Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible

[manoj]

Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible
Lawrence Mykytiuk’s feature article from the January/February 2015 issue of BAR with voluminous endnotes

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... sus-exist/


Nothing really new here. Just thought of leaving this here.

-M

[Leucius Charinus]

1. Tacitus
2. Josephus

We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels:31

1. He existed as a man. The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ known associates, such as Jesus’ brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus. “If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point,” Robert Van Voorst observes.32 And Tacitus was careful enough not to report real executions of nonexistent people.

2. His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us.

3. He was called Christos in Greek, which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, both of which mean “anointed” or “(the) anointed one,” as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus.

4. He had a brother named James (Jacob), as Josephus reports.

5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many” at the end of his life. Large growth
in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.

6. Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him, at least according to some versions of the Testimonium Flavianum.

7. Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed, as both Tacitus and Josephus state.

8. His execution was specifically by crucifixion, according to Josephus.

9. He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius’s reign.

Wow.

As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist.33

They were not stupid. Who would want a sword shoved through their neck?

Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”34

And yet there was a massive controversy - precisely when Jesus went political - over the ESSENCE of Jesus.

Do we have the political documentation for this controversy over ESSENCE?

Sozomen tells us that no one openly dared to contradict Constantine's doctrine while he lived.

I wonder why.




LC

[Sheshbazzar]

We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels:31

1. He existed as a man. The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ known associates, such as Jesus’ brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus. “If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point,” Robert Van Voorst observes.32 And Tacitus was careful enough not to report real executions of nonexistent people.

2. His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us.

3. He was called Christos in Greek, which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, both of which mean “anointed” or “(the) anointed one,” as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus.

4. He had a brother named James (Jacob), as Josephus reports.

5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many” at the end of his life. Large growth
in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.

6. Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him, at least according to some versions of the Testimonium Flavianum.

7. Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed, as both Tacitus and Josephus state.

8. His execution was specifically by crucifixion, according to Josephus.

9. He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius’s reign.

Have we ever discussed any of these claims here ???

[MrMacSon]

2. His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us.

Totally ignores the doubts over the Jospephus Antiquities passages.

And totally ignores the fact that Tacitus, Seutonius and Pliny did not use the name Jesus.

Apologetics asserts without apology or nuance.

[toejam]

^Did you read the blog AT ALL?? He "ignores the doubts"?? Sheesh. He spends several paragraphs on that very question!!

"And totally ignores the fact that Tacitus, Seutonius and Pliny did not use the name Jesus."

Saying Tacitus' reference isn't referring to Jesus because he doesn't say "Jesus" is like saying the line "the tall pasty white guy with red hair and cheesy grin who started Scientology back in the 1950s" isn't a reference to L. Ron Hubbard. C'mon. It's clearly a reference to Jesus. Trying to suggest it's not is your own brand of apologetics.

[MrMacSon]

^Did you read the blog AT ALL?? He "ignores the doubts"?? Sheesh. He spends several paragraphs on that very question!!

Of course I read it. My statement is valid.

Tacitus’s terse statement about “Christus” clearly corroborates the New Testament on certain historical details of Jesus’ death.

Mykytiuk fails to 1/ address various scholars propositions the Tacitus reference to Christ is an interpolation; or, if not interpolation, 2/ other scholars arguments that Tacitus was merely repeating what Christians were saying:

• In 1885 P. Hochart had proposed that the passage was a pious fraud
  • Henry Furneaux, ed., Cornelii Taciti Annalium ab excessu divi augusti libri. The annals of Tacitus with introduction and notes, 2nd ed., vol. ii, books xi-xvi. Clarendon, 1907. Appendix II, p. 416f.
  Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless". RT France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.

The assertion that "Tacitus’s statement about 'Christus' clearly corroborates the New Testament [on certain historical details of Jesus’ death]" is apologetics, especially when the NT is a result of cumulative elaboration, as explained by the Catholic Encyclopedia -

• The formation of the New Testament canon (A.D. 100-220)
  
  The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.
  
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
  
  and, later ...
  
  The period of discussion (A.D. 220-367)
  
  In this stage of the historical development of the Canon of the New Testament we encounter for the first time a consciousness reflected in certain ecclesiastical writers, of the differences between the sacred collections in divers sections of Christendom. This variation is witnessed to, and the discussion stimulated by, two of the most learned men of Christian antiquity, Origen, and Eusebius of Cæsarea, the ecclesiastical historian. A glance at the Canon as exhibited in the authorities of the African, or Carthaginian, Church, will complete our brief survey of this period of diversity and discussion:-

Moreover, the specificity of the reference to being "crucified by Pilate" a century after the event, without reference elsewhere, other than in the NT, is suspect.

Mykytiuk confirms current apologetic arguments, without addressing counter arguments.

Saying Tacitus' reference isn't referring to Jesus because he doesn't say "Jesus" is like saying the line "the tall pasty white guy with red hair and cheesy grin who started Scientology back in the 1950s" isn't a reference to L. Ron Hubbard. C'mon. It's clearly a reference to Jesus. Trying to suggest it's not is your own brand of apologetics.

