces increased as flooding caused a list and reduced the vessel’s freeboard.7. Flooding of the cargo hold caused by one or more collapsed hatch covers was massive and progressed throughout the hold. Flooding was so rapid that the vessel sank before the crew could transmit a distress call.8. The vessel either plunged or partially capsized and plunged under the surface. The hull failed either as the vessel sank or when the bow struck the bottom.9. The availability of a fathometer aboard the FITZGERALD would have provided additional navigational data and would have required less dependence on the ANDERSON for navigational assistance.10. The most probable trackline of the FITZGERALD, from west of Michipicoten Island to the position of her wreckage, lies east of the shoal areas north and east of Caribou Island; therefore, damage from grounding would have been unlikely.11. The shoal area north of Caribou Island is not shown in sufficient detail on Lake Survey Chart No. 9 to indicate the extent of this hazard to navigation. A contour presentation of this hazard would allow mariners to better assess this area and would help to eliminate the erroneous conclusion that there are isolated spots of shallow water, where in fact there is a large area of shoal water less than 10 fathoms deep.12. Insufficient water depth has been observed at some loading and discharge piers. "Groundings" of vessels at these locations induce hull stresses of unknown magnitudes and create the potential of undetected hull damage and wear.13. Although the National Weather Service accurately predicted the direction and velocity of the wind expected over the eastern end of Lake Superior on November 10, 1975, the predicted wave heights were significantly less than those observed.14. Loading information on the FITZGERALD and other Great Lakes bulk cargo vessels was not adequate.15. Great Lakes bulk cargo vessels normally can avoid severe storms. The limiting sea state for Great Lakes bulk cargo vessels should be determined, and the operation of vessels in sea states above this limiting value should be restricted.16. The presence of an EPIRE aboard the FITZGERALD would have provided immediate automatic transmission of an emergency signal which would have allowed search units to locate the position of the accident. The accurate location of this position would have reduced the extent of the search area.17. Installation of trim and list indicating instruments on the FITZGERALD would have provided the master an early indication of flooding that would have an adverse effect on the vessel. These instruments would have given an indication of whether the master’s corrective action was adequate.18. The surface search and rescue capability of the Coast Guard on November 10 was inadequate.Probable Cause:The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the sudden massive flooding of the cargo hold due to the collapse of one or more hatch covers. Before the hatch covers collapsed, flooding into the ballast tanks and tunnel through topside damage and flooding into the cargo hold through nonweathertight hatch covers caused a reduction of freeboard and a list. The hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces imposed on the hatch covers by heavy boarding seas at this reduced freeboard and with the list caused the hatch covers to collapse. Contributing to the accident was the lack of transverse watertight bulkheads in the cargo hold and the reduction of freeboard authorized by the 1969, 1971, and 1973 amendments to the Great Lakes Load Line Regulations.”In short, the ship sank because of progressive flooding following damage sustained from some cause near Caribou Island, aggravated by overloading. The initial flooding and overloading made the Fitzgerald go lower in the waves of the storm, which began a downward cycle of boarding seas. These gradually brought more and more water aboard until a final, catastrophic collapse of one or more hatch covers allowed sudden additional and overwhelming flooding that drove the ship to the bottom.The NTSB added that the storm was significantly stronger than weather reports had predicted, and both the Coast Guard and the NTSB noted that the navigational charts used by McSorley were not entirely accurate regarding the underwater hazards around Caribou Island. This last factor led the NTSB to take the unusual step of including a dissenting opinion in its conclusion. Board member Philip Hogue wrote:“The most probable cause of the sinking of the SS EDMUND FITZGERALD in Lake Superior on 10 November 1975, was a shoaling which first generated a list, the loss of two air vents, and a fence wire. Secondarily, within a period of 3 to 4 hours, an undetected, progressive, massive flooding of the cargo hold resulted in a total loss of buoyancy from which, diving into a wall of water, the FITZGERALD never recovered.Like the Marine Board of the Coast Guard or the majority of the Members of the National Transportation Safety Board, I could speculate or surmise in the first instance that flooding into the cargo hold took place through ineffective hatch covers or in the second instance that flooding took place due to the failure of hatch cover Number One due to massive seas. I reject these arguments because neither of them is fully cognizant of the ramifications of the first reported list, the loss of two vents and fence railing at approximately the precise time the FITZGERALD was reportedly in or over shoal waters. Between the first reported damage and the time of the sinking, approximately 3 to 4 hours later, seas of 25 to 30 feet and winds gusting to 80 knots were variously observed. Without exception, expert testimony has affirmed the fact that seas in shoal waters are inherently more violent and wild than in open water. It follows, therefore, that subsequent to her initial sustained damage, the FITZGERALD suffered progressive damage from laboring, rolling, and pitching for the next 3 to 4 hours as it proceeded toward Whitefish Point Light. At or about 1730, Captain Woodard aboard the Swedish vessel AVAFORS received a report from Captain McSorley stating the FITZGERALD had a "bad list," had lost both radars and was taking heavy seas over the deck in one of the worst seas he had ever been in. In approximately 2 hours from the initial