n_o_y_b

Ok, on this teen forum, a few weeks ago there was a discussion about the historical reliability of Jesus. Somebody posted this article written by Ken Harding from some website. The other one wrote a counter rebuttal to that article. Now nobody bothered to reply to the counter rebuttal, but I think it was just because of laziness. So I am going to post the thing here, and sincerely ask if anybody wants to reply to it, or add there comments. Remember, i'm not demanding anything, so please don't complain it's too long and you don't want to do it. If you want to do it, then do so. If not, then don't. Anyways, here's the article. The article itself is marked with quotation marks ("."). Whatever is written without quotation marks is the counter-rebuttal. Here you go:


"What is a good source? A contemporary historian-- that is to say, an historian
that lived and wrote during the time in which Christ is said to have lived. Any
historian living or writing after that time could not have seen the events with
his own eyes-- possibly could not have even known any witnesses personally. Any
historian writing decades or centuries after the events could only write of
those things which he had heard others say. In other words, he would be writing
hearsay... secondhand accounts of what Christ's followers said about him.
Certainly, this cannot be considered as reliable information. The followers of
any cult leader certainly would exaggerate the character of the man they follow.
As you shall see, whatever the authenticity of the documents turns out to be,
none of the historians in question were contemporaries of Christ." In those
days, few people were written about at all during their lifetime. However, in
the case of Christ, with writings (the letters are not disputed at all) so
quickly after his death, why did no one say, "This man never existed." Paul
writes that anyone could talk to people who saw Jesus. What an idiotic thing to
say if it were false.

"Here is something to keep in mind as you read this article. Ask yourself this
question. Could historic passages have been forged? Could the volumes of the
historians have been tampered with? The answer is: yes they could have. Where
were these historic volumes stored? In the local public library? In
individuals' private homes? No. They were in the posession of the Church, who
studied from them and made copies of them. In what form did these writings take?
On a typeset page, bound like a modern book? No. The printing press was not
invented for a further 1300 years. The fact that the Church could write means
that the forgeries could have been made. The Church had the opportunity, the
means, and the motive to forge historical documents." What's the motivation to
do so?


But first things first. Josephus was not a contemporary historian. He was born
in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus' alleged death. There is no way
he could have known about Jesus from is own personal experience. At best, he
could have recorded the activities of the new cult of Christianity, and what
they said about their crucified leader. So, even if Josephus wrote about Jesus,
it is not a credible source.

The first "Jesus Passage" is discussed below. The paragraph on Jesus was added
to Josephus's work at the beginning of the 4th century, during Constantine's
reign, probably by or under the order of Bishop Eusebius, who was known for
saying that it was permissible for Christians to lie in order to further the
Kingdom of God. This behavior is justified directly in the New Testament, where
Paul writes in the 3rd Chapter of Romans: "For if the truth of God hath more
abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?"

Josephus
John E. Remsberg, The Christ

Late in the first century Josephus wrote his celebrated work, “The Antiquities
of the Jews,” giving a history of his race from the earliest ages down to his
own time. Modern versions of this work contain the following passage:
“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 amongst 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” (Book IXVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3).

For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a
testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character
of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned.


Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a Christian
writer. “If it be lawful to call him a man.” “He was the Christ.” “He appeared
to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and
ten thousand other wonderful things concerning, him.” These are the words of a
Christian, a believer in the divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout
believer in the Jewish faith-- the last man in the world to acknowledge the
divinity of Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized, and
Ambrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance (360 A. D.)
offers the following explanation, which only a theologian could frame:


“If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers.
Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he
spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the
right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus
he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful
for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his
heart, and his perfidious intention.”


Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and
exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers
and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of
a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a
being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being
greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines.

It interrupts the narrative. Section 2 of the chapter containing it gives an
account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by Pilate with great
slaughter. The account ends as follows: “There were a great number of them slain
by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to
this sedition.” Section 4, as now numbered, begins with these words: “About the
same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder.” The one section
naturally and logically follows the other. Yet between these two closely
connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is placed; thus making the
words, “another sad calamity,” refer to the advent of this wise and wonderful
being.

The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have quoted this passage
had it existed in their time. The failure of even one of these fathers to notice
it would be sufficient to throw doubt upon its genuineness; the failure of all
of them to notice it proves conclusively that it is spurious, that it was not in
existence during the second and third centuries.


As this passage first appeared in the writings of the ecclesiastical historian,
Eusebius, as this author openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in
furthering the interests of the church, as he is known to have mutilated and
perverted the text of Josephus in other instances, and as the manner of its
presentation is calculated to excite suspicion, the forgery has generally been
charged to him. In his “Evangelical Demonstration,” written early in the fourth
century, after citing all the known evidences of Christianity, he thus
introduces the Jewish historian: “Certainly the attestations I have already
produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss.
if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness” (Book
III, p. 124).


Chrysostom and Photius both reject this passage. Chrysostom, a reader of
Josephus, who preached and wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, in
his defense of Christianity, needed this evidence, but was too honest or too
wise to use it. Photius, who made a revision of Josephus, writing five hundred
years after the time of Eusebius, ignores the passage, and admits that Josephus
has made no mention of Christ.


Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a forgery. Dr.
Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following
arguments against its genuineness:

“I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which
was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. Nor do I
recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any
of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning
James, the Lord’s brother. It interrupts the narrative. The language is quite
Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus,
and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not
quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus. Under the
article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly states that the
historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.
Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus,
who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has
ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the
first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned
John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ” (Answer to Dr. Chandler).

Again Dr. Lardner says: “This passage is not quoted nor referred to by any
Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth
century. If it had been originally in in the works of Josephus it would have
been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But
it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian
or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of
Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might
also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to
Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so
well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so
many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by
any Christian apologist” (Lardner’s Works, vol.I, chap. iv).

Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: “If a Jew owned the truth of
Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly ,conclude that
the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses
could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong
as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too” (Quoted by
Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says: “Those who are
best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings,
have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the
text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that
so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of
Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his
discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs
from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of
Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the
laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have
written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be
a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for
a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and
thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most
inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be
sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in
their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have
mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, ii), is the first
who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer
is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as
undoubtedly genuine” (Christian Records, p. 30).

The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his “Lost and Hostile Gospels,” says: “This passage
is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i,
c. xi ; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (A. D.
140) Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 192), Tertullian (A. D. 193) and Origen (A. D.
230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his
apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies
of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant.
Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the
argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of
Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text.
He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr.
Cels. i).”

Dr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent regarding Christ. He
says: “The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject of Christianity, though
he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives us the history of that
period in which Christ and his Apostles lived, is certainly a very striking
circumstance” (Kneeland’s Review, p. 169).


Canon Farrar, who has written the ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned,
repudiates it. He says: “The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to
him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious” (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).
The following, from Dr. Farrar’s pen, is to be found in the “Encyclopedia
Britannica”: “That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane
critic can believe.” “There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient
to prove that the whole passage is spurious-- one that it was unknown to Origen
and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is uncertain.”
(Ibid)

The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: “Flavius Josephus, the well known
historian of the Jewish people, was born in A. D. 37, only two years after the
death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief
authority for the circumstances of the times in which Jesus and his Apostles
came forward, yet he does not seem to have mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate,
the passage in his "Jewish Antiquities” that refers to him is certainly
spurious, and was inserted by a later and a Christian hand.” (Bible for
Learners, Vol. III, p. 27) This conclusion of Dr. Hooykaas is endorsed by the
eminent Dutch critic, Dr. Kuenen.

Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America’s ablest Christian apologists, says:
“Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been
born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know
all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion. Respecting the
founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The
present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of
Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus
did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to
until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons,
generally accounted spurious” (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen
Debate, p. 312).

The Silence of Josephus
J.M. Robertson

When we are considering the possibilities of underlying historical elements in
the gospel story, it may be well to note on the one hand the entirely negative
aspect of the works of Josephus to that story, and on the other hand the
emergence in his writings of personages bearing the name Jesus. If the defenders
of the historicity of the gospel Jesus would really stand by Josephus as a
historian of Jewry in the first Christian century, they would have to admit that
he is the most destructive of all the witnesses against them. It is not merely
that the famous interpolated passage (19 Antiq. iii, 3) is flagrantly spurious
in every aspect-- in its impossible context; its impossible language of
semi-worship ; its "He was (the) Christ"; its assertion of the resurrection;
and its allusion to "ten thousand other wonderful things" of which the
historian gives no other hint—but that the flagrant interpolation brings into
deadly relief the absence of all mention of the crucified Jesus and his sect
where mention must have been made by the historian if they had existed. If, to
say nothing of "ten thousand wonderful things," there was any movement of a
Jesus of Nazareth with twelve disciples in the period of Pilate, how came the
historian to ignore it utterly? If, to say nothing of the resurrection story,
Jesus had been crucified by Pilate, how came it that there is no hint of such an
episode in connection with Josephus’ account of the Samaritan tumult in the next
chapter?

And if a belief in Jesus as a slain and returning Messiah had been long on foot
before the fall of the Temple, how comes it that Josephus says nothing of it in
connection with his full account of the expectation of a coming Messiah at that
point?

By every test of loyal historiography, we are not merely forced to reject the
spurious passage as the most obvious interpolation in all literature: we are
bound to confess that the "Silence of Josephus" as is insisted by Professor
Smith, is an insurmountable negation of the gospel story. For that silence, no
tenable reason can be given, on the assumption of the general historicity of the
gospels and Acts. Josephus declares himself to be in his fifty-sixth year in the
thirteenth year of Domitian. Then he was born about the year 38. By his own
account (Life, § 2), he began at the age of sixteen to "make trial of the
several sects that were among us" --the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the
Essenes-- and in particular he spent three years with a hermit of the desert
named Banos, who wore no clothing save what grew on trees, used none save wild
food, and bathed himself daily and nightly for purity’s sake. Thereafter he
returned to Jerusalem, and conformed to the sect of the Pharisees. In the
ANTIQUITIES, after describing in detail the three sects before named, he gives
an account of a fourth "sect of Jewish philosophy," founded by Judas the
Galilean, whose adherents in general agree with the Pharisees, but are specially
devoted to liberty and declare God to be their only ruler, facing torture and
death rather than call any man lord. A careful criticism will recognize a
difficulty as to this section. In § 2, as in the LIFE, "three sects" are
specified; and the concluding section has the air of a late addition.

