The Mythicist House of Cards

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

The Mythicist House of Cards

Post by Peter Kirby »

----- author: "ANONYMOUS" ------

(Actually, some PMK guy on Usenet circa 1997... come a long way? or a long way down? you decide... )

By my napkin math, this makes the author approximately 16 years old, give or take a month...

It dates approximately 3-4 months after the author's moment of atheistic clarity.

I'm pretty sure the author plagiarized JP Holding a little itty bit, just looking over it again...

Seems unintentionally humorous, looking back at it now, considering... and the style is just awesome...

If nothing else it is a proof of the great amount of leftover baggage you can carry with you, even if you are actually a bona fide atheist.

The author's moment of skepticism of Jesus wouldn't come until 2001, after reading the website and first book of Earl Doherty.

After that, he took some time off to play video games as a hobby... the conclusion reached led almost immediately on to disinterest in the subject...

Sometime after that, he hid his old review of Doherty's book from his Earthlink website and returned to discussing these matters, but ambiguously.

Around 2006 he blipped off the radar again, and sometime after that, he found love (and marriage).

Only in the last few years has the full realization both of what he had learned, and of what that means he must do and say, more or less as an ethical imperative, set in. No longer could he conceal his best and most honest appraisal of the full extent of the evidence, just to better 'fit in' with the 'it' crowd, among whom he suspected that a great number would instantly demote him mentally for so much as the mere word (the reasons behind it would not matter) and subsequently regard his other opinions as generally being of less weight than otherwise.

Still hoping that might not be as true as he suspected... finding it only a little more true than he had hoped. Slowly, so slowly, the times do seem to be changing. The topic seems more open for discussion, in some circles where it might not have been on the docket. And I'm doing my part to see it that way.

---======<<<<<<< THE MYTHICIST HOUSE OF CARDS >>>>>>>======-----

A surprising number of atheists on these ngs subscribe to the mythicist
hypothesis that Jesus did not exist. Although they place themselves
with about 0.1% of scholarship on the historical Jesus with this
position, they are often surprisingly uncritical in their endorsement of
the theory. This paper is a critique of this theory and a defense of
the historical Jesus. A fuller treatment of the existence of Jesus
would involve much more detailed NT studies, of which mythicists in
particular seem woefully unaware. (I've even heard mythicists on this
ng date the NT later than A.D. 150, something no historian has done
since the turn of the century!)
After reading some of the mythicist literature, it seems that their
presentations generally take this form:

1. Make a shocking and provocative introduction about Jesus and
Christianity. Their ideas are radical and the mythicists know it. In
the real world of historical scholarship they are taken about as
seriously as those who say that Jesus spent time in India or any of a
number of fringe joke theories. Some mythicists hold positions as
ludicrous as that the NT was written by the Pisos or a first century
mushroom cult. This tiny band of pundits led by some professor of
German would hardly be given the time of day in an ancient history
department, thus they must pander to the masses.

The mythicist will often admit their deep anti-Christian bias in the
prologue. They will also often argue against the existence of Jesus
based on the assumption that Christianity is false. Just look at the
introduction to this popular essay:

"Despite the lack of evidence for Jesus's existence many Jews have made
the tragic mistake of assuming that the New Testament story is largely
correct and have tried to refute Christianity by attempting to
rationalize the various miracles that allegedly occured during Jesus's
life and after his death. Numerous books have been written which take
this approach to Christianity. This approach however is hopelessly
flawed and is in fact dangerous since it encourages belief in the New
Testament." (Hayyim ben Yehoshua, THE MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS,
gopher://shamash.org:70/00/judaica/answers/missionaries/mythj.txt)

This approach could hardly be called rational or intellectually honest.
We will deny that Jesus existed, not because Jesus didn't exist, but to
shut down Christianity? (It is interesting that Hayyim criticizes them
for the relatively minor "rationalization" that needs to be done to
dismiss of the miracle claims compared to the MAJOR rationalization that
needs to be done to dismiss not only of that but also of Jesus'
existence in the first place. Another hypocrisy: Why is belief in the
OT any better than belief in the NT? There is FAR more evidence for the
existence of Jesus than there is for people such as Moses.)

2. Take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to history.
Mythicists almost never provide evidence *for* their ideas. Their
assumption is that Jesus didn't exist, and if it is in any way possible
to twist the data ad hoc so as to be consistent with their assumption,
the mythicist will consider their case made. However, history is
usually conducted in the exact *opposite* fashion: we consider some
document or reference within it reliable unless there is reason for
doubt. If modern historical scholarship would adopt the "guilty until
proven innocent" tact, the vast majority of accepted history would have
to be discarded. In the words of historian McEleney, the correct
principle in historical research is:

"...a presumption which one exercises in the reading of all history.
Without it no historiography, ancient or modern, would win acceptance.
Briefly, it is this, that one accepts a statement upon the word of the
reporter unless he has reason not to do so" (CBQ 34 (1972), p.446)

3. Go through each extra-Biblical reference and try to show that it is
possibly(!) a Xian interpolation or possibly(!) gathered from Xians,
thereby rendering it worthless(?) as evidence. Before the mythicist can
even get of the ground, s/he has to go through Josephus, Tacitus,
Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion, the Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Lucian,
Thallus, and Phlegon - and that's just among non-Christian writers!
(One would wonder why all this would even be necessary if Jesus'
non-existence were so obvious, or why the enemies of Christianity didn't
expose it for the fraud that it was instead of acknowledging the
existence of Jesus. I guess it's just one of those "mysteries."
Anyways...)

4. Marvel at the great "silence" of the mythicist's own making
concerning Jesus outside of Christian writings. Their premise is wrong,
there is plenty of extra-Biblical attestation to Jesus, in fact, a
surprising amount for the average cult leader IMO, but let us pretend
that there isn't. Arguments from silence are generally considered
rather weak in the first place. To even be half-decent, an argument
from silence must prove (1) that the author would have known about it if
it happened and (2) that the author would have written about it if he
had known about it. Neither is the case with Jesus. Jesus' ministry
took place entirely within Palestine, so it is unclear how the mythicist
expects most historians to have known about it. It is also unclear why
they think Jesus would be of great concern to non-Christians. You have
to wonder how much of a stir some mythicists would expect your average
cult leader to or how important they think Jesus would be to
non-Christians. To quote Harris' illustrative anecdote:

"Behind the call for additional non-Christian witnesses to the existence
of Jesus is the refusal to accept the testimony of the four writers we
do have. Should we reject the four because they are not forty? The
silence of the imaginary majority cannot overthrow the clear testimony
of the few. This demand for other witnesses reminds me of the anecdote
about a man accused of theft. At his trial the prosecuting attorney
brought forward four witnesses who saw him commit the crime, while the
defense attorney introduced as evidence fourteen persons who did not see
him do it. Needless to say, the man was found guilty!" (Harris, Murray.
3 Crucial Questions About Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.)

4. Impugn the integrity of the New Testament record. This is generally
done by (A) trying to find discrepancies and errors, (B) trying to show
that the NT writers were biased and distorted the facts, (C) arguing
that the later evangelists simply drew on their predecessors and
embellished, and (D) trying to find parallels to the stories about Jesus
in non-Christian literature.

As for the discrepancies, my opinion is that they are generally minor
and easily resolvable. Such minor details certainly have no bearing as
to whether the gospels are based on a historical person. There is also
the unstated assumption that a reliable historical text must be
innerant. However, if this were the case, we would be forced to throw
out nearly all history!

In fact, I think that the amount of consistency in the gospels generally
points in the other direction: *towards* the gospels being based on a
historical person. For example, consider some of the "contradictions"
often brought forward, those between the infancy narratives of Luke and
Matthew. Luke and Matthew weren't copying off each other, they were
written around the same time in different places, nor did they draw on a
common source as far as we can tell (no infancy narrative in Mark). The
apparent minor discrepencies, such as who Joseph's father was, as well
as the different forms that they write their geneaologies in, and the
different things that they focus on, also are evidence against
collusion. So Matthew and Luke drew on different traditions concerning
Jesus that, while having slightly diverged from the facts over 50 years,
still remained basically the same (such as who Jesus' parents were,
generally where and when he was born, etc.). If the gospels were
exactly the same, THEN I would suspect that the evangelists made it up
amongst themselves years later. If the gospels flatly contradicted each
other on non-trivial points, THEN I would suspect that the evangelists
independently fabricated their stories. As it is, this is exactly what
we would expect from stories with a historical core.

