JESUS CHRIST: Myth or Historical Person?

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]A favorite argument by non-believers is that Jesus Christ's existence is confined to the pages of the Judeo-Christian Bible. When presented with documentary evidence of his historical existence, Bible critics then use another ploy: they attack the credibility of those who confirmed the existence of Jesus Christ and/or they attack the credibility of what was written about Jesus Christ.

Below are three non-Christians from the 1st Century AD who mentioned Jesus Christ in their secular writings. The questions for debate are at the end of this post.

PERSON #1:
Name and Occupation: Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Historian

DOB to Date of Death: A.D. 55 to A.D. 120

Attitude Towards Christianity: Hostile

What He Said: He confirmed that CHRISTUS (a common misspelling of Christ at the time) was executed by Pilate.

Highlights on Tacitus: A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome."


PERSON #2:
Name and Occupation: Flavius Josephus, Jewish Historian

DOB to Date of Death: 37 AD -- Died after 100 AD

Attitude Towards Christianity: Apathetic (could care less about them)

What He Said: He confirmed that Christ who performed miracles was executed by Pilate.

Highlights on Josephus: A Jewish historian of priestly and royal ancestry who recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the 1st century AD (the century in which Jesus Christ lived and died). He has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels. Flavius Josephus belonged to the group of Jewish religious leaders--the Pharisees--responsible for Jesus' death.

Flavius Josephus joined the zealots who rebelled against Roman rule between 66 and 74 AD, becoming a leader of their forces in Galilee, and living through the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. He was captured by the Romans, and would have been executed, but he went over to their side and ended up becoming the Roman emperor's Adviser on Jewish Affairs.


PERSON #3:
Name and Occupation: Pliny The Younger (born Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus), Roman Governor

DOB to Date of Death: 61 AD to 112 AD

Attitude Towards Christianity: Hostile. He executed Christians

What He Said: Referred to Christ as a "god of the Christians."

Highlights on Pliny: Pliny condemned Men, Women, and children to death if they refused to curse Christ and if they refused to deny they were Christians.


DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. All three of the individuals described above were people in powerful positions. What did they have to gain from mentioning the existence of Jesus Christ in their writings?

2. Flavius Josephus, a Jew, was born four years after Jesus was executed. He became a Jewish Pharisee as an adult, in addition to becoming a respected historian and advisor to the Roman emperor. Do you see anything significant to his being a Pharisee, a historian, and Roman emperor advisor--and the fact that he mentioned Jesus Christ in his writings?

3. Cornelius Tactitus was known as the greatest historian of his time, during which he lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors. Do you see anything significant to his resume and the fact that he mentioned Jesus Christ in his writings?[/font]

[Slopeshoulder]

I don't get the mythicist viewpoint, either. The historical evidence (Tacitus, Suetonius, the Pauline letters, Josephus [possibly], and the gospel accounts themselves) seems to be enough to conclude a man named Jesus existed, and the vast majority of Biblical scholars, including non-theists like Bart Ehrman, agree with this.

In my opinion, mythicism is a view held up by militant "new atheists" who want to debunk the central person of Christianity. Although I am an atheist, I go where the evidence leads, and the evidence points to Jesus having actually existed.

I agree. IMO, mythicism is, like libertarianism, a cool attention getting waste of time and ill considered theory best reserved for college freshmen who like to hear themselves talk while acting out. After that, it becomes a pastime for eccentrics and conspiracy theorists.
Better to admit he existed and get on with discussing worthy topics, like what he said, what he meant, what he did, what people made of it, what we might make of it.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't get the mythicist viewpoint, either. The historical evidence (Tacitus, Suetonius, the Pauline letters, Josephus [possibly], and the gospel accounts themselves) seems to be enough to conclude a man named Jesus existed, and the vast majority of Biblical scholars, including non-theists like Bart Ehrman, agree with this.

In my opinion, mythicism is a view held up by militant "new atheists" who want to debunk the central person of Christianity. Although I am an atheist, I go where the evidence leads, and the evidence points to Jesus having actually existed.

I agree. IMO, mythicism is, like libertarianism, a cool attention getting waste of time and ill considered theory best reserved for college freshmen who like to hear themselves talk while acting out. After that, it becomes a pastime for eccentrics and conspiracy theorists.

Exactly! Well said.

