Historical Evidence for Jesus: Having it Both Ways

[Jagella]

Many Christian apologists, when defending the historicity of Christ, gleefully cite the following passage from the works of Tacitus, Annals 15.44:

Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular.

Obviously, if we accept this passage as legitimate information about Christianity, then we have here unbiased corroboration for the life of a historical Jesus.

But it doesn't stop there. We also have historical evidence for Jesus in the Talmud. It states:

And it is tradition: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu the Nazarene was hung. But the herald went forth before him for the space of forty days, while he cried, "Yeshu the Nazarene goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and led them astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and give information concerning it.

But wait...

Question for Debate: If Tacitus and the Talmud are evidence for a historical Jesus, then aren't these passages also evidence that Christianity was a pernicious superstition and that Jesus was a sorcerer who led Israel astray?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 6 by Mithrae]

You seem to be suggesting that your approach is to accept either 100% of what a source says or 0% of it Confused

You seem to be misunderstanding (or maybe misrepresenting ...) Jagella's approach.

It's clear to me that Jagella points out that Christians pick and choose to suit what they want to believe.

No, he has explicitly suggested numerous times that "if these passages inform us of a historical Christ, then they inform us that Christ was a sorcerer and his faith a pernicious superstition. You cannot have it both ways."

Consequently, Jagella must also believe that if these passages inform us of the spread of Christian beliefs from Judea to Rome, then they also inform us that Rome is where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

Quite literally, Jagella is telling us that in his view there is no distinction between Tacitus' claims regarding objective fact (Jesus' execution / the spread of Christianity) and Tacitus' expressions of opinion about those alleged facts (pernicious superstition / decadence of Rome); that such a distinction made by historians and 'apologists' is illegitimate. Perhaps he will try to backtrack once he realizes how absurd this position is, and fair enough if so; correcting one's views is always to be respected.

But I think it would have served him better to think a bit more carefully and clearly, and not make such a bad argument in the first place. This thread as with some other hasty attempts at point-scoring makes even evangelical Christians look good by comparison

[Jagella]

You seem to be suggesting that your approach is to accept either 100% of what a source says or 0% of it

My "approach" for the purposes of this discussion is to point out that if Tacitus and the Talmud are good enough to believe that Jesus existed, then they're good enough to tell me that Jesus was a sorcerer who led Israel astray with a pernicious superstition.

Apologists, by contrast, pick out what is consistent with what they want to believe while either ignoring or denying what they don't wish to believe.

If you accept Tacitus as information about the spread of Christianity from Judea to Rome, then you also accept that Rome is where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

I never said I "accept" Tacitus, but many real-Jesus apologists do. So the credibility of what Tacitus may have said is a problem for apologists who wish to make a case that Jesus existed.

It seems that in your world the distinction between objective fact and subjective opinion simply does not exist. It's an obviously ludicrous position, if you don't mind my saying so, and fortunately all credible historians apply more critical thinking and nuance to their treatment of historical sources.

If all else fails, then launch a personal attack on your interlocutor. If attacking those who disagree worked for Jesus, then attacking skeptics is surely works for his followers.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Those two passages by two different authors are some bits of evidence that Jesus lived. That he was the originator of pernicious superstitions and that he tried to lead Israel astray are interpretations of the effects of Jesus life on Rome, and on Israel respectively. Negative effects from their points of view. Or course his followers had very different and very positive interpretations of his life and activity on earth.

[Jagella]

I think the point is, is there evidence for the actual historical Jesus? With this being the case, I think we can say with confidence that the evidence you supply, along with other things would support this fact.

If you want to base your beliefs about Jesus on this evidence, then you must conclude that he was a sorcerer, and his activities culminated in a pernicious superstition. (Actually, we need not rely on historical evidence for the pernicious superstition. It's with us today!)

How those at the time would have perceived him would be irrelevant.

But couldn't those individuals have "perceived" Jesus as a historical person? If you wish to explain away negative comments about Jesus as mere perceptions, then their word about Jesus' as a real person is disqualified by your own standard of evidence.

As an example, there is no doubt whatsoever that Donald Trump is a real historical figure.

And isn't it great that we need not rely on the questionable testimony of people who lived long ago who had obvious biases to know that Trump exists?

However, there would be those who now would say that, "Trump is the best President we have ever had'" along with those who would say, "Trump is leading America astray." Both opinions would have bearing upon the fact that there was indeed a real historical figure that would be, Donald Trump.

First of all, we have far better evidence for Trump than mere testimony. So if that testimony is all we had for Trump, and we found it to be convincing, then we would need to conclude that Trump was a terrible president.

So do you conclude that Jesus was a sorcerer? Why deny what the Talmud says about Jesus being a sorcerer?