Seeing, however, that the sect of Judas is stated to have begun to give trouble
in the procuratorship of Gessius Florus, when Josephus was in his twenties, it
is quite intelligible that he should say nothing of it when naming the sects who
existed in his boyhood, and that he should treat it in a subsidiary way in his
fuller account of them in the ANTIQUITIES.

On what theory, then, are we to explain the total silence of Josephus as to the
existence of the sect of Jesus of Nazareth, if there be any historical truth in
the gospel story? It is of no avail to suggest that he would ignore it by reason
of his Judaic hostility to Christism. He is hostile to the sect of Judas the
Galilean. There is nothing in all his work to suggest that he would have omitted
to name any noticeable sect with a definite and outstanding doctrine because he
disliked it. He seems much more likely, in that case, to have described and
disparaged or denounced it. And here emerges the hypothesis that he did
disparage or denounce the Christian sect in some passage which has been deleted
by Christian copyists, perhaps in the very place now filled by the spurious
paragraph, where an account of Jesuism as a calamity to Judaism would have been
relevant in the context. This suggestion is nearly as plausible as that of
Chwolson, who would reckon the existing paragraph a description of a Jewish
calamity, is absurd. And it is the possibility of this hypothesis that alone
averts an absolute verdict of non-historicity against the gospel story in terms
of the silence of Josephus. The biographical school may take refuge, at this
point, in the claim that the Christian forger, whose passage was clearly unknown
to Origen, perhaps eliminated by his fraud a historic testimony to the
historicity of Jesus, and also an account of the sect of Nazaraeans.

But that is all that can be claimed. The fact remains that in the LIFE, telling
of his youthful scarch for a satisfactory sect, Josephus says not a word of the
existence of that of the crucified Jesus; that he nowhere breathes a word
concerning the twelve apostles, or any of them, or of Paul; and that there is no
hint in any of the Fathers of even a hostile account of Jesus by him in any of
his works, though Origen makes much of the allusion to James the Just, also
dismissible as an interpolation, like another to the same effect cited by
Origen, but not now extant. There is therefore a strong negative presumption to
be set against even the forlorn hypothesis that the passage forged in Josephus
by a Christian scribe ousted one which gave a hostile testimony.

Over a generation ago, Mr. George Solomon of Kingston, Jamaica, noting the
general incompatibility of Josephus with the gospel story and the unhistorical
aspect of the latter, constructed an interesting theory, 3 of which I have seen
no discussion, but which merits notice here. It may be summarized thus:
1. Banos is probably the historical original of the gospel figure of John the
Baptist.
2. Josephus names and describes two Jesuses, who are blended in the figure of
the gospel Jesus: (a) the Jesus (WARS, VI, v, 3) who predicts "woe to
Jerusalem"; is flogged till his bones show, but never utters a cry; makes no
reply when challenged; returns neither thanks for kindness nor railing for
railing; and is finally killed by a stone projectile in the siege; and (b) Jesus
the Galilean (LIFE §, 12: 27), son of Sapphias, who opposes Josephus, is
associated with Simon and John, and has a following of "sailors and poor
people," one of whom betrays him (9 22), whereupon he is captured by a
stratagem, his immediate followers forsaking him and flying. Before this point,
Josephus has taken seventy of the Galileans with him (5 14) as hostages, and,
making them his friends and companions on his journey, sets them "to judge
causes." This is the hint for Luke’s story of the seventy disciples.
3. The "historical Jesus" of the siege, who is "meek" and venerated as a
prophet and martyr, being combined with the "Mosaic Jesus" of Galilee, a
disciple of Judas of Galilee, who resisted the Roman rule and helped to
precipitate the war, the memory of the "sect" of Judas the Gaulanite or
Galilean, who began the anti-Roman trouble, is also transmuted into a myth of a
sect of Jesus of Galilee, who has fishermen for disciples, is followed by poor
Galileans, is betrayed by one companion and deserted by the rest, and is
represented finally as dying under Pontius Pilate, though at that time there had
been no Jesuic movement.
4. The Christian movement, thus mythically grounded, grows up after the fall of
the Temple. Paul’s "the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" (1 Thess.
ii, 16) tells of the destruction of the Temple, as does Hebrews xii, 24-28;
xiii, 12-14. This theory of the construction of the myth out of historical
elements in Josephus is obviously speculative in a high degree; and as the
construction fails to account for either the central rite or the central myth of
the crucifixion it must be pronounced inadequate to the data. On the other hand,
the author develops the negative case from the silence of Josephus as to the
gospel Jesus with an irresistible force; and though none of his solutions is
founded-on in the constructive theory now elaborated, it may be that some of
them are partly valid.