[Goat]

I don't get the mythicist viewpoint, either. The historical evidence (Tacitus, Suetonius, the Pauline letters, Josephus [possibly], and the gospel accounts themselves) seems to be enough to conclude a man named Jesus existed, and the vast majority of Biblical scholars, including non-theists like Bart Ehrman, agree with this.

In my opinion, mythicism is a view held up by militant "new atheists" who want to debunk the central person of Christianity. Although I am an atheist, I go where the evidence leads, and the evidence points to Jesus having actually existed.

If you analyses it, the only source not dependent on Paul is Paul himself. Tacitus was inaccurate enough, and had enough anacronisms, that he can't be accepted as an untainted source.

The entire line from Seutonis was

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome

Now, it just so happens Chrestus was a common Greek name.. and from that line, it appears Chrestus was there in Rome, and instigated the Jews. ,,, That's hardly evidence of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for Josephus, and with specific reference to Antiquities 20.9.1, Kirby writes:

• ... assuming that at least the shorter reference is authentic, what can we conclude from this? It shows that Josephus accepted the historicity of Jesus. Simply by the standard practice of conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence for that fact. It ought to be accepted as history unless there is good reason for disputing the fact. Moreover, it is reasonable to think that Josephus heard about the deposition of Ananus as soon as it happened. Ed Tyler points out in correspondence, "The passage is not really about James, but about Ananus. It's the tale of how Ananus lost his job as High Priest. So why would Christians in Rome be the source for the tale of how a High Priest lost his job? Josephus was close at hand when it happened, and was a man of some standing in the Jewish community. I can't imagine that he missed it when it was news, and didn't find out about it until he talked to some Christians about 30 years later." Thus, Josephus' information about the identity of James brings us back to the period prior to the First Jewish Revolt. If Josephus referred to James as the brother of Jesus in the Antiquities, in all likelihood the historical James identified himself as the brother of Jesus, and this identification would secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history.
  
  - Testimonium

and Antiquities 20.9.1 is widely accepted as authentic.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't get the mythicist viewpoint, either. The historical evidence (Tacitus, Suetonius, the Pauline letters, Josephus [possibly], and the gospel accounts themselves) seems to be enough to conclude a man named Jesus existed, and the vast majority of Biblical scholars, including non-theists like Bart Ehrman, agree with this.

In my opinion, mythicism is a view held up by militant "new atheists" who want to debunk the central person of Christianity. Although I am an atheist, I go where the evidence leads, and the evidence points to Jesus having actually existed.

If you analyses it, the only source not dependent on Paul is Paul himself. Tacitus was inaccurate enough, and had enough anacronisms, that he can't be accepted as an untainted source.

The only thing obviously tainted here is your selection criteria. The question is not whether Tacitus (or, for that matter, Paul and Luke) were entirely accurate and forthcoming, but whether the historicity of a Yeshua as charismatic leader of a 1 century CE Jerusalem sect is the more reasonably inference from the material at our disposal. Or do you wish to insist that the sect was also a Pauline fabrication?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Moderator Comment

The mythicist position is little more than adolescent obstiancy. Paul, Luke, and Josephus are more than adequate to justify a presumption of historicity.

Two people who never met Jesus, and are writing from a religious motivation, and a forgery??


Really?

Yes, really. And you might wish to hold off on the 'forgery' claim unless, of couse, you don't mind coming across as a bit of a fool.

This is only a comment and not yet a warning since you are new here. But bit of a fool is inappropriate. "Adolescent obstinacy" is a bit over the top as well even though it is not aimed at a particular person.

Be sure to keep your tone civil when addressing other posters. I recommend that you read the Rules, since we enforce them strictly. This is only a comment since you are new here.

If you have questions or comments please send me or any moderator a personal message.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Goat]

As for Josephus, and with specific reference to Antiquities 20.9.1, Kirby writes:

• ... assuming that at least the shorter reference is authentic, what can we conclude from this? It shows that Josephus accepted the historicity of Jesus. Simply by the standard practice of conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence for that fact. It ought to be accepted as history unless there is good reason for disputing the fact. Moreover, it is reasonable to think that Josephus heard about the deposition of Ananus as soon as it happened. Ed Tyler points out in correspondence, "The passage is not really about James, but about Ananus. It's the tale of how Ananus lost his job as High Priest. So why would Christians in Rome be the source for the tale of how a High Priest lost his job? Josephus was close at hand when it happened, and was a man of some standing in the Jewish community. I can't imagine that he missed it when it was news, and didn't find out about it until he talked to some Christians about 30 years later." Thus, Josephus' information about the identity of James brings us back to the period prior to the First Jewish Revolt. If Josephus referred to James as the brother of Jesus in the Antiquities, in all likelihood the historical James identified himself as the brother of Jesus, and this identification would secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history.
  