The question then would only be, which opinion, if either, would be the correct opinion?

In that case I will accept the evidence that Jesus was a real sorcerer who really started a pernicious superstition.

Are you happy now that I've accepted this historical evidence for Jesus?

[Jagella]

Those two passages by two different authors are some bits of evidence that Jesus lived. That he was the originator of pernicious superstitions and that he tried to lead Israel astray are interpretations of the effects of Jesus life on Rome, and on Israel respectively. Negative effects from their points of view. Or course his followers had very different and very positive interpretations of his life and activity on earth.

Actually, in the case of the Talmud, calling Jesus a sorcerer is not an "interpretation" but is meant to be a statement of fact in the same way that Catholics call some men "priests." It is not merely an interpretation to call "Father John" a priest but is intended to be taken objectively.

And in Tacitus, it is meant to be a statement of fact when Tacitus refers to Christianity as a "pernicious superstition." It is not merely an "interpretation." We know that some practices are superstitions, and some of these practices can be pernicious. So Tacitus is saying that the Christianity of his day was a foolish belief that was doing harm to people. You might well need to accept this conclusion if you wish to consistently accept Tacitus for a historical Jesus.

So I think that if you want to split the testimonies of Tacitus and the Talmud into fact and fiction, then you should come up with good reasons to do so. For example, if Tacitus is right about Jesus existing, then why become so skeptical when in the same breath he refers to Christianity as a pernicious superstition?

In summary, apologists cherry-pick the evidence for Jesus choosing what "cherries" appeal to them while discarding the rest.

[Elijah John]

Those two passages by two different authors are some bits of evidence that Jesus lived. That he was the originator of pernicious superstitions and that he tried to lead Israel astray are interpretations of the effects of Jesus life on Rome, and on Israel respectively. Negative effects from their points of view. Or course his followers had very different and very positive interpretations of his life and activity on earth.

Actually, in the case of the Talmud, calling Jesus a sorcerer is not an "interpretation" but is meant to be a statement of fact in the same way that Catholics call some men "priests." It is not merely an interpretation to call "Father John" a priest but is intended to be taken objectively.

Seriously? Prove it. Prove that Jesus was in fact a "sorcerer".

No matter how it was intended, to call Jesus a "sorcerer" is in fact an interpretation. Or are you saying that Jesus official position was "sorcerer"? To do so would be nonsensical. It is a smear, not a fact.

And in Tacitus, it is meant to be a statement of fact when Tacitus refers to Christianity as a "pernicious superstition." It is not merely an "interpretation." We know that some practices are superstitions, and some of these practices can be pernicious. So Tacitus is saying that the Christianity of his day was a foolish belief that was doing harm to people. You might well need to accept this conclusion if you wish to consistently accept Tacitus for a historical Jesus.

Again, no matter how Tacitus intend it, it is still his interpretation.

So I think that if you want to split the testimonies of Tacitus and the Talmud into fact and fiction, then you should come up with good reasons to do so. For example, if Tacitus is right about Jesus existing, then why become so skeptical when in the same breath he refers to Christianity as a pernicious superstition?

You're mistaking fact for opinion. Much the way CNN and the NY Times mixes the two. (half kidding here).Isn't it obvious that those statements are opinions?

In summary, apologists cherry-pick the evidence for Jesus choosing what "cherries" appeal to them while discarding the rest.

Who are you calling an "apologist"? Does holding the position that Jesus existed as a man (not a god) make one an "apologist"? Or is that cherrry picking? Are skeptics like John Dominic Crossan or Bart Ehrmann "apologists"?

Really?

[Mithrae]

You seem to be suggesting that your approach is to accept either 100% of what a source says or 0% of it

My "approach" for the purposes of this discussion is to point out that if Tacitus and the Talmud are good enough to believe that Jesus existed, then they're good enough to tell me that Jesus was a sorcerer who led Israel astray with a pernicious superstition.

Yes, an all-or-nothing approach as I said, with no critical analysis or recognition of nuance.

It seems that in your world the distinction between objective fact and subjective opinion simply does not exist. It's an obviously ludicrous position, if you don't mind my saying so, and fortunately all credible historians apply more critical thinking and nuance to their treatment of historical sources.

If all else fails, then launch a personal attack on your interlocutor. If attacking those who disagree worked for Jesus, then attacking skeptics is surely works for his followers.

You would know, I suppose: Half the threads you start are ad hominem attacks against personal characteristics of religious folk after all, so you must find it to be effective on some level. A very recent thread in which you impugn Christians' "grasp on reality" for example. Or for that matter your repeated false insinuations that I am a follower of Jesus.

