The Jesus Myth in Twelve Easy Steps For Beginners...

[Deicide]

Most Christians and even secular people simply assume Jesus Christ was at the very least a real person and extremely well attested at that. The truth however is a bit stranger than that. The alleged 'Jesus of Nazareth' has virtually no extra-biblical attestation whatsoever, save for forgeries and documents written centuries after he 'lived' and the Gospels are riddled with contradictions. These are the things Christians leaders don't want their flocks to know. I will introduce the twelve steps as presented by Earl Doherty, a NT/Jesus scholar.

Piece No. 1: A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus’ career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.

Piece No. 2: A MUTE RECORD WORLD WIDE

The first clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human man in recent history is made by the Roman historian Tacitus around 115 CE, but he may simply be repeating newly-developed Christian belief in an historical Jesus in the Rome of his day. Several earlier Jewish and pagan writers are notably silent. The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, published in the 90s, contains two famous references to Jesus, but these are inconclusive. The first passage, as it stands, is universally acknowledged to be a later Christian insertion, and attempts have failed to prove some form of authentic original; the second also shows signs of later Christian tampering. References to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud are garbled and come from traditions which were only recorded in the third century and later.

Piece No. 3: REVEALING THE SECRET OF CHRIST

Paul and other early writers speak of the divine Son of their faith entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure; they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" (literally, "Anointed Savior" or "Savior Messiah") as a man who had lived and died in recent history. Instead, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, God has revealed the existence of his Son and the role he has played in the divine plan for salvation. These early writers talk of long-hidden secrets being disclosed for the first time to apostles like Paul, with no mention of an historical Jesus who played any part in revealing himself, thus leaving no room for a human man at the beginning of the Christian movement. Paul makes it clear that his knowledge and message about the Christ is derived from scripture under God’s inspiration.

Piece No. 4: A SACRIFICE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM

Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of "rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:. The Epistle to the Hebrews locates Christ’s sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (ch. 8, 9). The Ascension of Isaiah, a composite Jewish-Christian work of the late first century, describes (9:13-15) Christ’s crucifixion by Satan and his demons in the firmament (the heavenly sphere between earth and moon). Knowledge of these events was derived from visionary experiences and from scripture, which was seen as a ‘window’ onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings.

Piece No. 5: SALVATION IN A LAYERED UNIVERSE 

The activities of gods in the spiritual realm were part of ancient views (Greek and Jewish) of a multi-layered universe, which extended from the base world of matter where humans lived, through several spheres of heaven populated by various divine beings, angels and demons, to the highest level of pure spirit where the ultimate God dwelled. In Platonic philosophy (which influenced Jewish thought), the upper spiritual world was timeless and perfect, serving as a model for the imperfect and transient material world below; the former was the "genuine" reality, accessible to the intellect. Spiritual processes took place there, with their effects, including salvation, on humanity below. Certain "human characteristics" given to Christ (e.g., Romans 1:3) were aspects of his spirit world nature, higher counterparts to material world equivalents, and were often dependent on readings of scripture.

Piece No. 6: A WORLD OF SAVIOR DEITIES

Christ’s features and myths are in many ways similar to those of the Greco-Roman salvation cults of the time known as "mystery religions", each having its own savior god or goddess. Most of these (e.g., Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) were part of myths in which the deity had overcome death in some way, or performed some act which conferred benefits and salvation on their devotees. Such activities were viewed as taking place in the upper spirit realm, not on earth or in history. Most of these cults had sacred meals (like Paul’s Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23f) and envisioned mystical relationships between the believer and the god similar to what Paul speaks of with Christ. Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of this widespread type of belief system, though with its own strong Jewish features and background.

Piece No. 7: THE INTERMEDIARY SON

The Christian "Son" is also an expression of the overriding religious concept of the Hellenistic age, that the ultimate God is transcendent and can have no direct contact with the world of matter. He must reveal himself and deal with humanity through an intermediary force, such as the "Logos" of Platonic (Greek) philosophy or the figure of "personified Wisdom" of Jewish thinking; the latter is found in documents like Proverbs, Baruch and the Wisdom of Solomon. This force was viewed as an emanation of God, his outward image, an agency which had helped create and sustain the universe and now served as a channel of knowledge and communion between God and the world. All these features are part of the language used by early Christian writers about their spiritual "Christ Jesus", a heavenly figure who was a Jewish sectarian version of these prevailing myths and thought patterns

Piece No. 8: A SINGLE STORY OF JESUS

All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. That Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with extra, mostly teaching, material added is now an almost universal scholarly conclusion, while many also consider that John has drawn his framework for Jesus’ ministry and death from a Synoptic source as well. We thus have a Christian movement spanning half the empire and a full century which nevertheless has managed to produce only one version of the events that are supposed to lie at its inception. Acts, as an historical witness to Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian movement, cannot be relied upon, since it is a tendentious creation of the second century, dependent on the Gospels and designed to create a picture of Christian origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers of an historical Jesus. Many scholars now admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication.

Piece No. 9: THE GOSPELS AS (FICTIONAL) "MIDRASH"

Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.

Piece No. 10: THE COMMUNITY OF "Q"

In Galilean circles distinct from those of the evangelists (who were probably all located in Syria), a Jewish movement of the mid-first century preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God put together over time a collection of sayings, ethical and prophetic, now known as Q. The Q community eventually invented for itself a human founder figure who was regarded as the originator of the sayings. In ways not yet fully understood, this figure fed into the creation of the Gospel Jesus, and the sayings document was used by Matthew and Luke to flesh out their reworking of Mark’s Gospel. Some modern scholars believe they have located the "genuine" Jesus at the roots of Q, but Q’s details and pattern of evolution suggest that no Jesus was present in its earlier phases, and those roots point to a Greek style of teaching known as Cynicism, one unlikely to belong to any individual, let alone a Jewish preacher of the Kingdom.