The fact that he confuses Jesus the robber captain who was betrayed, and whose
companions deserted him, with Jesus the "Mosaic" magistrate of Tiberias, who
was followed by sailors and poor people, and was "an innovator beyond everybody
else," does not exclude the argument that traits of one or the other, or of the
Jesus of the siege, may have entered into the gospel mosaic.

Given the clear and undeniable forgery of this Josephus passage, no one,
including any Christian, can say that the Christian Church cannot and did not
forge historic documents. The fact that Christians do not generally use this
passage is testimony to the fact that the guilt of the Church has been
recognized. Given all this, what reason do we have for supposing that the second
alleged mention of Jesus by Josephus is any more reliable? And if this first
passage has been "retired", how long will it take before we see the inevitable
demise of the second?


On the second "mention of Jesus"
Excerpt from The Christ, by John E. Remsburg

"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 Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all of 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. Festus was dead,
and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges and
brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was
James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as
breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities,
Book XX, chap. ix, sec. I).

This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause, “who was
called Christ,” which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and is generally regarded
as such. Nearly all the authorities that I have quoted reject it. It was
originally probably a marginal note. Some Christian reader of Josephus believing
that the James mentioned was the brother of Jesus made a note of his belief in
the manuscript before him, and this a transcriber afterward incorporated with
the text, a very common practice in that age when purity of text was a matter of
secondary importance.

The fact that the early fathers, who were acquainted with Josephus, and who
would have hailed with joy even this evidence of Christ’s existence, do not cite
it, while Origen expressly declares that Josephus has not mentioned Christ, is
conclusive proof that it did not exist until the middle of the third century or
later. Those who affirm the genuineness of this clause argue that the James
mentioned by Josephus was a person of less prominence than the Jesus mentioned
by him, which would be true of James, the brother of Jesus Christ. Now some of
the most prominent Jews living at this time were named Jesus. Jesus, the son of
Damneus, succeeded Ananus as high priest that very year; and Jesus, the son of
Gamaliel, a little later succeeded to the same office.

To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is
to reject the accepted history of the primitive church which declares that James
the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after the James of Josephus [see the above
quote] was condemned to death by the Sanhedrim. Whiston himself, the translator
of Josephus, referring to the event narrated by the Jewish historian, admits
that James, the brother of Jesus Christ, “did not die till long afterward.”

The brief "Discourse Concerning Hades", appended to the writings of Josephus,
is universally conceded to be the product of another writer-- "obviously of
Christian origin"-- says the Encyclopedia Britannica.

On Tacitus
The Christ, by John Remsburg, pp. 39-43

In July, 64 A. D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There is a tradition
to the effect that this conflagration was the work of an incendiary and that the
Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the incendiary. Modern editions of the
“Annals” of Tacitus contain the following passage in reference to this:

“Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed it to those people who were
abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These he punished
exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of
Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. This
pernicious superstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again; and spread
not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city also: whither
flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter
and encouragement. At first, only those were apprehended who confessed
themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude were detected by them, all
of whom were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as their
hatred of mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to
derision and contempt. Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and
torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over
with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus
burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this occasion,
and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes standing in the crowd
as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at other times driving a chariot
himself, till at length those men, though really criminal, and deserving
exemplary punishment, began to be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not
out of regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one
man.” (Annals, Book XV, sec. 4)

This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful, if not
spurious, for the following reasons:
1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments
demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a
compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been
made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no
recognition of them. .
4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it
existed.
5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the
evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no
mention of Tacitus.
6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
7. At this time but one copy of the “Annals” existed, and this copy, it is
claimed, was made in the eighth century—600 years after the time of Tacitus.
8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a
forgery was easy.
9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its
Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his
introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian
forgery could be made to appear improbable.
10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been
preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to
him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.
11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some
Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to
Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the
fifth century.
13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his
public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be
sacrificed, “not even those of condemned criminals.”
14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that
Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the “Annals” believe that
the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius
Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation. Whatever may be said
of the remainder of this passage, this sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of
Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely
related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the
narrative.

In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put
to death by Pontius Pilate. This sentence, if genuine, is the most important
evidence in Pagan literature. That it existed in the works of the greatest and
best known of Roman historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian
apologists for 1,360 years, no intelligent critic can believe. Tacitus did not
write this sentence.


Pliny the Younger

This Roman author, early in the second century, while serving as a pro-consul
under Trajan in Bithynia, is reputed to have written a letter to his Emperor
concerning his treatment of Christians. This letter contains the following:

“I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for
being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I
asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they
persevered, I ordered them to be executed. . . . . They assured me that their
only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain
day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to
Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath-- not to do anything that
was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break
their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon
to restore it. . . . . I therefore deemed it the more necessary to enquire of
two servant maids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and
to apply the torture. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive
superstition.”

