Extra biblical quotes

[Van Helsing]

I was arguing about faith with someone at work. He asked me why no historians in the days of Christ mentioned him if He was that special. I told him there was an undirect quote about Jacob, the brother of Christ (read that somewhere) by Josephus Flavus (don't even know I got the name right.) Het said there was no such thing. Can anybody help me with this? Where can I find it? Is this the only extra biblical mentioning of our Lord, or are there some more?

He also told me that Albert Einstein was an atheist while I read somewhere that he believed in (a?) God.

Thanks

[pilgrimian]

There are talmudic portions which speak of Jesus, too. They never deny His power...just where the power came from.

Josephus' Testimony to Jesus
(Testimonium Flavianum)
Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-64

The words in ALL CAPS are likely interpolations added by Christian copyists over the centuries in an attempt to make Josephus support faith in Jesus as the Christ. We have only three Greek manuscripts of this section of Josephus, all from the 11th century. These phrases, added rather clumsily, appear to be rather obvious additions even to the modern reader in English. Once restored to its more original reading Josephus offers us a most fascinating reference to Jesus. Indeed, it is the earliest reference to Jesus outside the New Testament, and its rather matter of fact, neutral reporting, makes it all the more valuable to the historian. It is worth noting that in his earlier work, The Jewish War, written shortly after the revolt under the auspices of the Emperor Vespasian, he mentioned neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor James, while in Antiquities, written in the early 90s C.E., he mentions all three. For an excellent discussion of this text see John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Doubleday, 1991), Vol I, pp. 57-88.

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 wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. 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 THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).

Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:


At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Josephus on the Death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 C.E.
Josephus, Antiquities
Book 20: chapter 9

CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

[rancherswife]

I'd like to point you toward an excellent resource for evangelism called Way of the Master. www.wayofthemaster.com (You may have heard of this site before) There are all kinds of resources to help evangelize and to answer objections people have when you are witnessing to them.

Is your co-worker saying that Jesus didn't exist? I'm unclear on his argument. As a history teacher, I'll tell you this: Jesus was mentioned in our world history textbook, as was the apostle Paul. Jesus was only considered a major "problem" by the authorities in His area, therefore, the Romans wouldn't have taken a big interest in Him. There were legions of religions in the Roman empire, and the Romans readily accepted them, adding the parts of certain new beliefs that they liked to what they already had. New religious leaders were not shocking to the Roman world.

If you are trying to prove Jesus' existence from historical text you can find evidence of that. A good resource is a book called MORE THAN A CARPENTER by Josh McDowell.:thumb

[Van Helsing]

Thanks Pelgrimian and Rancers wife :thumb !
Yes the man claims Jesus has never existed. It is not a co-worker, but a homeless (but nevertheless very intelligent) guy. I cook for homeless people. I do not often start a conversation about faith (I mean it's my job and it's not a christian organisation), but when the matter comes up in a conversation I take my chances to testify. I will try to find a Dutch translation of Josephus words and print them for him. He is quit firm in his atheist belief but it's a start. Jesus existed and is alive today!:clap

[pilgrimian]

Jesus
Shattering the Christ-Myth


The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html)
J. P. Holding


During a discussion of William Shakespeare, a student asked the old professor about the en vogue theory that Shakespeare did not write the plays ascribed to him.
The professor growled, "Young man, if Shakespeare did not write those plays,then they were written by someone who lived at the same time and had the same name!"

It is a sure sign of desperation: In disbelieving circles, one of the most popular ideas to come to the fore recently is the "Jesus-myth" - the idea that Jesus did not even exist, much less conduct a ministry as described in the New Testament. It is an idea that one would suppose would be relegated to the pages of the Weekly World News - and it might even be funny, were it not for the fact that there are so many who take it seriously and are extremely vocal in their seriousness.

At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have).

Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven.

"Come off it, Holding. Just because a consensus of historians say that the Jesus-myth is wrong does not mean that it is wrong. The historians could be wrong. They could also be biased. Since this subject is dominated by theological agendas and philosophical presuppositions, a scholarly consensus does not constitute evidence for the existence of Jesus."