Piece No. 11: A RIOTOUS DIVERSITY

The documentary record reveals an early Christian landscape dotted with a bewildering variety of communities and sects, rituals and beliefs about a Christ/Jesus entity, most of which show little common ground and no central authority. Also missing is any idea of apostolic tradition tracing back to a human man and his circle of disciples. Scholars like to style this situation as a multiplicity of different responses to the historical Jesus, but such a phenomenon is not only incredible, it is nowhere attested to in the evidence itself. Instead, all this diversity reflects independent expressions of the wider religious trends of the day, based on expectation of God’s Kingdom, and on belief in an intermediary divine force which provided knowledge of God and a path to salvation. Only with the Gospels, which began to appear probably toward the end of the first century, were many of these elements brought together to produce the composite figure of Jesus of Nazareth, set in a midrashic story about a life, ministry and death located in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate.

Piece No. 12: JESUS BECOMES HISTORY

As the midrashic nature of the Gospels was lost sight of by later generations of gentile Christians, the second century saw the gradual adoption of the Gospel Jesus as an historical figure, motivated by political considerations in the struggle to establish orthodoxy and a central power amid the profusion of early Christian sects and beliefs. Only with Ignatius of Antioch, just after the start of the second century, do we see the first expression in Christian (non-Gospel) writings of a belief that Jesus had lived and died under Pilate, and only toward the middle of that century do we find any familiarity in the wider Christian world with written Gospels and their acceptance as historical accounts. Many Christian apologists, however, even in the latter part of the century, ignore the existence of a human founder in their picture and defense of the faith. By the year 200, a canon of authoritative documents had been formed, reinterpreted to apply to the Jesus of the Gospels, now regarded as a real historical man. Christianity entered a new future founded on a monumental misunderstanding of its own past.

[nzhardgain]

The truth shall set you free.

[Deicide]

The truth shall set you free.

Let us hope (not pray) so!

[nzhardgain]

Prayer to God thru him can change the fabric of reality if done with good intention.I kid u not.

[Deicide]

Prayer to God thru him can change the fabric of reality if done with good intention.I kid u not.

Which of the thousands of deities mankind has invented and then relegated to the scrapheap of mythology are you referring to? I presume Yaweh, non? And what does this have to do with the allegedly 'historical Jesus of Nazareth'?

[columbusdude82]

Prayer to God The Flying Spaghetti Monster thru him can change the fabric of reality if done with good intention.I kid u not.

Fixed

[MCWAY]

Most Christians and even secular people simply assume Jesus Christ was at the very least a real person and extremely well attested at that. The truth however is a bit stranger than that. The alleged 'Jesus of Nazareth' has virtually no extra-biblical attestation whatsoever, save for forgeries and documents written centuries after he 'lived' and the Gospels are riddled with contradictions. These are the things Christians leaders don't want their flocks to know. I will introduce the twelve steps as presented by Earl Doherty, a NT/Jesus scholar.

I beg to differ; and so would this man:

Actually the life of Jesus Christ can be documented by about 18 different sources, historically and archaeologically, outside the New Testament. And most of these are little snippets: a sentence here, a paragraph there. But, you put them all together and you get about 60-65 facts, concerning the life, death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the earliest church. You can get an outline of His life and never touch the New Testament. - Dr. Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus

Piece No. 1: A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus’ career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.

This blurb is made under the premise of the Gospels being written late. However, what you fail to mention is that numerous traditional Bible scholars hold that the Gospels were written in 1st century A.D.

Piece No. 2: A MUTE RECORD WORLD WIDE

The first clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human man in recent history is made by the Roman historian Tacitus around 115 CE, but he may simply be repeating newly-developed Christian belief in an historical Jesus in the Rome of his day. Several earlier Jewish and pagan writers are notably silent. The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, published in the 90s, contains two famous references to Jesus, but these are inconclusive. The first passage, as it stands, is universally acknowledged to be a later Christian insertion, and attempts have failed to prove some form of authentic original; the second also shows signs of later Christian tampering. References to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud are garbled and come from traditions which were only recorded in the third century and later.

Exactly how can there be a "mute" record, when at least two sources were cited here.

but he may simply be repeating newly-developed Christian belief in an historical Jesus in the Rome of his day. Several earlier Jewish and pagan writers are notably silent. . WRONG!!! Tacitus states, in his Annals, that the Christians "of his day" were followers of Jesus Christ, who indeed was put to death by Pontius Pilate.

As for the passages of Josephus, the first passage is NOT universally acknowledge to be a later Christian insertion. Many scholars view the first passage as an interpolation, as the passage bascially emphasizes Jesus' deity, not just His mere existence. By contrast, the second passage that mentions Jesus doesn't do that. It's about a priest that kills those he sees are in opposition to him. Among those was a man named James, describes simply as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" (as opposed to Paul's description of James as "The Lord's brother").

It makes no sense to suggest that the existence of Jesus was added to this, if the interpolators emphasized Jesus' divinity in one passage but not the other. Furthermore, there's a version of that same (first) passage in Arabic, which does not emphasize Jesus' divinity but acknowledges His existence:

Compare the two:

Greek version -
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him.  [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” (Interpolations in brackets)

Arabic version - At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus.  And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous.  And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

The accounts are in harmony; but, again notice that the Arabic version does NOT play up Jesus' divinity.

Piece No. 3: REVEALING THE SECRET OF CHRIST

Paul and other early writers speak of the divine Son of their faith entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure; they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" (literally, "Anointed Savior" or "Savior Messiah") as a man who had lived and died in recent history. Instead, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, God has revealed the existence of his Son and the role he has played in the divine plan for salvation. These early writers talk of long-hidden secrets being disclosed for the first time to apostles like Paul, with no mention of an historical Jesus who played any part in revealing himself, thus leaving no room for a human man at the beginning of the Christian movement. Paul makes it clear that his knowledge and message about the Christ is derived from scripture under God’s inspiration.

Unfortunately, you forgot that Paul interacted with Peter and John, two of Jesus' disciples, who had witness Jesus' resurrection.

