The biggest joke in history is this: Jesus didn't exist. This is honestly one of the craziest claims ever. It's ridiculous. It contradicts historical facts, and is therefore, not true. It's a delusion.
Yet many atheists chose to ignore the historical evidence, and try to refute Christianity by saying that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth is simply a myth.
The reason this is important and is the first real post of my series on the Resurrection is that you can't have a Resurrection of Jesus if you have no Jesus! But, yes, Jesus existed. It's a historical fact. With this post I will quote all the accounts that give us proof that Jesus existed. (Note that I will give reference to the sources at the end of each section, and note that all emphasis has been added by me.)
Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian)
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... 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. (Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1)
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man...He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3)
Both of these passages mention Jesus. Are they trustworthy? They appear to be. Josephus is a respected historian whom we owe our knowledge of many historical events to. Could it be that he's just wrong of lying when it comes to Jesus? That is utter nonsense.
Often, the second passage quoted seems to be one that a Jew would not write. (I left out these parts.) This writing of Josephus was more than likely corrupted. So what? Let's say someone drew a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Would that mean Leonardo Da Vinci didn't paint it? Not at all. So let's put this in other words: someone drew a mustache one the painting that is Josephus's writing; but Josephus is still the painter and we can still know what he was painting.
Josephus lived from about 37-100 AD, so there's no doubt that these accounts are trustworthy date wise. To ignore, or even object to, these passages is historical suicide. With this alone we can know that Jesus existed. But wait; there's more!
Sources: Wikipedia: Josephus on Jesus
Wikipedia: Josephus
Pliny the Younger (Magistrate of Rome)
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. (From a letter to Trajan)
So Pliny here mentions Christ. If we can trust Pliny the Younger, we can know that Jesus existed. But can we trust him? Yes, being that his sole intent was to record history, and with the letter he was somewhat criticizing Christians.Wait; what if Pliny just believed Christ existed, and didn't really have any proof of the notion? Well first of all, that's ridiculous. Telling a pagan that Jesus existed without any other references or eyewitness testimony will get them as convinced as Richard Dawkins when you give him a really good argument for the existence of God. Pliny—who was writing from a historical perspective—would be making up Jesus the same way historians today will record Spongebob Squarepants as a historical figure. Oh wait, that never happens...
Sources: Georgetown: Pliny and Trajan on the Christians
Wikipedia: Pliny the Younger
Tacitus (Roman Senator and Historian)
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. (Annals of Tacitus, 44)
In this historical account, Tacitus refers to Christ as an historical figure. There must have been convincing evidence that Jesus existed in order for this critic of Christianity to have accepted Christ as a real Person. It seems a bit silly to say that both Pliny the Younger and Tacitus were deceived about this issue. He lived from 14-68 A.D., so he more than likely witnessed the controversy of Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus was regarded as a historical figure earlier, so why shouldn't we regard Him as a historical figure now?
Source: Wikipedia: Tacitus on Christ
Wikipedia: Annals (Tacitus)
Suetonius (Roman Historian)
Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome. He allowed the envoys of the Germans to sit in the orchestra, led by their naïve self-confidence; for when they had been taken to the seats occupied by the common people and saw the Parthian and Armenian envoys sitting with the senate, they moved of their own accord to the same part of the theatre, protesting that their merits and rank were no whit inferior. (Life of Claudius 25:4)
It appears as though Chrestus is referring to Jesus Christ (look at the word and context). He was a historian, and would not have written about Jesus if he did not actually have witness or testimony to the actual existed of Christ. If you still want to deny Jesus' existence, you must deny historical facts.
Sources: Please Convince Me: Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?
Suetonius: Life of Claudius
Wikipedia: Suetonius
Mara Bar-Serapion (Syrian Philosopher)
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.
The Syrian Philosopher is obviously referencing Jesus here. I have a question for all the atheists who are skeptical of Jesus' existence: If Jesus did not exist, why do so many ancient historians and people who had the intent of recording history write about Jesus as if He were a historical figure? If we can't trust Mara Bar-Serapion about Jesus existing, we can't trust you and your views on Jesus' existence, since you are twenty-one centuries away from Mara-Bar Serapion, who was obviously closer to eyewitness or any type of testimony than you.
Sources: Please Convince Me: Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?
Wikipedia: Mara Bar-Serapion on Jesus
Lucian (Greek Satirist)
It was now that he came across the priests and scribes of the Christians, in Palestine, and picked up their queer creed. I can tell you, he pretty soon convinced them of his superiority; prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue--he was everything at once; expounded their books, commented on them, wrote books himself. They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president. The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. (The Death of Peregrine, 11)
We have yet anther historical account of Jesus. The only way the non-believer could get around this would be to 1. Show that it is a myth or 2. Was corrupted by Christians. This was obviously not a myth, for Lucian was writing history. Could this be corrupted by Christians? No, because Lucian here is mocking Christians; why would a Christian do that?
Sources: Please Convince Me: Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?
Lucian: The Death of Peregrine
Celsus (Greek Philosopher)
Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god. (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28)This is an utter criticism of Christianity! What are the odds that this is fabricated or inauthentic? The odds for winning the lottery could arguably be greater. This text was written in the second century. Does that mean it can't be trusted, since it isn't as early as Josephus or Tacitus? Not really. Do you believe in Alexander the Great? Great (pun intended). His biography was written about four hundred years after he died. Now compare that with the situation here. This passage can be trusted, and so can the existence of Jesus as a historical figure.