As for the Christians being biased, "biased towards what?" If we were
arguing against the gospels as evidence of Jesus' divinity and miracles,
then this might be a decent argument: Jesus' followers were certainly
going to write favorably of him and the evangelists had a mission to
convert people to Jesus (Jn 20:31). But if Jesus never existed in the
first place, where did this bias come from? Before the movie came out,
were you biased towards writing a biography of Forrest Gump? Were you
biased towards writing about him growing up in Alabama, fighting in
Vietnam, playing tennis in China, shaking hands with the president,
etc.? Silly, right? So, if Jesus never existed in the first place, how
could the evangelists be biased towards writing about Jesus being born
in Palestine, preaching and gaining disciples, conducting the Last
Supper, being crucified under Pontius Pilate, etc.? It is funny to see
mythicists trip up time after time in their writings, often arguing, in
effect, that the evangelist had the fictional Jesus do something because
it sounds like something Jesus would do in the NT! Also, it should be
noted that bias has no connection with whether what they say is true or
not: one could just as easily be biased towards what is true as towards
what is false. Much of history, such as the Holocaust, is reconstructed
primarily from 'biased' authors. Some historians would maintain that
everyone is biased.

There is little in the way of cogent argument that the evangelists
simply expanded on their predecessors. There is just as much evidence
against it: (1) the earliest gospel, Mark, has many details that the
laters leave out, (2) John has many details that the synoptics don't,
making a strong argument that Johannine tradition is based an
independent eyewitness, (3) the contemporaneous gospels, Matthew and
Luke, share many of the same traditions while not in the exact same
details, and (4) the claims that the gospels make for themselves, such
as the prologue to Luke, suggests that the earlier gospels were only
used to round out other traditions that also go back to eyewitness
testimony.

I find that the parallels are largely wanting and crumble under close
inspection. Between any two religions, you can always find "parallels"
of universal things like light, life, death, rebirth, etc. Their vague
nature ("a dying and rising god") don't explain why the Christians
placed their 'fictional' Jesus in history, with reference to real people
and places, in great detail. Perhaps it is a lack of imagination, but I
can't see the author of Mark sitting there with myths from Egypt, India,
Greece, and all over the globe in front of him, carefully picking bits
of each to work into this "Jesus" character, deciding to make Jesus the
founder of their religion 40 years ago, deciding to make his ministry in
first century Palestine, deciding to have him visit this city and then
that, deciding to have him conduct the Last Supper, deciding to have him
tried by the Sanhedrin, deciding to have him crucified under Pontius
Pilate, deciding to have Joseph of Arimathea bury Jesus, deciding to
have Mary Magdelene find the empty tomb (because he remembered something
about some Egyptian god getting chopped up and restored to life),
getting people to believe and spread this "Good News," and going to bed
to sleep at night! I never see data advanced that there was actual
borrowing, and to just show a parallel and conclude that one influenced
the other is a false cause fallacy. (EG, some credulous "skeptics" cite
the gods of Mexico!) Moreover, the alleged parallels often result from
liberal scholars uncritically describing pagan beliefs and practices in
Christian language and then marveling at the striking parallels they
think they've discovered. For a more detailed analysis on possible
pagan influence on Christianity, visit
http://christiananswers.net/summit/nash2.html

5. Engage in extravagant speculation concerning the origins of
Christianity and the NT instead of accepting the obvious conclusion that
they are based on a historical personage who founded Christianity more
or less as the NT records. More than any extra-Biblical references to
Jesus, the existence of the Church and the New Testament is powerful
prima facie evidence for the existence of Jesus. The complicated ideas
of mythicists easily fall prey to the principle of parsimony (a.k.a.
KISS or Occam's Razor).

Although mythicists try to date the NT as late as possible without
stretching credibility, they have been consistently refuted as we
learned more about the origins of the NT. Today the "upper bound" on
dating the gospels are A.D. 100 for John, A.D. 90 for Matthew and
Luke-Acts, and A.D. 70 for Mark. Many are even pushing to date the
gospels between A.D. 50 and 70. The people, oral tradition, and
probably shorter written sources (passion narratives, miracle stories,
collections of sayings, etc.) that the evangelists drew upon must have
been around for decades before then. The epistles (such as 1
Corinthians c. A.D. 56), which are generally dated even earlier than the
gospels, refer to Jesus' Davidic descent, life in the flesh, betrayal,
Last Supper, death, burial, Resurrection, appearances, ascension, and
other details. Paul's formula concerning the Resurrection (1Cor 15:3-7)
is a hymn that translates easily into Aramaic, is designed for
memorization, and dates within 6 years of Jesus' (alleged) death, when
Paul picked it up in Jerusalem at the time of his conversion (which we
know because of Acts and his writings and because it is too embarassing
for the Church to have made it up). As we shall see below, Tacitus and
Suetonius confirm the early existence of Christians, who were already in
Rome around as early as the 40s and 60s. So we see that believers in
Jesus go far back, within just a few years of Jesus' (alleged) death c.
A.D. 30.

There is no evidence that Christians existed before A.D. 30. All the
evidence we do have - from the New Testament, from Josephus, from
Tacitus, from everyon (below) - connects Christianity with the Christ
who preached in first-century Palestine and was crucified under Pontius
Pilate c. A.D. 30. The NT is replete with references to actual people
and places, making it very difficult to consider it all legend and
impossible to date the origins of (at least the vast majority of) the
traditions surrounding Jesus before A.D. 30. While rejecting the
existence of Jesus, mythicists generally accept the existence of many if
not most of the people referred to in the NT, such as Herod, Pontius
Pilate, the high priests, John the Baptist, James (brother of Jesus),
Paul, and other apostles (unless they are the kind of mythicist which is
just utterly ignorant or extremely skeptical of history). Just look at
how careful Luke is to situate events in history (Lk 3:1-2): "In the
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was
governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother
Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias
was tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and
Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the
desert." (BTW, some skeptics once thought that Lysanias was a goof
because there was no independent confirmation of his existence, but
confirmation has been found. Better watch those arguments from
silence!) Jesus' ministry takes place, not in some mythical land of Oz,
but in first century Palestine. The geography and socio-political
atmosphere of the place and times is accurately portrayed in the
gospels.

So we see that, according to the mythicist hypothesis, people
mysteriously began telling stories about, preaching and living and dying
for, and converting others to a religion centered on a non-existent
person who supposedly lived only a few years earlier and that they had
allegedly lived with. Although the central figure of their beliefs was
entirely mythical, they carefully intertwined their stories with
accurate geography and actual people. After just a few decades (no more
than two generations), the traditions concerning this non-existent
figure comprised four fairly lengthy and largely consistent books, as
well as references in many letters. Commenting on Wells:

"The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved
such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a
non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is
just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative
hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a
Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels
attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the
character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the
existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure
who was a sufficient cause of Christianity's beginnings - another figure
who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!"
(Dunn, James G. D. The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville: Westminster,
1985.)

6. Go around claiming that Jesus certainly didn't exist and that anyone
who accepts his existence is an illogical idiot.

In addition to the most powerful NT evidence, which stands unless there
is an explanation more plausible than the existence of Jesus, I would
like to comment on Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion, and
the Talmud. I think that Josephus alone is enough to prove Jesus'
existence. The other references, while perhaps inconclusive in and of
themselves (although the evidence from Tacitus is very powerful, about
on par with Josephus), do provide a cumulative case for Jesus'
existence.

JOSEPHUS

There is an undisputed reference to Jesus in chapter 20 of Josephus'
_Antiquities_:

Antiquities 20.9.1. "But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received
the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring;
he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above
all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such
a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was
now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council
of judges, and brought it before the brother of Jesus the so-called
Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having
accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."