As silly as this may sound, it is actually the core of many arguments made in favor of the "Jesus-myth"! Behind every historian there is a conspiracy, a bias, or some gross error of judgment - and sometimes even the ancient historians are in on the conspiracy, too! At the end of this chapter we will offer some counsel for dealing with those who advance this type of argument, but for now, let's deal with this objection and take it seriously.

Of course, it is quite possible that all of the professional historians (even those with no religious interest!) are biased or wrong, while proponents of the "Jesus-myth" are the objective ones. And yes, a consensus does not equate with evidence. But a consensus on any historical question is usually based on evidence which is analyzed by those who are recognized as authoritative in their field, and therefore may be taken at their word. If this were not the case, why should there be any criteria for someone being a historian at all? Why should we not just pick a vagrant at random off the street and let him/her compose an official history of 20th-century America for the Smithsonian archives?

Therefore, while scholarly consensus is not itself evidence, it does function as a "weighting" or "warning" sign: if one agrees with peers who are detailed-students of the same subject matter, then less evidence is needed than would be needed if we disagreed with their consensus (as a very small minority). We would require not just a "good argument" but we would also have to refute all of the consensus arguments first. In other words, evidence may be mediated through expert witness and consensus. Therefore, the argument that consensus does not count as evidence, while correct in its own way, cannot be allowed to stand as a dismissal of consensus, nor as a leveling of the playing field. It is almost like the criteria, "extraordinarily bizarre positions require extraordinary evidence," that operates in scholarly circles. Such a minority position as the "Jesus-myth" is not courageous, but foolhardy - unless one has considerably stronger evidence than the majority; and even then, speculation about alternate views of historical references, such as is commonly found in "Jesus-myth" circles, is not going to keep the sawed-off limb up in the air!

If proponents of the "Jesus-myth" were either qualified historians or had equivalent knowledge, then their counter-consenus position might deserve to be taken more seriously. However, the overwhelming prevalance of tortured explanations, inventive theories, arguments from silence, and outright misrepresentations to get around the evidence that Jesus existed mitigates strongly against offering the Jesus-mythers any scholastic solace. The argument is more than that writers like G. A. Wells are scholars out of their field; it is also that their being out of their field shows like a gaping wound! Drews, for example [Drew.WH, 16-17], attempting to show that there were arguments that Jesus did not exist in early church history, cited these quotes from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Trypho, a Jewish person skeptical of Christianity, is speaking with Justin; the relevant passage says (words used by Drews, etc. highlighted):

When I had said this, my beloved friends, those who were with Trypho laughed; but he, smiling, says, "I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things; but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. For if you remain in that mode of philosophy, and live blamelessly, a hope of a better destiny were left to you; but when you have forsaken God, and reposed confidence in man, what safety still awaits you? If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God. But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

Drews writes with the implication that these quotes refer to Jesus, and that it was Jesus who was "made" and who was "entirely unknown." But these quotes make it quite clear that Trypho is not referring to the man Jesus. Trypho takes Jesus' historicity for granted throughout the debate with Justin. Consider these passages as samples:

xxxii -- "...But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."
xxvi -"Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made."
xxxviii - "For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud; then that he became man, was crucified, and ascended up to heaven, and comes again to earth, and ought to be worshipped."
xxxxix -- And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ]."

This is strange verbiage if Trypho believes that the Christians perpetrated a fraud to the point of inventing a man of history! What Trypho means in his earlier statement is that the Messiah - which is to say, the office of the Messiah - has been created by the Christians: He is saying that the "Christ" has not come in Jesus, but that Christians have made Jesus a Christ for themselves; and if the true Messiah was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown! The issue here relates to the Jewish belief that the Christ, when he came, would not proclaim himself (a belief we see evidenced from Jesus' own circumspection in claiming to be Messiah, and in that Bar Kochba, when he arrived, did not claim the title for himself, but allowed others to proclaim it for him). Trypho is accusing the Christians, therefore, of identifying one as Christ who is not Christ -- he is not accusing them of making up a man of history! This argument by Drews, depending as it does on taking Trypho's quotes badly out of their literary and social context, should be an extreme embarrassment to other mythicist advocates; but even Wells and Doherty are making use of it!

