Why am I skeptical about this Jesus character? (Part 2)

On my last post, we talk about how unreliable the gospels and Paul’s letter to prove the existence of the historical Jesus. Now, we’re going to talk about the so-called “historical evidence” of Jesus outside the New Testament.

Most Christians (in desperation) will try to prove the existence of Jesus by stating some so-called “Extra biblical Evidence” of Jesus outside the New Testament. Oh, those are the so-called testimonies written by some historians that mentioned Jesus – like Josephus Flavius, Tacitus, etc.

Well, let’s just mention here the most used personalities.

A.) Josephus Flavius

Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian, especially because he wrote during the first century. His father, Matthias, was a reputable and learned member of a priestly family, and lived in Jerusalem contemporaneously with Pilate.

Certainly he would have told his historian son about the bizarre and glorious events depicted in the gospels, had they occurred just years earlier. Josephus himself was appointed to Galilee during the Jewish Wars and was in Rome at the same time Paul was supposed to have been there incurring the wrath of the authorities upon him and his community of Christians. Yet, in the entire works of the Josephus, which constitute many volumes of great detail encompassing centuries of history, there is no mention of Paul or the Christians, and there are only two brief paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus.

Although much has been made of these “references,” they have been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries. Early Christians, would have seized on anything written by Josephus as conclusive proof. Yet early Christians do not mention Josephus.

It is not until the beginning of the fourth century that Bishop Eusebius, the propagandist of the Roman Church, suddenly produced a version of Josephus which contained these passages.19 From that point onwards, Josephus became the foundation for the historicity of Jesus.

Unable to provide any historical evidence for Jesus, later Christians forged the proof that they so badly needed to shore up their Literalist interpretation of the gospels. This, as we would see repeatedly, was a common practice.

B.) Gaius Plinius Secundus AKA Pliny the Younger (@ 62-113 CE)

One of the pitifully few “references” held up by Christians as evidence of Jesus’s existence is the letter to Trajan supposedly written by the Roman historian Pliny the Younger.

However, in this letter there is but one word that is applicable, “Christians,” and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is also suspected of the entire “document.” It has been suggested on the basis of Pliny’s reportage of the Essenes that, if the letter is genuine, the original word was “Essenes,” which was later changed to “Christians” in one of the many “revisions” of the works of ancient authorities by Christian forgers.

C.) Cornelius Tacitus (@ 55-120 CE)

Like Pliny, the historian Tacitus did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after “the Savior’s” alleged death; thus, if there were any passages in his work referring to Christ or his immediate followers, they would be secondhand and long after the alleged events.

As governor of Asia c.l 12 CE, Tacitus must have been familiar with Christian 'troublemakers', as his friend Pliny obviously was. The only thing that would make Tacitus' writings an independent testimony to the existence of Jesus and not merely the repetition of Christian beliefs would be if he had gained his information about Christ being crucified under Pontius Pilate from the copious records that the Romans kept of their legal dealings. But this does not seem to be the case, for Tacitus calls Pilate the 'procurator' of Judea when he was in fact a 'prefect',’ so Tacitus is clearly not returning to the records of the time but quoting hearsay information from his own day.

This fact matters not, however, because the purported passage in Tacitus regarding Christians being persecuted under Nero is also an interpolation and forgery, as noted. Zealous defender of the faith Eusebius never mentions the Tacitus passage, nor does anyone else prior to the 15th century CE.

As Taylor says:

This passage, which would have served the purposes of Christian quotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of any Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers. . . It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotes the works of Tacitus. . . . There is no vestige or trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15th century.cxv

D.) Thallus

There is no reason to believe that Thallus is a witness, much less an independent witness, to the historicity of Jesus.

Dating of the Thallus material referenced by Africanus is problematic. Eusebius references a "brief compendium" of world history by this Thallus in three volumes from the fall of Troy (1184 BCE) to the 167th Olympiad (109 BCE). Yet virtually all scholars have conjectured that the latter date is in error and that the original date was either the 207th Olympiad (CE 49-52) or the 217th Olympiad (CE 89-92). Thus, if one accepts that the book referenced by Eusebius is the same book in which Thallus mentioned an eclipse, one could date Thallus' book between CE 49 and CE 180 (when Theophilus mentions Thallus).