Gal. 2:9, And when James, Cephas(aka Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Notice again that this verse includes James, who Paul describes as "The Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:19), the same James that Josephus describes as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ". Those are references to a living, breathing Jesus, not a spiritual, metaphysical one.

As for Paul's not identifying Jesus as a man who lived and died, you might want to take a look at the following:

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. . That would Luke, quoting Paul, who is making a reference about Jesus Christ. He mentions that John the Baptist (Jesus' earthly cousin) gave baptisms to prepare the way for Jesus Christ.

Then, there are the words from Paul, himself.

Romans 1:1-4

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,  (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

That, at least two writers, Luke and Paul, referring to Jesus as a literal person, who was born, died, and resurrected. So much for claim #3.

Piece No. 4: A SACRIFICE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM

Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of "rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:. The Epistle to the Hebrews locates Christ’s sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (ch. 8, 9). The Ascension of Isaiah, a composite Jewish-Christian work of the late first century, describes (9:13-15) Christ’s crucifixion by Satan and his demons in the firmament (the heavenly sphere between earth and moon). Knowledge of these events was derived from visionary experiences and from scripture, which was seen as a ‘window’ onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings.

Perhaps you forgot that Paul mentions the Resurrection, that Jesus rose from the grave, appeared to His disciples and to about 500 witnesses, thereafter 1 Cor. 15). That hardly sounds like something merely happening in a spritual realm.

Piece No. 5: SALVATION IN A LAYERED UNIVERSE 

The activities of gods in the spiritual realm were part of ancient views (Greek and Jewish) of a multi-layered universe, which extended from the base world of matter where humans lived, through several spheres of heaven populated by various divine beings, angels and demons, to the highest level of pure spirit where the ultimate God dwelled. In Platonic philosophy (which influenced Jewish thought), the upper spiritual world was timeless and perfect, serving as a model for the imperfect and transient material world below; the former was the "genuine" reality, accessible to the intellect. Spiritual processes took place there, with their effects, including salvation, on humanity below. Certain "human characteristics" given to Christ (e.g., Romans 1:3) were aspects of his spirit world nature, higher counterparts to material world equivalents, and were often dependent on readings of scripture.

What the heck does that have to with whether or not Jesus was a real person?

Piece No. 6: A WORLD OF SAVIOR DEITIES

Christ’s features and myths are in many ways similar to those of the Greco-Roman salvation cults of the time known as "mystery religions", each having its own savior god or goddess. Most of these (e.g., Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) were part of myths in which the deity had overcome death in some way, or performed some act which conferred benefits and salvation on their devotees. Such activities were viewed as taking place in the upper spirit realm, not on earth or in history. Most of these cults had sacred meals (like Paul’s Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23f) and envisioned mystical relationships between the believer and the god similar to what Paul speaks of with Christ. Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of this widespread type of belief system, though with its own strong Jewish features and background.

Your assumption of Christ being a myth is rather pitiful, especially in light of the preceeding rebuttals, to your claims of His lack of being mentioned in history outside the NT.

Piece No. 7: THE INTERMEDIARY SON

The Christian "Son" is also an expression of the overriding religious concept of the Hellenistic age, that the ultimate God is transcendent and can have no direct contact with the world of matter. He must reveal himself and deal with humanity through an intermediary force, such as the "Logos" of Platonic (Greek) philosophy or the figure of "personified Wisdom" of Jewish thinking; the latter is found in documents like Proverbs, Baruch and the Wisdom of Solomon. This force was viewed as an emanation of God, his outward image, an agency which had helped create and sustain the universe and now served as a channel of knowledge and communion between God and the world. All these features are part of the language used by early Christian writers about their spiritual "Christ Jesus", a heavenly figure who was a Jewish sectarian version of these prevailing myths and thought patterns

Piece No. 8: A SINGLE STORY OF JESUS

All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. That Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with extra, mostly teaching, material added is now an almost universal scholarly conclusion, while many also consider that John has drawn his framework for Jesus’ ministry and death from a Synoptic source as well. We thus have a Christian movement spanning half the empire and a full century which nevertheless has managed to produce only one version of the events that are supposed to lie at its inception. Acts, as an historical witness to Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian movement, cannot be relied upon, since it is a tendentious creation of the second century, dependent on the Gospels and designed to create a picture of Christian origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers of an historical Jesus. Many scholars now admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication.

Universal scholarly conclusion? I don't think so. Perhaps, you should check out the special, Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen, a TV special hosted by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy. It gives insight from a variety of scholars (traditional and "liberal", for lack of a better term). One thing is certain: there is HARDLY a universal consensus that Matthew and Luke are rewritings of Mark. The Gospels, according to traditional scholars, were written by 4 different men, each with his own unique style. The Gospels are quite harmonious, each adding unique details that the others do not, which is to be expected.

Piece No. 9: THE GOSPELS AS (FICTIONAL) "MIDRASH"

Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.

Does the term "Messianic Prophecies" ring a bell? The Messiah was foretold for centuries. And Jesus fits those prophecies to the tee. Liberal scholars may not regards the Gospels as accurate documents. Fortunately, they aren't the only ones with a say and with input on the matter.

As I have some business to which I must attend, I will deal with 10-12 later. But, suffice it to say, that Doherty's arguments that Jesus didn't exist and wasn't a real person are quite feeble, based on the historical data we have on Jesus Christ. While there's plenty of debate on the divinity of Jesus, there is little on His actual existence, except for hardline skeptics and atheists. And, as shown here, and elsewhere, such premise has very shaky ground.

[loco]

Thanks for the post, MCWAY!  And looking forward to the rest of it.

I knew the minute I read this last week that Trapezkerl simply copied and pasted this stuff from some atheist website, without giving it much thought and without checking its accuracy.

The truth is that the great historian Josephus did mention Jesus twice in his works.  There are many, many ancient copies of his works and every single one of them mentions Jesus.  So there is no proof that this is a forgery. 

