Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[Student]

Why would Josephus say that Jesus was called Christ? Gee... let's think about that for a bit, shall we? Maybe because Jesus was called Christ? Nah, that couldn't possibly be the reason It's obviously Christians' handiwork, because another Christian wrote it once.

Your comment highlights what I perceive to the major problem with the references to Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews, namely, why would Josephus use the term ‘Christ’ uniquely in reference to Jesus, especially if, as Origen records, he didn’t think Jesus was the Messiah?

As mentioned previously, the word ‘Christ’ only appears twice in all the extant writings of Josephus; both occurrences are in the Antiquities of the Jews; the Testimonium Flavianum 18.3.3 “He was the Christ� [ � χ�ιστὸς οὗτος ἦν] and 20.9.1. in a reference to the death of James, “Jesus the one called Christ�[ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ].

Throughout the Septuagint the word ‘Christ’ is used where Mašíaḥ is used in the Tenach. It is applied to various kings and high priests. However, despite mentioning many high priests [included several called Jesus], and kings including David and Cyrus, Josephus never uses the term ‘Christ’ in relation to any of them. Why?

For example, at Isaiah 45:1 God refers to Cyrus as “my anointed� [χ�ιστῷ μου] i.e. my Christ :

1 Thus saith the Lord God to my anointed Cyrus, whose right hand I have held, that nations might be obedient before him; and I will break through the strength of kings; I will open doors before him, and cities shall not be closed.

Οὕτω λέγει Κύ�ιος � Θεὸς τῷ χ�ιστῷ μου Κύ�ῳ, οὗ �κ�άτησα τῆς δεξιᾶς �πακοῦσαι ἔμπ�οσθεν α�τοῦ ἔθνη, καὶ ἰσχὺν βασιλέων δια��ήξω, ἀνοίξω ἔμπ�οσθεν α�τοῦ θύ�ας, καὶ πόλεις ο� συγκλεισθήσονται.

Pretty explicit; Cyrus is God’s Christ, His Messiah, and yet at Antiquities 11.1.2 Josephus doesn’t use the term. Why? Perhaps Josephus didn’t accept Cyrus as the Christ, but then, according to Origen, Josephus didn’t accept Jesus as the Christ. So why use the term of Jesus and not Cyrus?

And then there is David. At 2 Samuel 23:1 we read:

“And these [are] the last words of David. Faithful [is] David the son of Jessae, and faithful the man whom the Lord raised up to be the anointed [one] of the God of Jacob, and beautiful [are] the psalms of Israel.�

και οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι Δαυὶδ οἱ ἔσχατοι· Πιστὸς Δαυὶδ υἱὸς ᾿Ιεσσαί, καὶ πιστὸς ἀνή�, ὃν ἀνέστησε Κύ�ιος �πὶ χ�ιστὸν Θεοῦ ᾿Ιακώβ, καὶ ε�π�επεῖς ψαλμοὶ ᾿Ισ�αήλ.

David, the Anointed One of the God of Jacob [χ�ιστὸν Θεοῦ ᾿Ιακώβ] - it could not be more explicit. David, Anointed One, Christ, Mašíaḥ! But Josephus never calls David the Christ even though he refers to 2 Samuel 23:1 at Antiquities 7.12.3. Why not? Surely he accepted David as God’s Messiah; and if he didn’t accord the accolade Christ to David why would he use the term of someone he didn’t believe to be the messiah?

Not even the Emperor Vespasian, whom Josephus clearly considers to have fulfilled messianic oracles, is termed ‘the one called christ’.

What did the most to induce the Jews to start this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.

Josephus, Jewish War 6.312-313.

Despite this clear affirmation of messianic fulfilment, Josephus does not accord Vespasian the title Christ. Why?

Perhaps Josephus was confident that his intended audience were unfamiliar with Christianity, or Judaism, or hadn’t read the Septuagint and would therefore be ignorant of the significance of the term ‘Christ’? But why take the risk?

Or was Josephus himself ignorant of the significance of the title ‘Christ’? Perhaps he hadn’t read the Seputagint!
Did he, in common with Tacitus and Suetonius, think that ‘Christus/Chrestus’ was Jesus’ name?

Or, was Josephus a ‘closet’ Christian?

[Mithrae]

Tacitus wrote in the second century and his writings could have been influenced by Christian sources.