  - Testimonium

and Antiquities 20.9.1 is widely accepted as authentic.

Widely is not universal, and the way I see it, if you read it in context. .you know.. context.. it is not talking of "Jesus of Nazareth', but rather anointed also means the high priest. .. and therefore could very well mean Jesus, the son of Damneu, who is specifically mentioned in Antiquities 20.9.24

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for Josephus, and with specific reference to Antiquities 20.9.1, Kirby writes:

• ... assuming that at least the shorter reference is authentic, what can we conclude from this? It shows that Josephus accepted the historicity of Jesus. Simply by the standard practice of conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence for that fact. It ought to be accepted as history unless there is good reason for disputing the fact. Moreover, it is reasonable to think that Josephus heard about the deposition of Ananus as soon as it happened. Ed Tyler points out in correspondence, "The passage is not really about James, but about Ananus. It's the tale of how Ananus lost his job as High Priest. So why would Christians in Rome be the source for the tale of how a High Priest lost his job? Josephus was close at hand when it happened, and was a man of some standing in the Jewish community. I can't imagine that he missed it when it was news, and didn't find out about it until he talked to some Christians about 30 years later." Thus, Josephus' information about the identity of James brings us back to the period prior to the First Jewish Revolt. If Josephus referred to James as the brother of Jesus in the Antiquities, in all likelihood the historical James identified himself as the brother of Jesus, and this identification would secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history.
  
  - Testimonium

and Antiquities 20.9.1 is widely accepted as authentic.

Widely is not universal, and the way I see it, if you read it in context. ...

No, "widely" means widely, and there are a number of reasons why it is the consensus. You might benefit from a careful reading of Alice Whealey's Josephus on Jesus.

But tell me, is James and the Jerusalem cult likewise a Christian hoax?

[Goat]

As for Josephus, and with specific reference to Antiquities 20.9.1, Kirby writes:

• ... assuming that at least the shorter reference is authentic, what can we conclude from this? It shows that Josephus accepted the historicity of Jesus. Simply by the standard practice of conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence for that fact. It ought to be accepted as history unless there is good reason for disputing the fact. Moreover, it is reasonable to think that Josephus heard about the deposition of Ananus as soon as it happened. Ed Tyler points out in correspondence, "The passage is not really about James, but about Ananus. It's the tale of how Ananus lost his job as High Priest. So why would Christians in Rome be the source for the tale of how a High Priest lost his job? Josephus was close at hand when it happened, and was a man of some standing in the Jewish community. I can't imagine that he missed it when it was news, and didn't find out about it until he talked to some Christians about 30 years later." Thus, Josephus' information about the identity of James brings us back to the period prior to the First Jewish Revolt. If Josephus referred to James as the brother of Jesus in the Antiquities, in all likelihood the historical James identified himself as the brother of Jesus, and this identification would secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history.
  
  - Testimonium

and Antiquities 20.9.1 is widely accepted as authentic.

Widely is not universal, and the way I see it, if you read it in context. ...

No, "widely" means widely, and there are a number of reasons why it is the consensus. You might benefit from a careful reading of Alice Whealey's Josephus on Jesus.

But tell me, is James and the Jerusalem cult likewise a Christian hoax?

I suspect that it is highly misrepresented by Christians. I would not be surprised that a James was the head of a religious group.. but everything we hear about them is filtered through 'Jesus colored eye glasses'. We don't have any writings from them directly, even the Gospel of James is suspected of being a pseudepigraph. Do you have any information about the cult, except as seen through Christian tradition and religious promotional material?

[Haven]

While I agree that a quasi-reasonable case can be brought against the existence of Jesus, I find, given the evidence, it is more reasonable to accept that Jesus actually existed than that he was an entirely mythical construct. The vast majority of academics working in the field agree.

Why do you think the rise of Christianity is better explained by the non-existence of Jesus? How would such a movement even get off the ground in 1st century CE Palestine?