CHARACTERISTICS
Hair
Jesus are often depicted as having long hair.
The truth, however, is that “The Bible nowhere gives a physical description of Jesus, so no one should be dogmatic about His appearance.” [55]
Furthermore, it would be highly unlikely, since Paul of Tarsus (5-67 AD) says, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?” (1 Cor. 11v14) [55]
EXISTENCE
Did Jesus ever really exist?
The historical evidence for the historicity of Jesus have always been a hotly debated subject.
On the one hand, Gerald Massey (1828-1907) [78], John Mackinnon Robertson (1856-1933) [87], Arthur Drews (1865-1935) [63|64], Archibald Robertson (1886–1961) [86], Prof. Dr. G.A. Wells (1926-) [1|67|68|83|84], Dr. Gordon Stein (1941-1996) [16|22|66], Luigi Cascioli (1934-2010) [3], Prof. Dr. Thomas L. Thompson (1939-) [79], Earl Doherty (1941-) [81], Dan Barker (1949-) [3], Prof. Dr. Robert Price (1954-) [1|82], Prof. Dr. Raymond Joseph Hoffmann (1957-) [85], Thomas Brodie [1], Peter Gandy [80], Dr. Richard Carrier (1969-) [52], and D.M. Murdoc AKA ‘Acharya S’ [16|90], “questions the existence of Jesus” [1], and “have presented various arguments to support the Christ myth theory“ [1].
On the other hand, Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) [88|89], Josh McDowell (1939-) [23], Prof. Dr. Robert Van Voorst (1952-) [1], Prof. Dr. Bart Ehrman (1955-) [21] *, Michael Grant (1914-2004) [1], Prof. Dr. William Lane Craig (1949-) [70], Tom Lessing [4], Christoper Price [13], James Bishop [91], and allegedly, “virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.” [1|6|7|8], meaning “that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard theories of the non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted” [1|9].
Yet, “the question of the historical existence of Jesus” [3] continue to plague society.
The Italian Case of Cascioli VS Righi (2002)
In 2002, former theologian and Church historian, Luigi Cascioli (1934-2010), filed a lawsuit against his former seminary companion and friend, Roman Catholic priest, Rev. Enrico Righi, “over his published assertion that ‘Jesus did indeed exist.'” [3]
According to Cascioli, such a claim constituted a crime of “abuse of popular credulity” [69], that is an “abuse of popular belief” [3], and “impersonation” [69].
In his defense, Righi and The Associate Press put forward, a number of arguments in favor of the historicity of Jesus. Among them, references to ‘Jesus’ in the works of Josephus, Pliny Secundus, and Tacitus. [3]
The Requirements of Historical Evidence
“Historians have to have evidence.” [71] But “what kind of evidence do they look for?” [71]
➢ One. CONTEMPORARY Accounts.
In the words of Prof. Dr. Bart Ehrman (1955-):
“The best kind of evidence when dealing with ancient periods is to find evidence that goes back to the time itself. If you had some contemporary eyewitnesses telling you how Simon Peter died, that would be brilliant… You would love though to have contemporary accounts, written like the next day, from the events. That would be great. Historians would love that kind of thing.” [71]
➢ Two. LOTS of Contemporary Accounts.
In the words of Prof. Dr. Bart Ehrman (1955-):
“Historians would love to have lots of sources. You want to have lots of sources that go back to the time of the events being narrated.” [71]
➢ Three. Lots of INDEPENDENT Contemporary Accounts.
In the words of Prof. Dr. Bart Ehrman (1955-):
“You would like these sources to be independent of one another. If you have twenty sources, but they all got their story from the same guy, then you don’t have twenty sources, you have one source. You want twenty independent sources, who all attest the same event.” [71]
➢ Four. Lots of CONSISTENT Independent Contemporary Accounts.
In the words of Prof. Dr. Bart Ehrman (1955-):
“… you want these independent sources to be consistent with one another. You don’t want them to be contradicting eachother all over the map. You want them to be agreeing with one another. So YOU WANT THEM TO CORROBORATE ONE ANOTHER, WITHOUT COLLABORATING WITH ONE ANOTHER.” [71]
➢ Five. Lots of UNBIASED Consistent Independent Contemporary Accounts.
In the words of Prof. Dr. Bart Ehrman (1955-):
“… you want them to be UNBIASED TOWARDS THE SUBJECT MATTER. You don’t want them to be skewing things in light of their own self-interest.” [71]
This is what ancient historians are looking for when trying to establish what happened in the past.
Having established the requirements, let us now consider the historical evidence and arguments in favor of the historicity of Jesus.
References to Jesus in the Christian Bible (50-70 AD)
The name Jesus appears 973 times in 942 verses of the 1611 King James Bible.
The earliest of these references are found in the Gospel of Mark, which “was probably written c.AD 66–70″ [61].
As such, the Gospels are NOT “the kind of sources, that historians would want when trying to establish what probably happened in the past” [71].
➢ One. The Gospels are NOT contemporary to the events they narrate.