Here are the reasons that this passage is considered authentic (rather
than a later Xian interpolation):

1. There is no reason to suspect this of being an interpolation. Thus,
according to the normal "innocent until proven guilty" approach to
history, this should be considered authentic.
2. Josephus' emphasis is not on Jesus or James, but on why Ananus was
deposed as high priest.
3. Josephus' account of James being stoned is different from the
account given by the church historian Hegesippus, who has James being
thrown from the roof of the Temple.
4. The designation "brother of Jesus" contrasts with Christian practice
of referring to James as the "brother of the Lord" (cf. Gal. 1:19;
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.23.4).
5. The passage is found in the main Greek-manuscript edition of The
Antiquities without any notable variation.
6. The early fourth-century Church historian Eusebius quotes this
passage in his Ecclesiastical History (2.23.22)
7. Origen refers to this passage in his _Commentary_on_Matthew_ 10.17,
indicating that it was in Josephus prior to his time (about A.D. 200).
8. If a Xian was tampering with this passage, he would probably also
want to deny the charges against James.
9. If a Xian was tampering with this passage, he would probably take
the oppurtunity to assert the messiahship of Jesus more definitely.
10. The word Christ began to be used as a proper name very early among
Gentile Christians, but the phrase "called the Christ" betrays the use
of Christ as his proper name, and so probably reflects Jewish rather
than Christian usage.
11. The passages is not Christian. A Jew working under Romans would
have no problem making those statements.
12. Josephus is generally careful to supply details to locate his
characters in history. As James is a common name, if Josephus simply
referred to "James and certain others," one would be compelled to ask
"which James?" If Josephus simply said "James, the brother of Jesus,"
one would ask, "Which Jesus? You have already mentioned at least
thirteen others named Jesus." Josephus used more precise language in
saying "James, the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ," and there
is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this statement. Now, this
would seem to imply that the reader would be familiar with a certain
"Jesus who is called Christ" and that there would have been an earlier
reference to him. This draws our attention to chapter 18 and the
Testimonium Flavianum.

(If a DOZEN reasons aren't good enough for you, then we ought to reject
all of history as forgery!)

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if
it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a
teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to
him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ,
and 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; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the
divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful
things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are
not extinct at this day."

According to Feldman's discernible statistics (Feldman, Louis H.
Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984): 4
scholars regard the Testimonium Flavianum as completely genuine, 6 more
as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several
interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

Here are some of the reasons for considering it authentic:
1. The passage is in all extant manuscripts of Antiquities. Eusubius
quotes it in his _History of the Church_, written A.D. 325, and again in
his _Demonstration of the Gospel_, written somewhat earlier.
2. The authenticity of the shorter passage lends further support to the
authenticity of the longer passage. The reference to "Jesus the
so-called Christ" presupposes an earlier reference; the Testimonium is
that reference.
3. According to the gospels, the Jews were primarily responsible for
Jesus' death. This tendency to blame the Jews and absolve the Romans of
the crime became even more apparent among second and third century
thought. (Some apocrypha would almost have us believe that Pilate
converted to Christianity!) However, Josephus says, "Pilate...had
condemned him to the cross." The Testimonium Flavianum lays the blame
on the Romans and does not mention anything about Jewish authorities
sentencing Jesus. The Jews are merely "the men of highest standing
among us" who made a "suggestion" to Pilate. It is difficult to explain
how the hands of a Christian interpolator near the time of Eusebius
would have left this intact.
4. Mason notes that "Christian copyists were quite conservative in
transmitting texts" and would have been committing "an act of
unparalleled scribal audacity" by creating the Testimonium out of the
whole cloth, without an original Josephan core (Mason, Steve. Josephus
and the New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992). Moreover, Christian
copyists also handled the works of the Jewish historian Philo for
hundreds of years; yet we have no Testimonium Philoum to wrangle over!
5. The passage is mostly non-Christian. As we will see below, there is
only reason to suspect those parts of the passage that are Christian
("if it be lawful to call him a man," "He was the Messiah," and "for he
appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had
foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning
him"). Thus, according to the normal "innocent until proven guilty"
approach to history, the rest should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Josephus could easily have said positive things about Jesus without
accepting His divinity. It is clearly a wrong-headed approach to reject
all the nice things said about Jesus in the passage, which does not
appreciate the possibility that while some Jews followed Jesus
completely, others merely admired him "for his honesty, charisma, and
teachings." (Charlesworth, James H. - Jesus Within Judaism. New York:
Doubleday, 1988)
6. Much of the vocabulary and style matches that of Josephus. His
opening phrase, "Now about this time..." is used regularly to the point
of nausea. The description of Jesus as "a wise man" is not typically
Christian, but it is used by Josephus of, for example, Solomon and
Daniel. Similarly, Christians did not refer to Jesus' miracles as
"astonishing deeds" (paradoxa erga), but exactly the same expression is
used by Josephus of the miracles of Elisha. And the description of
Christians as a "tribe" (phylon) occurs nowhere in early Christian
literature, while Josephus uses the word both for the Jewish "race" and
for other national or communal groups.

Objection: Maybe a clever Xian interpolater copied the style?

This "objection" is a clear demonstration of what I said at the
beginning: the mythicist assumes that Jesus did not exist and twists
data ad hoc to fit the assumption. This kind of "meta-skepticism" is
impenetrable by design. Here the mythicist uses the "guilty until
proven innocent" fallacy not once, not twice, but three times! Consider
the exchange:

Anti-J: "Jesus doesn't exist."
Pro-J: "How do you know? Moreover, Josephus refers to Jesus in the
Testimonium Flavinium."
Anti-J: "That's all just a later Xian interpolation."
Pro-J: "How do you know? Moreover, the vocabulary and style matches
that of Josephus on several counts."
Anti-J: "The interpolater was clever enough to copy the style. Instead
of using his native vocabulary, he searched Josephus to find
corresponding words that, while rare in Christian circles, were used
frequently by Josephus. This is because he knew that centuries later
people would be analyzing this passage for style and vocabulary to see
if it matches that of Josephus instead of that of a Christian."
Pro-J: "How do you know? Moreover, you claim that our interpolater was
exceptionally brilliant and erudite, intimately familiar with the
nuances of Josephan vocabulary as compared to Christian, almost to the
point of having prophetic powers, and took great pains to elude even the
critical analysis of 20th century historians, but your own words betray
you. According to you, our master of interpolational skills, taking
every possible precaution against arising suspicion, also makes the
'obviously bogus' statement that 'He was the Messiah.' So much for that
theory."

There is only good reason to suspect the Christian parts mentioned, and
I consider them a double-edged sword, as some of them also undercut the
mythicist's position:

1. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a believing Jew working under
Romans, would have written, "This was the Messiah." This would make him
suspect of treason, but nowhere else is there an indication that he was
a Christian.

A. However, if this were true, then our style-copying interpolater above
would have been bright enough not to have written it down. Thus you
admit that the passage was originally authentic and, therefore, that
Jesus existed.
B. This puts another nail in the coffin in your already weak arguments
from silence. Even if a Jewish or Roman historian had indication that
Jesus was more than a man, it is unlikely that he would have written
that down, for exactly those reasons. And even if one did write it
down, wouldn't we be a might suspicious of that coming from a Jew or
Roman? Those that believed that Jesus was the Messiah would later be
called "Christians," so it is unfair to charge as evidence against His
existence that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ.
That's almost a tautology.

2. Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that
Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

A. I thought that mythicists didn't trust Christian writings.
B. The way that is phrased, "…as the Christ," seems to indicate that
Josephus believed in Jesus, just not as the Messiah. This is further
confirmation that Josephus originally had references to Jesus.

3. If the passage as we have it today was originally in Josephus, then
Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Origen would almost
certainly have quoted it for its tremendous apologetic value.