So when did Thallus write? We know that it could not have been later than CE 180, since that is the year Theophilus mentions Thallus. As for the earliest possible date for Thallus's book, that depends on whether Thallus ever mentioned the darkness. As the Christian scholar R.T. France writes, Africanus does not give Thallus' words, "so we do not know whether Thallus actually mentioned Jesus' crucifixion, or whether this was Africanus' interpretation of a period of darkness which Thallus had not specifically linked with Jesus." Africanus's reference to Thallus does not provide independent confirmation of Jesus.

E.) Suetonius (@ 69-140 CE)

Christian defenders also like to hold up as evidence of their godman the minuscule and possibly interpolated passage from the Roman historian Suetonius referring to someone named “Chrestus” or “Chrestos” at Rome. Obviously, Christ was not alleged to have been at Rome, so this passage is not applicable to him.

Furthermore, while some have speculated that there was a Roman man of that name at that time, the title “Chrestus” or “Chrestos,” meaning “good” and “useful,” was frequently held by freed slaves, among others, including various gods.

Regarding these “historical references,” Taylor says, “But even if they are authentic, and were derived from earlier sources, they would not carry us back earlier than the period in which the gospel legend took form, and so could attest only the legend of Jesus, and not his historicity.” In any case, these scarce and brief “references” to a man who supposedly shook up the world, can hardly serve as proof of his existence, and it is absurd that the purported historicity of the Christian religion is founded upon them.

There were indeed at the time of Christ’s alleged advent dozens of relatively reliable historians who generally did not color their perspectives with a great deal of mythology, cultural bias and religious bigotry—where are their testimonies to such amazing events recorded in the gospels?

As Mead relates, “It has always been unfailing source of astonishment to the historical investigator of Christian beginnings, that there is not a single word from the pen of any Pagan writer of the first century of our era, which can in any fashion be referred to the marvellous story recounted by the Gospel writer. The very existence of Jesus seems unknown.”cxvi

F.) Phlegon

The passage is an interpolation. Some of the reasons for believing this passage to be an interpolation are the following:

(i) Eusebius' quotation of Phlegon does not include a reference to a full moon or a three-hour eclipse; 

(ii) "we cannot accept that, having just found fault with Thallus for calling this darkness an eclipse of the sun, Africanus then went on to cite Phlegon, without any censure at all, as calling it just that, and as adding, what he has just stated to be an absurdity, that it occurred at full moon."

G.) Mara Bar-Serapion

Mara Bar-Serapion is worthless as a witness to the historicity of Jesus. Just because Bar-Serapion discusses Pythagoras and Socrates in the same passage as he mentions this 'wise King' does not make it likely that this 'wise King' lived during roughly the same period as them. Moreover, given that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews, Bar-Serapion's choice of words is inexplicable unless we assume that he received his information about this 'wise King' from Christians.

Another problem with Bar-Serapion's letter is its historical inaccuracies. In addition to the bogus claim that the Jews executed Jesus, Bar-Serapion's letter contains other errors. The letter implies Pythagoras had been killed by his countrymen, yet "Pythagoras left the island of Samos in 530 B. C. and emigrated to the Greek colony of Croton in Southern Italy. He later died in Metapontum, which is now Metaponto, Italy."

H.) Lucian of Samosata (c.125-180 CE)

Given that Lucian's statement was written near the end of the second century, it seems rather unlikely that he had independent sources of information concerning the historicity of Jesus. Lucian may have relied upon Christian sources, common knowledge, or even an earlier pagan reference (e.g., Tacitus); since Lucian does not specify his sources. It is quite plausible that Lucian would have simply accepted the Christian claim that their founder had been crucified.

I.) Talmudic or Jewish References

One might think that there would at least be reference to the “historical” Jesus in the texts of the Jews, who were known for record-keeping.