The modern defender of the "Jesus-myth" fares no better. G. A. Wells has also picked up on the "Trypho error" in his latest work. In another place, attempting to explain why Pilate was chosen as the person who authorized the death of his fictional Jesus, Wells says that he was selected because he was "particularly detested by the Jews, and is indeed the only one of the prefects who governed Judea between AD 6 and 41 who attracted sufficient attention to be discussed by the two principal Jewish writers of the first century," Philo and Josephus. [Hoff.JesH, 39-40] In other words, Pilate was chosen because he seemed like he would do something like the Gospels describe! If anything, this is better evidence, rather, that the Gospel writers knew what they were talking about, because they knew the history.

Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed. 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. 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] Dunn [Dunn.EvJ, 29] provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells' thesis, he writes:

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 Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!

[pilgrimian]

Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html)from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith [Hoff.JesH, 47-8] . Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:

"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."

"...he argues mainly from silence."

"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."

"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

None of these scholars, we emphasize, are friends of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination.

"That's not good enough. If Jesus existed and was so famous, we should have heard a lot more about him in historical sources outside the New Testament and the Church Fathers. The fact that so little was written about Jesus indicates that he was the creation of the church."

On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 7-9] and Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 24-27] have indicated several reasons why Jesus remained a "marginal Jew" about whom we have so little information:

As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?

Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.).

On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.

Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it.

Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?

Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.

Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.

Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!

A final consideration is that we have very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are:


An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.
An inscription that mentions Pilate. Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.
Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.
From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.
From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16]


To this Meier adds that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." It is just as was said in his earlier comment on Alexander the Great: What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him! (For a response to a commonly-used list of writers who allegedly should have mentioned Jesus, see here.)

What About the Christians?

In this essay set we will only deal briefly with the question of whether the testimony of the New Testament and/or the Church Fathers offer sufficient evidence for the existence and life of Jesus. Most historians would agree that these sources are sufficient to testify to the existence of Jesus. Whether they are reliable reports of Jesus' life is another matter, one best taken up in other areas.

On the more practical and popular level, using the New Testament and the Church Fathers as proof of the existence of Jesus is generally fruitless. As we might guess from the typical reaction to the opinion of professional historians, the Jesus-myth adherent will automatically say, "Well, the Bible and the Church Fathers are biased. Of course they assert that Jesus was real." Those words often bring the popular level of the argument to an end.

So, for our purposes, there is really no need to go much further into this facet of the subject, other than to quote Harris' illustrative anecdote, which although of a slightly different application, makes the point we seek [Harr.3Cruc, 25] :

[I]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!

To put it succinctly, the rule of parsimony, or simplest theory, applies here. It is used explicitly as a criterion for deciding between rival hypothesis of equal explanatory power, and the simplest theory wins. (Or, as one reader put it: "Not only does Hypothesis A have more items that beg experimental support than Hypothesis B has, some of them are bigger beggars than those in Hypothesis B." Occam's Razor is a logical fallacy and one that a scientist [like a physicist] ought to NOT use to eliminate theories; but historians may be able to use it in a form like this.) Even if we do grant the wildly outrageous view that the "Jesus-myth" has equal explanatory power, it would be rejected by the law of parsimony. But, since it fails to explain the vast majority of the details - passion of the few, triumph in closed locales, resistance to modification by subsequent cultures, uniformity in variegated sources, etc. - it never even makes it this far. Parsimony, we say in summary, is closely related to plausibility, and the most parsimonius and plausible explanation for the origin of Christianity in this regard is that Jesus actually existed.

With that, we now turn to mimi-essays on the non-Christian sources for the life and existence of Jesus. For each of these references, we will ask these questions, as applicable:


Is this a genuine reference, or are there doubts about its veracity? Does it really refer to Jesus?

Is this historian/writer a reliable source? Is there good reason to trust what they say?

What objections have been registered against this citataion?

What do we learn about Jesus and or Christianity from this historian/writer?