In the words of Prof. Dr. Bart Ehrman (1955-):
“When were the Gospels written? Well they are not contemporary to the events they narrate. Scholars debate when the Gospels were written, but by far the most common datings are, that Mark was written some time around 65 or 70 AD, Luke and Matthew about 10 to 15 years later, John maybe 10 or 15 years later … around the year 90 or 95. Matthew and Luke around 80 or 85. These are the dates that are taught throughout the universities, divinity schools, and seminaries of North America…. If these dates are correct, it means that our earliest account of Jesus’ resurrection was fourty years after the event. Well Paul was writing before that wasn’t he? Yes, Paul was writing before that. Paul talks about the resurrection in first Corinthians. Well, that’s twenty years after the event. So that’s better.” [71]
➢ Two. None of the authors witnessed the accounts they wrote about.
In the words of Prof. Dr. Bart Ehrman (1955-):
“None of the authors were eyewitnesses. Paul himself indicates that he was not an eyewitness. And none of the Gospel writers was an eyewitness. People, of course, call the Bible books, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Well, they call them Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, because we don’t know who wrote these books, and there’s no point calling them Sam, Fred, Jerry and Harry… We don’t know who they were written by. They are anonymous. You might not think so, because they have the title, ‘The Gospel of According to Matthew’. Whoever put that title on it was an editor later. The original books are all anonymous, written in the third-person. Moreover, the followers of Jesus were Aramaic-speaking peasants from Galilee. Lower class men, who were not educated. In fact, Peter and John in Acts chapter 4 verse 13 are literally said to be illiterate. They couldn’t read or write. Of course not, theyw were fisherman. They did not go to school. The vast majority of people in the ancient world never learned to read – let alone write. And their native language was Aramaic. These books are written in Greek, by highly-educated, rhetorically trained writers, who were skilled in Greek composition. Probably not disciples, and don’t claim to be disciples.” [71]
And it is exactly these biblical sources, that we seek to authenticate from extra-biblical evidence, since using the Bible to prove the existence of Jesus is like using The Lord Of The Rings to prove the existence of Hobbits.
References to the ‘Wise King of the Jews’ in the Letter of Mara bar Serapion (around 73 AD)
The earliest extra-biblical ‘evidence’ comes from a letter by Mara bar Serapion, to his son, Serapion:
“What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. WHAT ADVANTAGE DID THE JEWS GAIN FROM EXECUTING THEIR WISE KING? IT WAS JUST AFTER THAT THEIR KINGDOM WAS ABOLISHED. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and THE JEWS, DESOLATE AND DRIVEN FROM THEIR OWN KINGDOM, LIVE IN COMPLETE DISPERSION. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; NOR IS THE WISE KING, BECAUSE OF THE ‘NEW LAW’ HE LAID DOWN“ [59]
Mara bar Serapion’s letter “doesn’t mention Jesus or Christ, but merely says that the Jews of the time (which time is uncertain) killed their ‘wise King.'” [22]
As Craig Evans pointed out, “unlike the references to Socrates and Pythagoras, bar Serapion does not explicitly mention Jesus by name, thereby rendering the actual identity of the ‘wise king’ in the letter less than certain” [59].
As a result no-one, including McDowell, knows with any certainty, who this may refer to.
References to ‘Jesus’ in “The Antiquities of the Jews” by Josephus (93/94 AD)
Among the “strongest” [3], “most important” [3], and most prominent “non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus” [1] we find the works of first-century Roman-Jewish historian, Titus Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD) [1|13|14].
Josephus’ works cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers, including John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, the Pharisees, and of course Jesus.
There are two references to Jesus in Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews”.
Our FIRST QUOTE comes from Book XVIII “Containing The Interval of Thirty-Two Years. From The Banishment Of Archelus To The Departure From Babylon” [15], Chapter 3 on the “Sedition Of The Jews Against Pontius Pilate. Concerning Christ, And What Befell Paulina And The Jews At Rome” [15], Paragraph 3 “Testimonium Flavianum”:
“Now there was about this time JESUS, A WISE MAN, if it be lawful to call him a man, for HE WAS A DOER OF WONDERFUL WORKS, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. HE WAS THE CHRIST, and when PILATE, AT THE SUGGESTION OF THE PRINCIPAL MEN AMONG US, HAD CONDEMNED HIM TO THE CROSS, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY; AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND TEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS CONCERNING HIM. And THE TRIBE OF CHRISTIANS SO NAMED FROM HIM ARE NOT EXTINCT AT THIS DAY.” (Whiston’s translation) [13|15|16]
“At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews and Gentiles. This was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of christians, so called from him, subsists to this time.” (Lardner’s translation) [22]
This surprisingly brief and simplistic passage “is the most important single reference to Jesus as an historical character outside of the New Testament itself” [22], constituting the ‘best proof’ of Jesus’s existence in the entire ancient non-Christian library.