So we se that the Testimonium Flavinium has on original Josephan core
and probably embellishments by a Christian copyist. How did these
questionable phrases get into the Antiquities? Much as certain people
scribble "replies" in the margins of their books, so some scribe(s)
perhaps added the questionable phrases as commentary - and then they
were later carelessly incorporated into the text. (Meier, John P. - A
Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday,
1991. At this writing, in two volumes, with a third in the works. Volume
Two, dated 1994, differentiated by the addition of "2")
These phrases are almost certainly from our "sneaky" interpolater: "if
it be lawful to call him a man," "He was the Christ," and "for he
appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had
foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."
The phrase "if it be lawful to call him a man" is parenthetically
connected to the narrative and grammatically free and could easily have
been inserted by a Christian. A Christian interpolator would have
considered the description of Jesus as merely "wise" to be insufficient,
and so would want to add something else. As for the other two, unless
Josephus was a Christian, there is no way he could have written that.
As we noted above, these phrases are probably from Josephus. "Now there
was about this time Jesus, a wise man": Josephus typically begins that
way, and the description of "a wise man" is also characteristic of
Josephus, not Christians. Josephus would have appreciated much of what
Jesus said and did without accepting his divinity, as do many today.
"Jesus argued against the zealous revolutionaries and was not an
apocalyptic fanatic; Jospehus would have admired this argument and
position. Jesus uttered many wise and philosophical maxims and Josephus
was fond of Jewish wisdom and of Greek philosophy" (Charlesworth, James
H. - Jesus Within Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 1988). Indeed, the
description of Jesus as a "wise man" is less than one would expect from
those who believed Him to be the incarnate Logos who rose bodily from
the dead on the third day. The phrase "for he was a doer of wonderful
works" is not necessarily Christian, and, as we noted above, the term
"paradoxa erga" is characteristic of Josephus, not Christians. The
Greek word paradoxos can mean strange, surprising, or wonderful.
Christian translators would naturally assume that Josephus meant the
latter, where he more likely meant the second or first. The second
phrase, "a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure" was
perhaps the subject of a mistranslation or change, replacing taethe
(unusual, strange) with talethe (truth). "He drew over to him both many
of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles" is a neutral observation. The
phrase "and 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" is from Josephus because, as we noted above,
Christians were much more condemning of the Jews, while Josephus lays
the primary blame on Pilate. The phrase "And the tribe of Christians so
named from him are not extinct at this day" uses the word "phylon" for
tribe, which is also characteristic of Josephus, not Christians.
Thus I would suggest the follow reconstruction of the Testimonium
Flavianum: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be
lawful to call him a man,] for he was a doer of strange works, a teacher
of such men as receive the unusual with pleasure. He drew over to him
both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ,]
and 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; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the
divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful
things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians so named from him
are not extinct at this day."
Some bogus objections to our reconstruction:
1. It is a glowing description of Jesus as the Christ which no orthodox
Jew could have written.
This assumes that the Testimonium, as we now have it, could not be an
embellishment of an authentic core. But that is precisely the view that
most scholars and I defend. This objection is an example of too-extreme
black-and-white thinking about Jewish reaction to Jesus. On the one
hand, Origen noted that Josephus was not a Christian, so he could not
have written the passage with the questionable verses; on the other
hand, if it had been a hostile recounting, Origen probably would have
singled it out for rebuke (Feldman, Louis, ed. Josephus, Judaism, and
Christianity. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987).
2. If Josephus had written this, and actually believed it, he would not
have restricted himself to a mere ten lines.
But Josephus only mentions John the Baptist once, at similar length, yet
no scholar argues that John the Baptist never existed because he is only
given a few lines in Josephus. Since John the Baptist was in many ways
a figure to Jesus, it's therefore arbitrary to apply this criticism to
Jesus. (Interestingly, G.A. Wells accepts the integrity of the John the
Baptist passage!)
3. The passage occurs out of context where Josephus is discussing the
misfortune of the Jews.
This is problematic. Even if the passage is out of context, that does
not imply that the passage is an interpolation. It was common for
ancient writers to insert extraneous texts or passages which seemingly
interrupt the flow of the narrative (whereas today the material would be
placed in a footnote):
"A further main reason why ancient historiography differed from its
modern counterparts was provided by digressions. They were far more
frequent in Greek and Roman writings than in our own. For one thing,
there was a simple technical explanation for such digressions. Nowadays
we have footnotes; the ancients did not, so that what would now be
relegated to a footnote had to appear in the text. But there was also a
deeper philosophical explanation. The Greek and Roman historians wanted
to supply background..." (Michael Grant, Greek & Roman Historians:
Information and Misinformation (New York: Routledge, 1995), p. 53)
Moreover, as E. Mary Smallwood argues, this was particularly
characteristic of Josephus:
"One feature of Josephus' writing which may be disconcerting to the
modern reader and appear inartistic is the way in which at times the
narrative is proceeding at a spanking pace when it is unceremoniously
cut short by a paragraph or a longer passage of material unrelated or
only marginally related to the subject in hand, and then resumed equally
abruptly. Basically, these interruptions are of two types, with
different reasons behind them, and it may therefore be helpful if a word
is said here about the conventions of ancient historiography, which
differed considerably from ours.
"One type of interruption, such as a sudden move to another theatre of
war, occurs because ancient historians usually wrote
annalistically---literally, by years ...
"A quite different explanation lies behind other interruptions to the
flow of the narrative. The ancient world never invented those useful
lay-bys in which the modern author can park essential but intractable
material, and thus avoid breaking the main thread of his argument, the
footnote and the appendix ... what we relegate to notes and appendixes
appeared as digressions." (Josephus, "The Jewish Wars". Translated by
G.A. Williamson. Revised with introduction by E.
Mary Smallwood. Penguin Books, 1981, pp. 20-21)
I see no reason to believe the Testimonium occurs out of context. For
example, New Testament scholar R.T. France has argued that Josephus is
simply listing events that happened during or near Pilate's reign. And
Steve Mason thinks that Josephus is merely "trying to paint a picture of
escalating tension for Jews around the world." It is therefore unclear
why the Testimonium is "out of context."
Mason's exposition makes the picture quite clear. Here is the outline
of events under Pilate as given by Josephus:
* 18.35 Pilate arrives in Judea.
* 8.55-9 Pilate introduces imperial images in the Temple, causing a
ruckus.
* 18.60-2 Pilate expropriates Temple funds to build an aqueduct.
* 18.63-4 The Testimonium appears.
* 18.65-80 An event set in Rome, not involving Pilate directly, having
to do with the seduction of a follower of Isis in Rome.
* 18.81-4 An account of four Jewish scoundrels; also not directly
involving Pilate.
* 18.85-7 An incident involving Pilate and some Samaritans.
* 18.88-9 Pilate gets the imperial boot.
As can be seen, this is by no means a set of connected events. Pilate
has a role in all of them; but it is not even certain that Josephus is
giving these events in chronological order.
4. The passage was written so late (c. A.D. 93) that the authentic
material in the Testimonium could be based on the gospels.
This criticism seems multiply flawed. First, Josephus uses
distinctively non-Christian terminology, making it most improbable he
received his information from Christian sources. For example, `wise
man' is used of Solomon and Daniel as occult sages; `incredible deeds'
is not a Christian description of miracles; `worker' is a Greek
technical term for literary poet; etc. Second, it is unclear why
Josephus would have mentioned Jesus and Christianity at this point in
Antiquities at all "unless he was convinced that the career and
execution of Jesus was an actual event which occurred during the
governorship of Pilatus." And third, as a Jew who lived most of his
life in Palestine, Josephus was in a position where he could have the
means and motive to verify what he was told. Moreover, the rest of the
Antiquities does not support the claim that Josephus relied on
Christians for his information.
This line of reasoning is used in part by Wells, who claims that even if
he agreed that the Josephus passages were genuine, they would be "too
late to be of decisive importance"! As Harris points out, our best
references to the Emperor Tiberius (14-37 AD) come from historians who
lived much later than he did (Tacitus, c. 115 AD; Suetonius, c. 120 AD;
Dio Cassius, 230 AD), so this is hardly reason to dismiss Josephus'
testimony concerning Jesus!
5. The passage does not appear until the fourth century.
If the Testimonium Flavianum contains Christian embellishments upon a
historical core, then the authentic version of this passage probably
would not have been very useful to the early church fathers before
Jesus. Assuming that contemporary reconstructions of the passage are
accurate, it is difficult to imagine why the early church fathers would
have cited such a passage. The original text probably did nothing more
than establish the historical Jesus. Since we have no evidence that the
historicity of Jesus was questioned in the first centuries, we should
not be surprised that the passage was never quoted until the fourth
century. This agrees with Origen's use of the passage, as noted above.
Indeed, this is a primary reason why the Jesus myth is not taken
seriously: we have no evidence that the historicity of Jesus was
questioned in the first centuries. Certainly if Jesus did not exist,
this would have been the first thing that opponents of Christianity -
especially those in the Jewish community - would have jumped on. Of
course, quasi-scholars like Wells would say that such arguments existed,
but they weren't written down, or Christians covered them up, or we
haven't found them yet. Such is the level of desperation the mythicists
go to - and it is yet another reason why their work is not taken
seriously even by most skeptics. And speaking of Wells, we have seen
how he deals with the Josephus passages: quite simply, to quote Meier,
the Josephus passages in Wells' work are "quickly and facilely dismissed
without detailed examination." Evaluations like this, from fair and
scholarly professionals like Meier, should give us pause before giving
any credibility to the Christ-mythicists led by some professor of
German.