Notwithstanding an alleged reply to this letter from Trajan, cited by Tertullian
and Eusebius, its genuineness may be well questioned, and for the following
reasons:

I. The Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all, and the Roman government
tolerated and protected every religious belief. Renan says: "Among the Roman
laws, anterior to Constantine, there was not a single ordinance directed against
freedom of thought; in the history of the Pagan emperors not a single
persecution on account of mere doctrines or creeds” (The Apostles). Gibbon says:
“The religious tenets of the Galileans, or Christians, were never made a subject
of punishment, or even of inquiry.” (Rome, Vol. 2, pg. 215)
2. Trajan was one of the most tolerant and benevolent of Roman emnerors.
3. Pliny, the reputed author of the letter, is universally conceded to have been
one of the most humane and philanthropic of men.
4. It represents the distant province of Bithynia as containing, at this time, a
large Christian population, which is improbable.
5. It assumes that the Emperor Trajan was little acquainted with Christian
beliefs and customs, which cannot be harmonized with the supposed historical
fact that the most powerful of primitive churches flourished in Trajan's
capital and had existed for fifty years.
6. Pliny represents the Christians as declaring that they were in the habit of
meeting and singing hymns “to Christ as to a god.” The early Christians did not
recognize Christ as a god, and it was not until after the time of Pliny that he
yeas worshiped as such.
7. “I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a
second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered I
ordered them to be executed.” That this wise and good man rewarded lying with
liberty and truthfulness with death is difficult to believe.
8. “I therefore deemed it more necessary to inquire of two servant maids, who
were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture.”
Never have the person and character of woman been held more sacred than they
were in Pagan Rome. That one of the noblest of Romans should have put to torture
young women guiltless of crime is incredible.
9. The declaration of the Christians that they took a solemn obligation “not to
do anything that was wicked; that they would commit no
theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word,” etc., looks like an
ingenious attempt to parade the virtues of primitive Christians.
10. This letter, it is claimed, is to be found in but one ancient copy of Pliny.
11. It was first quoted by Tertullian, and the age immediately preceding
Tertullian was notorious for Christian forgeries.


Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny-- these are the disinterested witnesses adduced by the
church to prove the historical existence of Jesus Christ; the one writing nearly
one hundred years, the others one hundred and ten years after his alleged birth;
the testimony of two of them self-evident forgeries, and that of the third a
probable forgery.

But even if the doubtful and hostile letter of Pliny be genuine, it was not
written until the second century, so that there is not to be found in all the
records of profane history prior to the second century a single allusion to the
reputed founder of Christianity.

To these witnesses is sometimes, though rarely, added a fourth, Suetonius, a
Roman historian who, like Tacitus and Pliny, wrote in the second century. In his
“Life of Nero,” Suetonius says: “The Christians, a race of men of a new and
villainous superstition, were punished.” In his “Life of Claudius,” he says :
“He [Claudius] drove the Jews, who at the instigation of Chrestus were
constantly rioting, out of Rome.” Of course no candid Christian will contend
that Christ was inciting Jewish riots at Rome fifteen years after he was
crucified at Jerusalem.

Significant is the silence of the forty Jewish and Pagan writers named in this
chapter. This silence alone disproves Christ’s existence. Had this wonderful
being really existed the earth would have resounded with his fame. His mighty
deeds would have engrossed every historian’s pen. The pages of other writers
would have abounded with references to him. Think of going through the
literature of the nineteenth century and searching in vain for the name of
Napoleon Bonaparte! Yet Napoleon was a pigmy and his deeds trifles compared with
this Christ and the deeds he is said to have performed.

With withering irony Gibbon notes this ominous silence: “But how shall we excuse
the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world, to those evidences
which were represented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to
their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first
disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable
prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were
raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended
for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside
from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and
study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical
government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at
least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural
darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited
the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in
an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the
elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the
earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious
work, has recorded. all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors,
comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the
one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the
mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe” (Rome, Vol. I, pp.
588-590).

Even conceding, for the sake of argument, both the authenticity and the
credibility of these passages attributed to the Roman historians, what do they
prove ? Do they prove that Christ was divine-that he was a supernatural being,
as claimed? No more than do the writings of Paine and Voltaire, which also
contain his name. This evidence is favorable, not to the adherents, but to the
opponents, of Christianity. If these passages be genuine, and their authors have
penned historical truths, it simply confirms what most Rationalists admit, that
a religious sect called Christians, who recognized Christ as their founder,
existed as early as the first century; and confirms what some have charged, but
what the church is loath to admit, that primitive Christians, who have been
declared the highest exemplars of human virtue, were the most depraved of
villains.

[It is a] proof that the Christ of Christianity is a fabulous and not a
historical character in the silence of the writers who lived during and
immediately following the time he is said to have existed. The following is a
list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after
the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:

Josephus, Arrian, Philo- Judaeus, Petronius, Seneca, Dion Pruseus, Pliny the
Elder, Paterculus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of
Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Quintilian, Lucanus,
Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus,
Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian,
Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus
Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria.

Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to
form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two
forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in
the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.

Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long
after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the
entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or
near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre
occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He
was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural
darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place when Christ himself rose from
the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These
marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they
really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of
the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and
in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine
powers, Philo saw it not.

Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ’s own country, Galilee. He wrote a
history covering the time of Christ’s reputed existence. This work has perished,
but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the ninth century, who was
acquainted with it, says: “He [Justus] makes not the least mention of the
appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works
that he did” (Photius’ Bibliotheca, code 33).