Most scholars agree that Josephus said something about Jesus.  They may disagree on what he said about Jesus and they may say that some additions were made by a Christian copyist later, but they still agree that Josephus did say something about Jesus.  Again, every single copy of his works mentions Jesus in the same way.  As MCWAY said, there is even an ancient, Arabic copy.  All other ancient copies are in Greek.

The fact that Josephus mentions Jesus in his works, alone makes Jesus a historical figure.  Josephus is a reliable historian from the first century.  He was a Jewish priest who did not believe that Jesus was the messiah and he probably hated Christians. 

Josephus also wrote about John the Baptist, "James, the brother of Jesus",  Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, the Pharisees and Sadducees, etc. 

Josephus' writings allowed an archaeologist from Hebrew University to confirm the location of Herod's Tomb after a fruitless search of 35 years.  On May 7, 2007, the tomb was found exactly where it should be according to Josephus writings.

More on Josephus and Jesus:

Josephus on Jesus (Greek Version, Arabic Version, and R. Eisler's Reconstruction)
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html

Regarding the quotes from the historian
Josephus about Jesus
http://www.carm.org/evidence/Josephus_Jesus.htm

The writings of Josephus mention many biblical people and places
http://www.carm.org/evidence/Josephus.htm

So there you go, an extra biblical, non-Christian historical record of Jesus, from the first century. 

Skeptics first believe the lie that "there are zero extra biblical historical records of Jesus".  You give them Josephus and then they repeat the lie that "All secular scholars agree that those are forgeries."

No wonder intelligent, honest skeptics like C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Alister E. McGrath became Christians after looking at the evidence for themselves.

[Colossus_500]

Thanks, McWAY and Loco.  I appreciate the information. 

[Deicide]

Thanks, McWAY and Loco.  I appreciate the information. 

Hardly. Gary Habermas is a fundamentalist from Liberty University. He is a Christian apologist of the worst kind. Liberty University.

[columbusdude82]

Hardly. Gary Habermas is a fundamentalist from Liberty University. He is a Christian apologist of the worst kind. Liberty University.

Yes, Liberty University, that great research institution and bastion of science that has dinosaur fossils that it claims are just a few thousand years old...

Here's what Professor Dawkins had to say about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12TqdF4t9fg

[Deicide]

Tacitus, writing nearly a century after the alleged Nazarene lived was simply writing what the Christians of the time were saying. The Talmud is so late as to be entirely worthless; nevermind the fact that they claim in the Talmud that your godman was stoned to death, worthless piece of shit. Suetonius talks about Chrestus, not Christus; Chrestus was a popular Greek name meaning the good and this Chrestus was a rabble rouser in Rome in the 40's, after your alleged godman was fucked AND in Rome. AND even if all the forgeries and hearsay from these authors were true, none of them is the slightest bit contemporaneous with your imaginary friend; worthless drivel. Oh yeah I forgot Pliny. He just mentions that Christians of his time believed in a crucified godfuck, that's right, all it says is what they believed, nothing more. You've got nothing except your worthless faith in a man made deity and the voices you likely hear in your head. You really should be institutionalised. But let's get back to Josephus, every apologist's favourite extrabiblical 'authority' on the alleged Jesus of Nazareth.

There are any number of Jesuses mentioned in Josephus.  None seems to have done any of the magic tricks that you want but let's take this one from The Jewish Wars  Book 6, Chapter 5, #3.

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war6.html

Usually referred to as "Jesus the Madman", look at the amount of space that Josephus devotes to recounting this minor tale.  Your forged Testimonium Flavianum is a bare 12 lines or so but this goes on and on in excruciating detail, which is, after all, pretty much standard fare with Josephus who was frequently an obsessive writer.

Note, however, the flogging story herein contained:

Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"

Pretty easy to see how the early christians borrowed that one for their alleged god man to have suffered.  They added a few Christian flourishes over the centuries but it is pretty easy to see that this is where the myth of the holy flogging came from.

Jesus the Madman.....now there is a god worth following.  Except he didn't get crucified....he was flattened by a Roman ballista.

The other 'reference':

Would Josephus have identified Jesus by “the one called (the) Christ”? - Another problem associated with the general scholarly assumption about Antiquities 20 is the question of whether Josephus would have chosen to identify Jesus by the phrase now found there. (We really have a double identification here: one for James—that he is Jesus’ brother, the second for Jesus—that he’s the one called the Christ.) But would Josephus have been likely to offer the latter phrase? There are difficulties in assuming that he did.

First of all, scholars get themselves into a contradiction when they claim that the reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20 indicates that Josephus must have referred to him earlier. If so, his use of the phrase “the one called (the) Christ” would imply that the point about the Christ was included in that earlier reference; yet, as we shall see, the very phrase in Antiquities 18 which contains it has been rejected as a later Christian insertion into the Josephan original, since it is so blatantly Christian. Thus Josephus would be alluding to something he hadn’t said. And his readers might have been left wondering what he was talking about. (I’ll come back to this problem when discussing Antiquities 18.)

This objection can be broadened, however. The Jewish Messiah concept (“Christ” in Greek) would not necessarily be a subject with which Josephus’ readers were all that familiar. If Josephus were going to introduce the term, one would expect him to feel constrained to provide a discussion of it somewhere. In fact, the Messiah idea was such a dramatic one, that if one of his characters had actually been designated as such by his followers, Josephus could hardly have avoided addressing this unusual man and episode at some length.

Yet curiously enough, the whole Jewish tradition of messianic expectation is a subject Josephus seems to avoid, for he nowhere directly describes it, not even in connection with the rebellious groups and agitators in the period prior to the Jewish War. (His one clear reference to the messianic “oracles” of the Jews, the object of whom, he claims, was Vespasian [Jewish War 6.5.4], is dealt with in very cursory fashion.) This silence and this reluctance (if it be so) would seem to preclude the likelihood that he would introduce the subject at all, especially as a simple aside, in connection with Jesus.