[cont'd]
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Mythicist House of Cards

Post by Peter Kirby »

TACITUS
Modern historians have become used to piecing together the stories of
ancient times and places despite that ancient writers oftentimes used
poor sources, didn't carefully interpret their material, or distorted
the facts due to bias. OTOH, Tacitus stands out as "universally
considered the most reliable of historians, a man in whom sensibility
and imagination, though lively, could never spoil a critical sense rare
in his time and a great honesty in the examination of documents."
(Francois Amiot, The Sources for the Life of Christ, New York, 1962,
page 16)
Writing in his Annals circa A.D. 116, Tacitus describes the response of
Emperor Nero to the great fire that swept Rome in A.D. 64:
"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."
All scholars admit that the style is clearly "Tacitean Latin." Further,
as the passage does not speak kindly of Christians, there is no possible
motive for anyone other than Tacitus to have written it.
WHOEVER Tacitus' source is, it must have been VERY GOOD for him to state
Jesus' existence as fact. And, if it's good enough for Tacitus, it's
good enough for me. ;-) He had "m{*filter*}certitude" of Jesus' existence,
enough to put his reputation on the line with the claim. Just this,
coupled with the normal "innocent until proven guilty" approach to
history, is enough to consider this reference powerful evidence for the
existence of Jesus.
However, mythicists have been forced to take up a different tact,
alleging that our careful and critical historian Tacitus was merely
regurgitating rumors that he picked up from Christians, even though he
despised them and so would give little weight to the claims of the
propagators of this "pernicious superstition." So let us deal with our
reasons for rejecting the claims of mythicists in detail:
There are several reasons to believe that Tacitus was not simply
reporting information he had received from Christians. Being a Roman
senator, Tacitus certainly must have had the best records available in
the Roman Empire at the time. He makes his statement about the death of
Christ as historical fact, not something that someone else said was
true. In Annals 4.10, where Tacitus refutes a particular rumor, he says
that he has reported from "the most numerous trustworthy authorities."
In 4.57 he says, "I have followed the majority of historians." Tacitus
is careful to record conflicts in his sources. In 15.38, he speaks of
conflicting versions as to the source of the great fire of Rome.
Tacitus does not quote his sources uncritically. In Annals 4.57, he
questions the majority report of the historians. In 15.53 he considers
Pliny's statement absurd, and in 13.20 he notes Fabius Rusticus' bias.
B. Walker comments that Tacitus "was a persistent skeptic towards
popular rumor, even when a rumor coincided with his own prejudices" (The
Annals of Tacitus, page 142) and cites Annals 2.68 as an example.
Tacitus hedges his opinion when others do not. Tacitus distinguishes
between rumor and fact by using expressions such as, "Some have put it
on record" or "As the general account goes." He also uses terms such as
"It is said" and "They say" when he does not want to vouch for a
statement's reliability.
The Tacitean scholar Mendell writes: "In the Histories (another work of
Tacitus) there are sixty-eight instances in which Tacitus indicates
either a recorded statement or a belief on someone's part with regard to
something which he himself is unwilling to assert as a fact; in other
words, he cites divergent authority for some fact or motive" (Mendell,
Clarence W. - Tacitus: The Man and his Work. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1957). These instances "would seem to indicate a writer who had
not only read what was written by historians...but had also talked with
eye witnesses and considered with some care the probable truth where
doubt or uncertainty existed...
"The sum total of the picture is clear. For the main narrative, Tacitius
assumes the responsibility of the historian to get at the truth and
present it. His guarantee was his own reputation. To make this narrative
colorful and dramatic, he felt justified in introducing facts and
motives which he might refute on logical grounds or leave uncontested
but for which he did not personally vouch. There is no indication that
he followed blindly the account of any predecessor."
Mendell also notes in several places that Tacitus was concerned for
maintaining his integrity as a historian. In Annals, the work with the
paragraph on Jesus, Mendell cites 30 instances where Tacitus uses
specific phrases "to substantiate a statement or to present a statement
for which he does not care to vouch." Mendell also notes that "In Books
11-16 of the Annals (the Jesus cite is in 15) Tacitus "concerns himself
with the evidence and source references to a greater extent than in the
earlier books." He relies on other historians, a bronze inscription
(11.14), reports or memoirs (15.16), personal testimonies (15.73), and
physical evidence (15.42). There are indications of searches for
first-hand (15.41) and written (12.67, 13.17) evidence. Thus the cite
on Jesus comes in the middle of one of Tacitus' most carefully
documented works.
In reporting a {*filter*} of Piso to assassinate Nero, Tacitus
acknowledges the difficulty of accurate knowledge of such conspiracies,
indicates where his knowledge is uncertain, and does not use of one of
Pliny's quotes as positive evidence because he considers it to be
"wholly absurd" (15.53).
Maurice Goguel notes the absence of words such as "it is said" in Annals
15.44 should cause us to believe that Tacitus' source was a document.
He states: "One fact is certain, and that is, Tacitus knew of a
document, which was neither Jewish nor Christian, which connected
Christianity with the Christ crucified by Pontius Pilate." (Jesus the
Nazarene: Myth or History?, page 40).
Of course, mythicists must deny this, claiming that, just for this
single paragraph, Tacitus just abandoned his normal careful and critical
scholarship and blindly followed the tales of this "pernicious
superstition." Their "reasons" are entirely unfounded, but let us
examine them in succession:
Here are some of the more bogus objections made to the very strong
evidence that Tacitus got his information from a reliable source:
Objection: It is quite possible that Tacitus got his information about
Christians from Pliny the Younger. Tacitus was an intimate friend and
correspondent of the younger Pliny and was therefore probably acquainted
with the problems Pliny encountered with the Christians during his
governorship in Bithynia - Pontus (c. A.D. 110-112). Given the
uncertainty surrounding Pliny's source(s) of information, by extension
Tacitus is likewise uncertain.
That Tacitus got his information on Jesus, or some of it, from Pliny
originally is within possibility: The two men were close friends;
Tacitius sent his works to Pliny for criticism; and "he himself begged
for the product of Pliny's pen." Tacitus also "turned to Pliny for
first-hand material for his Histories" [CM.T, 21], so he was not
hesitant to use Pliny as a source. However, this does not mean that
Tacitus accepted Pliny's information on Jesus, or on any topic,
uncritically:
* We see from the notations about Annals 15.53 that Tacitus did collect
some information from Pliny - and that he disputed it, and even
considered it wholly absurd!
* We may note again Mendell's report that "(T)here is no indication that
he followed blindly the account of any predecessor." This is a strong
indication that even if Tacitus DID get his information about Christians
and Christianity from Pliny - which is in no way proven or even evident
- 15.53, and Mendell's substantial information, indicates that he would
not take it at face value; he would investigate the information.
* Syme, who was regarded as one of the foremost Tacitean scholars, adds
that "the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust. It was needed
if a man were to write about the Caesars."
* Chilver indicates that "for Tacitus scepticism was inescapable is not
to be doubted."
* Martin, though noting difficulties about discerning Tacitus' exact
sources, says that "It is clear, then, that Tacitus read widely and that
the idea that he was an uncritical follower of a single source is quite
untenable."
* Grant, while charging Tacitus with bias, error, and "unfair
selectivity" in various areas (especially associated with the Emperor
Tiberius), nevertheless agrees that Tacitus "was careful to contrast
what had been handed down orally with the literary tradition."
* Dudley, finally, notes that despite problems in discerning what
sources Tacitus used, "it may be said with some confidence that the view
that Tacitus followed a single authority no longer commands support."
In short, Tacitus was a Roman version of a skeptic! He would not take
any information he was given for granted, even if it did come from his
buddy Pliny; and this, incidentally, is one more reason for rejecting
the idea that Tacitus used only Christian sources - why would he write
as he did unless he were thoroughly convinced that Christus did exist?
More than that, why would he trust a source that he held in such disdain
as he did Christians? (Indeed, when he states in the passage that
Christianity was "repressed for a time," would that come from a
Christian source?)
At any rate, this is basically just pure speculation, which goes against
the flow of normal standard Tacitean praxis. To make this argument
effective, the mythicist should produce some positive evidence that
Tacitus had abandoned his normal practice. Without such evidence, his
conjecture remains just that--pure speculation. He would have us simply
arbitrarily assume that Tacitus diverged JUST THIS ONCE on 15.44 from
his normal routines. What great faith!
Objection: It is unlikely that Tacitus accessed official documents.
Even if one assumes that Tacitus regularly consulted original documents,
it is unlikely that he would have had access to the imperial archives.
Harris writes that the records "were secret so that even the senate
needed special permission to consult them (Tacitus, Hist. 4.40)." But
in fact it was not Tacitus' practice to consult original documents.
The quote by Harris only tells us that Tacitus needed special permission
to consult the imperial archives. It does not tell us how difficult it
was to get permission, or that Tacitus received (or did not receive)
such permission, or how often he did get or needed to get access.
Indeed, IF ANYONE would be able to get that very special permission,
Tacitus would be an excellent candidate!
But, anyways, is there any actual evidence that Tacitus consulted
original documents? Contrary to Wells, Tacitean scholars agree that the
historian did indeed have access to some kind of archives, including
Senate records.
Mendell notes these examples from Annals:
* "Speeches of the emperor are discussed also in 1.81, obviously as
accessible. Of letters sent to Tiberius and of others attacking Nero
and Agrippina he speaks (5.16 and 5.3) as though they might still be
consulted. This is certainly true of the one to Tiberius." (Mendell,
Clarence W. - Tacitus: The Man and his Work. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1957)
* In Annals 15.74, Tacitus cites the records of the Roman Senate from
Nero's time and cites Senate records elsewhere (5.4). The acta Senatus
included letters from emperors, governors of provinces (like Pilate!),
allies, and client kings.
* Tacitus also probably made use of Rome's public libraries. (Dudley,
Donald. The World of Tacitus. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1968)
* Tacitus also consulted the Acta Diurna, a daily public gazette (3.3,
12,24, 13.31, 16.22), and private journals and memoirs, which presumably
"were preserved in large numbers, especially in the older aristocratic
families." (Mendell, Clarence W. - Tacitus: The Man and his Work. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1957)
Quote:
* Syme writes: "The straight path of inquiry leads to the archives of