By contrast, I have discussed the position which you put forward, and shown my basis for concluding that it is clearly irrational. That you choose to advance such ill-considered arguments needn't imply anything about you personally... and the fact that you're trying to play the victim over my analysis is also not a very compelling argument, to say the least.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Many Christian apologists, when defending the historicity of Christ, gleefully cite the following passage from the works of Tacitus, Annals 15.44.

Wikipedia
Tacitus
Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (/ˈtæsɪtəs/; Classical Latin: [ˈtakɪtʊs]; c.  56 – c.  120 AD)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus

According to the time frame established by the Gospels, Jesus was executed circa 30 ad. Tacitus was born in 56 ad. The letters written by Paul which are found in the NT date from the same period that Tacitus was born; the 50's ad. Paul's letters represent the earliest historical mention of the individual known to history as Jesus. The Gospels date from circa 70 ad to 100 ad. The point is, Tacitus was born well AFTER Jesus was executed. The best Tacitus could have accomplished was to record the rumors and stories being spread by early Christians towards the end of the first century, since he, Tacitus, could have had no personal knowledge of Jesus. That there were Christian believers by the end of the first century is not in dispute.

But it doesn't stop there. We also have historical evidence for Jesus in the Talmud.

Yeshua (Joshua), was a common Jewish name.

Wikipedia
Yeshua
Yeshua (ישוע‬, with vowel pointing יֵש�וּעַ‬ – yēšūă‘ in Hebrew) was a common alternative form of the name יְהוֹשֻ�עַ‬ ("Yehoshua" – Joshua) in later books of the Hebrew Bible and among Jews of the Second Temple period. The name corresponds to the Greek spelling Iesous, from which, through the Latin Iesus, comes the English spelling Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua

Wikipedia
Jesus in the Talmud
There are numerous other passages pertaining to an individual named "Yeshu" that either don't provide a specific time period or else specify a time where it is reasonable to assume mentioning of Jesus would even be possible (take for example a notable passage, Gittin 57a mentioning the nobleman Onkelos conjuring the tormented spirit of "Yeshu" – Onkelos lived more than a century after Jesus, thus making it possible the Yeshu mentioned could indeed be Jesus, though the likelihood of this is still questionable) still opening the possibility that whichever Yeshu mentioned might be Jesus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

And then there is the legend of Yeshua ben Pandera, references to which have historically caused Christians to react with fury.

Wikipedia
Jesus in the Talmud
The identification of Yeshu as Jesus is problematic. For example, the Talmud mentions Yeshu ben Pandera/ben Stada's stepfather, Pappos ben Yehuda, speaking with Rabbi Akiva, who was executed at the climax of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. Furthermore, Yeshu the Pharisee student is described as being a student of the second-century BCE nasi Joshua ben Perachiah, as well as being among the exiled Pharisees returning to Israel following their persecution by John Hyrcanus, an event which occurred in 74 BC. Additionally, Yeshu the sorcerer was executed by the royal government which lost legal authority in 63 BC. These events would place the lifetime of either Yeshu decades before or after the birth and death of Jesus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

The legend of Yeshua ben Pandera goes something like this:

The following is excerpted from "The Story of Christian Origins," by Dr. Martin A. Larson (PhD, English Literature, Michigan State, 1923).

"Throughout the middle ages, the legend of Pandera and Yeshu, considered by most scholars a Jewish invention, continued to persist. The tale however is extremely ancient, for it was known, long before the Christians had the power to persecute, to the Greek Neo-Platonist Celsus, who flourished 175-180 (AD). Origen quotes the Greek as having said, concerning the mother of Jesus, that 'when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera.' (Contra Celsum, VII, ix). Knowledge now available (in the Dead Sea Scrolls) concerning the Teacher of Righteousness (as termed by the Essenes) has thrown an entirely new light on this Pandera-legend, which is related in detail by Morris Goldstein and which, in brief, runs as follows: There lived in the days of King Jannaeus, 103-76 (BC), in Bethlehem, a certain disreputable young man whose name was Joseph Pandera. He seduced the chaste and lovely Miriam by pretending to be her betrothed husband, Johanan; and the result was a son, Yeshoshua, or Yeshu. When it became known that Yeshu was illegitimate, he fled to Galilee, where he practiced magic by learning the letters of the Ineffable Name and where he declared that he was born miraculously of a virgin, according to the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. Yeshu, thereupon, declared himself the Messiah, and produced various texts from the prophets, which he said applied to him. The Jewish sages then brought Yeshu before queen Helene (probably the wife of Aristobulus II) and accused him of sorcery. A corpse was brought in, and when Yeshu restored it to life the queen became his devotee. The sages now selected a man called Judah Iskarito and taught him also the letters of the Ineffable Name, by which he too could practice magic. In a trial before the queen, both Yeshu and Iskarito lost their memory of the name and fell down powerless. Yeshu was now seized and beaten, was given vinegar to drink, and a crown of thorns was placed upon his head at Tiberias. There was a struggle among the people, and Yeshu escaped with some of his fellow-conspirators to Antioch or Egypt, where they remained until the Passover, at which time Yeshu went to Jerusalem to relearn the letters of the Ineffable Name in the Temple. Riding into Jerusalem on an ass he fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah. Identified by Iskarito as a false prophet, Yeshu was seized and put to death on the eve of the Passover Sabbath. If Yeshu was born near the beginning of Alexander Jannaeus' reign, he would have been in his thirties at the time of his execution. The bold followers of Yeshu now came to Queen Helene with the report that he was not in his tomb, but had ascended to heaven as he had prophesied. Since his body could not be found, she demanded of the sages that they produce it within three days. It so happened, however, that the gardener, foreseeing conspiracies by the followers of Yeshu, had taken the body from the tomb and buried it in the garden; and when he learned of the queen's ultimatum, he told the sages where it lay. They seized it, tied it to the tail of a horse, and dragged it before Helene, who therefore renounced the false prophet, commended the sages for their wisdom, and derided those who had been deluded by the sorcerer."