Moreover, if he is merely looking for some quick way to identify this Jesus for his readers (one of many by that name in his chronicle), he has a much easier, and less charged, way to do so. He simply has to say, “the one who was crucified by Pilate.” This is a point which supposedly did appear in the “original” passage of Antiquities 18 postulated by scholars, one that would have been easily remembered by the reader. If in fact Josephus had written the “authentic” Testimonium, with no reference to the Christ, the point about Pilate would have been the automatic choice. (This ignores, of course, the consideration that no such crucifixion by Pilate actually took place.)

And here is a fundy admitting to the fact that Josephus' material is a forgery:

Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a forgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:

“I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord’s brother. It interrupts the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus. Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ” (Answer to Dr. Chandler).

Again Dr. Lardner says: “This passage is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in in the works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist” (Lardner’s Works, vol.I, chap. iv).

Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: “If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly ,conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too” (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says: “Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, ii), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine” (Christian Records, p. 30).

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html

Poor Christian apologists. You have nothing to go on but the Bible, composed decades and decades after the alleged events contained therein by anonymous writers, starting with Mark...and the rest just copied and embellished.

[loco]

Hardly. Gary Habermas is a fundamentalist from Liberty University. He is a Christian apologist of the worst kind. Liberty University.

I did not say anything about Gary Habermas or about Liberty University.

Josephus mentions Jesus, the same Jesus of the Gospels, twice in his works.  Most scholars agree, and to deny this is nothing but wishful thinking.  You have no proof that these are forgeries.

By the way, Trapezkerl, the link that you provided reminded me of something.  Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in details.  According to Josephus' writings, Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled to the letter about 40 years after his crucifixion.  The prophecy is in the Bible, but the fulfillment is not.  The fulfillment of the prophecy is found in the works of Josephus.

Thanks for the link, Trapezkerl! It mentions this prophecy.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war6.html#EndNote_War_6.34b

"(34) This is the proper place for such as have closely attended to these latter books of the War to peruse, and that with equal attention, those distinct and plain predictions of Jesus of Nazareth, in the Gospels thereto relating, as compared with their exact completions in Josephus's history; upon which completions, as Dr: Whitby well observes, Annot. on Matthew 24:2, no small part of the evidence for the truth of the Christian religion does depend; and as I have step by step compared them together in my Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies. The reader is to observe further, that the true reason why I have so seldom taken notice of those completions in the course of these notes, notwithstanding their being so very remarkable, and frequently so very obvious, is this, that I had entirely prevented myself in that treatise beforehand; to which therefore I must here, once for all, seriously refer every inquisitive reader. Besides these five here enumerated, who had taken Jerusalem of old, Josephus, upon further recollection, reckons a sixth, Antiq. B. XII. ch. 1. sect. 1, who should have been here inserted in the second place; I mean Ptolemy, the son of Lagus."

[MCWAY]

Tacitus, writing nearly a century after the alleged Nazarene lived was simply writing what the Christians of the time were saying. The Talmud is so late as to be entirely worthless; nevermind the fact that they claim in the Talmud that your godman was stoned to death, worthless piece of shit. Suetonius talks about Chrestus, not Christus; Chrestus was a popular Greek name meaning the good and this Chrestus was a rabble rouser in Rome in the 40's, after your alleged godman was fucked AND in Rome. AND even if all the forgeries and hearsay from these authors were true, none of them is the slightest bit contemporaneous with your imaginary friend; worthless drivel. Oh yeah I forgot Pliny. He just mentions that Christians of his time believed in a crucified godfuck, that's right, all it says is what they believed, nothing more. You've got nothing except your worthless faith in a man made deity and the voices you likely hear in your head. You really should be institutionalised. But let's get back to Josephus, every apologist's favourite extrabiblical 'authority' on the alleged Jesus of Nazareth.

You have yet to show that what the Christians "of the time were saying" was false. Furthermore, your claim about Chrestus being a popular name does little to help your case. Let's just say that such is the case. There's a "Chrestus" who was put to death by Pontius Pilate and has a group of followers, named after him. Now, who does that describe other than Jesus Christ.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. 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. 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.

Let's see: Christians, named after a guy, called "Christus", who was executed by Pilate. A religious movement that started, was repressed but broke out again. Hmmm.....I wonder what "Christus" that could possibly be.   .

Your take about Tacitus' account not being contempraneous with Jesus is also ridiculous, as history is filled with historical figures, accounts on whom were written long after their lifetime. To dismiss the existence of Jesus, based on that, you would, of course, have to discard a ton of other historical figures; but why let that get in the way of standard anti-Biblical blubbering (as shown by your pointless and infantile swearing).

There are any number of Jesuses mentioned in Josephus.  None seems to have done any of the magic tricks that you want but let's take this one from The Jewish Wars  Book 6, Chapter 5, #3.
 

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war6.html

Usually referred to as "Jesus the Madman", look at the amount of space that Josephus devotes to recounting this minor tale.  Your forged Testimonium Flavianum is a bare 12 lines or so but this goes on and on in excruciating detail, which is, after all, pretty much standard fare with Josephus who was frequently an obsessive writer.

Note, however, the flogging story herein contained:

Pretty easy to see how the early christians borrowed that one for their alleged god man to have suffered.  They added a few Christian flourishes over the centuries but it is pretty easy to see that this is where the myth of the holy flogging came from.

Jesus the Madman.....now there is a god worth following.  Except he didn't get crucified....he was flattened by a Roman ballista

Now, you claiming that Jesus Christ being flogged was copied from this other "Jesus" having the same done to him. What criminal (actual or alleged) didn't get flogged by the Romans? Even by skeptic standards, this is downright pitiful.

So, there are other guys named Jesus, mentioned in Josephus' writings. Big deal! The issue here is whether or not Jesus Christ existed.  None of those other guys were named, or referenced as Christ, or had a group of followers pegged by that name. Nor, did they report that their "Jesus" after being executed, rose from the dead.

As Dr. N.T. Wright puts it:

It's not just that the disciples went from being a dejected, muddled, frightened little group to being a outgoing, dynamic group (although that's true, too). It's that they didn't get a new Messiah. They said that Jesus was the Messiah. And the "Jesus" being described isn't any of the other ones mentioned in Josephus' writings.