the Senate...the first hexad of Annales (not where the Jesus passage is,
BTW) contains an abundance of information patently deriving from the
official protocol, and only there to be discovered." (Syme, Ronald.
Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon, 1958)
* Regarding an incident in Africa: "That Tacitus consulted the Senate
archives is proved by the character of the material, by its
distribution..." (ibid., 281) Relative to Book 4 of Tacitus' Historiae:
"required constant access to the register of the Senate." (ibid.)
So we see that Tacitus is a very skeptical, reliable, and objective
historian who checked on his sources, usually multiple ones, and always
noted if there was doubt as to his statements - his very reputation was
riding on it!
Some, particularly G. A. Wells, have made a big deal over Tacitus'
reference to Pilate as a "procurator." His proper title was "prefect,"
so Tacitus has been considered to be in error. We should first consider
the difference between these two titles. A procurator, as the word
implies, was a financial administrator who acted as the emperor's
personal agent. A prefect was a military official. Now as problematic
as this seems, there is really no problem at all. Meier notes that in a
"backwater province" like Judea, there was probably not much difference
between the two roles; furthermore, Philo and Josephus were not
consistent in the usage of the terms either; Josephus calls Pilate a
"procurator" in Antiquities 18.5.6, the story about Pilate bringing
images into Jerusalem. Also, Sanders (EPS.HF, 23) cites inscriptional
evidence that the position held by Pilate was called "prefect " in 6-41
AD, but "procurator" in the years 44-66, so it most likely is that
Tacitus was simply using the term with which his readers would be most
familiar. Finally, though I have not seen it suggested, I wonder if in
a backwater like Judea, Pilate may have held BOTH titles!
Wells also notes three other matters. First, he observes that Tacitus
uses the title "Christ" as though it were a proper name, which mitigates
against him having used historical records - although Wells apparently
had no problem seeing the reference of Suetonius (see below) as
referring to someone with a similar proper name of "Chrestus." Tacitus
is making a connection between the "Christians" and the name of their
founder, so he illustrates this by referring to Jesus as "Christ."
Moreover, Tacitus would use the name with which his readers would be
most familiar - which would not necessarily be the name that Jesus was
executed under.
Second, he states that Tacitus "had no motive for inquiring into the
accuracy of the story" about Jesus. We have seen that this is false,
via Mendell: Tacitus considered his integrity to be at stake where his
accuracy was concerned. Syme says that Tacitus "was no stranger to
industrious investigation" and his "diligence was exemplary." Tacitus'
professionalism and his integrity were his motivation. This,
incidentally, just adds one more reason for saying that Tacitus used
more than Christian sources: that is, that he had the motive (and
through official records, the means) to verify what he was reporting.

Finally, Wells suggests that Tacitus "was merely repeating what
Christians were then saying" and "was surely glad to accept from
Christians their own view that Christianity was a recent religion, since
the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults."
However, as Tacitus was an enemy of Christianity, this could just as
well be used as evidence FOR the reliability of this reference - if he
had any reason to suspect that Jesus didn't exist, he would have exposed
it for the fraud that it was! As we noted above, B. Walker comments
that Tacitus "was a persistent skeptic towards popular rumor, even when
a rumor coincided with his own prejudices" (The Annals of Tacitus, page
142) and cites Annals 2.68 as an example. We have seen clearly that
such careless acceptance - not to mention, again, trusting a source that
he would consider untrustworthy! - would be completely out of character
for Tacitus. (Ironically, in reference to the fact that Tacitus does
not even say in the passage where Pilate ruled, Wells says, "Tacitus
cannot be expected to give the life history of every incidental
character he mentions." Would that he applied that criteria to Jesus in
such a way!) Wells also says "(t)he context of Tacitus' remarks itself
suggests that he relied on Christian informants." As we saw above, this
is just not true. Here we find YET ANOTHER reason for thinking that
Tacitus' testimony as not from Christian sources - from the rest of
Annals, there is no indication of relying on Christians for the
information.
So we have seen, not only is there no basis for the mythicists' claim
that Tacitus was merely regurgitating Christian rumors, we have seen
several reasons for rejecting this belief:

1. There is no reason to doubt the reliability of Tacitus' source(s).
The normal "innocent until proven guilty" approach to history suggests
that we should accept the testimony of the very reliable reporter
Tacitus as good evidence for Jesus' existence.
2. It is extremely unlikely that Tacitus would have vouched for the
existence of Jesus if he had no surety and/or moral certitude that Jesus
had actually existed, and he was a very skeptical and critical scholar.
3. Had there been any indication that Jesus did not exist, as an enemy
of Christianity and an extremely reliable historian, Tacitus would have
said so.
4. Being a Roman senator, Tacitus certainly must have had the best
records available in the Roman Empire at the time. So he had easy
access to the means to verify his claims.
5. Tacitus' reputation, which he valued very greatly, was on the line -
so he had every motive to check up on his sources.
6. If he was merely repeating Christian stories, he would have couched
his statement with an indication of this such as "it is said," as was
his practice throughout the all of his writings.
7. As a persistent skeptic, he wouldn't trust rumors, especially coming
from those who he regarded as a "pernicious superstition."
8. In the rest of Annals, there is no suggestion that Tacitus relied on
Christians for information.

Of course, we could join the mythicists in pure speculation and assume
that Tacitus abandoned all of his normal critical scholarship just for
this single paragraph…but don't bet on it.