Sources: Jewish Christian Lit: Celsus on Jesus
Wikipedia: Celsus
Jewish Talmud
This is a writing from a Jewish source, which is obviously very trustworthy, being that there wouldn't be bias in favor of Christianity. If we can trust the Talmud on other events about Jewish history, than surely we can trust it when it talks about Jesus. In order to invalidate this evidence for Jesus' existence, one must show that the Talmud is not trustworthy. That may be as difficult as drawing a square circle.
Sources: Please Convince Me: Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?
Facing the Challenge: Written evidence for Jesus outside the Bible: The Babylonian Talmud
Conclusion
“Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. —Bart Ehrman, Agnostic Scholar (I got this quote from this source
brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James
ReplyDelete.
"Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200"
Richard Carrier, J. Early Christian Studies 20(4) pp 489-514 DOI 10.1353/earl.2012.0029
"Abstract: Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus."
.
Josephus lived from about 37-100 AD
.
So he wasn't even born until after Jesus H. Christ died. How could anything he wrote decades later (post 90 AD for the work in question) be construed as evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus?
.
He (Tacitus) lived from 14-68 A.D., so he more than likely witnessed the controversy of Jesus' crucifixion.
.
How strange then that Wikipedia says he was born in 56 AD, and the writing in question is dated to 116 AD.
.
Pliny the Younger was born in 61 AD. Could not possibly have met Jesus H. Christ.
.
Mara bar-Serapion - known only from one letter, dated between 73 AD and the third century.
.
"What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished"
.
Who served as king of the Jews and was famous for his wisdom? Hint: it wasn't Jesus H. Christ.
.
Suetonius was born 69 AD.
.
Lucian was born 125 AD.
.
Celsus was born some time in the second century.
.
"This is an utter criticism of Christianity!"
Yes, but not one that constitutes a reliable historical reference to Jesus H. Christ. The existence of an early Christian church in the second century is not controversial.
.
Jewish Talmud: you supply no dates. And the passage you cite mentions stoning and hanging, but not crucifixion. And Jesus/Yeshua was a very common Jewish name. According to Wikipedia, "The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus."
Your confidence in your conclusion greatly exceeds your grasp of the data.
ReplyDeleteIf you read a book or watched a movie about someone who allegedly lived 60 years ago, you should not accept it as a historically reliable account (especially if the writer is Bill O'Reilly or Oliver Stone). If you were to evaluate such an account for historical reliability, you first question would probably be: did the writer find and make good use of the primary data? Because living and writing within a century or two of an event just isn't good enough. One of your problems is that you are seeing such accounts, dated to 60 years or more after alleged events, and confusing them with primary evidence. Even if they were not fraudulent and you interpreted them correctly, they just cannot fill the bill.
ReplyDeleteActually the bigger picture is even bleaker than Reginald Selkirk points out. Because in addition to not truly being contemporary accounts of Jesus's life, all of the references you cite, bar Josephus, taken in the context of the work in which they're made, only really attest to the existence of Christians, not Christ. These passages are all describing the sects of Christians present in the areas that the authors are writing about and what those Christians believe.
ReplyDeleteThough I suppose you could argue that Celsus (who wrote in the late second century C.E.) seemed to be arguing from the standpoint of, "If this guy existed he must have actually been..." which one could argue presupposes the Earthly existence of Jesus (though I fail to see how this could be used as proof that he actually existed).
As for Josephus, the second quote you mention from book 18 of AJ, which Mr. Selkirk didn't address, you say,
"Often, the second passage quoted seems to be one that a Jew would not write. (I left out these parts.) This writing of Josephus was more than likely corrupted. So what? Let's say someone drew a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Would that mean Leonardo Da Vinci didn't paint it? Not at all. So let's put this in other words: someone drew a mustache one the painting that is Josephus's writing; but Josephus is still the painter and we can still know what he was painting."
The reality is that the picture is more bleak than you point out, with most commentators agreeing that the passage was either deliberately and significantly altered (as opposed to an accidental modification of the test which happened a lot in ancient manuscripts) to read as it does now, or the entire passage was made up several hundred years after Josephus wrote the work (after Origen wrote 'Against Celsus', and probably by Eusebius). But nearly all of them agree that the passage can not be trusted and therefore cannot be used to defend anything.
Pliny mentions a sect that worship a man called Christus. I could write that sentence right now, "There are a group of people that worship Christ."
ReplyDeleteThe cartoon is stupid. No one has ever claimed that Josephus made up the bit about Jesus. The claim is that Christians in the third or fourth century inserted that bit into the text.
"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."
So Mary was convicted of adultery, gave birth to a bastard son, who was hired to go to Egypt where he acquired magical powers from the Egyptians, then came home and 'gave himself out to be a god'. Interesting. "This passage can be trusted..." I'm assuming you mean just the mention of Jesus, and not all the other stuff?
"Celsus! My trusted historian! What's up?"
"Oh, nothing much. Just making up stories about some guy named Jesus."