A credible Roman historian who clearly viewed the sect with hostility or contempt "could have" simply taken them at their word regarding their founder, yes. Do you have evidence that this is anything more than a slim possibility?

Tacitus, writing c.115, did not gather his information during the lifetime of Jesus. Furthermore he [Tacitus] does not provide an independent witness to the existence of Jesus. Most probably he was merely repeating what he had heard from various Christian sources.

Had he been quoting official Roman records he would have presumably known that Pilate was in fact a Prefect [praefectus,a military title], and not, as he writes, a Procurator [a civilian].

Presumably he would have known of those changes under Claudius, period. But writing some 70 years later, the title 'procurator' would likely have meant more to his readers than the title 'prefect.' In fact writing a mere three decades after Claudius' reign Josephus also calls Pilate a procurator:
"Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem." (Jewish War 2.9.2)
Are we to suppose that Josephus also was hoodwinked, or merely that he was writing for his own period?

We don't know where Tacitus got his information from or how thoroughly he checked its accuracy. What we do know is firstly that he was a credible historian, and secondly that he viewed the Christian sect with hostility or contempt. So we have good reason to be suspicious of any suggestion that he'd simply take them at their word regarding their founder. Perhaps there were earlier written sources now lost to us; perhaps at some point he'd spoken with officials who'd served in Judea, or with respected Jewish sources. We do not know. But those who suggest that a credible late 1st/early 2nd century non-Christian historian should be simply waved away as parroting the claims of a sect he manifestly disliked carry about as much weight to my mind - pending some actual evidence, of course - as those who imagine him combing through musty vaults of official records to ascertain the facts.

Why would Josephus say that Jesus was called Christ? Gee... let's think about that for a bit, shall we? Maybe because Jesus was called Christ? Nah, that couldn't possibly be the reason It's obviously Christians' handiwork, because another Christian wrote it once.

Your comment highlights what I perceive to the major problem with the references to Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews, namely, why would Josephus use the term ‘Christ’ uniquely in reference to Jesus, especially if, as Origen records, he didn’t think Jesus was the Messiah?

As mentioned previously, the word ‘Christ’ only appears twice in all the extant writings of Josephus; both occurrences are in the Antiquities of the Jews; the Testimonium Flavianum 18.3.3 “He was the Christ� [ � χ�ιστὸς οὗτος ἦν] and 20.9.1. in a reference to the death of James, “Jesus the one called Christ�[ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ].

Throughout the Septuagint the word ‘Christ’ is used where Mašíaḥ is used in the Tenach. It is applied to various kings and high priests. However, despite mentioning many high priests [included several called Jesus], and kings including David and Cyrus, Josephus never uses the term ‘Christ’ in relation to any of them. Why?

Why indeed?

It's an interesting observation, but if you're suggesting that its use in Antiquities 20 is out of place, it seems that's a question which you'll need to answer. My point is that it's obvious why he would identify Jesus as "the one called Christ," if that's who he was talking about; at least some of his readers would likely understand the reference to Christians, even if there had been no such hint in an untampered original of the TF. So if we're going to speculate that it's out of place, we must first explain why Josephus did not use the term 'Christ' of David, Cyrus and Vespasian to see whether those same reasons should have excluded its use of Jesus also.

He had an obvious reason to identify this Jesus as the one called Christ. What do you propose as the reason he should not have done so?

[EduChris]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

In Carrier's own words, "the assumption [against the] historicity [of Jesus]...remains only a hypothesis that has yet to survive proper peer review."

While the experts and anyone who is interested can (and will) debate the matter all they want, there is no need for the average person (Christian or non-Christian) to doubt the overwhelming consensus of scholarly opinion in this matter.

[historia]

Your comment highlights what I perceive to the major problem with the references to Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews, namely, why would Josephus use the term ‘Christ’ uniquely in reference to Jesus, especially if, as Origen records, he didn’t think Jesus was the Messiah?

As mentioned previously, the word ‘Christ’ only appears twice in all the extant writings of Josephus; both occurrences are in the Antiquities of the Jews; the Testimonium Flavianum 18.3.3 “He was the Christ� [ � χ�ιστὸς οὗτος ἦν] and 20.9.1. in a reference to the death of James, “Jesus the one called Christ�[ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ].

Throughout the Septuagint the word ‘Christ’ is used where Mašíaḥ is used in the Tenach. It is applied to various kings and high priests. However, despite mentioning many high priests [included several called Jesus], and kings including David and Cyrus, Josephus never uses the term ‘Christ’ in relation to any of them. Why?