SUETONIUS

In about A.D. 50, the apostle Paul arrived in Corinth. Acts 18:2
records that he found there "a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of
Pontus, having come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius
had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome." By the apparent spiritual
maturity of Aquila and Priscilla seen in Acts 18:26, it seems that they
had been Christians while in Rome prior to A.D. 49. That is the date
when Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome.

Suetonius, the Roman historian and biographer formerly known as Gaius
Suetonius Tranquillus, wrote several works, including his Lives of the
Twelve Caesars, which is an account of the lives of the first twelve
Roman emperors. At approximately A.D. 120, he writes: "As the Jews
were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he
expelled them from Rome." (Suetonius, Life of Claudius 25.4).

It has been suggested that "Chrestus" was some kind of Jewish agitator
who had no association with Christianity. (Although one oddball author
suggested that the reference was to Jesus Himself - still alive, and
visiting Rome in the 40s AD!) Mason, however, believes that the
reference is to Jesus, but that Suetonius altered the name he heard to
that of a common slave name (Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New
Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992). Harris notes that the
substitution of an "e" for an "i" was "a common error in the spelling of
proper names" at the time; he also says that because Suetonius did not
say, "at the institution of a certain Chrestus," the historian expected
that his readers would know the person that he was referring to - hence,
this "Chrestus" could not have been merely a Jewish agitator, for there
was only one possible "Chrestus" that Suetonius could have been
referring to that would have been so well known at the time he was
writing (120 A.D.). (Harris, Murray. 3 Crucial Questions About Jesus.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994). Harris also explains, in an amusing
footnote, that to Greek ears, the name "Christos" would have sounded
like something drawn from medical or building technology, meaning either
"anointed" or "plastered"! (The Romans who heard these Jews talking
about "Christus" assumed that, perhaps, another type of "plastering" was
going on!) So, they switched it to the more comprehensible "Chrestus,"
which means "useful one." Harris also indicates, via a quote from the
4th-century Latin Christian Lactantius, that Jesus was commonly called
"Chrestus" by those who were ignorant. Moreover, as France writes:

"First, Chrestus is a Greek name. Of course, many Jews did have Greek
names, whether from birth or assumed later (e.g., Jesus' Galilean
disciples, Andrew and Philip, and all seven of the "deacons" appointed
in Acts 6:5, only one of whom is said to be a proselyte), but Chrestus
is not otherwise as a Jewish name.
"And secondly Chrestus would sound very like Christus, which, with its
meaning 'annointed,' would be unfamiliar in the Gentile world, so that
the substitution of the familiar Greek name Chrestus would be easily
made. Indeed, Tertullian points out that the opponents of Christianity,
by mispronouncing the name as 'Chrestianus,' in fact testified to its
'sweetness and kindness'!" (R. France, The Evidence for Jesus, page 41).

So it is extremely probable that Suetonius had heard from the Jews, some
Christian, some not, who arguing over some "Messiah." And it was this
conflict that caused Claudius to expell the Jews from Rome. If there
were Christians in Rome in 41-49 AD, then that's a pretty strong
indication that Jesus existed, since His life would have been well
within the memories of those living at the time.

Suetonius also confirms Nero's persecution of Christians at Rome:

"Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men
given to a new and mischievous superstition." (Lives of the Caesars
26.2)

Note that this passage not only provides evidence of the early existence
of Christians, but also provides more evidence against this "new and
mischievous superstion" having existence before about A.D. 30.
MARA BAR-SERAPION

This letter, which was "written some time later than A.D. 73, but how
much later we cannot be sure" according to F. F. Bruce, contains the
following passage:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death?
Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What
advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment
their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from
executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was
abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died
of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and
driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did
not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did
not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise
King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given."

Who is this "wise king"? The letter gives seven criteria for
identifying him:

1. Was executed
2. Was possessed of wisdom
3. Was executed just before the Jews' kingdom was abolished
4. Was executed before the Jews were dispersed
5. Was executed by the actions of the Jews
6. Lived on in the teaching that he had given
7. Was referred to as a "king"

Certainly Jesus fits all the qualifications. He was executed. Jesus
has been recognized as a "wise man" even by non-Christians since
Josephus. Even after the Roman domination, the Jews were known to have
a kingdom, albeit a subjugated one, until the abolishment in A.D. 70, as
King Herod (37-4 B.C.) and King Herod Agrippa (A.D. 41-44) would happily
testify. A.D. 70 would also be the time of that the Jews were
dispersed. The Jews brought the original charges against Jesus, and
encouraged Pilate to prosecute the case, making them just as responsible
for the execution as the Romans. The Serapion author is simply
(possibly) making the same tragic and regrettable mistake that many
Christians have - blaming the Jews solely for the execution. Jesus
certainly lived on in his teachings and continues to do so to today.
Jesus was referred to as a "king," as signified by the inscription on
the cross, "the king of the Jews." Thus, unless we can come up with a
plausible alternative to Jesus, one who also meets all seven
qualifications, the best evidence points towards Jesus as being the man
described by Mara Bar-Serapion.

Objection: The historical time-frame of the characters that
Bar-Serapion identifies by name suggests that the Jews' "wise King" also
lived about the same time as Pythagoras and Socrates. But that entails
that Bar-Serapion was not referring to Jesus.

Not at all. This is scanty speculation at best, and Pythagoras and
Socrates were hardly contemporaries - Pythagoras was about 60 when
Socrates was born, if he was alive then at all. To include Jesus in a
list with these two would be no more odd than naming Newton, Einstein
and Hawking in a list of great physicists.

Objection: This could refer to the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness,"
who was often mentioned in the Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran. The
person in these documents called the teacher of righteousness was
presented as a Messianic figure who suffered vicariously for the
people. Since Essene teachings were widely circulated before and after
the time Jesus allegedly lived, one could argue that this teacher "lived
on in the teaching which he had given."

The actual identity of the "Teacher of Righteousness," has never been
ascertained, although specific guesses have included Onias III, Judah
the Essene (who lived under John Hyrcanus) - and Jesus Himself! At any
rate, the Teacher of Righteous fits no more than #2 and #6 of the
criteria above with any certainty. As for the others:

1. Was executed? Although attempts have been made by scholars such as
Allegro and Dupont-Summer to show that the Teacher of Righteousness was
martyred, perhaps even crucified, there is simply nothing in the Dead
Sea Scrolls that refers to the Teacher suffering anything more than
general persecution and harassment. Any suggestion to the contrary is
forced onto the texts and derives from contorted historiography and
exegesis. Of course, since the Teacher does not fit criteria #1, this
also implies he doesn't fit #3-5. In particular:

4. Was executed before the Jews were dispersed? Obviously, the farther
back we reach, the less likely it is that this is who the Serapion
writer is referring to, since "just after" this person died, the Jews'
kingdom was abolished. (If we pick Onias III - who seems to be the
strongest exemplar - then the abolition of the Jewish kingdom occurred
about 240 years later; if Judah the Essene, about 170 years later!)
Whoever this Teacher personage was, he died in the middle of the 2nd
century BC, which places him quite a distance more than "just after"
from the 70 AD abolition of the Jewish kingdom!

And of course, there is no qualification for #7 whatsoever - the Teacher
of Righteousness is nowhere regarded as a king. He is clearly
identifiable in the Qumran literature as an anti-Hasmonean priest of
Zadokite lineage - not a king.

In the absence of any plausible alternative to Jesus, it is most
reasonable to assume that this passage refers to him. Now on to the
real criticism:

Objection: Mara Bar-Sepion may have gotten his information from
Christian tradition. He places the blame solely on the Jews and
considers Jesus the wise "king of the Jews." This is quite in line with
Christian thought.

Of course, it is possible that he got his information from Christians,
this does not mean that it is necessarily wrong, and it is obvious that
he accepts the historical existence of the Christian founder. At the
least, this reference demonstrates that the writer regarded Jesus as a
real person, and not as a myth or an invention of Christianity, as the
Christ-mythicists would argue.