The account is about the Antiquities of the Jews, not about Jesus. He is mentioned briefly but He is mentioned, nonetheless. And, your feeble claims don't change that, especially when the aforementioned interpolation (of the Greek version) have been identified, as well as the Arabic version, which has no such descriptions of Jesus' divinity but points Him as a living being.

The other 'reference':
 

And here is a fundy admitting to the fact that Josephus' material is a forgery:

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html

That's why we have the Arabic version of the Testimonum, against which to bounce the Greek version. Furthermore, the Arabic version was from the 10th century; whereas the better known and cited Greek version is from the 11th century.

Take out the bracketed words in the Greek version (which emphasized Jesus' divinity), and the account reads like this:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. for he was a doer of wonders. He drew many after him. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among 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.

A later Christian interpolator would hardly refer to his fellow Christians as a "tribe". Plus, this is in reference to the Greek version; the Arabic one (an earlier manuscript) does NOT have the parts, focusing on Christ's divinity. Nor, does either version do such in the second passage, that identfies James as the brother of Jesus, "who was called Christ". That would beg the question as to why an interpolator would do such to one passage but not the other, if the accounts mentioning Christ were forgeries.

While Origen may have considered the first passage (Testimonium) to be fradulent, he views the second passage (the one that IDs James as Jesus' brother) as legitimate. Furthermore, Origen's statement concerning Josephus not acknowledging Jesus is in reference to His divinity, not His existence, which is the subject of this discussion. His statement reads that Origin "did not accept Jesus as the Christ" (Contra Celsius). There's a big difference between Jesus not being acknowledged as divine and Jesus not existing.

Poor Christian apologists. You have nothing to go on but the Bible, composed decades and decades after the alleged events contained therein by anonymous writers, starting with Mark...and the rest just copied and embellished.

You just shot yourself in the foot. As Loco said, first you claim that there were NO extrabiblical accounts of Jesus' existence. Then, you come up with this garbage, once your earlier claim gets cut to pieces. This concept may zip over your head, but historical accounts were hand-written and usually took years to compose; there were no modern printing presses.

[MCWAY]

I did not say anything about Gary Habermas or about Liberty University.

Josephus mentions Jesus, the same Jesus of the Gospels, twice in his works.  Most scholars agree, and to deny this is nothing but wishful thinking.  You have no proof that these are forgeries.

By the way, Trapezkerl, the link that you provided reminded me of something.  Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in details.  According to Josephus' writings, Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled to the letter about 40 years after his crucifixion.  The prophecy is in the Bible, but the fulfillment is not.  The fulfillment of the prophecy is found in the works of Josephus.

Thanks for the link, Trapezkerl! It mentions this prophecy.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war6.html#EndNote_War_6.34b

"(34) This is the proper place for such as have closely attended to these latter books of the War to peruse, and that with equal attention, those distinct and plain predictions of Jesus of Nazareth, in the Gospels thereto relating, as compared with their exact completions in Josephus's history; upon which completions, as Dr: Whitby well observes, Annot. on Matthew 24:2, no small part of the evidence for the truth of the Christian religion does depend; and as I have step by step compared them together in my Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies. The reader is to observe further, that the true reason why I have so seldom taken notice of those completions in the course of these notes, notwithstanding their being so very remarkable, and frequently so very obvious, is this, that I had entirely prevented myself in that treatise beforehand; to which therefore I must here, once for all, seriously refer every inquisitive reader. Besides these five here enumerated, who had taken Jerusalem of old, Josephus, upon further recollection, reckons a sixth, Antiq. B. XII. ch. 1. sect. 1, who should have been here inserted in the second place; I mean Ptolemy, the son of Lagus."

You're right!! NONE of the Gospels cite the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy, regarding the Temple.

That reminds me of another blurb from Dr. Paul Meier, as part of the Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen? special, regarding the Gospel of Matthew and claims that it was written extremely late.

"Now, we know that Matthew delights himself in prophecy fulfillment, prophecy fulfillment, those couplets. And, many times he says 'and this was fulfilled as the prophets spoke' and so on. Now, can you imagine if the Temple of Jerusalem were destroyed during Matthew's lifetime, wild horses couldn't have kept him from saying, 'the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, that it might be fulfilled what Jesus said...." But, he doesn't say that; and, that's very unlike Matthew."

To further skewer Trapezkerl's claim about ancient writings not being "comtempraneous" with the events/people involved, the Jerusalem temple got destroyed in 70 A.D. But, Josephus' Antiquities is dated around the mid-to-late 90s A.D., which is also when traditional Bible scholars state the Gospel of John was written. And, that's the latest of the four, as the others are cited to have been written earlier.

[MCWAY]

Yes, Liberty University, that great research institution and bastion of science that has dinosaur fossils that it claims are just a few thousand years old...

Here's what Professor Dawkins had to say about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12TqdF4t9fg

One, who cares what Dawkins has to say about the matter. For starters, we ain't talking about dinosaurs.

Two, the topic here is the existence of Jesus and the evidence that supports such. So, Liberty University would be as valid an institution as any other (if not more so).

[columbusdude82]

One, who cares what Dawkins has to say about the matter. For starters, we ain't talking about dinosaurs.

Two, the topic here is the existence of Jesus and the evidence that supports such. So, Liberty University would be as valid an institution as any other (if not more so).

Yeah sure, what would one of the world's foremost evolutionary biologists and zoologists know about dinosaurs?...

Given how they DEBAUCH science in LYING about the age of dinosaur fossils, how can you trust them to pursue EVIDENCE for Jesus?

[loco]

Yeah sure, what would one of the world's foremost evolutionary biologists and zoologists know about dinosaurs?...

Given how they DEBAUCH science in LYING about the age of dinosaur fossils, how can you trust them to pursue EVIDENCE for Jesus?

What do Dawkins and dinosaurs have to do with the historicity of Jesus?

columbusdude82,
What does Dawkins have to say about the T-Rex soft tissue found in 2005?  Serious question.  I really would like to know.