Even though “Josephus’ reference to the martyrdom of James is universally accepted by critical scholars, there has been more controversy over the fuller reference to Jesus.” [13], which has been “hotly contested” [22|23], since the “Testimonium Flavianum” (TF) “contains some obvious Christian glosses that no Jew would have written” [13], like “he was the Christ” [13|15], and “he appeared to them alive again the third day” [13|15].
Probably, “the most thorough examination of the validity of this particular paragraph in Josephus was made by Nathaniel Lardner in 1838.” [22]
Lardner’s findings are presented in his work called “Jewish Testimonies” [24], comprising volume 6 of his collected Works.
➢ One. The “Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century.” [16]“Although the church fathers were quite fond of quoting passages which supported Christianity, and though these early church fathers were quite familiar with the works of Josephus, NOT ONE OF THEM QUOTES THIS PASSAGE IN DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANITY UNTIL EUSEBIUS DOES IN THE FOURTH CENTURY.” [22]“We also know Eusebius to be the man who said that lying for the advancement of the church was quite acceptable.” [22]**, which led many to believe, that “He was probably the one who inserted this suspect passage into Josephus’ works” [22] In other words, “Thoroughly dishonest church historian Eusebius is credited as the real author” [3].
➢ Two. “The passage is grossly out of context” [3], appearing smack “in the middle of a collection of stories about calamities – which have befallen the Jews.” [22]. But, “this would not be a calamity” [22]. Again, “a clear hint that it was inserted at a later time” [3].
➢ Three. “The passage has Josephus, an Orthodox Jew, saying that Jesus was the Christ” [22], who was raised from the dead “as the divine prophets had foretold” [13|15|16], which would mean that Josephus, an Orthodox Jew, considered Christianity as “the truth” [22]. Yet, he “never converted to Christianity” [3], “nowhere quotes Jesus” [3], and never “tell us who those prophets were or what they said” [3]?!
➢ Four. Josephus reported on the ‘miracles’ of a number of other ‘prophets’, yet remain “silent about the miracles attributed to Jesus” [22], who he [allegedly] acknowledged as the Messiah?!
➢ Five. “The passage must have been doctored by a later Christian” [3], since the phrase “the sect of Christians … subsists to this time” (Lardner’s translation)[22] or “the tribe of christians … are not extinct at this day” (Whiston’s translation)[13|15|16], would not make any sense unless it were written quite some time after Jesus had died, since “there was no ‘tribe of Christians’ during the time of Josephus.” [3]“Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.” [3]
Lardner’s work on the Josephus passage, however, was merely “the first detailed analysis of that passage” [22].
Yet, while “the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather a later Christian insertion in his works” [22], more recently “a strong majority of scholars … [nonetheless] concluded that MUCH OF THE TF IS AUTHENTIC TO JOSEPHUS.” [13]
In his book “Josephus and Modern Scholarship”, “leading Josephus scholar” [13], Prof. Louis Feldman, reported that between 1937 and 1980, only 39 of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, “found PORTIONS of the TF to be authentic” [13].
In his book “Testamonium Flavianum”, Peter Kirby confessed, “that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity” [13]:
“In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, TEN OUT OF THIRTEEN ARGUE THE TESTIMONIUM TO BE PARTLY GENUINE, WHILE THE OTHER THREE MAINTAIN IT TO BE ENTIRELY SPURIOUS.” [13|18]
Now if that does not make you question the authenticity of this quote – I doubt anything will.
Our SECOND QUOTE comes from Book XX “Containing The Interval Of Twenty-Two Years. From Fadus The Procurator To Florus” [15], Chapter 9 “Concerning Albinus Under Whose Procuratorship James Was Slain. As Also What Edifices Were Built By Agrippa.” [15], Paragraph 1:
“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it THE BROTHER OF JESUS THE SO-CALLED CHRIST, WHOSE NAME WAS JAMES, TOGETHER WITH SOME OTHERS, AND HAVING ACCUSED THEM AS LAWBREAKERS, HE DELIVERED THEM OVER TO BE STONED.” [13|15]
I also have a problem with the second quote, regardless of the fact, that the authenticity of the passage “has been ALMOST universally acknowledged” [13|17].
➢ One. In context, the passage first identifies Jesus as to ‘the brother of James’, but later as “Jesus, the son of Damneus”.
“And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them THE BROTHER OF JESUS, WHO WAS CALLED CHRIST, WHOSE NAME WAS JAMES, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made JESUS, THE SON OF DAMNEUS, high priest.” [12|15]
On the one hand, some atheists have suggested, that the phrase “the one called Christ” likely resulted from the accidental insertion of a marginal note. [12|52], meaning the original text would have refered to James,the brother of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus, mentioned in the same narrative, given the straight forward nature of the text without that insertion. James (the brother of Jesus) is executed by Ananus. The Jews get angry at this. Complaints and demands are made. The King removes Ananus from being High Priest. Jesus, the son of Damneus, is made high priest. [12|52] This is the view of Dr. Richard Carrier (1969-) [12|52], Joel Guttormson [54], and Kenneth Humphreys [53].