"The story concludes with a resume of how the followers of Yeshu sought to overthrow Judaism by re-dating their feast days and their holy celebrations and by repudiating their rituals and their dietary laws; and how they caused a great commotion among the Jews for thirty years by declaring that their prophet was now sitting at the right hand of God and would return as the Almighty Messiah to condemn all unbelievers to the eternal fires of hell. This ancient legend prompts theories which, to say the least, are quite fascinating. We know that the Essenes made a fundamental issue over their divergent calendar, which placed their feasts and celebration on days other than those observed by the orthodox; and we have seen that it was a dispute over this which precipitated the trial and execution of the Teacher" ("The Story of Christian Origins", Larson, pages 281-283).

If references to Yeshua ben Pandera are references to the historical Jesus Christ, then there can be little doubt that the legend of Jesus is based on the story of Yeshua the sorcerer. If Christians wish to cite the Talmud as valid proof of the existence of Jesus, they must also accept the story of the origins of the cult of Yeshua the sorcerer as valid.

[Mithrae]

If references to Yeshua ben Pandera are references to the historical Jesus Christ, then there can be little doubt that the legend of Jesus is based on the story of Yeshua the sorcerer. If Christians wish to cite the Talmud as valid proof of the existence of Jesus, they must also accept the story of the origins of the cult of Yeshua the sorcerer as valid.

"Little doubt" that first century Jews chose stories of a heretical sorcerer to pattern their messiah after? Really? It's a borderline absurd hypothesis on the face of it.

Further, note that Larson doesn't provide any Dead Sea Scrolls sources for the tale, and actually doesn't explicitly say that any of those details are from the DSS at all; only that the DSS had in some way "thrown an entirely new light on this Pandera-legend." (Speaking of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it seems you got the date of the book wrong.) Most if not all of the details laid out seem to be found in the Toledot Yeshu, whereas I can find no other references to the DSS containing anything even remotely along those lines. Toledot Yeshu was a medieval composition, though at least some of its elements existed as early as the second century CE.

It's not difficult to imagine why some second century Jews would concoct such a story: The Jewish temple had been destroyed in 70CE, mere decades after the increasingly well-known 'messiah' Jesus had been rejected and crucified, and in the 130s CE a 'messiah' who many Jews supported had failed to liberate the people in the Bar-Kokhba revolt. Parodying the story of Jesus and casting it back a century further in the past would put it at a safe distance from the Christians' obvious polemic that the Jews had rejected their true messiah.

First century Jews inventing a messiah story based on a heretical sorcerer makes no sense whatsoever, whereas later Jews caricaturing the Christians' messiah story into what became the Toledot Yeshu version makes a lot of sense. In the absence of any references to 'Yeshu ben Pandera' prior to the second century, it seems there should be much more than a little doubt about the former.

[1213]

...
Question for Debate: If Tacitus and the Talmud are evidence for a historical Jesus, then aren't these passages also evidence that Christianity was a pernicious superstition and that Jesus was a sorcerer who led Israel astray?

The descriptions are different than what the Bible has. So, there are 3 options:
a) They are speaking of different person
b) Bible is wrong
c) the contradictory sources are wrong

Now, what do you think is the correct choice and why?

By what the Bible tells, Jesus was not sorcerer and Christians were not superstitious and I really don’t have any reason to believe otherwise, the other sources don’t seem to tell what Jesus told, why they thought that Jesus was sorcerer. I can’t judge anyone without good reasons.

But nice thing is, if they are speaking of the same person, then there are three sources for that Jesus existed, only problem is, who is right about what kind of person Jesus was.