The Historicity of Jesus Christ [Open Thread under Religion Moderator's Guidelines]

“The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the ‘Christ-myth’ theories.”~F.F. Bruce.

Historian Durant: “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend.”

Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Christian authors wrote about Jesus soon after the events. By way of contrast, Plutarch’s biography of Alexander the Great, considered trustworthy by historians, was written more than four centuries after his death. Charlesworth has written that “Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.” [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that “We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place.” On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: “It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world.” [Harv.JesC, 11]

[edit] Jesus as myth Main article: Jesus myth hypothesis Further information: Jesus Christ and comparative mythology A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. Among the proponents of non-historicity have been Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. The non-historicity thesis was somewhat influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century, and has recently been put forward in popular literature by a number of authors. Arguments for non-historicity have been advanced by George Albert Wells in The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth. Popular proponents have included the writers Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their books The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess. Other proponents of non-historicity are Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle ).

The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus’ historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant’s Caesar and Christ; they are based on a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and some similarities between early Christianity and contemporary mythology.[71]

Michael Grant stated that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods:

…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.’ In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[72] Overall, the unhistoricity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians[73],[74] & [75].

[edit] Mainstream scholarly reception The idea of Jesus as a myth is rejected by the majority of biblical scholars and historians. The classical historian Michael Grant writes:

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.’ In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. [52] The points below highlight some of these criticisms.

Some scholars, like Michael Grant, do not see the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions to be significant. Grant states that “Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit.”[52] Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure. There is good early evidence in Pliny, Josephus and other sources of the Roman and Jewish approaches at the time, and none of them involved this suggestion.[18] In response to Jesus-myth proponents who argue the lack of early non-Christian sources, or question their authenticity, R. T. France, for example, points out that “even the great histories of Tacitus have survived in only two manuscripts, which together contain scarcely half of what he is believed to have written, the rest is lost” and that the life of Jesus, from a Roman point of view, was not a major event.[18] Parallels between Christianity and Mystery Religions are not considered compelling evidence by most scholars.[53][54] Those who do not hold to the Jesus-Myth disagree with the notion that the Apostle Paul did not speak of Jesus as a physical being. They argue that arguments from silence are unreliable and that there are several references to historical facts about Jesus’s life in Paul’s letters,[18] such as that Jesus “who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David” (Romans 1:3, TNIV).

*********************** My article from several years ago ************************

Date: 24-OCT-1994 14:28:12.94 From: “Kevin O’Malley” Reply-To: k3oma...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us () Subj: RE: Evidence that Jesus Claimed to be God Part 1

More than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell Abbrev: MTAC Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell Abbrev: ETDAV Jesus: God, Ghost or Guru? by Jon Buell & O.Q. Hyder Abbrev: JGGG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He forgave sin that had been committed against others. In Mark 2 a paralytic was lowered through a hole in the roof and Jesus said, “My son, your sins are forgiven.” The response of the scribes who were present was “He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but God alone?”(Mark 2:7) According to JGGG, “...there isn’t a single verse in the Old Testament (or other Jewish literature) that clearly designates for the Messiah the power to forgive sins, although the same literature does ascribe this power to Jehovah!” (JGGG 23)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 21:16. Jesus’ answer to the chief priests and scribes was to quote Psalm 8:2 “out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes Thou hastprepared praise for Thyself”

When Thomas felt his wounds after the resurrection, he cried out “Behold my Lord and my God!” (John 20:26-29) Jesus commented on Thomas’s unbelief rather than any misplaced worship — very significant for average 1st century monotheistic jews.