On the other hand, some deists have suggested, that the context refers to two distinct ‘Jesuses’, and that the phrase “who was called Christ” is used by Josephus in this passage “by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel” [51]. This is the view of John Painter (1935-) [51], and the folks behind “Debunking Atheism” [53].
In the words of “Debunking Atheism”:
“Jesus was an extremely common name, so common that in order TO PREVENT CONFUSION FOR THE READERS OF HIS HISTORY IT WOULD ONLY BE LOGICAL TO IDENTIFY TWO DIFFERENT MEN WITH THE SAME NAME WITH DIFFERING MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION. THIS WOULD ONLY BECOME ALL THE MORE NECESSARY IF THESE TWO MEN WERE MENTIONED WITHIN ONLY A FEW SENTENCES OF EACHOTHER AND IF THE CONTEXT DID NOT CHANGE.” [53]
Yet, I will propose a third solution.
Theologically speaking, the English word “Christ”, derives from the Greek word “Christos”, which literally means to be “anointed” [57], or “the anointed one” [56] – a term equally applicable to any Jewish leader or King (1 Sam. 15v17, 16v13, 24v6, v10, 26v9-23; 2 Sam. 2v4, v7, 3v39, 5v3, v17, 19v10, 22v51; 1 Kgs. 1v39, v45, 5v1; 2 Kgs. 9v3, v6, v12, 11v12, 23v30; 1 Chron. 11v3, 14v8, 29v22; 2 Chron. 23v11; Ps. 2v2 compared to Ps. 18v50; Is. 45v1); any Old Testament Prophet (Is. 61v1); any New Testament preacher (Lk. 4v18); and in this particular context, any Jewish High Priest (Ex. 29v29; Lev. 4v3, v5, v16, 6v20, v22, 8v12; Num. 3v3, 35v25; 1 Sam. 12v5), like “Jesus, the son of Damneus”.
In other words, the whole passage speaks of one and the same Jesus, namely the “anointed”, “high priest”, “Jesus, son of Damneus”.
There is, therefore, no contradiction, and no need to question “the complete authenticity of the so-called ‘James passage.'” [53]
In response to Joel Guttormson’s confirmation, that the Greek term “Christ … means nothing more than ‘the anointed one'” [53], and as a result, it “wouldn’t be out of the question, … that a ‘high priest’ such as ‘Jesus, the son Damneus’ … would be called a Christ, an anointed one” [53], “Debunking Atheism” offered two objections:
OBJECTION 1: “… it would be out of the question because ‘Christ’ had huge political implications, and it is unlikely the Romans would have allowed him to have been seated as high preist if he bore such a title.” [53]
FALSE. Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews” was originally written in Greek [58], not English, and as a result reads “the anointed”, and NOT “Christ”. It is, therefore, not only likely, but self-evident, that the Romans regularly allowed “anointed” high priests to bear the title “anointed”.
OBJECTION 2: “Josephus indicates that Jesus already was known as ‘Christ’ during the early High Priesthood of Ananus, that is to say before the anointment of the son of Damneus to be the next High Priest. Because every High Priest was logically ‘anointed’ at his appointment to the High-Priesthood, it is highly unlikely that the son of Damneus would have been known as the ‘anointed anything’ until after Ananus’ term.” [53]
FALSE. The idea, that the anointing of a successor cannot ‘logically’ precede [or coincide with] the term of a forerunner, is biblically untrue. We know for a fact, that both Annas and Caiaphas were [anointed and functioned as] high priests at the same time (Mt. 26v3, v57; Lk. 3v1-2; Jn. 11v49, 18v13, v24; Acts 4v6, 6v4). And David was annointed as King, long before Saul’s reign ever ended. (1 Sam. 16-24)
➢ Two. The James, Josephus was referring to, is most likely “the same James that Paul mentions in Acts, who led a sect in Jerusalem” [3]. That would certainly explain his stoning by the Jews.
In closing, Josephus “adds nothing to the Gospel narratives and tells us nothing that would not have been known by Christians in either the first or fourth centuries. In all of Josephus’ voluminous writings, there is nothing about Jesus or Christianity anywhere outside the tiny paragraph [or paragraphs] cited so blithely by the Associated Press.” [3]
All of this was, of course, selectively ignored by McDowell, Righi [3], and The Associate Press [3].
References to ‘one Christus’ in “The Annals” by Tacitus (around 117 AD)
The next major first-century Roman historian who allegedly provided us with ‘evidence’ that Jesus was an historical character, is Publius Cornelius Tacitus (56-117 AD).