I think we can account for this fairly simply: By the time Josephus wrote Antiquities, Christians were using the term 'Christ' as a kind of proper name for Jesus. We see that development already in Paul's writings. Tacitus' remark that 'Christus' was the founder of the Christian movement attests to this as well.

Josephus is not calling Jesus the messiah (I take 'he was the Christ' in Antiquities 18 to be an interpolation), but rather apparently using a common designation for Jesus of Nazareth as "the one called Christ."

[Goat]

Your comment highlights what I perceive to the major problem with the references to Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews, namely, why would Josephus use the term ‘Christ’ uniquely in reference to Jesus, especially if, as Origen records, he didn’t think Jesus was the Messiah?

As mentioned previously, the word ‘Christ’ only appears twice in all the extant writings of Josephus; both occurrences are in the Antiquities of the Jews; the Testimonium Flavianum 18.3.3 “He was the Christ� [ � χ�ιστὸς οὗτος ἦν] and 20.9.1. in a reference to the death of James, “Jesus the one called Christ�[ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ].

Throughout the Septuagint the word ‘Christ’ is used where Mašíaḥ is used in the Tenach. It is applied to various kings and high priests. However, despite mentioning many high priests [included several called Jesus], and kings including David and Cyrus, Josephus never uses the term ‘Christ’ in relation to any of them. Why?

I think we can account for this fairly simply: By the time Josephus wrote Antiquities, Christians were using the term 'Christ' as a kind of proper name for Jesus. We see that development already in Paul's writings. Tacitus' remark that 'Christus' was the founder of the Christian movement attests to this as well.

Josephus is not calling Jesus the messiah (I take 'he was the Christ' in Antiquities 18 to be an interpolation), but rather apparently using a common designation for Jesus of Nazareth as "the one called Christ."

Either that.. or Origien was using the term for James, and a later gloss added in into Antiquities 20:9. If you look at the quotes from Origien, one was when he mention that Josephus didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah,.. which would make it strange if the word Christ was actually used in the passage he was referring to, and the other one explicitly was talking about how the execution of James triggered the Jewish revolt, which is NOT being discussed in Antiquities 20. This leaves open the possibility that Origien was referring to a now lost passage that Josephus wrote, which we can not examine in context for it's accuracy.

[East of Eden]

Why didn't Philo Judaeus, Seneca, and Pliny the Elder write one word about Jesus?

Why do ignore the sources that DO mention Jesus? How many would it take to convince you? Always one more?

Gospels
We have copies of the gospels and not one original.

As has been pointed out to you before, the same is true of many ancient historical documents that are not disputed, many of which have a far longer gap between their original time of writing and our oldest copies, and have many fewer copies than the NT.

Tacitus wrote in the second century and his writings could have been influenced by Christian sources.

So? Do you think they pulled a fast one over Rome's greatest historian?

[Nickman]

From what I know it's probably true that Acts (mis)used Josephus as a source, and obviously Josephus mentioned both of those people. Those are the only two sources of information regarding them which Wikipedia mentions. Josephus was born over 30 years after Judas of Galilee led his revolt, and was only 8 or 9 when Theudas died. Obviously anything he wrote about them was merely hearsay. So which contemporary sources are you talking about?[/quotes]

Josephus was the contemporary I spoke of. He may not have been alive during Judas of Galilee but he was during Theudas. He was close enough to both and wrote about both. Jesus would have been within a few years of his life and the whole christian movement he left behind would have been just as, if not more popular. We see nothing. John the Baptist seems to make it in the text, yet Jesus the most popular man of all time doesn't. I say most popular because I am using the gospels. I know they could be embellished and I agree they most likely were, but just going off of what we have he was very popular. He did so many things and had thousands of followers flocking from abroad. Judas of Galilee and Theudas had how many followers?

By whom was the First Apocalypse of James written? Is it even 'hearsay,' or is it much, much later stories? Why do you consider it a source worth discussing?

Im just showing that there are even more stories about James which are Christian. James is not considered Jesus' brother.

Paul wrote to the Galatian church:
"Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins. . . .
...after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother."

Isnt Paul's words stating "the lord's brother" hearsay as well? Who told him? Nothing is written by James. Nothing is written by Peter either to confirm this. Peters letters are of unknown authorship. How do we know what was written in the gospels about James is correct? Do we have anything to verify Paul's story?