According to JGGG, other examples include Peter’s acclaim (Matt 16:16) accepting the title Son of the living God, and the worship of the disciples afloat on the Sea of Galilee (Matt 14:33) and again just prior to being commissioned in Matt28. According to MTAC Jesus demanded to be worshipped as God in John 5:23, “compare Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 5:8-14”.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- His use of the hebrew phrase “ani hu” which gets translated into greek variously as “I am He” or “I am”. The roots of the phrase, according to JGGG and Ethelbert Stauffer in “Jesus and His Story” are from various Old Testament scriputes such as Psalm 50:7 + 113-118, Isaiah 43, Deut 32 + 39 , 26:8, 5:16, etc. Ani is a self - disclosure term used by Jehovah. Hu is the emphatic form of the personal pronoun “huah”, which means “he”, and often used in the 1st century as a substitute for Yahweh. In Mark 13:6 Jesus warns that counterfeits saying “Ani Hu” would arise impersonating HIM. In John 13 Jesus says, “From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He (Ani Hu).” Finally, in front of the highest court in his land, Jesus responds to the question of whether he is the Messiah by saying, “Ani Hu” (Mark 16:61-62). Furthermore, Jesus follows up this claim by saying, “And you shall see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power coming on the clouds of Heaven.” Here Jesus quotes Daniel 7 and Psalm110:1. Jehovah is the only One in the Old Testament who comes on the clouds of Heaven, and being seated at the right hand of someone is an expression meaning to have equivalent status as that person. It’s important to note that Jesus was sentenced to death for who he claimed to be. John 10:30 Jesus says “I and the Father are one.” The jews who heard this rightly heard a claim to deity and tried to stone Jesus.

John 8:58 Jesus says “Before Abraham was, I am”, again followed by an attempted stoning.

Jesus’ response to the scribes John in 5:16-18 when he said “My Father is working until now, and I Myself and working” when he was accused of breaking the sabbath. According to MTAC, the cultural context is important and he is effectively saying ‘God is MY Father’ and they sought to kill him. MTAC: “The reason is that Jesus said ‘my Father,’ not ‘our Father,’ and then added “is working until now.’ Jesus’ use of these two phrases made himself equal with God, on a par with God’s activity. The Jews did not refer to God as ‘my Father.’ Or if they did, they would qualify the statement with ‘in Heaven.’ However, Jesus did not do this. He made a claim that the Jews could not misinterpret when he called God ‘my Father.’”

The basic phrases where Jesus claims to be one in essence with God. John 12:45 — He who beholds me beholds the One who sent me; John 8:19 — If you knew me, you would know my Father also; John 5:23 — He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Per Stauffer: “For if a confrontation of witnesses yields statements that agree on some points, then these points must represent facts accepted by both sides. This principle certainly holds true if the historical traditions of the two groups of witnesses are independent of each other. But it holds true almost as completely in cases where the traditions intersect. For it is highly significant that the witness for the prosecution admits that the witness for the defense is right on certain points; that he agrees with his opponents about certain common facts.”

Justin Martyr and Eusebius mention a circular letter issued by the Sanhedrin. Martyr Quotes from it: “...a certain Jesus of Galilee, an apostate preacher whom we crucified; but his disciples stole him by night from the cross; they did this in order to persuade men to apostasy by saying that he had awakened from the dead and ascended into heaven.” Per JGGG jewish tradition for at least a century afterwards independently continued to reject Jesus on the basis of his claim to deity.

Lucian, Greek satirist in 2nd century commenting on Jesus. “...the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.... Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.” Per JGGG, “notice that Lucian specifically pins the blame for the worship of Jesus on ‘their first lawgiver himself.’

Pliny the Younger. (A.D. 61-112) Per JGGG After killing christians, he sought advice from Trajan, mentioning that christians “affirmed, however that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god...”

Jewish Polemic in commentary of Rabbi Eleazar Hakkapar (ca 170 a.d.) per JGGG. “God saw that a man, son of a woman, would come forth in the future who would endeavor to make himself God and to lead the whole world astray.... For it is said: ‘A man is not God.... And if he says he is God, he is a liar. And he will lead men astray and say that he is going and will come back again at the end of days.’ Is it not so that he spoke thus, but he will not be able to do it. “

Jewish Polemic : Per JGGG, Rabbi Abbahu of Caesarea (ca 270) puts the words of Jesus into Balaam’s mouth: “If a man says, ‘I am God,’ he is a liar, if he says I am the Son of Man,’ his end will be such that he will rue it; if he says, ‘I shall ascend to heaven,’ will it not be that he will have spoken and will not be able to perform it?’”