Our quote comes from “The Annals”, Book XV, Chapter 44:
“Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. THIS WAS THE SECT KNOWN AS CHRISTIANS. THEIR FOUNDER, ONE CHRISTUS, HAD BEEN PUT TO DEATH BY THE PROCURATOR PONTIUS PILATE IN THE REIGN OF TIBERIUS. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.” (D.R. Dudley’s translation) [22]
➢ One. “The Annals” was written “after 117 A.D.” [22], that is “at least 70 years after Jesus’ supposed crucifixion” [22]. In other words, “Tacitus’ claim is more of the same late, second-hand ‘history’.” [3]
➢ Two. “Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity” [22]. He was merely “repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius.” [22]
➢ Three. Apart from Tacitus’ claim, “there is no other historical proof that Nero [ever] persecuted the Christians” [22]. He did, however, “persecute Jews, so perhaps Tacitus was confused.” [3]
➢ Four. Perhaps “most damning, the term ‘Christian’ was not even in use in the first century.” [3]
➢ Five. “No one in the second century ever quoted this passage of Tacitus. In fact, it appears almost word-for-word in the fourth-century writings of Sulpicius Severus, where it is mixed with other obvious myths.” [3]
References to ‘one Chrestus’ in the “Lives of the Twelve Caesars” by Suetonius (around 121 AD)
The third major Roman historian, Suetonius (69–122+ AD), briefly mentioned one “Chrestus” [22] in the “Lives of the Twelve Caesars”, Divus Claudius 25, Chapter 4:
“As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.” [22]
Apparently “agitations in the Roman Jewish community [because of one ‘Chrestus’] … led to the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius in AD 49″ [26].
SOME scholars, like Josh McDowell (1939-) [23], “see it as a likely reference to Jesus” [26].
In fact, “MOST scholars assume that in the reference Jesus is meant and that the disturbances mentioned were due to the spread of Christianity in Rome.” [26|27]
But there is a number of problems with the above-mentioned claim.
➢ One. According to Josh McDowell (1939-), “Chrestus” is simply “another spelling of Christus.” [22|23] But that is false. In Greek “Chrestus” means “The Good”, while “Christus” means “The Messiah”. [22] The truth, however, is that “Chrestus was not an uncommon name in ancient Rome.” [22|26|28]
➢ Two. The idea that the Jews at Rome in either, 49 [26] or 55 AD [22], were led by Jesus is preposterous – “not even McDowell claims that Jesus was at Rome in 55 AD” [22].
That is pretty strong evidence that this passage does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth, but “to an otherwise unknown person [named ‘Chrestus’] living in Rome” [26] – and is, therefore, “irrelevant to our discussion” [22].
References to ‘Jesus’ in “The Passing of Peregrines” by Lucian (160-180 AD)
In his satire, entitled “The Passing of Peregrines”, the rhetorician and satirist, Lucian (125-180 AD), wrote:
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” [60]
The only “evidence” we could possibly draw from this passage, is that Lucian “was aware that the Christians of the time (of which there were a goodly number) felt or thought that there was a man who was crucified in Palestine” [22].
The passage was written far too late to be used as historical evidence, nor was it offered by Lucian as such.
References to ‘Christ’ in the works of Pliny Secundus (around 112 AD)
Christian theologians also sight the Roman lawyer, author, and magistrate, Pliny Secundus (61-113 AD), better known as “Pliny the Younger” [3], as “evidence” that Jesus existed, because Christians were singing a “hymn to Christ as to a god” [written in about 112 AD] [22].
➢ One. The quote is “of dubious value for determining whether Jesus was historical” [22]. “Pliny’s account is not history, since he is only relaying what [Christians] believed” [3] at the time. “No one doubts that Christianity was in existence by this time.” [3]
In the words of Dr. Gordon Stein (1941-1996):
“Of course, that may well have occurred, but how that fact reflects upon the historicity of Jesus, I and the other authorities consulted are at a loss to understand. The fact that believers seventy years later acted as if Christ were a god tells us nothing of whether Jesus was an actual person on this earth. Jesus is neither the same idea as Christ (the messiah) nor is the fact that people believed something to be true any evidence as to whether it was true.” [22]
➢ Two. Even if correct, the passage could just as well have referred to “any of the other self-proclaimed ‘Christs’ (messiahs) followed by Jews who thought they had found their anointed one.” [3]
“Offering this as proof would be the equivalent of quoting modern Mormons about their beliefs in the historical existence of the Angel Moroni or the miracles of Joseph Smith–doubtless useful for documenting the religious beliefs, but not the actual facts.” [3]
References to ‘Jesus’ in a Letter of Pilate to Tiberius
SOME Christian apologists, like Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) and Josh McDowell, will often sight a “Letter of Pilate to Tiberius” [38] as “proof” that Jesus existed.
The letter itself is available in the English translation of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 8 [41], and in The Lost Books of the Bible (1926), reading:
“The Letter of Pontius Pilate Which He Wrote to the Roman Emperor, Concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar the emperor, greeting.