To the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 9) he wrote:
"Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
On both occasions Paul specifically distinguishes people as brothers of Jesus, unlike Peter or the apostles. Catholic apologetics aside, please provide your evidence that when Paul says 'brother' he does not mean brother.

Why is James nothing in the gospels? He has no influence other than total opposition. He is vaguely passed by in all of the gospels, yet in Acts he is the head of the Jerusalem church. We have nothing concrete about this figure James either. John never mentions James at all as being Jesus' brother, yet he later becomes the head of the church? The stories do not jive, and in a court of law would be thrown out.

Your source that "Ananus was against the Zealots" when he was high priest?

Here and here

You haven't provided any reason to suppose that scholars' views are wrong, and that the high priest had decided to kill members of other priestly families without Josephus bothering to explain why.

Your failing to realize that Josephus parallels the story in both his works, Antiquities and Wars. We see nothing of this James brother of Jesus in the Wars text, which goes even more in depth on Ananus.

Jesus was quite a common name. What makes you think that the two Jesus' are the same person? Josephus identifies who James' brother is - he's the one called Christ - but that leads us with near-certainty to the conclusion that he's mentioning the same event described by Hegesippus. We are not going to simply take your say-so that there was only one Jesus in Jerusalem, nor that Josephus was so unconcerned about priestly feuds, nor that the overwhelming majority of scholars are so ill-informed. It's called evidence, my friend - we want to see some.

I think Student answered this one for me.

Tacitus was not a Christian. He didn't like the Christians. So the source we have here is a credible non-Christian historian who was a Roman senator in the late 1st century.

He may have been a credible historian but all he had were Christian sources. So are many historians through the centuries, yet they also used the only sources they had. Can you show any sources he could have drawn from other than Christian ones? There are none. That is the whole point of my argument. Hegessipus is in the same boat. [/url]

[Nickman]

Why do ignore the sources that DO mention Jesus? How many would it take to convince you? Always one more?

I have addressed all sources presented in this thread. What are you talking about? I have given my reason for discredit, inaccuracy, unreliability, and spuriousness for each of them. I have also given why I find some better than others. Read the thread before making a false claim about me.

As has been pointed out to you before, the same is true of many ancient historical documents that are not disputed, many of which have a far longer gap between their original time of writing and our oldest copies, and have many fewer copies than the NT.

Are we debating other historical documents that have nothing to do with the OP? That's a whole different thread. Also, other historical documents don't have many others that contradict them on almost every point, and they don't have known forgeries or exaggerated extraordinary claims.

So? Do you think they pulled a fast one over Rome's greatest historian?

I have already addressed this. A historian who writes long after the event he is reporting has only sources to use. He has no first hand knowledge and only relies on what is written or circulating orally. His only sources are Christian. Can you name a single source that he could have got all the information he wrote about that is non-christian? No you cannot. So where did he get the information?

[Student]

Presumably he would have known of those changes under Claudius, period. But writing some 70 years later, the title 'procurator' would likely have meant more to his readers than the title 'prefect.' In fact writing a mere three decades after Claudius' reign Josephus also calls Pilate a procurator:
"Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem." (Jewish War 2.9.2)
Are we to suppose that Josephus also was hoodwinked, or merely that he was writing for his own period?

We don't know where Tacitus got his information from or how thoroughly he checked its accuracy. What we do know is firstly that he was a credible historian, and secondly that he viewed the Christian sect with hostility or contempt. So we have good reason to be suspicious of any suggestion that he'd simply take them at their word regarding their founder. Perhaps there were earlier written sources now lost to us; perhaps at some point he'd spoken with officials who'd served in Judea, or with respected Jewish sources. We do not know. But those who suggest that a credible late 1st/early 2nd century non-Christian historian should be simply waved away as parroting the claims of a sect he manifestly disliked carry about as much weight to my mind - pending some actual evidence, of course - as those who imagine him combing through musty vaults of official records to ascertain the facts.

Claudius did not dispense with the rank of prefect throughout the Roman Empire - procurators simply replaced prefects in Judaea. So Tacitus’ audience would have been perfectly well aware of what the rank of prefect entailed. Therefore there was no reason for Tacitus to condescend to the ignorance of his audience.

And why would Tacitus bother to ascertain anything more about these contemptible Christians other than what they so foolishly claimed of themselves. After all it was hardly worthy of merit to claim that your leader had been crucified – a punishment reserved for the lowest of the low, slaves, criminals and the scum of society. So there was no good reason other than for Tacitus to simply take them at their word to show how worthy of contempt they were.