THE TALMUD

The single point that may be derived from the Talmud is, again, that it
provides no indication that Jesus was a mythical figure; inasmuch as it
accepts Jesus' historicity, and does not doubt it, it provides positive
evidence that Jesus did exist. Wilson agrees with this assessment,
saying that "From the fact that (the Talmudists) concentrated on
smearing (Jesus') legitimacy (rather than focusing on the issue of
Jesus' existence), we may deduce that they had no grounds whatever for
doubting his historical existence." Why would the Talmudists take for
granted Jesus' historicity unless they were convinced that He existed?
Aside from that, the Talmud and other Jewish references are of marginal
value.

Although there are about six references to Jesus in the Talmud, a
citation of one will be sufficient, particularly because it is the
clearest: The Baraita describing hanging Yeshu on the eve of Passover.
"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald
went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going forth
to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led
astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defence come and plead
for him. But they found naught in his defence and hanged him on the eve
of Passover." (Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a). This portrayal of Jesus
describes him as being "stoned" and "hanged," contrary to the NT because
it is Jewish polemic to the Christians. Of course, just because they
are polemic, this does not automatically mean that they are not
independent! Again, insofar as the Jews accept and do not suspect the
historicity of Jesus, this is evidence against the mythicist hypothesis.

Conclusion: The mythicist position is untenable. There is no good
reason to believe that Jesus did not exist. Not only this, there is no
evidence to suggest that Jesus' existence was disputed in the first
century or that Christians go back before A.D. 30. Moreover, I have
shown several ways to prove it: from the flaws in any given mythicist
theory, from the facts of Christianity's beginnings, from the coherent
and consistent complex of traditions such as those which we find in the
gospels with less than 40 years to develop, from other NT writings (such
as the epistles) that are dated even earlier, from Josephus, from
Tacitus, and from the sum of the other extra-Biblical references to
Jesus. Because of these and other reasons, the following facts are
accepted by the VAST majority of historians with almost axiomatic
certainty to investigation of the historical Jesus:
1. Jesus founded Christianity in first-century Palestine.
2. Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate around A.D. 30.
3. The NT is based on this Jesus.

To get an idea of just how powerful the evidence for Jesus really is,
let us make a comparison to someone whose existence no historian is
preposterous enough to reject: Alexander the Great. Miracles are also
attributed to him, so if this is the mythicist's "reason" for rejecting
the historicity of Jesus is the miracle stories about him, they must
apply the same logic to old Alex. As Meier pointed out, "what we know
with certitude about Alexander the Great can be fitted onto a few pages
of print." Yamauchi quotes Klausner: "If we had ancient sources like
those in the Gospels for the history of Alexander the Great or Julius
Caesar, we should not cast any doubt upon them whatsoever." Finally,
Sanders adds this insult to the injury: "The sources for Jesus are
better, however, than those that deal with Alexander. The original
biographies of Alexander have all been lost, and they are known only
because they were used by later - much later - writers." In contrast,
Sanders notes, information on Jesus was written down while people who
knew him were most probably still alive - even if we accept a late date
for the Gospels.

My conclusion is summed up best by the skeptic Randel Helms, speaking to
an audience of secular humanists at a CODESH "Institute for Inquiry" on
"A Secular Humanist Approach to the Gospels," who said sarcastically, "I
think that you can deal with Wells' notion that Christianity could have
started without a historical Jesus [as follows]: Sure Christianity could
have started without a historical Jesus. And monkeys could fly out of my
butt."

Thus, I suggest that atheists on these newgroups abandon the mythicist
hypothesis. IMO its popularity only indicates that atheists are a
credulous bunch with an anti-Christian bias so deep that they will grasp
for anything, no matter how fantastic, to throw against Christians. Of
Wells' work, the skeptical historian Mortom Smith wrote: "(Wells)
presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible
beyond anything in the Gospels." (Hoffmann, R. J. and Larue, Gerald,
eds. Jesus in History and Myth. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986).

Further information on Jesus comes primarily from investigation of the
traditions underlying the NT and of the general socio-political
atmosphere of first century Palestine, a detailed analysis of which are
beyond the scope of this paper.

For some secular constructions of the historical Jesus, try these
authors: Archibald Robertson, Jesus: Myth or History? (Second edition,
London: Watts & Co, 1949); Gerald Larue, Ancient Myth and Modern Man
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1975); Morton Smith, Jesus the
Magician (1978, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1993); R. Joseph Hoffmann,
Jesus Outside the Gospels (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1984); Michael
Arnheim, Is Christianity True? (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1984); Robin
Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (New
York: Vintage, 1991); Robert Sheaffer, The Making of the Messiah:
Christianity and Resentment (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1991).

If you are interested in Christian apologetics, try the following sites:
http://ccel.wheaton.edu/contrib/exec_outlines/ca.html
http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/nuhbias.html
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/eas ... /yama.html
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/eas ... /josh.html
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... tomb2.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ponse.html
http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/critic7.htm

Cheers,
Peter #16

[i.e., alt.atheism atheist #16 ... for real ... I still got the number ... it's mine ... all mine ... lol ...]
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: The Mythicist House of Cards

Post by Ulan »

Thanks for posting this, Peter. Now I know what you mean with "ignoring some alleys of thought because of the urge to sound reasonable" (statement paraphrased).

Of course, this was an excellent starting point. You had the standard explanations down.

Edit: typo
Last edited by Ulan on Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: The Mythicist House of Cards

Post by Blood »

My conclusion is summed up best by the skeptic Randel Helms, speaking to
an audience of secular humanists at a CODESH "Institute for Inquiry" on
"A Secular Humanist Approach to the Gospels," who said sarcastically, "I
think that you can deal with Wells' notion that Christianity could have
started without a historical Jesus [as follows]: Sure Christianity could
have started without a historical Jesus. And monkeys could fly out of my
butt."
Sad, coming from a skeptic like Helms. Not just immature, but inane.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: The Mythicist House of Cards

Post by Blood »

Finally, Sanders adds this insult to the injury: "The sources for Jesus are
better, however, than those that deal with Alexander. The original
biographies of Alexander have all been lost, and they are known only
because they were used by later - much later - writers." In contrast,
Sanders notes, information on Jesus was written down while people who
knew him were most probably still alive - even if we accept a late date
for the Gospels.
It's unnerving that atheists actually accept centuries-old apologetic twaddle like this as if it was a new, clever argument being advanced by an objective historian.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The Mythicist House of Cards

Post by John T »

Apatheist: Someone who cares not to know why they do not know Jesus existed but they do know they don't want others to know.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Mythicist House of Cards

Post by Peter Kirby »

That was almost clever, John T. ;)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Huon
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:21 am

Justus of Tiberias

Post by Huon »

Justus of Tiberias was a Jewish author and historian living in the second half of the 1st century AD. Little is known about his life, except as told by his political and literary enemy Titus Flavius Josephus.

During the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73), he ran into conflict with Josephus, a Jewish leader in Galilee. When the Romans had reconquered Galilee, Justus sought sanctuary with the Tetrach Agrippa II. Vespasian, who led the Roman troops, demanded that Justus be put to death, but Agrippa spared him and merely imprisoned him. The tetrarch even appointed Justus as his secretary, but later dismissed him as unreliable.

Justus wrote a history of the war in which he blamed Josephus for the troubles of Galilee. He also portrayed his former master Agrippa in an unfavourable light, but did not publish the work until after Agrippa's death.

Justus also wrote a chronicle of the Jewish people from Moses to Agrippa II which Photios remarked failed to make any mention of Jesus Christ. Both his works only survive in fragments.

Photios I was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 858 to 867 and from 877 to 886.

After the remarks of Photios, the works of Justus disappeared...

Of course, no mention of JC does not prove that JC did not exist. Possibly, around 70, JC was forgotten by the Galilean nationalists, who can tell ?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Mythicist House of Cards

Post by Peter Kirby »

My position became more moderate by 1998, as seen here:

http://peterkirby.com/vintage1998.html
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: The Mythicist House of Cards

Post by Blood »

I'm confused here. You say the last essay (which cites Doherty) dates from 1998, but in the first post above you say that "the author's moment of skepticism of Jesus wouldn't come until 2001, after reading the website and first book of Earl Doherty." (You quote an article by Doherty from 1997. Was this his first published work on the historic Jesus? "The Jesus Puzzle" was first published in October, 1999.)

You've been at this a long time.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
Post Reply