We conclude that we find three levels of source material:

Highly reliable sources. There are two of these: Tacitus and Josephus.
Moderately reliable sources. We find three: Thallus, Pliny, and Lucian. For the matter of Thallus, please see also our link in our essay to Glenn Miller's essay on that subject, linked in our essay. (We will look at some objections to the Thallus cite.)

Marginally reliable or unreliable sources. Three are in this class: Suetonius, the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Talmud.

Conclusion: What To Do with this Information

The evidence is clear: The Jesus-myth is a groundless speculation, contrary to all evidence, and totally without basis. Here are our concluding thoughts on the matter:

I have personally come to the conclusion that adherence to the "Jesus-myth" is not the result of careful deliberation of the evidence, but rather, is the product and province of skeptical minds in the grips of an obsession. Long ago, I presented the information on Tacitus above to a Jesus-mythicist - whose ONLY source of data was G. A. Wells. He replied with implications that Tacitus was secretly in league with the Christians of his time! Then, in reply to the opinions of professional and distinguished historians regarding Wells' work, he simply suggested that they had not read Wells carefully, or even at all!

Some may say that this is merely abberational, but it is not: It is the modus operandi of the Jesus-myth circle. One well-known skeptic, Gordon Stein, cited as an authority on Josephus the works of Nathaniel Lardner - from the year 1838! There was no hint that Stein has consulted the works of modern Josephan scholars like Thackery and Feldman; there are no Taciteans, no cites from known experts in Greek and Roman history; instead, the bibliography of his report is bookended with works from G. A. Wells and Arthur Drews! Is this the work of a reasonable person, or someone in the grips of obsession?

The question remains: What on earth could possess otherwise intelligent and educated people to be so uncritical in their beliefs regarding the existence of Jesus? Here is my advice in the matter: If you have encountered people like this, I highly recommend that you provide a clear presentation of the Gospel, then leave them alone. It is a waste of time to deal with such people (except to the extent that they are deceiving others), we perform no service any time that we so much as imply that their views should be taken seriously. Their views are the result of a fallen and sinful human nature, of rampant egotism and arrogance, and nothing more.

[pilgrimian]

The Gamaliel Challenge (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html)

And now an update. Every now and then I like to throw out challenges that I am pretty sure will sit here for 500 years ignored; that's fine with me, because it does make a good point. Now here's a new one: I challenge any Christ-myther to prove to me that Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 5:34) wasn't a myth.

You'll be hard pressed to dissuade me. You see, aside from that reference in Acts, Gamaliel isn't mentioned anywhere at all, except in a paltry handful of rabbinic material (see here from hundreds of years later. Since you think Acts was written as late as the second century, that means all we have to prove that Gamaliel existed is a bunch of third-hand (at best) hearsay -- and as well as know from the expert historian Thomas Paine, all hearsay is automatically flushed down the loo and not be be believed.

And yet, Jewish persons (with an obvious confessional interest!) would have us believe that this guy "occupied a leading position in the highest court, the great council of Jerusalem." What are they, religious nuts? They also say he wrote three epistles. Big deal! Those could have been forged by Gamaliel-fanatics in later centuries. I say that this is the case; as one of those worthless rabbinic documents says, "When he died the honor [outward respect] of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct" (Sot.ah xv: 18). I say he was a fake, and a rallying point used to keep Jewish persons in line in the troubling period after Bar Kochba.

I also find it suspicious (see link above) that he was the first person to have the title "rabban". I think it was retrojected onto him by the Jews as a way to honor this fake, who obviously never existed and was just a figment created to inspire Jewish persons.

Finally, if this Gamaliel guy was such a hot shot and a great Jewish leader, why is his name missing from the works of historians of the day? He's not mentioned by the chief Jewish historian of his day, Josephus, who as a comtemporary would surely have recognized him as a brilliant man if all that is said above was true about him. He's not found in the works of Tacitus, Plutarch, Quintillian, Seneca, Pliny, Juvenal, Arrian, Petronius, Appian, Lucanus, Silius Italicus, Ptolemy, Lucian, Pompon Mela, Favorinus, Damis, Columella, Happy, Dopey, Sneezy, Sleazy, or Doc. Surely if this guy was so important, one of these writers would have taken the time to at least write a sentence about him. Why don't they?