Yet, such is not the case, despite all the frantic pointing to the references to “Jesus ben Pandira,” who purportedly lived during the first century BCE, or other “Jesuses” mentioned in Jewish literature. Unfortunately, these characters do not fit either the story or the purported timeline of the gospel Jesus, no matter how the facts and numbers are fudged.

The story of Jesus ben Pandira, for example, related that, a century before the Christian era, a “magician” named “Jesus” came out of Egypt and was put to death by stoning or hanging. However, ritualistic or judicial executions of this manner were common, as were the name “Jesus” and the magicians flooding out of Egypt. In addition, there is in this story no mention of Romans, among other oversights. Even if ben Pandira were real, it is definitely not his story being told in the New Testament.

Massey explains the difficulty with the ben Pandira theory:

It has generally been allowed that the existence of a Jehoshua, the son of Pandira . . . acknowledged by the Talmud, proves the personal existence of Jesus the Christ as an historical character in the gospels. But a closer examination of the data shows the theory to be totally untenable. . . . Jehoshua ben Pandira must have been born considerably earlier than the year 102 B.C. . . . The Jewish writers altogether deny the identity of the Talmudic Jehoshua and the Jesus of the gospels. . . . The Jews know nothing of Jesus as the Christ of the gospels . . . cxvii

Of the Pandira/Pandera story, Larson states, “Throughout the middle ages, the legend of Pandera and Yeshu, considered by most scholars a Jewish invention, continued to persist.”cxviii This Jewish invention may have been created in order to capitulate to the Christian authorities, who were persecuting “unbelievers.” Thus we find the tale in the Talmud, written after the Christ myth already existed.

To quote Wells:

Klausner’s very full survey of the relevant material in [the Talmud] led him to the conclusion that the earliest references to Jesus in rabbinical literature occur not earlier than about the beginning of the second century . . . If there had been a historical Jesus who had anything like the career ascribed to him in the gospels, the absence of earlier references becomes very hard to explain. When Rabbis do begin to mention him, they are so vague in their chronology that they differ by as much as 200 years in the dates they assign to him. . . . It is clear from this that they never thought of testing whether he had existed, but took for granted that this name stood for a real person. . . .

But let us see what modern Jewish scholarship, as represented by Sandmel and Goldstein, has to say about Jesus’ historicity. Sandmel concedes that what knowledge we have of him “comes only from the NT”, “since he went unknown in the surviving Jewish and pagan literature of his time”; and that passages about him in the ancient rabbinical literature of reflect NT material and give no information that is independent of Christian tradition. That the Talmud is useless as a source of reliable information about Jesus is conceded by most Christian scholars.cxix

Other Talmudic references to Jesus, cloaked by the name “Balaam,” are derogatory condemnations written centuries after the purported advent, thus serving as commentary on the tradition, not testimony to any “history.”

Wells further states:

Now that so much in the NT has fallen under suspicion, there is a natural tendency to exaggerate the importance of non-Christian material that seems to corroborate it— even though Christian scholars past and present have admitted that, on the matter of Jesus’ historicity, there is no pagan or Jewish evidence worth having . . .cxx

As the scholar who unearthed these passages in the Talmud admits, even if they do refer to Jesus and not some other Yeshu, they cannot be taken as proof of }esus; existence, because they are written so late. Although based on older writings, the Talmud was not written until 200 CE, and we do not know whether these were early passages. Anyway, the rabbis are so vague in their chronology that they differ by as much as 200 years in the dates they assign to the figure that may or may not be Jesus! [Quoted in Angus, S. (1925), 208]

References:

Wells, GA, Did Jesus Exist?, Pemberton, 1986

Wells, GA, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Prometheus, 1988

Massey, Gerald, The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, Health Research

Taylor Rev. Robert, The Diegesis, Health Research, 1977

Mead, GRS, Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?, Health Research, 1965

The Christ Conspiracy--The Greatest Story Ever Sold - D.M. Murdock

On the Historicity of Jesus -- Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt - Richard Carrier (2014) 

Killing History - Jesus In The No-Spin Zone - Robert M. Price