Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NobleSavage · 01-21-2004, 11:05 PM

I'm in a discussion over at Christanity.com And I'm getting in a little over my head on the evidence for historical jesus. This post was made and I'd like to know if anyone has contrary opinions or evidence :

Quote:

For the record, the historicty of Jesus is confirmed by three first century secular historians - two Roman historians (Tacitus, Annals 15:44; Seutonius, Lives of the Caesars: Life of Claudius 25:4), who wrote in Latin, and one Jewish historian (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18:3:3; 20:9:1), who wrote in Greek. Neither of the three were Christian historians, yet all attest the historicity of Jesus. This is a point on which both theological liberals and conservatives agree.

Even radicals, like D. F. Strauss and Rudolf Bultmann never questioned the existence of Jesus. Bultmann, for example, wrote, "The doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as the founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community" (Jesus and the Word 13). The very reputable ancient historian Michael Grant, who wrote a history of ancient Greece and Rome, stated that "The existence of Jesus can be called as likely a historical fact as most others" (The Jews in the Romans World, 105).

Thanks for any feedback.

NS

Toto · 01-22-2004, 12:40 AM

Historical Jesus FAQ on Infidels

Quote:

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

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

Two questions arise concerning this passage:

1. Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?

2. Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?

Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists

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

Quote:

Suetonius and Jesus

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

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

1. "Chrestus" is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not obviously a mispelling of "Christus", meaning Christ.

2. The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone named Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to Jesus.

3. Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus. There is no doubt that there were Christians in Rome during the first century CE--this of course does NOT imply that Jesus actually lived during the first half of this century.
Thus, Suetonius fails to confirm the historicity of Jesus.

Josephus is a more complicated matter. There are two passages in Josephus that refer to Jesus. One is clearly forged at least in part. The second is accepted by most historians. But the question is very volatile, not the sort of evidence that gives you great confidence in any results you base on it. Peter Kirby has wriiten a comprehesive discussion of the issues.

The second paragraph is misleading. It is true that Bultman wrote

Quote:

"The doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as the founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community."

But there was no basis for his statement. Up to that time, German scholars had speculated freely that Jesus was a mythic character. Bultman put a stop to it by fiat, not by producing more evidence.

The quote from Grant is correct. However, Grant is a classical historian, not a New Testament scholar. His approach is to treat the gospels as quasi-historical documents. Once you do this, you are implicitly assuming that Jesus existed. Grant does not consider the objections to treating the gospels as history.

The question of whether Jesus existed is probably unknowable. If you are going to get into it, read Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle and Richard Carrier's review.

But it is not the most fruitful discussion to have. The safest position to take is that the historical existence of Jesus is unproven - but maybe someone existed who bore some characteristics similar to the Jesus of the NT. But we don't really know much about him, if anything. His birth date is uncertain, the stories about his crucifixion are obviously legendary, the stories about his miracles are also legendary. He didn't have anything to do with the formation of the Christian Church and would probably be appalled by what is done in his name.

Peter Kirby has a page of Historical Jesus Theories. You might well ask how a person could have left so indeterminate a mark on history, that there are so many different theories about who he was.

I could go on, but that's a start.

scumble · 01-22-2004, 01:40 AM

NobleSavage - I'm glad there are people like you giving them a hard time. My outings on a couple of Christian forums tried my patience - I decided they were all at least mad, and a little over-defensive, even if fairly nice most of the time. There were some real wankers of course, and that probably turned me off the most. The way some of the fundies have a go at Catholics is ludicrous, the effort expended to "prove" it is a false church etc.

But still, if you get some brain cells questioning the basis of belief it's worth it. I have a feeling that even the material in the library isn't going to move people who are overly steeped in apologetics.

01-22-2004, 02:21 AM

Greetings NobleSavage,

(I see several posts with good answers already.)

Yes,
the main proponent of the Mythical Jesus theory is Earl Doherty, his site or book is well worth a read - you may like to start with his 12 easy pieces of the puzzle.

More detail on early writers and their references (or lack thereof) to Jesus can be seen here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...lyWriters.html

Quote:

No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as the founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.