[columbusdude82]

I just threw that in there since someone brought up Liberty "University"...

As for the T-rex soft tissue, why don't you ask him? Seriously. They have a forum over at RichardDawkins.net, and you can ask him questions. If you really would like to know, that is...

[Deicide]

You have yet to show that what the Christians "of the time were saying" was false. Furthermore, your claim about Chrestus being a popular name does little to help your case. Let's just say that such is the case. There's a "Chrestus" who was put to death by Pontius Pilate and has a group of followers, named after him. Now, who does that describe other than Jesus Christ.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. 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. 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.

Let's see: Christians, named after a guy, called "Christus", who was executed by Pilate. A religious movement that started, was repressed but broke out again. Hmmm.....I wonder what "Christus" that could possibly be.   .

Your take about Tacitus' account not being contempraneous with Jesus is also ridiculous, as history is filled with historical figures, accounts on whom were written long after their lifetime. To dismiss the existence of Jesus, based on that, you would, of course, have to discard a ton of other historical figures; but why let that get in the way of standard anti-Biblical blubbering (as shown by your pointless and infantile swearing).

Now, you claiming that Jesus Christ being flogged was copied from this other "Jesus" having the same done to him. What criminal (actual or alleged) didn't get flogged by the Romans? Even by skeptic standards, this is downright pitiful.

So, there are other guys named Jesus, mentioned in Josephus' writings. Big deal! The issue here is whether or not Jesus Christ existed.  None of those other guys were named, or referenced as Christ, or had a group of followers pegged by that name. Nor, did they report that their "Jesus" after being executed, rose from the dead.

As Dr. N.T. Wright puts it:

It's not just that the disciples went from being a dejected, muddled, frightened little group to being a outgoing, dynamic group (although that's true, too). It's that they didn't get a new Messiah. They said that Jesus was the Messiah. And the "Jesus" being described isn't any of the other ones mentioned in Josephus' writings.

The account is about the Antiquities of the Jews, not about Jesus. He is mentioned briefly but He is mentioned, nonetheless. And, your feeble claims don't change that, especially when the aforementioned interpolation (of the Greek version) have been identified, as well as the Arabic version, which has no such descriptions of Jesus' divinity but points Him as a living being.



That's why we have the Arabic version of the Testimonum, against which to bounce the Greek version. Furthermore, the Arabic version was from the 10th century; whereas the better known and cited Greek version is from the 11th century.

Take out the bracketed words in the Greek version (which emphasized Jesus' divinity), and the account reads like this:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. for he was a doer of wonders. He drew many after him. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among 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.

A later Christian interpolator would hardly refer to his fellow Christians as a "tribe". Plus, this is in reference to the Greek version; the Arabic one (an earlier manuscript) does NOT have the parts, focusing on Christ's divinity. Nor, does either version do such in the second passage, that identfies James as the brother of Jesus, "who was called Christ". That would beg the question as to why an interpolator would do such to one passage but not the other, if the accounts mentioning Christ were forgeries.

While Origen may have considered the first passage (Testimonium) to be fradulent, he views the second passage (the one that IDs James as Jesus' brother) as legitimate. Furthermore, Origen's statement concerning Josephus not acknowledging Jesus is in reference to His divinity, not His existence, which is the subject of this discussion. His statement reads that Origin "did not accept Jesus as the Christ" (Contra Celsius). There's a big difference between Jesus not being acknowledged as divine and Jesus not existing.



You just shot yourself in the foot. As Loco said, first you claim that there were NO extrabiblical accounts of Jesus' existence. Then, you come up with this garbage, once your earlier claim gets cut to pieces. This concept may zip over your head, but historical accounts were hand-written and usually took years to compose; there were no modern printing presses.

Have you even looked at the Suetonius passage?

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.

Let's ignore the fact that Chrestus was a common name, particularly amongst slaves. There is another hugely glaring problem with Suetonius' reference: Claudius reigned from 41-54 CE, whilst Christ was purported to have been crucified around 30 CE, so the great Jewish sage could not have been in Rome personally at that time. Suetonius' single sentence is consequently not a reference to the alleged Jesus of Nazareth.

It is funny how Christians see a single sentence in a Tacitus passage and jump up and down and if this were the be all and end all. I think we ought to look at him in depth. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians. In any event, the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened.  Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

There are other problems with the passage in the Annals; for one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ" since Christ is not a proper name but a description. Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians, which is likely. Either that or the passage is a forgery. In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author.

It's late and I have to hit the hay. For Josephus I will provide the following link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#josephus

However, this text is far from conclusive. Although McDowell and Wilson claim the Arabic version actually dates to the fourth century, they provide no defense or justification for that claim.[40] Yet even if the Arabic version can be dated to the fourth century, the text would still not provide any additional evidence for the authenticity of the Testimonium. Again, three centuries would still have been plenty of time for the Testimonium to have been interpolated. Indeed, for all we know, the extant Greek versions and the Arabic version have a common source, perhaps the original interpolation itself!

Before I go to bed I think it noteworthy to mention that from the material in the NT all we have are wonder stories about Jesus. Magic powers and the whole lot. He vanished off the face of the earth between 12 and 30 something only to reappear conveniently as the Messiah. And we have no comtemporaneous record of a Jesus of Nazareth. He magically appears (with no current recording of that appearance) and disappears for 4 decades and pops up again in Mark; strange indeed.

[loco]

For Josephus I will provide the following link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#josephus

Thanks, Trapezkerl, for this great, long read.  Quoting from your "infidels" website:

"Josephus provides independent confirmation to the life of Jesus. The most important non-Christian witness to the historical Jesus is Josephus"...

..."In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus"



The Jesus of the Gospels did exist.  He is no myth.

[Deicide]

Thanks, Trapezkerl, for this great, long read.  Quoting from your "infidels" website:

"Josephus provides independent confirmation to the life of Jesus. The most important non-Christian witness to the historical Jesus is Josephus"...

..."In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus"



The Jesus of the Gospels did exist.  He is no myth.