Judea, where occurred the miraculous beginning and marvelous ending of Christ’s
earthly career, was a Roman province, and all of Palestine is intimately
associated with Roman history. But the Roman records of that age contain no
mention of Christ and his works. The Greek writers of Greece and Alexandria who
lived not far from Palestine and who were familiar with its events, are silent
also.



As to the ancient historians, from Herod-
otus to Taoitus, we credit them as far as they relate
things probable and credible, and no further; for if we
do, we must believe the two miracles which Tacitus
relates were performed by Vespasian, that of curing a
lame man and a blind man, in just the same manner as
the same things are told of Jesus Christ by his his-
torians. We must also believe the miracles cited by
Josephus, that of the sea of Pamphilia opening to let
Alexander and his army pass, as is related of the RedSea in Exodus. These
miracles are quite as well
authenticated as the Bible miracles, and yet we do not
believe them"

"But first things first. Josephus was not a contemporary historian. He was born
in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus' alleged death. There is no way
he could have known about Jesus from is own personal experience. At best, he
could have recorded the activities of the new cult of Christianity, and what
they said about their crucified leader. So, even if Josephus wrote about Jesus,
it is not a credible source." However, people could say, "There was no Pontius
Pilate to crucify him." or "He was not crucified on that day." We see no
objections to the existince of Jesus at the time. Even the Jews do not dispute
the fact the tomb was empty.


"And yet a ranker forgery was never penned." Most historians only believe it
has a few insertations. They believe the original by Josephus read, "Now, there
was about this time Jesus, a wise man, 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. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the
principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him
at the first did not forsake him; for they say 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”

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and
exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers
and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of
a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a
being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being
greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines." Josephus did
not find him important as a heretic.


"It interrupts the narrative. Section 2 of the chapter containing it gives an
account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by Pilate with great
slaughter. The account ends as follows: “There were a great number of them slain
by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to
this sedition.” Section 4, as now numbered, begins with these words: “About the
same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder.” The one section
naturally and logically follows the other. Yet between these two closely
connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is placed; thus making the
words, “another sad calamity,” refer to the advent of this wise and wonderful
being." Modifiers are common in literature.

"The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have quoted this passage
had it existed in their time. The failure of even one of these fathers to notice
it would be sufficient to throw doubt upon its genuineness; the failure of all
of them to notice it proves conclusively that it is spurious, that it was not in
existence during the second and third centuries." Why? If no one is doubting
that he lived, why do we need a Jew to tell us he did? What good is the quote to
a Christian if everyone believes he exists?


"Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a forgery."
As I said, most believe it only has a few interpolations.


" But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the
first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned
John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ” Funny--I don't remember that when
I read Origen (I may have missed it but...)

" “There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient
to prove that the whole passage is spurious-- one that it was unknown to Origen
and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is
uncertain." He has yet to establish WHY they would want to quote such a passage
that says nothing about what they all accepted as fact.

"When we are considering the possibilities of underlying historical elements in
the gospel story, it may be well to note on the one hand the entirely negative
aspect of the works of Josephus to that story, and on the other hand the
emergence in his writings of personages bearing the name Jesus. If the defenders
of the historicity of the gospel Jesus would really stand by Josephus as a
historian of Jewry in the first Christian century, they would have to admit that
he is the most destructive of all the witnesses against them. It is not merely
that the famous interpolated passage (19 Antiq. iii, 3) is flagrantly spurious
in every aspect-- in its impossible context; its impossible language of
semi-worship ; its "He was (the) Christ"; its assertion of the resurrection;
and its allusion to "ten thousand other wonderful things" of which the
historian gives no other hint—but that the flagrant interpolation brings into
deadly relief the absence of all mention of the crucified Jesus and his sect
where mention must have been made by the historian if they had existed. If, to
say nothing of "ten thousand wonderful things," there was any movement of a
Jesus of Nazareth with twelve disciples in the period of Pilate, how came the
historian to ignore it utterly? If, to say nothing of the resurrection story,
Jesus had been crucified by Pilate, how came it that there is no hint of such an
episode in connection with Josephus’ account of the Samaritan tumult in the next
chapter?" Once more, Josephus believed Jesus to be a heretic. In a time when
many people were being crucified and claiming to be the Messiah, why mention
them?

"
But that is all that can be claimed. The fact remains that in the LIFE, telling
of his youthful scarch for a satisfactory sect, Josephus says not a word of the
existence of that of the crucified Jesus; that he nowhere breathes a word
concerning the twelve apostles, or any of them, or of Paul; and that there is no
hint in any of the Fathers of even a hostile account of Jesus by him in any of
his works, though Origen makes much of the allusion to James the Just, also
dismissible as an interpolation, like another to the same effect cited by
Origen, but not now extant. There is therefore a strong negative presumption to
be set against even the forlorn hypothesis that the passage forged in Josephus
by a Christian scribe ousted one which gave a hostile testimony." It's
charming how he uses the Fathers, like Polycarp, who was a follower of John, a
disciple he is denying exists.