This is simply not true - many authors have claimed there was no historical Jesus over the last few centuries :

C.F. Dupuis, 1791, Abrege De L'Origine Des Cultes
Robert Taylor, 1829, Diegesis
Bruno Bauer, 1841, Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics
Mitchell Logan, 1842, Christian Mythology Unveiled
Kersey Graves, 1875, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours
T.W. Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions
Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ
Thomas Whittaker, 1904, The Origins of Christianity
William Benjamin Smith, 1906, Der vorchristliche Jesus
Albert Kalthoff, 1907, The Rise of Christianity
M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?
John E Remsberg, 1909, The Christ
Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth
John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem
Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus � A Myth
Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity
L.Gordon Rylands, 1935, Did Jesus Ever Live?
Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus
P.L. Couchoud, 1939, The Creation of Christ
Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory?
Karl Kautsky, 1953, The Foundations of Christianity
Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth?
Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus Christ

The subject is still hotly debated on numerous boards, including this one.

Iasion

godfry n. glad · 01-22-2004, 03:26 PM

Hey, NobleSavage:

Did you note that the two Roman sources cited did NOT even mention JESUS? Tacitus mentions "Christos" the title, but no "Jesus". Suetonius mentions "Chrestus", not Jesus. So, their claim that these two historians mentioned Jesus is patently false. Neither source uses the term "Jesus" or any of its Greek or Latin forms.

Of course, the comeback will be something akin to "Christ=Jesus" which is a dubious claim, because according to the OT, Saul, David, Solomon and even Cyrus, Emperor of Persia, were christs. Even a mere twenty five years _after_ Tacitus, a leading Jewish authority would name bar Kochba as the christ. Christ claimants seem to have been a dime a dozen in ancient Judea.

godfry n. glad

Vorkosigan · 01-22-2004, 04:08 PM

Good luck, Noble. I just looked over that site. <whew> You're a brave man.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 01-22-2004, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
Hey, NobleSavage:

Did you note that the two Roman sources cited did NOT even mention JESUS? Tacitus mentions "Christos" the title, but no "Jesus". Suetonius mentions "Chrestus", not Jesus. So, their claim that these two historians mentioned Jesus is patently false. Neither source uses the term "Jesus" or any of its Greek or Latin forms. godfry n. glad

Chrestus is a common name, of course. And Suetonius knows the correct term, because he uses "Christian" later in the same work. Conclusion? No evidence exists to link Chrestus with Christ.

Vorkosigan

Toto · 01-22-2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Iasion . . .

Some of these are available online or at Amazon:

. . .

Kersey Graves, 1875, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours {note the disclaimer}

T.W. Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions

Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ

M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?

John E Remsberg, 1909, The Christ

Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth

John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem available from The Bank of Wisdom

Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity

Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory?

Karl Kautsky, 1953, The Foundations of Christianity

Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-22-2004, 01:40 AM	#3
scumble Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 279	NobleSavage - I'm glad there are people like you giving them a hard time. My outings on a couple of Christian forums tried my patience - I decided they were all at least mad, and a little over-defensive, even if fairly nice most of the time. There were some real wankers of course, and that probably turned me off the most. The way some of the fundies have a go at Catholics is ludicrous, the effort expended to "prove" it is a false church etc. But still, if you get some brain cells questioning the basis of belief it's worth it. I have a feeling that even the material in the library isn't going to move people who are overly steeped in apologetics.

01-22-2004, 03:26 PM	#5
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Hey, NobleSavage: Did you note that the two Roman sources cited did NOT even mention JESUS? Tacitus mentions "Christos" the title, but no "Jesus". Suetonius mentions "Chrestus", not Jesus. So, their claim that these two historians mentioned Jesus is patently false. Neither source uses the term "Jesus" or any of its Greek or Latin forms. Of course, the comeback will be something akin to "Christ=Jesus" which is a dubious claim, because according to the OT, Saul, David, Solomon and even Cyrus, Emperor of Persia, were christs. Even a mere twenty five years _after_ Tacitus, a leading Jewish authority would name bar Kochba as the christ. Christ claimants seem to have been a dime a dozen in ancient Judea. godfry n. glad

01-22-2004, 04:08 PM	#6
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Good luck, Noble. I just looked over that site. <whew> You're a brave man. Vorkosigan

01-22-2004, 04:24 PM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Originally posted by Iasion . . . Some of these are available online or at Amazon: . . . Kersey Graves, 1875, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours {note the disclaimer} T.W. Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth? John E Remsberg, 1909, The Christ Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem available from The Bank of Wisdom Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory? Karl Kautsky, 1953, The Foundations of Christianity Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.