Thanks for quoting out of context without the entirety of the text AND ignoring the time spent on Tacitus and Suetonius

McDowell and Wilson believe that this text "provides textual justification for excising the Christian passages and demonstrating that Josephus probably discussed Jesus in Antiquities 18."[39]

However, this text is far from conclusive. Although McDowell and Wilson claim the Arabic version actually dates to the fourth century, they provide no defense or justification for that claim.[40] Yet even if the Arabic version can be dated to the fourth century, the text would still not provide any additional evidence for the authenticity of the Testimonium. Again, three centuries would still have been plenty of time for the Testimonium to have been interpolated. Indeed, for all we know, the extant Greek versions and the Arabic version have a common source, perhaps the original interpolation itself! Though McDowell and Wilson quote Pines' translation of the text, they neglect to mention that Pines himself is quite cautious about claiming that the Arabic text represents Josephus' original. Indeed, Pines admits there are other explanations for the text besides the one favored by McDowell and Wilson.[41]

[loco]

Thanks for quoting out of context without the entirety of the text AND ignoring the time spent on Tacitus and Suetonius

McDowell and Wilson believe that this text "provides textual justification for excising the Christian passages and demonstrating that Josephus probably discussed Jesus in Antiquities 18."[39]

I am not discussing Tacitus and Suetonius, though I may get to that later.

I am discussing Josephus because I agree with your "infidels" website when they say that "Josephus provides independent confirmation to the life of Jesus. The most important non-Christian witness to the historical Jesus is Josephus".

I am not quoting out of context.  Most scholars agree that Josephus mentions Jesus of Nazareth twice in his works.  What is in question is what exactly is it that Josephus said about Jesus.

I don't care if Josephus, in the original writings, called Jesus an evil wizard or a demon.  That wouldn't surprise me since Josephus was a Jewish priest who probably hated Jesus and all Christians.  What's important is that we have here a first century, non-Christian, extra-biblical historical record of Jesus of Nazareth.

[columbusdude82]

We also have a first century record of Jesus of Nazareth going to America after his supposed resurrection, written by the prophet Moroni.

[MCWAY]

Have you even looked at the Suetonius passage?

Yes, I have!!!

What does Suetonius have to do with your cracked claims about Josephus?

The issue with Origen, Martyr, etc., as it relates to Josephus, is based on one specific topic: Whether Josephus acknowledges Jesus’ divinity, to which they’ve answered “No”. NONE of them are calling into question whether Josephus (or themselves, for that matter) acknowledged His existence.

And, all of this goes back to one basic fact: Your take that Jesus is not mentioned in historical documents, outside the New Testament, is categorically and demonstrably FALSE. And your claims (and those of other atheists and skeptics) of conspiracy theories are downright silly and are borderline paranoid.

Let's ignore the fact that Chrestus was a common name, particularly amongst slaves. There is another hugely glaring problem with Suetonius' reference: Claudius reigned from 41-54 CE, whilst Christ was purported to have been crucified around 30 CE, so the great Jewish sage could not have been in Rome personally at that time. Suetonius' single sentence is consequently not a reference to the alleged Jesus of Nazareth.

Notwithstanding the fact that I didn't even mention Suetonius, BIG DEAL!!! Even if what you said were correct, regarding Suetonius' passage, it STILL doesn't change the fact that your claim that there is no extra-biblical reference to Jesus Christ is FALSE!!



Another issue worth noting is your claim of Cladius' rule from 41-54 A.D. Luke also mentions the reign of Claudius and his removing the Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2), which adds to the evidence that (contrary to skeptic and liberal scholar claims), Luke's gospel was written in 1st century A.D., relatively shortly after Jesus' death and Resurrection.

It is funny how Christians see a single sentence in a Tacitus passage and jump up and down and if this were the be all and end all. I think we ought to look at him in depth. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians. In any event, the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened.  Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

If Tacitus has no interest in the Christians' "extraordinary movement", why would he be obligated to take up multiple pages writing about it. As it stands, he is describing the actions of Nero, who blamed his own nefarious deeds on Christians. Tacitus is simply giving background to this group: It's based on a man named "Christus", who was executed by Pilate.

There are other problems with the passage in the Annals; for one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ" since Christ is not a proper name but a description. Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians, which is likely. Either that or the passage is a forgery. In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author.

Now, you come with the conspiracy theories that the Annals of Tacitus was a forgery, just because it mentions Jesus (merely as a reference with regards to the origins of the groups known as Christians. This gets more comical by the post.

The only suspicion lies in the heads of skeptics, who continue to backtrack, since their claims about the lack of historicity of Jesus fall flat. First, there was NO extra-Biblical evidence. When that gets shot down, then it's "Well, no one else wrote about it". Then, when more sources appear, here come forgery/conspiracy theories.

As for this alleged problem about the terms “procurator” and “prefect”, let’s see:

Procurator – an officer of the Roman empire entrusted with the management of the financial of the financial affairs of a province and often having administrative powers as an agent of the emperor.

Prefect – any of various high officials or magistrates of differing functions and ranks in ancient Rome.

Yep, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John REEEAAAALLLY botched up that one

Before I go to bed I think it noteworthy to mention that from the material in the NT all we have are wonder stories about Jesus. Magic powers and the whole lot. He vanished off the face of the earth between 12 and 30 something only to reappear conveniently as the Messiah. And we have no comtemporaneous record of a Jesus of Nazareth. He magically appears (with no current recording of that appearance) and disappears for 4 decades and pops up again in Mark; strange indeed.

Apparently, you need to brush up on your reading of the Gospels. Jesus didn't vanish anywhere; He worked as a carpenter, until the age of 30. When He started His ministry, people identified Him as a carpenter. That hardly described someone who just vanished.

Mark 6:3, Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.


And once again, notwithstanding the Gospels being writeen in 1st century A.D., comtemporaneous records are not mandatory to validate the existence of a person. Otherwise, it's time to scrap a whole lot of historical figures. Why skeptics continue to use that tired line is "strange, indeed".