Upon Jesus Christ, whose case I had clearly set forth to you in my last, at length by the will of the people a bitter punishment has been inflicted, myself being in a sort unwilling and rather afraid. A man, by Hercules, so pious and strict, no age has ever had nor will have. But wonderful were the efforts of the people themselves, and the unanimity of all the scribes and chief men and elders, to crucify this ambassador of truth, notwithstanding that their own prophets, and after our manner the sibyls, warned them against it: and supernatural signs appeared while he was hanging, and, in the opinion of philosophers, threatened destruction to the whole world. His disciples are flourishing, in their work and the regulation of their lives not belying their master; yea, in his name most beneficent. Had I not been afraid of the rising of a sedition among the people, who were just on the point of breaking out, perhaps this man would still have been alive to us; although, urged more by fidelity to your dignity than induced by my own wishes, I did not according to my strength resist that innocent blood free from the whole charge brought against it, but unjustly, through the malignity of men, should be sold and suffer, yet, as the Scriptures signify, to their own destruction. Farewell. 28th March.” [38]
The letter is considered a forgery. “No one has ever been able to prove that such a report of Pilate ever existed.” [22]
According to Roman Catholic Apologist, Fr. Charles Grondin, “It is probable that the pseudographic letter was forged [in response to anti-Christian literature]” [39].
According to Dr. Gordon Stein, the report was forged somewhere in the fifth century. [22]
References to ‘Jesus’ in the Talmud (200-500 AD)
“Christian scholars have long expressed an interest in the study of Talmud which has helped illuminate their own scriptures” [29], since “Talmud contains biblical exegesis and commentary on Tanakh that will often clarify elliptical and esoteric passages” [29], and “possible references to Jesus Christ and his disciples” [29].
But the “present Talmud contains virtually no mention of Jesus.” [22]Dr. Gordon Stein (1941-1996) explains:
“This is because there was much persecution of the Jews during the Middle Ages, and many Jews were afraid that the presence of the numerous unfavorable references to Jesus which existed in the Talmud of the time would bring down the additional wrath of the Christians. These references were gradually eliminated, by agreement, during the many subsequent recopyings of the Talmud which occurred over the years.” [22]
Fortunately, “most of these references to Jesus have not been lost to our view, since they have been collected by scholars from ancient copies of the Talmud and republished several times.” [22]
Now let us have a closer look at the Talmudic references to ‘Jesus’.
The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 43a, says:
“Our rabbis taught Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples, and these are they: Matthai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah” [30|31|32|33]
But the Jesus of the Bible had twelve disciples, NOT five – and they were called Simon-Peter, Andrew, James the son of Zebedee, John his brother, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew the publican, James the son of Alphaeus, Lebbaeus Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot (Mt. 10v2-4), NOT Matthai, Naqqai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.
The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a, says:
“The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray” [30|33|34|35]
But the Jesus of the Bible was the son of God, who performed miracles to save Israel, NOT magic to deceive Israel.
The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a, says:
“‘Jesus son of Stada is Jesus son of Pandira?’ Rav Hisda said, ‘The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandera.’ ‘But was not the husband Pappos son of Yehuda and the mother Stada?’ No, his mother was Miriam, who let her hair grow long and was called Stada. Pumbedita says about her: ‘She was unfaithful to her husband.'” [30|32|33|36]
But the Jesus of the Bible was the son of Joseph and Mary (Mt. 1v16, v18, 13v55; Mk. 6v3; Lk. 2v16), NOT Pandera and Stada.
The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, says:
“On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover, JESUS THE NAZARENE WAS HANGED and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, ‘JESUS THE NAZARENE IS GOING FORTH TO BE STONED because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it.’ But since they did not find anything in his defense THEY HANGED HIM ON (SABBATH EVE AND) THE EVE OF PASSOVER. Ulla said: ‘Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God] says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government.” [30|32|33|37]
But the Jesus of the Bible were crucified, NOT stoned or hanged.
IF this serves as proof, that Jesus existed, it also serves as proof, that he was stoned and hanged, NOT crucified.
“At any rate, authorities are agreed that most of this Talmudic material derives from the period from 200 to 500 A.D.” [22]
“Bart Ehrman, and separately Mark Allan Powell, state that the Talmud references are quite late (hundreds of years) and GIVE NO HISTORICALLY RELIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT THE TEACHINGS OR ACTIONS OF JESUS DURING HIS LIFE.” [30]
Furthermore, “The history of textual transmission of these passages is complex and scholars are not agreed concerning which passages are original, and which were added later or removed later in reaction to the actions of Christians. Scholars are also divided on the relationship of the passages, if any, to the historical Jesus, though MOST MODERN SCHOLARSHIP VIEWS THE PASSAGES AS REACTION TO CHRISTIAN PROSELYTISM RATHER THAN HAVING ANY MEANINGFUL TRACE OF A HISTORICAL JESUS.” [30]
McDowell and his friends, of course, seems “blissfully unaware of all of this” [22].
References to ‘Jesus’ in the works of Tertullian (around 208 AD)
Christian theologians also tend to sight as “evidence”, the works of prolific early Christian author, Tertullian (160-225 AD).
“When discussing the ‘evidence’ found in Tertullian’s works” [22], Josh McDowell selectively failed to mention, that Tertullian’s claim “that Tiberius is supposed to have received a report from Pontius Pilate on Jesus” [22], comes from Justin, who was “merely assuming that there must have been such a report” [22].