As for Josephus, it is a falsehood to state ‘as fact’ that he wrote that Pilate’s title was procurator. Josephus wrote in Greek and used the generic term �πίτ�οπος (epitropos) which literally means steward, trustee, administrator.

That the term �πίτ�οπος (epitropos) was a generic term for ‘governor’ is evidenced by Philo who used the term for the governors of Egypt (a prefect), of Asia (a proconsul) and Syria (a legate).

Prior the discovery of the Pilate stone in 1961 it was assumed, thanks to Tacitus, that Pilate was a procurator. When Whiston translated AJ into English he followed Tacitus and applied the title, erroneously, to Pilate.

It's an interesting observation, but if you're suggesting that its use in Antiquities 20 is out of place, it seems that's a question which you'll need to answer. My point is that it's obvious why he would identify Jesus as "the one called Christ," if that's who he was talking about; at least some of his readers would likely understand the reference to Christians, even if there had been no such hint in an untampered original of the TF. So if we're going to speculate that it's out of place, we must first explain why Josephus did not use the term 'Christ' of David, Cyrus and Vespasian to see whether those same reasons should have excluded its use of Jesus also.

He had an obvious reason to identify this Jesus as the one called Christ. What do you propose as the reason he should not have done so?

Josephus had one very obvious reason not to refer to Jesus as the Messiah; he [Josephus] considered Vespasian to be the messiah and wrote Antiquities while under the patronage of the Emperor. He was hardly likely to jeopardise his standing with the Roman court by referring to some Jewish upstart as an alternative messiah.

Furthermore, Josephus considered Jewish apocalyptic messianic movements to have been the root cause of the destruction of Jerusalem. Consequently, when he writes of these popular uprisings [as he does on several occasions] he makes no reference to a messiah, or to their attendant messianic fervour. Instead he refers to these disturbances using the pejorative term ‘madness’ and to their leaders as brigands.

Consequently, while Josephus may have mentioned Jesus he is unlikely to have referred to him “the one called the Christ/Messiah� especially so if this messianic claimant had a significant popular following.
I believe therefore that the simplest explanation is that, rather than draw attention to the existence of alternative messiahs, Josephus did not use the term ‘Christ’ at all.

[Student]

Your comment highlights what I perceive to the major problem with the references to Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews, namely, why would Josephus use the term ‘Christ’ uniquely in reference to Jesus, especially if, as Origen records, he didn’t think Jesus was the Messiah?

As mentioned previously, the word ‘Christ’ only appears twice in all the extant writings of Josephus; both occurrences are in the Antiquities of the Jews; the Testimonium Flavianum 18.3.3 “He was the Christ� [ � χ�ιστὸς οὗτος ἦν] and 20.9.1. in a reference to the death of James, “Jesus the one called Christ�[ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ].

Throughout the Septuagint the word ‘Christ’ is used where Mašíaḥ is used in the Tenach. It is applied to various kings and high priests. However, despite mentioning many high priests [included several called Jesus], and kings including David and Cyrus, Josephus never uses the term ‘Christ’ in relation to any of them. Why?

I think we can account for this fairly simply: By the time Josephus wrote Antiquities, Christians were using the term 'Christ' as a kind of proper name for Jesus. We see that development already in Paul's writings. Tacitus' remark that 'Christus' was the founder of the Christian movement attests to this as well.

Josephus is not calling Jesus the messiah (I take 'he was the Christ' in Antiquities 18 to be an interpolation), but rather apparently using a common designation for Jesus of Nazareth as "the one called Christ."

I have touched on this possibility in an earlier post. However while not dismissing the hypothesis in its entirety I perceive one or two problems.

Firstly, for Josephus to think, in common with Tacitus and Suetonius, that ‘Christus/Chrestus’ was Jesus’ name, we have to conclude that Josephus himself was ignorant of the significance of the title ‘Christ’? How likely is this? Is it possible that Josephus hadn’t read the Septuagint and as a consequence was unaware the translation of Mašíaḥ as χ�ιστὸς Christ?

Conversely, if Josephus did recognise the significance of the term χ�ιστὸς how confident could he be that his intended audience were sufficiently unfamiliar with Christianity, or Judaism, or the Septuagint to be ignorant of the significance of the term ‘Christ’? And why would he take the risk of discovery?