From JGGG: “The first independent test of the validity and integrity of of the reports that we have discussed is a telltale silence in all contemporary literature concerning the claim of Jesus’ deity. There is a complete ABSENCE OF REBUTTAL. Although much was said to deny his deity, nothing was said to deny that he claimed it. (In fact, the first real threat to the infant Christain church came from the Gnostics who wanted to deny his HUMANITY!) ....Paul, writing within thirty years of the events themselves, confidently challenged his readers to check with any eyewitnesses if they wanted to confirm the truthfulness of his message (1Cor. 15:5). THE FACT THAT JESUS CLAIMED DEITY IS WITHOUT A CHALLENGER IN THE FIRST-CENTURY HISTORICAL RECORDS.” (emphasis changed from italics to CAPITALS) This may be an argument from silence, but it is issued as a challenge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since most of the rest of the Bible was written before A.D. 90, there were many people who witnessed the events who could have stepped forward if the Gospels, Paul’s epistles, etc. were unfactual. (per JGGG with citation of demographic study)

Paul’s epistles include the following per JGGG: 1) that Jesus was the preexistent Creator of the universe (Col 1:15-16) 2) that Jesus existed both in the “form of man” and in the “form of God” (Phil.2:5,8) 3) that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead, and thereafter was seen by over five hundred eyewitnesses (most of whom were alive when Paul wrote) (1Cor 15:4,5) 4) that prayer could be directed either to God the Father or to Jesus (1Cor 1:2) 5) that one day Jesus would return to earth as the divine judge of humanity (2Thess. 1:7-10) “No first-century Jew — especially one steeped in Jewish orthodoxy as was Paul, trained by the great Rabbi Gamaliel, fiercely monotheistic, a member of the sect of the Pharisees, and possibly even a member of the Great Sanhedrin ... would teach these things about anyone but Jehovah Himself.”

Hebrews 1:8 “But unto the son He says,’Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.”

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” v.14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory...”

Mark The beginning of the gospel of Mark quotes Malachi 3:1 with a significant alteration: “Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the before me.” Mark-—>”The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophets, “Behold I send my messenger before thy face...”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- of Jehovah Mutual Title or Act Of Jesus

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Isa 40:28 Creator John 1:3 Isa 45:22,43:11 Savior John 4:42 1Sam 2:6 Raise Dead John 5:21 Joel 3:12 Judge JJohn 5:27 cf. cf Matt 25:31 ff

Isa 60:19-20 Light John 8:12 Exodus 3:14 I AM John 8:58, cf 18:5-6 ps.23:1 Shepherd John 10:11 Isa 42:8, cf48:11 Glory of God John 17:1,5 Isa 41:4,44:6 First and Last Rev1:17;2:8 Hosea 13:14 Redeemer Rev 5:9 Isa 62:5 Rev 21:2, + Hosea 2:16 Bridegroom cf: Matt 25:1 ff Ps. 18:2 Rock 1 Cor 10:4 Jer 31:34 Forgiver of Sins Mark 2:7, 10 Ps 148:2 Worshipped by Angels Heb 1:6 Thru out O.T. Addressed in Prayer Acts 7:59 Ps. 148:5 Creator of Angels Col 1:16 Isa 45:23 Confessed as Lord Phil 2:11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the religion moderator’s home page
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/

Types of threads and guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum:

Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.

Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.

For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.

Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.

Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.

Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected

Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”

When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”

Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.

Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.

If you do not specify the type of thread, it will be considered “open.”
Certain sources have been determined to monger hatred and are forbidden. Sources that link to those sources are also forbidden. These include Jack Chick, Jesus-is-Lord.com, Vdare, KKK, Aryan Nations, National Alliance, Christian Identity, the false Jesuit Oath, the false Oath of the Knights of Columbus, anti-Semitic sources.

Recap

Prayer threads.

Who can post? Anyone
What can be posted? Requests for prayers and prayers

What will be pulled? Any debate

Who will be booted? Repeat offenders.

Devotional threads.

Who can post? Anyone
What can be posted? Meditations

What will be pulled? Any debate

Who will be booted? Repeat offenders.

Caucus threads.

Who can post? Members of the caucus and those specifically invited
What can be posted? Anything but the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus

What will be pulled? Reply posts mentioning the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus. If the article is inappropriate for a caucus, the tag will be changed to open.