report of a list, the FITZGERALD had acquired a "bad list" and sustained the loss of both radars. Approximately 1 hour 40 minutes later at or about 1910, the FITZGERALD reported it was holding its own. This was the last transmission ever heard from the FITZGERALD. Aside from the expert testimony elicited at the Coast Guard Marine Board hearing, it is self-evident that Captain McSorley had a damaged ship, and that he did not know how damaged she was….It is reasonable to assume, from all that is known of Captain McSorley, that his first report of damage was based on damage sustained immediately prior to 1530 and that it was no small consideration that caused Captain McSorley to ask the ANDERSON to stay with him, saying, "I will check down so that you can close the distance between us."”In the end, while these are expert and informed opinions, no one really knows for certain what sank the Fitzgerald. There is an enduring mystery about the ship and its final voyage that is both tragic and strangely compelling. In this vein Woodard said something striking. He had spoken with many of the Fitzgerald’s crew when his ship and the Fitz were in port a couple of weeks before the sinking.“God strike me dead if I’m lying,” Woodard said, his spontaneous laughter checked. “We pulled in behind them and everybody I saw on that crew had an aura around them. That’s the honest-to-God’s truth. They glowed, just like a little brightness, you know what I mean?”When asked if he was benefiting from hindsight and imagination, Woodard said, “I’ve never seen that since.”My mother once told me a similar story. She said she had seen our next door neighbor at the local post office just before he was killed in a car wreck by a drunk driver. She later described seeing the same kind of strange aura and light around him when she looked at him.Do with that what you will. As I say, there is mystery here.Perhaps the biggest lesson that should be taken from the sinking is that no matter how skilled the sailors and how large the ship, all are still less than specks of sand compared with the vastness and power of the sea and of great storms over large bodies of water. It is no wonder, then, that both the traditional US Navy Hymn and Gordon Lightfoot’s enduring ballad speak with reverence of the power of both Nature and Nature’s God.Eternal Father, strong to save,Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deepIts own appointed limits keep;Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,For those in peril on the sea!The U.S. NavyThe Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, by Gordon Lightfoot.Lake Huron rolls, Superior singsIn the rooms of her ice water mansionOld Michigan steams like a young man's dreamsThe islands and bays are for sportsmenAnd farther below Lake OntarioTakes in what Lake Erie can send herAnd the iron boats go as the mariners all knowWith the gales of November rememberedIn a musty old hall in Detroit they prayed,In the maritime sailors' cathedralThe church bell chimed til it rang twenty-nine timesFor each man on the Edmund FitzgeraldThe legend lives on from the Chippewa on downOf the big lake they call 'gitche gumee'Superior, they said, never gives up her deadWhen the gales of November come early

How do we know?This is a bit like asking how history and historiography work, but then, it’s also a little bit like asking how we discern truth, and of course it asks if Jesus is unique or not.Let’s break these down and address them one at a time. Feel free to skip over what you already know. The different categories are independent of each other.History and HistoriographyFirst, history, is the study of the past. It provides evidence for establishing what can be called history and what can’t. Historiography is the study of those writings on history.They both begin by asking a question—much like science—and their conclusions are couched in probabilities: what is “most highly probable,” “highly possible,” “somewhat probable,” “least likely,” and so on.History’s conclusions are derived from the examination of primary and secondary evidences from the past. Here’s a list of some of what historians use when investigating the First Century. 1st century - Wikipedia. Here is a valuable discussion of sources used to study the life of Jesus: First-Century Sources on the Life of Jesus. I also recommend Gary Habermas’ book “The Historical Jesus” for an exhaustive critical discussion of all the various sources on Jesus from the first three centuries. [1]This approach to history yields lots of raw information, which is combined with information from other fields such as sociology, anthropology, archaeology, and so on, and sometimes even makes use of previous research from other historians. This mass of raw data is then ‘sifted,’ using logical and “scientific” criteria, and formed into inferences applicable to answering the original question.The most likely explanation embraces the most data with the simplest approach. It is generally determined to be the most probable answer to the original question.This is the writing of history.These meticulously researched answers of historians are then taken by historiographers and are, themselves, evaluated and compared to other answers of other historians on the same subject.Historiographers criticize, challenge, and take apart the historian’s carefully constructed work, piece by piece: they question it by comparing and contrasting both method and result with other’s work. It isn’t always pretty. This process can escort some answers straight out the airlock.Then again, some answers survive just fine, and other scholars get intrigued by the answer’s survival so they do more studies in the same area, sometimes producing yet more support for the original answer.That means that eventually, a few answers have been researched, re-researched, evaluated, compared, questioned and still found strong. Thereafter, they make it all the way to the heady thin air of coming to be regarded as historical fact.History can, thereby, be so dependable that we can know these facts as well as any science knows anything.That Jesus was a Real Historical Person is one of those facts.Jesus was a Real Historical PersonAll the arguments about Jesus’ existence can be reduced to one simple fact: no one within centuries of Jesus’ time doubted he was a real person.Jesus as myth would have been a great boon to Gnosticism which appeared in the second century. Gnosticism emphasized the mystical and spiritual, believing matter was evil, so they argued Jesus only had the “illusion of flesh” when he showed up as human in the first century. If there had been a story of a totally non-historical, purely mythical, mystical Jesus floating around, they would have grabbed it because it would have really helped them out.Yet they never claim it.Instead they depict Jesus as a First Century teacher who seemed like a physical historical being, but who was really a spirit being all along, fooling everyone except the Gnostics who had “special knowledge” — but not knowledge of a mythical Jesus. If there was a "mythic Jesus" tradition in the early centuries—why didn’t the Gnostics use it?Jesus Mythicists claim a “mythic Jesus tradition” started early and survived well into the Second or even the Third Century. Yet when we look at orthodox Christian responses (i.e. Justin Martyr, Origen and Minucius Felix), to the many critiques by Jews and pagans from that period, we find the apologists work hard, take time, and go into detail, to answer the arguments critics made about Jesus - that he was a fool, a magician, a bastard son of a Roman soldier, a fraud, etc - but that none of these ever so much as hint that anyone ever claimed Jesus never existed.Why did it pass totally unnoticed by both the critics and the apologists who answered them—if such an idea existed? There is no record of it in history.No one within centuries of Jesus’ time doubted he was a real historical person. This idea is a creation of the modern anti-Jesus Mythicist activists.Many in this field won’t agree on much of anything but nearly every scholar (99%?) does agree that Jesus was a real historical person.Okay, fine, so he was a person, that doesn’t prove there was anything unique about him.That’s very true. A man named Jesus might have existed yet not played the spiritual role that Christianity now claims for him. The only possible way to sift through that is to look at what the man Jesus most likely claimed for himself while he was still alive. It won’t give “proof,” but in a good historical manner, it will show what was common to Jesus’ day and what else can be considered unique about him—if anything.Jesus Preached and Taught.There were plenty of other preachers and teachers in the first century. He did not draw any unusual attention to himself by going about teaching and preaching or even by having followers.That aspect of Jesus’ life was not unique.He was King of the JewsThere were others in the first century who claimed kingship of the Jewish nation, which Jesus also did. "Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, 'We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.' So Pilate asked Jesus, 'Are you the king of the Jews?' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied" (Luke 23:1-3; John 18:36-37).So that claim is also not unique.However, Jesus posited that claim in a different manner—one could even say a unique manner—than the others did: Jesus said his kingdom was “not of this world.” He claimed to be a heavenly king not an earthly one. For Him, there was never a crown involved—or even a ‘kingly’ anointing such as David had—and no one ever referred to him as king—except Pilate of course.All other claimants to the Jewish crown took it, wore it, and tended to die defending it in battle. Jesus did none of that. He simply explained his kingdom was elsewhere. That aspect was unique.MiraclesVirtually all experts on the history of Jesus—whether Jewish, agnostic or Christian—agree that the man from Nazareth performed deeds which his contemporaries interpreted as miraculous. That he had a reputation as a healer is beyond dispute.Meier argues convincingly that, the miracle tradition was not invented by the early church. Instead, the stories about Jesus performing miracles go back to the historical Jesus himself.But what if there were others within 100 years of Jesus—give or take—who were also believed to have done miracles? What if miracle working was common back then?Who else was said to do miracles back then?1. Rabbi Honi the circle drawerHoni the circle maker is reported in the Mishnah (Babylonian Talmud) as having done a miracle during a particularly harsh first century BC drought.[2]The Talmud says Honi prayed for the drought to end and got no answer, so he drew a circle in the dust, stood inside it, and informed God that he would not move until it rained. When it began to drizzle, Honi told God that he was not satisfied and expected more rain; it then began to pour. He explained that he wanted a calm rain, at which point the rain calmed to a normal rain. [3]The report in the Mishnah dates from at least 250 years after Honi’s death.Around AD 90, 150 years after the rabbi’s death, 100 years earlier than the report in the Mishnah, Josephus had also written about Honi saying that “there was a certain Onias (Honi), who, being a righteous man and dear to God had once in a rainless period prayed to God to end the drought, and God had heard his prayer and sent rain.” [4] The other aspects of the story are missing in this earlier version.There is no good reason to doubt that Honi existed or that people in his day believed that it was his prayer that led to rain. Personally, I suspect that the circle drawing is also historical (such an odd, meaningless detail is just the sort of thing we expect in historical memory). But from the evidence we have, the best that can be said about Honi with any assurance is that he was famous for being a righteous man who offered up effective prayer. Once.By contrast, the deeds of Jesus almost never follow prayer. Jesus was remembered—in sources dating close in time to his ministry—as having simply spoken such things into existence—more than once.2. Rabbi Hanina ben DosaThe three earliest references to Hanina ben Dosa are all in the Mishnah (AD 200). He was active a couple of decades after Jesus and is remembered as having had a special ministry of praying for the sick and, just as importantly, knowing which of his prayers would be answered and which would not. Scholars generally do not doubt that Hanina existed and that he was known in his day for just such a ministry.[5]Hanina, like Honi, was famous for effective prayer. His prayers were not always answered. His ‘gift’ was knowing beforehand which prayers would be.They said to him, ‘How do you know?’ he said to them, ‘If my prayer is fluent, then I know that it is accepted and the person will live. But if not, I know that it is rejected and the person will die.[6]He never directly healed anyone himself nor ever claimed to have done so. Jesus did.John P. Meier concludes his discussion of Jewish ‘miracle workers’ with the following word of caution:… in the end one must admit that all the written sources [of these miracle stories] are written later than Jesus, and almost all of them centuries later. I would venture to claim that, beyond the fact that around the turn of the era there existed two Jews in Palestine named Honi and Hanina who were famous for having their prayers answered in extraordinary ways, nothing definite can be said.[7]3. VespasianOne story recorded by Tacitus (AD 114-117) involves the great Roman general-soon-to-be-emperor Vespasian.[8]While in Alexandria in AD 69-70, on his way to Rome to assume the throne, Vespasian was approached by two men, one blind, the other lame, who threw themselves in front of him and begged for healing. At first Vespasian scoffed, but the poor men persisted saying that the local deity, Sarapis, had sent them. Vespasian, having already received ‘prophecies’ about his good fortune, complied.Suetonius (AD 120) also offers an account of this event which suggests the story was widely known. Indeed, that may have been the point.Professor John P. Meier notes that Vespasian did not belong to the rightful line of emperors—Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero—and so needed a sign of his legitimacy. Caesars were “gods” remember. “The whole event looks like a 1st-century equivalent of a ‘photo opportunity’ staged by Vespasian’s P.R. team to give the new emperor divine legitimacy.”[9]Knowing that these ancient historians recorded gossip, legends and facts equally—leaving conclusions to the reader—combined with possible motives for invention, makes it difficult not to remain skeptical of this claim.4. Apollonius of TyanaA more promising example of an ancient healer is the wandering philosopher known as Apollonius of Tyana who was active in the second half of the first century. However, there is a significant obstacle: Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius is the only source for the stories of Apollonius and his miracles, and it has almost no claim at all to historicity. It even shows coincidental evidence of having been created to counter the Gospels in the wake of Christianity’s success in Rome. [10]Many of the mystery cults adopted aspects of Christianity after the first century. Some of the miracles of Apollonius, such as the one about the revival of a young girl, contain suspicious resemblances to stories in the Gospels.[11] It’s also noteworthy that the patron for the project, Empress Julia Domna, was a keen opponent of the Jesus-movement, and Philostratus the author, was writing in the early 3rd-century when huge numbers of his contemporaries in Rome were turning to Christ. Apollonius offers cultured Romans their own pagan miracle-working hero.The one, non-historical, source for the existence of this miracle worker had suspect motives for creating rather than documenting these miracles. We can’t definitively know one way or the other what might be true of him—or if he even actually existed.Are Jesus’ miracles unique or not?For the most part, the non-Christian miracle workers appear in texts written long (centuries) after the events themselves, and their legends have only one or two sources, and their historicity is often not supported. That means the historical criteria do not produce a favorable conclusion for them. [12][13]The miraculous works of Jesus are recorded in no fewer than five independent sources, which are dated to within 20 - 60 years of Jesus—perhaps earlier. (The Jewish writer Josephus provides a sixth, though slightly later, source). The historicity of the gospel writings is more and more supported as new critical studies are done. [14][15] Critical evaluation of the criteria concerning Jesus’ miracles does produce a favorable conclusion.As N.T. Wright says: “…we must be clear that Jesus’ contemporaries, both those who became his followers and those who were determined not to become his followers, certainly regarded him as possessed of remarkable powers. The church did not invent the charge that Jesus was in league with Beelzebul; but charges like that are not advanced unless they are needed as an explanation for some quite remarkable phenomena.”[16]So the answer is yes, Jesus’ miracle-working was unique.Jesus made unique claims about himself: that he fulfilled Prophecy, was equal with the Father and the only path to him, pre-existed his existence on earth, and came here with a divine purpose.Luke 4:16–20:Then Jesus came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. As was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath. And when He stood up to read, the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. Unrolling it, He found the place where it was written:“The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”Then He rolled up the scroll, returned it to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on Him, and He began by saying, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the Son of Man prophecy from the book of Daniel: "Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:61-62 and Psalm 110). That was blasphemy to the High Priest who tore his clothes in outrage and called for Jesus’ death. Why? Because it is a claim to be equal with God. That’s unique in all of history, and was certainly unique during Jesus’ era.Jesus claimed to be the only way to God (John 14:6; Matthew 11:27)—the gate, the door, the vine, the path, the way, the truth, the life, etc. No other world religious leader, such as Buddha, Confucius, or Mohammed, ever made such claims about themselves.Jesus claimed to have pre-existed his physical existence.[17](Mark 14:60–64; John 1:1-5). No other teacher or preacher of Jesus’ era said that.He claimed to have come to save all humanity from itself through the sacrifice of his own life. (Luke 19:10; Matthew 18:11; John 3:17; Mark 9:9; 1 Timothy 1:15). No one else in history has ever made that claim about themselves—not Horus, or Krishna—or anyone else. [18][19] [20]He claimed heavenly powers for himselfHe claimed he could forgive sin—which in second Temple idiom meant erase, wash away, send away sin as far as the east is from the west. That’s a claim reserved for the Temple itself by Jews of the period—yet Jesus claimed that power for himself. (Mark 11:27-12:12, 35-37; Matthew 9: 1–8; Luke 5:20-21).He claimed to be able to give everlasting life, and that he would prove this by raising himself from the dead. (John 6:40, 47; 10:28-30; 11:25)He prophesied and foretold the future. In Luke 18:31-33 "Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, 'We are going up into Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again." In Mark 13 and Matthew 24 he prophesies both the end of Jerusalem within “this generation”—which happened in 70 AD—and the end of days with no one—not even himself—knowing when that would happen.He claimed the power to do miracles that others could not do (Matthew 11:3–5; Luke 7:18–30; Mark 2:1–12).And he claimed to be Messiah.If claiming to be Messiah was a “common phenomena”—if there were other claimants to that position—then perhaps Jesus was not unique. Perhaps it was a perfectly ordinary claim which reflected more about the times than any single person. But the concept of Messiah was a Jewish one. He was looked for by Jewish people, to deliver the Jews from oppression by evil, and was predicted in Jewish prophecy.EDIT:TIMING IS EVERYTHINGMichael Taylor has been good enough to share with me a Wikipedia page that lists over 80 Messianic possibilities. There is a problem with this list: the Messianic eschatology of both the Jews and the Samaritans had a time-frame for the arrival of the Messiah.The religious of the day would have evaluated Messianic prospects with reference to that timing, and the majority of the people on this list List of messiah claimants - Wikipedia are simply too far outside the anticipated time frame for them to have been seen, by the ancients, as viable Messianic candidates.One reason Messiah was looked for in Jesus’ day was because it was believed Messiah’s appearance would take place while the Second Temple was still standing.Then the Temple would be destroyed. After the appearance of Messiah, “…the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” (Daniel 9:26).Roman legions did march on Jerusalem and destroy the Temple in 70AD so that timing must be taken into consideration in observing how the ancients evaluated a Messianic claim.The rabbis believed Psalm 118 (vv. 25,26) would be sung to the Messiah when he arrived. “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! We have blessed you from the house of the Lord”. The only way they could bless the Messiah from the house of the Lord was if it was still there.Malachi 3:1 predicts: “Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his Temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come”. Twelfth century Jewish scholar, Rabbi David Kimchi, interprets this to mean the Messiah will come to the Temple. That can only happen if it’s there.Another time constraint was found in Genesis 49:10: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, …. until Shiloh (Messiah) comes” and Ezra 1:5–8.According to Josephus, the scepter was seen as ‘departed’ by the Saduccees when Rome made Judah a Roman province in 6 AD. They wept, threw ashes on their heads and said “The scepter has passed and Messiah has not come.” Yet Jesus had been born by then.While there was a provincial government in place, that time-frame might conceivably be stretched to include much of the first century, but after 70AD, that time constraint was also at an end.The Messiah had to come from a specific lineage that was verifiable through the Temple records. Proof of such lineage was destroyed when the Temple was sacked.While we do not have the Temple records, we do have the record of Jesus’ family tree by both Luke and Matthew. They both identify that he is from the house of David and the tribe of Judah.(There is debate as to whether or not these birth accounts were added later, but that would not automatically disprove their validity. Mary, Jesus’ mother, became a post-death follower of Jesus, and she could have been the one to contribute that information. We just don’t know.)The thing is, we also don’t know of any other Messianic candidate, apart from Jesus, who is depicted as descended from the tribe of Judah and the house of David.One interpretation of the time frame in Daniel supported the idea that the Messiah would come 483 years after the command to restore Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple:…that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. (Daniel 9:25)If the “clock” on these 69 “weeks” (units of seven years) began ticking when Artaxerxes issued the decree enabling Nehemiah to rebuild the Temple and restore the holy city of Jerusalem (see Nehemiah 2:1–8) in Nisan (March/April) of 444 BC., that would mean the Messiah would appear somewhere around 33 AD.The Daniel prophecy (v.26) says that after the seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, the Messiah would be “cut off” which meant killed or die a violent death. Isaiah wrote of one who would suffer and die for the sins of the people. Psalm 22 graphically portrays death by crucifixion, a method of execution not known to the psalmist writing 1000 years before Jesus.Counting 483 years after Artaxerxes’ decree would bring us to 33AD. The Temple was destroyed in 70AD. That leaves a window of 37 years in which the Messiah from the tribe of Judah and the house of David could come. Not only that, but he was to die a violent death at that time.END OF EDITProphecy is often quite flexible where time is concerned, so I have evaluated those claimants who lived within 100 years on either side of that 33 AD date.There are 15 possible claimants to Messiahship (in addition to Jesus) from this era.Some of these must be dismissed outright, while all that can be said of the others is “nothing definite can be said.” This leaves one positively supported claimant to Messiahship, in addition to Jesus: the Jewish warrior Simon Bar Kochba, who lived a full century after Jesus died who was later called the false Messiah by those who had previously supported him. .Judas, son of Hezekiah. Josephus tells us that after Herod the Great died, there were several revolts against his son and successor one of which was led by Judas. He was probably caught by the governor of Syria who marched his army in to restore order. “There are no indications in his story that his aspirations were messianic in nature.”[21]Simon of Peraea (4 BCE). “Simon of Peraea may have "put a diadem on his head", and his men must have created sufficient trouble to make the Romans send in the legions, but there are no indications that he was considered the Messiah.”[22]Anthronges the shepherd, “Josephus twice mentions that he was crowned with a diadem but does not mention anointment. Unless Josephus tells a lie -something he is certainly capable of- we must assume that Anthronges thought coronation more important than anointment as Messiah.”[23]Judas the Galilean was a zealot who co-founded the movement with Zadock the Pharisee. Judas led a revolt mentioned in Acts, though it is unclear what happened exactly as the revolt is not mentioned by Tacitus. Livius surmises Judas may have been called Messiah but Josephus does not say so. Zealotry can be seen as a “Messianic type movement” but that’s as close as you can get either of these two founders of a political movement to spiritual Messiahship.[24]John the Baptist denied he was the Messiah and there is good support for him attributing that role to Jesus. No one ever declared John to be Messiah.[25]The Samaritan prophet may be called a kind of Messiah, because he announced the restoration of the cult in the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim. But he was not a Messiah in its larger more original Jewish sense, since the Samaritan’s role did not extend beyond the Samaritans.[26]Theudas “told them he was a prophet” but there is no evidence he ever claimed to be Messiah or was proclaimed Messiah by his followers.[27]Jonathon the weaver went with his followers into the desert, preparing them for the restoration of Israel. There are indeed “messianic aspects” to this behavior, but we cannot be certain whether Jonathan ever called himself Messiah or if anyone else did.”[28]The Egyptian prophet. Josephus tells of “someone” coming out of Egypt claiming to be a prophet. This nameless Egyptian may have called himself "King and Messiah", because Josephus uses the Greek verb tyrannein ("to be sole ruler") in the first quotation about him, but nothing definitive can be known. [29]An unnamed prophet leads his followers to the desert, claiming to be the “prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18.15-18. He may or may not have been called a Messiah. No one knows what happened to him or who he was.Moses of Crete. Some Talmudic calculations led to the belief that the Messiah would come in 440 AD (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 97b) or 471 AD (Babylonian Talmud, 'Aboda Zara 9b). In 448, these expectations seemed to be fulfilled, when someone announced they would bring the Jews from Crete back to Jerusalem. This turned out to be a trick.[30]Simon Bar Giora was a leader of the Jewish revolt against Rome that was part of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Josephus says, “Simon, thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock, and buttoned upon him a purple cloak, and appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been. At the first, indeed, those that saw him were greatly astonished, and stood still where they were; but afterward they came nearer to him, and asked him who he was. Now Simon would not tell them, but bid them call for their captain; and when they ran to call him, Terentius Rufus (who was left to command the army there) came to Simon, and learned of him the whole truth, and kept him in bonds, and let Titus know that he was taken.” The fact he wore a purple robe in the Temple area does not prove he was considered Messiah, but it does incline in that direction. Since there is no record of him ever claiming Messiahship, or anyone claiming it for him, nothing definite can be said.[31]Lukuas was called a king of the Jews of Cyrene when leading them in a rebellion against the Roman emperor Trajan. It’s possible he was considered a Messiah as well as a king, but there is no evidence he was proclaimed as such by either himself or his followers. [32]Abu Isa' al-Isfahani proclaimed that he was the Messiah in around 700 AD. Too late to be considered the same period as Jesus. [33]Simon bar Kochba—aka Simon ben Kosiba—and Jesus of Nazareth are the only Jewish leaders who are positively identified as Messiahs in the Jewish sources: Jesus is explicitly called "Messiah" by Flavius Josephus, by his follower the Apostle Peter, and Jesus declares himself as such to the High Priest, his enemy in the Gospel of Mark and Matthew. Ben Kosiba lived about 100 years after Jesus and is declared Messiah in several rabbinical treatises.Simon wrote letters to his fellow rebels, several of which have been found by archaeologists, in which he refers to himself as "prince of Israel" but there is sufficient other evidence to support the idea that he was believed to be the Jewish Messiah.He was a ruthless military Messiah, who never laid claim to be a sage, or priest, or prophet.He punished any Jew who refused to join his ranks, and led them into a war that killed half a million of them including himself.[34]He was thereafter designated the “false Messiah” by those who had previously supported him.Since this was a century after Jesus died, it is borderline on whether or not it is reasonable to claim any other Messiah existed “in the same time frame” as Jesus.There are hundreds of messianic prophesies found in the Hebrew Scriptures.These prophecies can be sorted into two categories: some passages, (Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 being the most prominent), describe a suffering Messiah: a man rejected, humble, and suffering quietly. Other passages, such as Isaiah 11:1–9, describe a triumphant Messiah: a victorious king, militarily establishing the government of Israel, defeating other nations who are her enemies, and ruling with justice over a world transformed by the universal knowledge of God into a place of peace.Early rabbinic tradition interpreted these discrepancies as describing two separate messiahs: one the “Son of Joseph” and the other the “Son of David.” The “Son of Joseph” Messiah fulfills the prophecies concerning suffering and even dying to bring redemption. The Talmud (b. Sukkah 52a) states this messiah would do many great deeds before being slain in a great war preceding the triumphant reign of “Messiah Son of David” (based on Daniel 9:25–26).After “Messiah Son of David” comes and is victorious militarily, he will fulfill the prophecies about universal peace, the rebuilding of the Temple, the gathering of Israel, and the restoration of the whole world.The rabbis claim he will then raise the suffering Messiah “Son of Joseph” from the dead.The New Testament sees no conflict between these two portraits. Instead the NT sees one Messiah, coming at two separate times, with two separate purposes, with an interval of time between them for the purpose of “gathering in the full number of the Gentiles” (Romans 11:25).Jesus is seen as having already fulfilled the role of the “Son of Joseph” having done many great deeds before being slain in the great war between good and evil. It also promises Jesus will come again and will bring a final victory over evil, thereby bringing universal peace and restoring the world.In fact, the New Testament indicates the peace the Bible says the Messiah will bring to the whole world begins immediately, with all who receive him as the messianic king having peace with God and with each other, and that his later triumph is not possible without this happening first (Ephesians 2:14; Hebrews 9:28).This makes sense of prophecies like Zechariah 12:10 where God says, “I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”If Jesus is indeed the pierced one, then these contradictory passages concerning the mission of the Messiah make sense. They will all be fulfilled by Jesus—in being rejected, he suffered as the atonement for our sins, in being received, he brings peace and the messianic age, and in his second coming, we will finally see the Kingdom of God and the restoration of the world.[35]ConclusionHow do we know if Jesus was a unique or a common phenomena as one among many itinerant preachers of the first century?We know through history that Jesus, while having things in common with some others, was actually quite unique. He never claimed to be a prophet even though he prophesied. He never made a move to claim his kingdom, though he did say the kingship was his. He was a miracle worker like no other. He claimed to be Messiah in a capacity no one else ever has. He claimed more for himself and his role and his purpose in being on earth than any other person in history.[36] These spiritual claims can be traced back to him and are not creations of the later church about him.Historically, theologically and spiritually, Jesus was—is—a one of a kind.Footnotes[1] The Historical Jesus[2] http://Babylonian Talmud, b. Berakhot 34b.[3] Honi ha-M'agel - Wikipedia[4] http://Jewish Antiquities 14.22.[5] http://Babylonian Talmud, b. Berakhot 34b.[6] http://Mishnah Berakhot 5.5.[7] http://John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (vol.2). Doubleday, 1994, 586.[8] http://Tacitus Histories 4.81[9] http://John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (vol.2). Doubleday, 1994, 625.[10] http://Howard Clark Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World: a Study in Sociohistorical Method. Yale University Press, 1983, 264[11] http://John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (vol.2). Doubleday, 1994, 580.[12] http://Jenny Hawkins's answer to Is there any evidence of the miracles that Jesus Christ had allegedly been involved in? (https://qr.ae/TUGxlr) [13] http://Jenny Hawkins's answer to Was Jesus' ability to perform miracles affected by the faith of those around him? (https://qr.ae/TSzddy)[14] Johannine Question: Martin Hengel, J. Bowden: 9780334007951: Amazon.com: Books[15] The Historical Reliability of the Gospels[16] Jenny Hawkins's answer to Is there historical evidence of Jesus' miracles?[17] Jenny Hawkins's answer to Did Jesus believe he was God? Or did people like Paul try to turn him into a new religion?[18] Jenny Hawkins's answer to Was Jesus a real living human or a mythological figure, such as Fuxi or Krishna?[19] Horus Manure: Debunking the Jesus/Horus Connection[20] Jenny Hawkins's answer to Was Jesus a real living human or a mythological figure, such as Fuxi or Krishna?[21] Judas son of Hezekiah[22] Simon of Perea - Livius[23] Athronges - Livius[24] Judas the Galilean[25] John the Baptist[26] The Samaritan Prophet[27] Theudas - Livius[28] Jonathan the Weaver[29] The Egyptian Prophet[30] Moses of Crete - Livius[31] Simon Bar Giora - Livius[32] Lukuas - Livius[33] Abu Isa' al-Isfahani[34] Simon Ben Kosiba[35] “Jesus can’t be the Messiah. He didn’t bring peace!” • Jews for Jesus[36] Jenny Hawkins's answer to Did Jesus believe he was God? Or did people like Paul try to turn him into a new religion?

My interview was to be held in the KVPY building in IISc on January 27th.I reached the venue about an hour or so early and approached the lady at the reception to hand over all my documents. I’d checked and double-checked to see which documents I was required to bring from the website but it turned out that they needed a photocopy of my tenth grade report card in addition to the ones I brought. Fortunately, I had enough time to go and get a photocopy made nearby.I found a classmate of mine amidst a crowd of about 50 students and took the vacant seat to his side. My classmate, however seemed to have read through the entirety of our 11th grade science portions but all I knew was what we’d been taught until then. Moreover, I wasn’t particularly confident about Inorganic chemistry (to say the least). I was already nervous but seeing my apparent lack of preparedness, I was becoming very anxious.I was the second person to be called to ‘Committee II’. As it happened, the first one was my aforementioned friend. I asked him how it went as he emerged from the room. He gestured back saying that he screwed up. Boy, was I nervous! Waiting outside the closed room, I could hear someone inside announcing me as the next candidate and proceeding to read out my self-evaluation form (submitted to the reception lady earlier). A couple of minutes later, I was called inside.If I remember correctly, there were 7 professors inside. Lets call them P1, P2, P3, M, C1, C2 and B. They asked me to take a seat and asked if I was from the same school as the last candidate. I replied in the affirmative. This is the conversation which followed:-P1: Which subjects do you like?Me: I like Physics and Math.(C1, C2 and B look a little disappointed, lol)P1: Okay then. Let’s start with some Physics! Tell me what experiments you’ve done in your physics lab?Me: We’ve done um… an experiment to test how the time period of a simple pendulum varies with length…P1: Alright! You are given a pendulum whose bob is a hollow metal sphere filled with water. Unfortunately, a small leak develops and the water level in the bob gradually decreases. How would the time period of oscillation vary?Me: Okay, suppose we take this pendulum and set it into oscillation by giving it a small displacement…P3: How small should this displacement be?Me: Well, in the lab we’re told to use an amplitude of 15°…(They all start laughing)Me: We need the pendulum to execute SHM. No, it’s not really SHM; it’s angular SHM. So the torque experienced by the bob should be proportional to its angular displacement from the mean position. In the calculations, we use that fact that [math] \lim_{\theta \[/math][math]to[/math][math] 0} \dfrac{\sin \theta}{\theta} = 1 [/math]. So the amplitude should be pretty small.P3 (smiling): Alright, go on.(I wrote [math]T=2\pi \sqrt{\dfrac{l}{g}}[/math] onto the white board and started explaining how the effective length of the pendulum would first increase and then decrease back to the initial length. So the time period would increase and then decrease back to the initial time period. I said along the way that the center of mass of the bob would be at the center of the sphere both at the initial and final states.)P3: How do you know that the center of mass of the (filled or empty) bob is at its center?Me: Well, the easiest way to see it is by symmetry. You could also…P2 (smiling): Yeah, that’s fine. Have you heard about the Foucalt Pendulum?Me: No, I haven’t (nervous chuckle).P2: That’s okay. I’ll tell you. It’s an experiment can be conducted to measure the rate at which the Earth rotates if you know what latitude your at. Alternatively, you can use it to find out what latitude you’re at if you know the rate of rotation of the Earth.Me: Oh, cool. (or something to that effect)P2: Suppose you place a pendulum at the North Pole and let it oscillate. What happens to the plane of oscillation as you let it oscillate for a while?Me: Hmm… Well, the Earth rotates. So it’s a non-inertial reference frame. So the bob would experience a pseudoforce and the torque due to the pseuodoforce would cause it’s plane to um… I think the plane would gradually rotate (with respect to and observer on the Earth).P2 (smiling): That’s absolutely right! Now through what angle would the plane of oscillation rotate during the course of 24 hours?Me: The orientation of the plane of oscillation would actually be the same throughout. It’s the Earth underneath that’s rotating. Since the Earth completes one rotation in 24 hours, I think it would complete one whole rotation, ie 360°.P2 (smiling even more): Absolutely! Now what happens when you place this pendulum at the equator.Me: I’m not very sure but I don’t think the plane of oscillation will rotate in the that case.P2 (smiling EVEN more): You’re perfectly right! That’s essentially how they measure the latitude using the Foucault pendulum. Do you know what that pseudoforce is called?Me: Well, in geography, we’ve learnt about the Coriolis force which deflects winds and stuff. It’s probably the same thing.P3 (smiling): That’s right.P1: That’s more than enough physics. Let’s try some math.M: Are you familiar with quadratic equations?P2 (suddenly pipes up): I know a nice QE question? Can I ask one?M: SureP2: Suppose you have a rectangle whose perimeter is 100 units. What’s the maximum possible area it could have?(I’m surprised that he asked such a simple question since KVPY math has a reputation for being hard)Me: I think we can um… Yeah, we can apply the AM-GM inequality on the length and the breadth.(Working it out on the whiteboard, I find the the maximum area is 625 square units)P3: Correct, but do you know for what dimensions this area will be achieved?Me: We can work that out but using the conditions [math] l + b = 50 [/math] and [math] lb= 625 [/math]P3: Yeah but you just used the AM-GM inequality. Can’t you tell me what the dimensions would be directly?Me: Oh yeah! It’s the equality case of the AM-GM inequality! The length and breadth should be equal. So that’ll come out to a square of side length 25 units.P3 (smiling): That’s right.M: Are you familiar with vectors?Me: Not in very much detail but we’ve done the basics in physics.M: That’ll do. Can you derive the condition a test vector has to satisfy to be tangential to the family of vectors whose magnitude is [math] r [/math]?(I take a minute to comprehend the question and proceed)Me: So, we basically need the condition the test vector has to satisfy to be tangential to a circle at the origin of radius [math] r [/math]. But um… by the invariance principle of vectors, you can translate around any vector without changing it. So you can translate any vector to be tangential to that circle.M: That’s okay but suppose the test vector is tangential to the circle at a vector [math] \vec{x} [/math]. What condition would the test vector have to satisfy?Me: Since they’re perpendicular to each other, or orthogonal as I think they’re called when it comes to vectors, their dot product must be zero. So [math] \vec{x} \cdot \vec{t} = 0 [/math].M: Good. 25 minutes are up. I think you can go. Thank you.Me: Thank you.I came out not being able to believe that it went so well! They didn’t even ask me any chemistry or biology!The thing that struck me the most was how friendly and enthusiastic they were. I was expecting a group of wise old, stern professors but they were all very pleasant and polite people.The results came out yesterday. I scored 93.86 in the interview and qualified with AIR 108. :)