And if we are going to claim the Church was constantly changing documents, how
do we know that Origen knew nothing of Josephus mentioning Christ? Why couldn't
someone have changed the document so Origen does not mention Josephus, a
non-follower of Christ? You can't have it both ways.


"This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause, “who was
called Christ,” which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and is generally regarded
as such." Why? An atheist can say that Jesus is called the Christ. It means
some people believe he is.


"The fact that the early fathers, who were acquainted with Josephus, and who
would have hailed with joy even this evidence of Christ’s existence" Seeing as
we have no mention of a doubt of his existince, there is no need for any proof
he existed. You see?


"1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers." Nor are plenty of sections of
the Bible for that matter.

"2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments
demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed." Once you prove
Tertullian needs to prove to someone Jesus exists, I will believe that he should
have mentioned the quote.

"3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a
compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been
made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no
recognition of them." And this document is called?

" In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to
Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the
fifth century." Isn't that not called a quote? The quote you wanted...

"In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put
to death by Pontius Pilate." It SHOULDN'T be in Roman records. Pontius was not
to allow the Jews to execute people for religious reasons, which is why Jesus
was killed. Pilate would have been a bad person for disobeying Rome. Why should
he let them know?


"Pliny represents the Christians as declaring that they were in the habit of
meeting and singing hymns “to Christ as to a god.” The early Christians did not
recognize Christ as a god, and it was not until after the time of Pliny that he
yeas worshiped as such." There is no evidense whatsoever the early Christians
did not recognize Jesus as God. Paul's letters affirm this belief, and they can
be traced to an incredibly early date.

"This silence alone disproves Christ’s existence. Had this wonderful
being really existed the earth would have resounded with his fame. His mighty
deeds would have engrossed every historian’s pen. The pages of other writers
would have abounded with references to him. Think of going through the
literature of the nineteenth century and searching in vain for the name of
Napoleon Bonaparte! Yet Napoleon was a pigmy and his deeds trifles compared with
this Christ and the deeds he is said to have performed." It took Alexander the
Great 400 years to be recognized and Zoroaster almost 1,000. Unless you agree
Christ is more important than both, why should he be recgonized any more
quickly?

It also fails to answer why, if they are total forgeries, did the Christians not
do so in almost EVERY document? Why do it but 3 times when so many more could
have been changed?


These articles do not stand up to criticism. Lee Strobel's "The Case for
Christ" deals with almost all these claims.

Peter Kirby

Unfortunately, his contemporaries did, so it means little that one man failed to do so in his preserved corpus.

Ca. 360 CE. Ambrose, or Hegesippus de Excid. Urb. Hierosolym. lib. ii. cap. 12.

We have discovered that it was the opinion and belief of the Jews, as Josephus affirms, (who is an author not to be rejected, when he writes against himself,) that Herod [Antipas] lost his army, not by the deceit of men, but by the anger of God, and that justly, as an effect of revenge for what he did to John the Baptist, a just man, who had said to him, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.

The Jews themselves also bear witness to Christ, as appears by Josephus, the writer of their history, who says thus: That there was at that time a wise man, if, says he, it be lawful to have him called a man; a doer of wonderful works, who appeared to his disciples after the third day from his death alive again, according to the writings of the prophets, who fore. told these, and innumerable other miraculous events concerning him; from whom began the congregation of Christians, and hath penetrated among all sorts of men; nor does there remain any nation in the Roman world, which continues strangers to his religion. If the Jews do not believe us, let them at least believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner, and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer, as to what he himself said; but thus he spoke, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart and his perfidious intention. However, it was no prejudice to the truth that he was not a believer; but this adds more weight to his testimony, that while he was an unbeliever, and unwilling this should be true, he has not denied it to be so.

Ca. 400 CE. Hieronym. de Vir. Illustr. in Josepho.

Josephus, in the eighteenth book of Antiquities, most expressly acknowledges, that Christ was slain by the Pharisees on account of the greatness of his miracles, and that John the Baptist was truly a prophet; and that Jerusalem was demolished on account of the slaughter of James the apostle. Now, he wrote concerning our Lord after this manner: "At the same time there was Jesus, a wise man, if yet it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of those who willingly receive the truth. He had many followers both of the Jews and of the Gentiles. He was believed to be Christ. And when, by the envy of our principal men, Pilate had condemned him to the cross, yet notwithstanding, those who had loved him at first persevered, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, as the oracles of the prophets had foretold many of those and other wonderful things concerning him; and the sect of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Ca. 410 CE. Isidorus Pelusiota the Scholar of Chrysostom, lib. iv. epist. 225.

There was one Josephus, a Jew, of the greatest reputation, and one that was zealous of the law; one also that paraphrased the Old Testament with truth, and acted valiantly for the Jews, and had showed that their settlement was nobler than can be described by words. Now, since he made their interest give place to truth, for he would not support the opinion of impious men, I think it necessary to set down his words.

What then does he say? "Now there was about that time one Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer or 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 first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them the third day alive again, as the divine prophets had said these and a vast number of other wonderful things concerning him: and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Now I cannot but wonder greatly at this man's love of truth in many respects, but chiefly where he says, "Jesus was a teacher of men who received the truth with pleasure."