Calling what I said apologetics is ridiculous; you seem to have a need to defend real apologetics

[MrMacSon]

.
toejam,
You are clearly a Jesus & Ehrman apologist -

toejam January 11, 2015
I like your attitude. It’s pretty obvious who the un-named mythicist is. Curious as to who the evangelical is…

That said, I still think you should get yourself onto ‘The Thinking Atheist’ podcast to defend Jesus historicism to the atheist masses. That is probably the most well-known atheist podcast with pro production and mass listeners. But Richard Carrier and Bob Price are the only experts who are ever featured when discussing Christian Origins. And I don’t think it’s because the host is necessarily a mythicist, only that they’re the only NT historians putting their hand up to go on such shows. It just frustrates me, as an atheist who thinks there was a historical Jesus, having only these guys being the unofficial spokesmen for what is seen by everyone else as “the atheist position” on the historicity of Jesus. The ‘Skeptic Fence’ show was good, but it’s much less well known…
http://ehrmanblog.org/defending-myself/

Yet -

If you have been wondering how Bart Ehrman has been able to avoid engagement with mythicist questions since his book Did Jesus Exist? so emphatically demonstrated that he had not even read with any seriousness the mythicist books he claimed to be addressing you can find his explanation for this disengagement in his most recent post, Defending Myself.

Ehrman simply keeps himself shielded from any serious critique that does not come through channels he modulates himself. His blog is set up to ensure mostly sympathetic readers only will engage with it and he chooses to avoid public engagement with critics as a rule. Curiously he can say that though he by and large avoids any serious communication with mythicists (he apparently will read the odd email from one, it seems) he can nonetheless affirm that:

• And I know that the attacks by these conservative Christians pale in comparison with the attacks by the mythicists.

The only mythicist critic that we know Ehrman has read is, of course, Richard Carrier. We know Carrier pulled no punches in exposing Ehrman’s lack of professional standards and for this 'crime' Ehrman has wisely chosen to avoid any further engagement with him. It is evident to many observers that such an exchange would leave Ehrman’s poor showing in Did Jesus Exist? starkly exposed, and nor could he hide is ignorance of mythicist arguments or get away with amateurish ad hoc responses.

It would be futile to attempt to direct Ehrman’s attention to Earl Doherty’s responses or to a video belying Ehrman’s excuse that Carrier is "too crude to debate with."

http://vridar.org/2015/01/12/the-ostric ... more-56339

Note at the start of that blog-post of Neil Godfrey's is this -

Michael Bird has followed up with a two minute video-clip of Bart Ehrman addressing a mythicist’s question. Needless to say Bart Ehrman is once again vague and lost in his reply, doing nothing more than appealing to authority, incredulity, disinformation and false analogies to “make his case”

http://vridar.org/2015/01/12/the-ostric ... more-56339

Yet in 2010 Ehrman had this to say -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyi15_npTj8
.

[MrMacSon]

^Did you read the blog AT ALL?? He "ignores the doubts"?? Sheesh. He spends several paragraphs on that very question!!

Yes, Mykytiuk gives a pretty thorough personal-discussion of propositions, arguments, and conclusions about the Testimonium Flavianum, but does not address all alternatives.

All surviving manuscripts of the "Testimonium Flavianum" that are in Greek, like the original, contain the same version of this passage, with no significant differences.

The main question is: Did Flavius Josephus write this entire report about Jesus and his followers, or did a forger or forgers alter it or possibly insert the whole report?23 There are three ways to answer this question:24

• Alternative 1: The whole passage is authentic, written by Josephus.
• Alternative 2: The whole passage is a forgery, inserted into Jewish Antiquities.
• Alternative 3: It is only partly authentic, containing some material from Josephus, but also some later additions by another hand(s).

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... sus-exist/

However, Mykytiuk first asserted the Antiquities 20 passage was genuine and confirmed 'Jesus was the Christ' and 'James was his brother', and used discussion of Alternative 2 about the "Testimonium Flavianum" F (Antiquities 18) to sneakily re-assert his statements about Antiquities 20.

Even more important, the short passage (treated above) that mentions Jesus in order to identify James appears in a later section of the book (Book 20) and implies that Jesus was mentioned previously.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... sus-exist/

and Mykytiuk concludes his seemingly full discussion of the TF with

We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels:31

31 Almost all of the following points are listed and elaborated in Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, pp. 99–102.

[Peter Kirby]

Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible
Lawrence Mykytiuk’s feature article from the January/February 2015 issue of BAR with voluminous endnotes

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... sus-exist/


Nothing really new here. Just thought of leaving this here.

-M

Thanks for the find. The Josephus part reads like a condensed version of Meier, and the Tacitus part like a condensed version of Holding (or not?).

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.php

http://www.amazon.com/Marginal-Jew-Reth ... 0385264259

[toejam]

.
toejam,
You are clearly a Jesus & Ehrman apologist

How so when I actually disagree with Ehrman on several of his conclusions? So asking him to do TTA podcast is being an apologist?? Sheesh.

Stop trying to change topic.

Do you ACTUALLY believe that Tacitus' reference isn't a reference to Jesus? Are you that down-the-rabbit-hole?