The few records we have of him are also suspicious. There is no hint of where he was born, or where he was educated, or what kinds of tacos he liked, or anything. Surely something would have compelled someone somewhere to babble all this contextually useless information about him. Given that Gamaliel of Jabneh, also known as Gamaliel the Younger (the supposed grandson of this obviously mythical figure Gamaliel the Elder) was the head of the school of Jabneh, which became the centre of Judaism and Jewish studies after the destruction of Jerusalem, it could easily be speculated that the reason for inventing the Gamaliel myth was that the persons in charge of the school of Jabneh needed to bolster the authority of their school and thus they together invented this Gamaliel myth in order to root the authority of their leading figure all the way back to the the supposed first "rabban".

I think Gamaliel never existed. Long live the Gamaliel myth! You just try and prove me wrong!

[kenneth]

Not commonly known by the public at large, is that a number of first century coffins have been unearthed in the Holy Land which have inscribed on them Christian symbols and the name of Jesus, this is information on a few:

It is also fairly well known that archeologists have excavated a Christian tomb in the clay limestone hills around Jerusalem which housed ossuaries (stone boxes containing the bones of dead people.) On all four sides of these ossuaries, were found charcoal-drawn crosses, and pottery was found of a type known as Herodia, as well as a coin minted by Agrippa I in the year 41 A.D. Consequently, we know that this was a Christian tomb, dating 41 A.D., less than 10 years after Jesus’ crucifixion. Two of the ossuaries had the name Jesus inscribed on them. On one ossuary the name Jesus was followed by "iou," which is the Greek version of Yahweh, the name of God. In other words, the inscription read: "Jesus is God”. The other ossuary that bore the name "Jesus" had the Greek letters "aloth" following it. This is a Hebrew word written in Greek letters, meaning "ascended one." This then, is collateral evidence that ten years after Jesus’ crucifixion, Christians were buried with the belief that Jesus was God, and that Jesus was resurrected!
http://www.webedelic.com/church/proofsf.htm
For more information
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html
A book has been written on this topic - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0918954886/102-4817434-2260965?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance

[rancherswife]

Not commonly known by the public at large, is that a number of first century coffins have been unearthed in the Holy Land which have inscribed on them Christian symbols and the name of Jesus, this is information on a few:

It is also fairly well known that archeologists have excavated a Christian tomb in the clay limestone hills around Jerusalem which housed ossuaries (stone boxes containing the bones of dead people.) On all four sides of these ossuaries, were found charcoal-drawn crosses, and pottery was found of a type known as Herodia, as well as a coin minted by Agrippa I in the year 41 A.D. Consequently, we know that this was a Christian tomb, dating 41 A.D., less than 10 years after Jesus’ crucifixion. Two of the ossuaries had the name Jesus inscribed on them. On one ossuary the name Jesus was followed by "iou," which is the Greek version of Yahweh, the name of God. In other words, the inscription read: "Jesus is God”. The other ossuary that bore the name "Jesus" had the Greek letters "aloth" following it. This is a Hebrew word written in Greek letters, meaning "ascended one." This then, is collateral evidence that ten years after Jesus’ crucifixion, Christians were buried with the belief that Jesus was God, and that Jesus was resurrected!
http://www.webedelic.com/church/proofsf.htm
For more information
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html
A book has been written on this topic - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0918954886/102-4817434-2260965?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance

That's really interesting.

[frisian1970]

I'd like to point you toward an excellent resource for evangelism called Way of the Master. www.wayofthemaster.com (You may have heard of this site before) There are all kinds of resources to help evangelize and to answer objections people have when you are witnessing to them.Except for their banana reference. Their specialty isn't arguments directed at atheists/agnostics. More so (IMO), those that accept some sort of deity to begin with.