Can you find the quote saying that he admits Josephus made no mention of Christ? Not Justus but good old Joe, whom Photius doesn't attack like he does the unbelieving Justus of Tiberias. Photius is now online for verification:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/

Personally, I view the Testimonium as an apologist's canard. The question of Christian origins rests upon the analysis of what they believed, wrote, and how this developed--if this points strongly to myth, no external vector we have will trump that, but if the opposite, the external silences can be disregarded.

That's just draino, it instantly dissolves all credibility.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Absurd why and on what evidence? The author offers pure unabashed personal incredulity. And that can just be pushed back with "The hypothesis makes total sense to me!" (I agree that the hypthesis of an anti-Christian statement by Josephus means that the paragraph was redacted or replaced.)

The mainline historicist sees this kind of ultimately self-destructive mythologizing as rampant in early Christianity. They say he was born in Bethlehem, which obscures the probability that his origin was in Galilee. They say that he had divine power, which distracts us from the reality of magic, fraud, and charisma in the ancient and modern world. They say that he vacated a tomb, which replaces the embarrassing story that he was eaten by birds or thrown in a criminal's resting place by his enemies.

Reductio ad absurdum.

This is a highly dishonest characterization of scholarly response to Ant. 20.9.1 in any period of research. Go for the unconventional ideas, but don't try to pass it off as conventional wisdom--say that you have found something revolutionary and exciting!

This is a deceptive characterization of the statements of Origen, which most would argue suggest that Origen knew a Josephus who believed in Jesus not as the Christ. The author doesn't deal with that valid interpretation at all. Origen rather definitely refers to the Ant. 20.9.1 note, regardless of his knowledge of some form of a Testimonium.

Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17. "And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James."

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47. "Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ,--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure."

My check of the Greek of Origen on the TLG CD-ROM confirms the reading that Josephus believed in a non-Christ Jesus, but does not in any way necessitate the reading that Origen portrayed Josephus as never mentioning Jesus.

Extremely odd how the author suddenly supports the late tradition of Hegesippus.

The suggestion of Josephan authorship is not present in the text and was not broached until Photius in the ninth century, who had his reservations.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Unfortunately for the argument from silence against the quite apparent (both linguistically and in terms of content) authenticity of Annals 15.44, the author neglects to mention the considerations that (1) Tacitus was mostly ignored by Christians until the Renaissance (this applies to Clement, Origen, Eusebius, et al) and (2) the passage primarily proves the senator's detest for the Christian sect and the origin of that sect in a man from Judea, which was not in doubt from the third through the seventeenth centuries.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Ignorant pro-Roman anachronizing nonsense! Strange cults such as the Bachhanalia and anti-imperialistic religions such as Judaism were often ruthlessly suppressed throughout Roman history. This applies especially to a new-fangled superstitio, as Christianism is termed by all the early Latins, which has no legitimacy of antiquity. It would be suspected as a secret society and eliminated--hell, the Romans outlawed groups of men trying to put out fires for fear of conspiracy against the state!

best,
Peter Kirby

offa

Offa;

But first things first. Josephus was not a contemporary
historian. He was born in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus'
alleged death. There is no way he could have known about Jesus from is
own personal experience. At best, he could have recorded the
activities of the new cult of Christianity, and what they said about
their crucified leader. So, even if Josephus wrote about Jesus, it is
not a credible source.


Are we talking about milk or meat? Milk is for fundies and they
read verbatim and have belief. Meat is for atheists and they read
with understanding and have knowledge.
Josephus was born before Jesus was crucified (www.josephus-pursuit.com/12_year_rule.htm).
Understanding the 12_year_rule does not change the given point There
is no way he could have known about Jesus from is own personal
experience. However, what is given should be thrown out because
it is simply not true.

Now, about alleged death. What is death? Was Jesus a
corpse? Kings 2-19:35 And it came to pass that night, that the
angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an
hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the
morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. The author of Kings
is writing figuratively. History tells us that GOD (Isaiah) had to
pay tribute to the Assyrians making their king Sennecherib more
powerful than GOD. So, the Assyrians become corpses, i.e., the living
dead. What Kings author wrote was the truth even though it was not
necessarily true (Like the British Intelligence on Iraq buying uranium
from Africa). Jesus survived the crucifixion. His death was a
spiritual death. His father, the chief priest Jonathan Annas, was
present. Father, in this sense means "chief priest". The high priest
is Caiaphas and Caiaphas is GOD. By law "GOD" is the "father" of
the chief priest and this makes Jonathan Annas the "son-in-law" to
Caiaphas.
The odd mentioning of the "Jesus the wise man" by Josephus may have
been a forgery. However, it does not change Josephus' histories.
Josephus does write about Jesus' brother James and doing so he makes
Jesus a living being. James became a powerful religious leader after
Jesus' figurative death. Josephus' writings have survived pretty much
intact because his readers do not understand that he is a teacher and
is teaching those with "ears" to eat meat and those without to drink
milk.
Thanks,
Offa