Who will be booted? Repeat offenders.

Ecumenic threads.

Who can post? Anyone
What can be posted? Articles that are reasonably not antagonistic. Reply posts must never be antagonistic.

What will be pulled? Antagonistic reply posts. If the article is inappropriate for an ecumenic discussion, the tag will be changed to open.

Who will be booted? Antagonists

Open threads – all untagged threads are open by default.

Who can post? Anyone
What can be posted? Anything within the FR general guidelines

What will be pulled? Anything outside the FR general guidelines

Who will be booted? Thin-skinned posters

References to Jesus of Nazareth in Ancient Non-Christian Literature

Some Christian apologists commonly claim that the events described in the New Testament are independently attested to in writings by non-Christians, thereby supporting the accuracy of the New Testament. This FAQ contains a summary of alleged references to Jesus and to early Christianity, with special emphasis on the writings of Josephus and on pagan writers. I have omitted discussion of references to Jesus in the Talmud and other Jewish religious writings, as well as the gnostic Christian texts. While these writings are themselves important, they tend to contradict New Testament accounts, and so are seldom cited by Christian apologists.

Several problems confront a study such as this. For one, it is known that some texts have been corrupted over time, or have been changed by unscrupulous copyists. Thus, it is not always possible to separate later interpolations from the original writings. (See the section on Josephus for an example of this.) Second of all, some texts have been lost, and are only known through quotations in secondary sources. In addition, not only have some alleged references to Jesus been lost as primary sources, but some early criticisms of Christianity were suppressed by the early Church and no longer survive. Furthermore, of the surviving texts, both pro-Christian and otherwise, many texts cannot be dated with precision, or survive in more than one form. Thus, caution is warranted in interpreting material.

A reader of the ancient texts is struck by how little the literature has to say about events in the New Testament. For example, Herod’s infamous murder of the Innocents (in which he ordered the slaughter of hundreds of children), while playing a major role in the New Testament, is not mentioned by any other source, including the various accounts of Herod’s reign. Likewise, Josephus’ account of first century Palestine devotes much more attention to John the Baptist than to Jesus.

Finally, some comment must be made on the issue of “independent confirmation”. Even if a reference to Jesus in a text is authentic, and not a later Christian insertion, that text may not provide any new information. For instance, if a writer is merely repeating what he was told by Christians, who in turn derive their information from the New Testament, then the text in question does not provide independent confirmation of the New Testament, as the claims involved are ultimately derived from the NT. An example of what might constitute independent confirmation would be an eyewitness account by a non-Christian author, or an entry in a Roman legal document. These sources would presumably not be mere repetitions of what Christians believed to have happened, but instead might offer actual independent confirmation.

I am indebted to Michael Martin’s “The Case Against Christianity” for much of the information presented here. While I disagree with some of Martin’s conclusions, his work presents a starting point for consideration of the sources. I am particularly thankful to the following alt.atheism readers, who contributed both information and criticism of this work: Geoff Arnold, Ray Ingles, Jeff Lowder, James Lippard, Jim Perry, mathew@mantis.co.uk, worley@cs.ucf.edu, joonasms@evitech.fi, and kbraatz@delphi.com. Any errors in this text are mine, not theirs.

Scott Oser
8/15/1994

Josephus and Jesus
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century CE, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works. The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of Antiquities and reads as follows (taken from the standard accepted Greek text of Antiquities 18:63-64 by L. H. Feldman in the Loeb Classical Library):

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 as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. 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 marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus’ existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:

The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, “He was the Messiah.” Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome’s Latin version, however, renders “He was the Messiah” by “He was believed to be the Christ.”) Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.
The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.
Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus’s work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars cite such phrases as “tribe of Christians” and “wise man” as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian wishing to “dress up” Josephus would not have much trouble imitating his style.

Philip Burns (pib@merle.acns.nwu.edu) has provided some of the following material on the following alternate versions or reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.

One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian interpolations enclosed in brackets:

About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one ought to call him a man]. For he was one who performed surprising works, and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct.