“Later, (about the 5th Century) someone forged the actual report containing what purported to be Pilate’s words to Rome about Jesus. McDowell, in one of his few attempts at honesty, does admit that ‘Some historians [read ‘nearly all’] doubt the historicity of this passage.'” [22]
References to ‘Jesus’ in the works of Thallus (around 221 AD)
While the works of early historian, Thallus, is now lost, Julius Africanus (160-240 AD) “states that Thallus in the period before 221 AD, wrote that the darkness which supposedly covered the earth at the time of the Crucifixion was due to the death of Jesus.” [22]
IF true, Thallus was “merely telling what the Christians of the time believed.” [22] That is hearsay, not “evidence”.
We have absolutely no evidence, at all, that there ever even was an eclipse at the time when Jesus was supposedly crucified.
References to Jesus in the Encyclopedia Britannica
According to Josh McDowell, Jesus must have existed, because “The latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica uses 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napoleon Bonaparte.” [22]
Yes, you read that correctly. “This is the entire quote in this section, reproduced verbatim.” [22]
The implication is, that if the Britannica writes more about a subject than it does about other people whom we know are historical, then the one with the longer article must be just that much more historical.
Like Stein, I would refer McDowell to the articles in the Britannica about dragons, unicorns, witches, and Zeus, for comparison. [22]
DISCLAIMER: Now, before you jump to any conclusion: I am not stating categorically, that Jesus was not an historical character. I do, however, have “serious doubt that Jesus ever existed” [3], since “the evidence for his existence is grossly inadequate” [22].
Apart from the aforementioned ‘evidence’, there are no conclusive references to the existence of Jesus in any contemporary source outside of the New Testament. “Historians have no evidence of a historic Jesus dating from the early first century …” [3]
“Even though many contemporary writers documented the era in great detail” [3], none of the historians, writers, philosophers, politicians and others, who lived contemporaneously with, or shortly after him, ever mentioned Jesus once.
“Philo of Alexandria, for example, wrote in depth about early first-century Palestine, naming other self-proclaimed messiahs, yet never once mentioning a man named Jesus.” [3]
The fourth-century Christian scholar, Julius Firmicus Maternus, in attempting to establish the uniqueness of Christianity, was met at every turn by pagan precedents to the story of Jesus, in exasperation concluding, that “The Devil has his Christs!” [3]
Yet, regardless of the fact, that most of these ‘evidences’ were “long ago discounted” [3], they “continue to pepper the credulous writings of conservative religious authors and scholars” [3].
ARGUMENT 1
Jesus Must Have Existed Since Virtually All Scholars of Antiquity Agree That He Existed
According to Wikipedia, “virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.” [1|6|7|8].
In the words of Tom Lessing:
“MOST OF THE PRESENT DAY LEARNED SCHOLARS ON THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS CHRIST’S RESURRECTION AGREE on: Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb by some of his female followers, the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups, and the original disciples’ coming sincerely to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite their strong predisposition to the contrary are historical. Even neutral scholars like Pinchas Lapide and Geza Vermes, two Jewish scholars, defend the historicity of these four facts. Vermes writes, ‘When every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that … the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb’ (Jesus the Jew, p. 41).” [4]
In the words of Christoper Price:
“According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage ‘has been ALMOST UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED’ BY SCHOLARS. (Feldman, “Josephus,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91)… A STRONG MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS, however, have concluded that MUCH of the TF is authentic to Josephus.” [13]
In the words of Prof. Dr. Bart Ehrman (1955-):
“This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity… THERE IS NO SCHOLAR IN ANY COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY, IN THE WESTERN WORLD, WHO TEACHES CLASSICS, ANCIENT HISTORY, NEW TESTAMENT, EARLY CHRISTIANITY, ANY RELATED FIELD, WHO DOUBTS THAT JESUS EXISTED.” [21]
The idea “that a proposition is true [simply] because many or most people believe it” [10] is a logical fallacy, known as an “Argumentum ad populum” [10], or “Bandwagon Argument” [11].
Even Prof. Dr. Bart Ehrman (1955-) had to confess, that “that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so, doesn’t make it evidence.” [21].
No intelligent person, simply believes that “If many believe so, it is so” [10].
ARGUMENT 2
Jesus Must Have Existed Because So Much Has Been Said and Written About Him
The idea, that something is true “solely because it has long been held to be true” [11] is a logical fallacy, known as an “Appeal to Tradition” [11|19].
No intelligent person would suggest, that “a thesis [should be] deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition” [19].
ARGUMENT 3
Considering the Tremendous Success of Christianity it is More Likely that Jesus Existed
The argument goes something like this: Islam had Muhammad, the Mormons had Joseph Smith, therefore, Christianity must have Jesus to account for its origin and growth.
FALSE. The existence of Jesus is NOT necessary to explain the origin or growth of Christianity.