[frisian1970]

Thanks Pelgrimian and Rancers wife :thumb !
Yes the man claims Jesus has never existed. It is not a co-worker, but a homeless (but nevertheless very intelligent) guy. I cook for homeless people. I do not often start a conversation about faith (I mean it's my job and it's not a christian organisation), but when the matter comes up in a conversation I take my chances to testify. I will try to find a Dutch translation of Josephus words and print them for him. He is quit firm in his atheist belief but it's a start. Jesus existed and is alive today!:clap
Does this man take anything Tacitus wrote as reliable? Such as that written about those that resided in the area not known as the Netherlands...such as the ...Frisii or Frisians.

:D:


:noidea
50.
Josephus Flavius, of Jerusalem and

Rome, ca. 38-100 [ & Hegesippus ]

Flavii Josephi hooghberoemde

Joodsche historien, ende boecken.

noch Egesippus vande Ellendighe

verstoringe der Stadt Ierusalem

Amsterdam: by de Weduwe van Joost

Broersz, 1647 (1636).


Included in this unrecorded illustrated Dutch edition of Josephus' works is a translation of the Hegesippus, a fourth century free Latin version of The Jewish War. The Dutch translation of Josephus and Hegesippus, apparently by Eberhard Bomeel, was made from an earlier German translation by Conrad Lautenbach.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/

[frisian1970]

http://josephus.yorku.ca/links-texts2.htm
# Dutch Jewish War, Life: Flavius Josephus, De Joodse oorlog & Uit mijn leven, transl. and annotated by Fik J. A. M. Meijer and Marinus A. Wes, with an introduction by Marinus A. Wes (Baarn: Ambo, 1992)

# Antiquities: Flavius Josephus, De oude geschiedenis van de Joden, transl. and annotated by Fik J. A. M. Meijer and Marinus A. Wes (Baarn: Ambo, vol. 1 [Books 1-7] 1996; vol. 2 [Books 8-13], 1997; vol. 3 [Books 14-20] 1998).

# Against Apion: Flavius Josephus, Tegen de Grieken (Contra Apionem), vertaald, ingeleid en van antekeningen voorzien door F.J.A.M. Meijer en M.A. Wes, (Amsterdam: Ambo; scheduled to be published in October 1999).

# Life: Gerard Mussies, De autobiografie van de joodse Flavius Josephus, with introd., transl., and notes (Na de schriften 8; Kampen: Kok, 1991).

[Van Helsing]

http://josephus.yorku.ca/links-texts2.htm
# Dutch Jewish War, Life: Flavius Josephus, De Joodse oorlog & Uit mijn leven, transl. and annotated by Fik J. A. M. Meijer and Marinus A. Wes, with an introduction by Marinus A. Wes (Baarn: Ambo, 1992)

# Antiquities: Flavius Josephus, De oude geschiedenis van de Joden, transl. and annotated by Fik J. A. M. Meijer and Marinus A. Wes (Baarn: Ambo, vol. 1 [Books 1-7] 1996; vol. 2 [Books 8-13], 1997; vol. 3 [Books 14-20] 1998).

# Against Apion: Flavius Josephus, Tegen de Grieken (Contra Apionem), vertaald, ingeleid en van antekeningen voorzien door F.J.A.M. Meijer en M.A. Wes, (Amsterdam: Ambo; scheduled to be published in October 1999).

# Life: Gerard Mussies, De autobiografie van de joodse Flavius Josephus, with introd., transl., and notes (Na de schriften 8; Kampen: Kok, 1991).

Thanks for the research Frisian. On some sites I've found some Dutch translations of the extra biblical verses that speak of our Lord. I have printed them. If I meet the guy again I'll give it to him. I know, proving to someone Jesus was a historical man does not say He was our redeemer, but it's a start.

[tay]

Here's a real quick summary of early secular sources that speak of Christ. Hope it helps.

http://www.myfortress.org/historians.html

If you are going to use them, I'd advise that you know the background to these references as many atheists have constructed counter arguments to these. Articles such as the one Pilgrimian posted present good counter-counter arguments.

[Van Helsing]

Thanks Tay, :thumb it's very complete!