In Charlesworth’s version, references to Jesus’ resurrection, Messiahship, and possible divinity (”if indeed one ought to call him a man”) are removed. These elements are clearly unacceptable coming from a non-Christian Jew such as Josephus. If in fact Josephus’s original text mentioned Jesus at all, it was certainly much closer to this version than to the highly pro-Christian one which has survived. One possible problem with Charlesworth’s reconstruction is the use of the term “Christians”—it is not clear from the reconstructed text why “Christians” would be named after Jesus, unless Josephus had previously referred to him as “Christ”. It seems inconsistent to delete the reference to Jesus being “Christ”, but to keep the suggestion that this is how Christians got their name.

A reconstruction by F.F. Bruce sidesteps this particular problem by having Josephus take a more hostile stance towards Jesus:

“Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him, is not extinct even today.

Bruce’s version also seems somewhat inconsistent, calling Jesus a “wise man” while also identifying him as a source of trouble and as someone who “led away many Jews”. A further problem concerns the reference to Jesus’s ministry among the Gentiles. In Jesus: A Historian’s Review of the Gospels, Michael Grant argues that Jesus in fact avoided ministering to Gentiles, and that a Christian Gentile ministry arose only after his death. If Grant is right, then Josephus is confusing the actions of Jesus with the actions of the early Christian church.

A late Arabic recension of this passage in Josephus comes from Agapius’s Book of the Title, a history of the world from its beginning to 941/942 C.E. Agapius was a tenth century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. The following translation is by S. Pines:

“Similarly Josephus, the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance (?) of the Jews: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. 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. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

While some have argued that this passage may be close to the original, one should note especially that this version is from a much later text, and that Josephus at least admits the possibility that Jesus was the Messiah, which seems unlikely. These two facts make this version suspect. In fact, E. Bammel argues that the passage reflects the conflicts between Christianity and Islam in Agapius’s time, rather than being a genuine reflection of the original text.

The consensus, if there is such a thing, would seem to be that:

The Testimonium Flavianium preserved in the extant Greek is not the original text. At best, certain phrases within it are later Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a later insertion.
In particular, Josephus probably did not claim that Jesus was the Messiah, or that he rose from the dead. At best, he only confirms that Jesus existed and perhaps was killed by Pilate.
Josephus apparently refers to Jesus in passing later in the “Antiquities”, where we find this passage:

“so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned.” (Antiquities 20.9.1)

Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the issue exists at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus’s non-existence note that Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus. However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this.

On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain, and clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus may be the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying much.

More detailed information and references to other discussions on Josephus may be found in:

Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1974.
Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. Doubleday (Anchor Books) 1988.
France, Richard T. The Evidence for Jesus. Intervarsity Press, 1986.

Tacitus and Jesus
In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians

“derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate” (Annals 15.44)

Two questions arise concerning this passage:

Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?
Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus’s story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?
Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.

The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus’ time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus’s existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title “Christos”. Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus’s historicity.

Suetonius and Jesus
In his The Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, writing around 120 CE, states:

“Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome.” (Claudius 5.25.4)
Occasionally this passage is cited as evidence for Jesus’s historicity. However, there are serious problems with this interpretation:

“Chrestus” is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not obviously a mispelling of “Christus”, meaning Christ.
The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone named Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to Jesus.
Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus. There is no doubt that there were Christians in Rome during the first century CE—this of course does NOT imply that Jesus actually lived during the first half of this century.
Thus, Suetonius fails to confirm the historicity of Jesus.

Thallus and Jesus
In a lost work referred to by Julius Africanus in the third century, the pagan writer Thallus reportedly claimed that Jesus’s death was accompanied by an earthquake and darkness. However, the original text is in fact lost, and we can confirm neither the contents of the text or its date. It is possible that Thallus was merely repeating what was told to him by Christians, or that the passage which Africanus cites is a later interpolation. Outside of the New Testament, no other references to earthquakes or unusual darkness occur in the contemporary literature. This is very surprising, given the effect these sorts of events would presumably have had on the populace.

Pliny the Younger and Jesus
Pliny the Younger, writing near 100 CE, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. In these writings, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan’s advice about what action to take against them, if any. However, Pliny’s writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but merely show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.