➢ Hinduism, the world’s third largest religion, with about one billion adherents, is a fusion or synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions, with diverse roots and NO SINGLE FOUNDER.
In their book, “The Jesus Mysteries”, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy explain how the myth and legend of Jesus could easily have arisen without a historical founder, since the Jesus story was pressed from the same template as other mythical savior-gods who were killed and resurrected, such as Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, and Attis.
Early Christians agreed that Christianity offered ‘nothing different’ from paganism.
Arguing with pagans around 150 AD, in his First Apology, Chapter XXI, entitled “Analogies to the history of Christ”, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) confirms:
“When we say that the Word [Jesus], who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, JESUS CHRIST, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; WE PROPOUND NOTHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU BELIEVE REGARDING THOSE WHOM YOU ESTEEM SONS OF JUPITER (ZEUS).” [3|77]
“It is much more plausible to consider the Jesus character to be the result of myth-making, a human process that is indeed historically documented.” [3]
ARGUMENT 4
Jesus Must Exist Because I ‘Know He Exists’
The idea, that a proposition is true simply because you “know” it to be so, is a logical fallacy, known as an “Argument from Personal Experience” [74].
A lot of people, “know” a lot of things to be “true”, that isn’t.
Many “know”, that radiofrequency energy from cell phones can cause cancer. The truth, however is, that “there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer.” [75]
What should scare us the most as a society, is that “There’s a point where anecdotal evidence becomes truth” [76].
Yet, anecdotal evidence is no evidence.
BUT What IF We Accepted His Historical Existence?
Let us assume for the moment, hypothetically speaking, that Jesus DID exist, “because he is abundantly attested in early …independent sources, that indicate certainly that Jesus existed.” [21].
IF we accept the above-mentioned works as authentic and historically accurate, we can conclude:
➢ One. “His date” [14], or “the time frame that the Gospels place Jesus in” [13];
➢ Two. “His being the brother of James” [14], or that “Jesus had a brother named James” [13];
➢ Three. “His reputation as a wonder-worker” [14], or that “Jesus was believed to have performed miracles” [13];
➢ Four. “Jesus had a reputation for teaching wisdom” [13];
➢ Five. “His messianic claim” [14], or that “Jesus was known as a messianic figure” [13];
➢ Six. “His being the founder of the tribe of Christians” [14], or that “Jesus was the founder of Christianity” [13];
➢ Seven. “His crucifixion under Pilate at the information of Jewish rulers” [14], or that “Pilate was Prefect and had Jesus executed” [13], “Jesus was executed by crucifixion”[13], and “Some Jewish leaders were involved with Jesus’ execution” [13];
➢ Eight. “PROBABLY, the belief in His rising from the dead” [14], or “That the early Christians reported that Jesus was raised from the dead as foretold by the Jewish prophets (based on Eisler’s reconstruction and Mason’s comments on linguistic similarities)” [13]
The same could be said, and have been claimed by various ‘Messiahs’ throughout history.
In the words of Christoper Hitchens (1949-2011):
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
CORRECTIONS
Regarding the non-Existence of Nazareth at the Time Jesus Supposedly Lived There
According to Dr. Gordon Stein (1941-1996), “There is no evidence that the town of Nazareth, from which Jesus’ mother supposedly came, ever existed at the time he was supposedly living there” [22].
Dr. Stein’s article was written in 1982 [22], that is 27 years before Israeli archaeologist, Yardenna Alexandre, “excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period” [62].
VIDEOS
FOOTNOTES
* Even though Ehrman believes, that a historical person by the name of Jesus existed, he does not believe in the Jesus of the Bible.
** So did Prof. Dr. Martin Luther (1483-1546). [25]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Jesus (Wikipedia; 12 March 2015)
2. Rev. Gary W. Jensen, M.Div. How do we know that Jesus Christ really rose from the dead? (Christian Answers; 1998)
3. Dan Barker. Debunking the Historical Jesus: What the Bible-Belt Media Didn’t Tell You about Italian Lawsuit (Ex-Minister International; 12 March 2015) ✔
4. Tom Lessing. EJ Hill: The Other Side of Hillside (Discerning The Truth; 10 March 2015) RESPONSE ✔
5. Christ myth theory (Wikipedia; 12 March 2015)
6. Dunn (2003) p. 339
7. Raymond E. Brown. The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (Doubleday; 1994) ISBN 978-0-385-19397-9; p. 964
8. Stanton (2002) p.145
9. Michael Grant. Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (Scribner’s; 1977) ISBN 978-0-684-14889-2; p.200
10. Argumentum ad populum (Wikipedia; 12 March 2015) ✔
11. List of fallacies (Wikipedia; 12 March 2015) ✔
12. Josephus on Jesus (Wikipedia; 12 March 2015)
13. Christopher Price. Did Josephus Refer to Jesus? A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum (Bede’s Library; 8 December 2009)
14. FF Bruce. The New Testament Documents (Downer’s Grove, 2000) p.112
15. Flavius Josephus. <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm"