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]

[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?

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?

Absolutely none, and I fully suspect that (a) the narratives are self-serving, and (b) the Gospel of James is pseudepigraphic. At the same time, particularly given the Josephus reference and the relationship with Jerusalem painted by Paul and Luke, I see absolutely no reason to doubt that the sect existed and that it originally coalesced around a charismatic leader named Yeshua.

Please understand: having no reason to doubt is far from certainty. But certainty is an exceedingly rare commodity when dealing with that period. When one goes back far enough history become an exercise in inference to best explanation, and the mythicist 'model' strikes me very much as a case of [sloppy] wishful thinking that strings together the least plausible alternatives in an effort to trump Christianity.

[Goat]

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?

Jesus as the conglomeration of a number of different people, and the name "Jesus" being fitting for it's meaning verses the theology being taught. "Yeshua" literally means 'God is our salvation", and what better name to choose for making a religion where 'salvation' was the central theme?

[scourge99]

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?

so Zoroaster, buddha, Romulus, Perseus, Heracles, and Achilles must have actually and literally existed as well?

[Haven]

so Zoroaster, buddha . . . must have actually and literally existed as well?

There is evidence that both Zoroaster and Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) actually were historical figures, so I accept their existence as well. I'm not sure about the other figures you quoted.'

Keep in mind that I am not a Christian, but an atheist. However, unlike some fundamentalist atheists, I don't apply an exceedingly stringent standard of skepticism when it comes to religious claims. Instead, my standard of evidence is the same for all truth claims, whether they are religious or not.

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

Jesus as the conglomeration of a number of different people, and the name "Jesus" being fitting for it's meaning verses the theology being taught. "Yeshua" literally means 'God is our salvation", and what better name to choose for making a religion where 'salvation' was the central theme?

And if all we had was a remarkably appropriate name there would certainly be just cause for caution. Even so, there was a roughly 9% chance that the name would be Yeshua/Yehoshua just based on what we know about general name distribution in 1st century Palestine, and such a name might well have been more prominent among observant Jews in Galilee.

But if you still wish to maintain that Yeshua was a convenient fiction, you need to argue one of two positions:

1. that all the talk about the Jerusalem sect and the tortuous relationship with that sect was a total fabrication, or
2. the James-led sect did indeed exist but Paul chose to fabricate Jame's 'brother'.

But why? Both fabrications risk unnecessary exposure, and that by an apologist struggling for legitimacy. Yet, despite a good deal of indirect evidence of all manner of Christian heresy and anti-Christian polemic, there is an amazing absence of any early attack on the historicity of either Yeshua or his sect. On the contrary, assuming (as most do) that the Josephus quote is authentic, James is important enough to mention and a mere reference to Jesus is more than adequate to disambiguate that reference.

[catalyst]

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?

Jesus as the conglomeration of a number of different people, and the name "Jesus" being fitting for it's meaning verses the theology being taught. "Yeshua" literally means 'God is our salvation", and what better name to choose for making a religion where 'salvation' was the central theme?

Much like the title Caesar applied to rulers, of that particular era it seems to be that "jesus" was too a title of sorts and related purely to those of position high priest or those, the head of assorted different religious sects. In Josephs' writings he mentions no fewer than 15 different "jesus'" and all of them are titled as high priests. Does that mean that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed as a RL person? No and frankly outside of biblical texts and latter apologetics, he rarely if ever rates mention. (and only does in writings attributed to josephus, tacitus, et al... as later interpolations, courtesy of the time of Eusebuis and pals - even mainstream christian and/or biblical scholars tend to agree on this point).

The DSS show just how LACKING the christian faith is and it also shows that certain things attributed to the Jesus of Nazareth character, were said and done "better" (and more believably) in at least a century prior by other jesus'. (or high priests of certain sects).

I think what many christians fail to understand that the jewish concept of salvation has ZERO to do with any sole "wonder worker" or dude "showing" he is the "son of god" by miraculous events. That is why IMO that jews tend to be far more laid-back about their beliefs/understanding of what THEIR G-d "is" to them.

Catalyst

[Jayhawker Soule]

In Josephs' writings he mentions no fewer than 15 different "jesus'" and all of them are titled as high priests.

Provide the references.

The DSS show just how LACKING the christian faith is and it also shows that certain things attributed to the Jesus of Nazareth character, were said and done "better" (and more believably) in at least a century prior by other jesus'. (or high priests of certain sects).

Absolute rubbish.

[scourge99]

so Zoroaster, buddha . . . must have actually and literally existed as well?

There is evidence that both Zoroaster and Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) actually were historical figures, so I accept their existence as well.

I remain agnostic to both. I see no reason that i must choose to believe one way or the other when compelling justification and evidence is lacking in either the positive or negative claims of existence. And it's not as though my worldview hinges on the truth or falsity of such questions.

Keep in mind that I am not a Christian, but an atheist.However, unlike some fundamentalist atheists,

There are no fundamentals of atheism. No dogma or tenants ot basic principles. Its a single position on a single issue: do you believe in god? Atheism doesn't imply skepticism or evolution or science.

I propose "fundamentalist atheist" is another attempt by theists to negatively label those who they disagree with so as to avoid having to debate the merits of their arguments. Another popular label is "militant".

Regrettably, some atheists take up the terminology.

I don't apply an exceedingly stringent standard of skepticism when it comes to religious claims.

Oh, but the bogeyman "fundamentalist atheist" does, right?

Instead, my standard of evidence is the same for all truth claims, whether they are religious or not.

Which is??

[otseng]

In Josephs' writings he mentions no fewer than 15 different "jesus'" and all of them are titled as high priests.

Provide the references.

The DSS show just how LACKING the christian faith is and it also shows that certain things attributed to the Jesus of Nazareth character, were said and done "better" (and more believably) in at least a century prior by other jesus'. (or high priests of certain sects).

Absolute rubbish.

Moderator Comment

Asking to provide references is allowed. Commenting that something is rubbish is not.

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]

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?

Jesus as the conglomeration of a number of different people, and the name "Jesus" being fitting for it's meaning verses the theology being taught. "Yeshua" literally means 'God is our salvation", and what better name to choose for making a religion where 'salvation' was the central theme?

And if all we had was a remarkably appropriate name there would certainly be just cause for caution. Even so, there was a roughly 9% chance that the name would be Yeshua/Yehoshua just based on what we know about general name distribution in 1st century Palestine, and such a name might well have been more prominent among observant Jews in Galilee.

But if you still wish to maintain that Yeshua was a convenient fiction, you need to argue one of two positions:

1. that all the talk about the Jerusalem sect and the tortuous relationship with that sect was a total fabrication, or
2. the James-led sect did indeed exist but Paul chose to fabricate Jame's 'brother'.

But why? Both fabrications risk unnecessary exposure, and that by an apologist struggling for legitimacy. Yet, despite a good deal of indirect evidence of all manner of Christian heresy and anti-Christian polemic, there is an amazing absence of any early attack on the historicity of either Yeshua or his sect. On the contrary, assuming (as most do) that the Josephus quote is authentic, James is important enough to mention and a mere reference to Jesus is more than adequate to disambiguate that reference.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying there is insufficient information to say that a historical Jesus existed. There is a difference from saying that 'Jesus was a convenient fiction', and saying that 'There is insufficient evidence of a historical Jesus'. There might have been, but the documentation we have is insufficient to point to a 'single, historical Jesus' from which the stories flowed. If there was, the Jesus that was eventually put into the Gospels probably bore very little resemblance to the man who inspired the stories, just as if there was a historical Hercules, which some people think, he bore very little resemblance to the stories that were told of him.. or perhaps king author, or Merlin.

There have been too many fingers in the pot messing up the evidence with forgeries, and tall tales to narrow it down.