Is jesus a myth?
A lot of blog posts originate from arguments on IRC. In the most recent argument, a post from facebook (unfortunately requires a facebook login) was quoted in defense of an argument.
The above facebook posting basically aims to discredit the often quoted (by christian apologists) Testimonium of the Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus:
It is argued that the above piece was obviously forged. Not only was it forged, it was written in 93 or 94 AD, some sixty years after the events it reports, and therefore "late". This meant I had to go back and do some research, because until now I also thought Josephus made a good Witness.
First and foremost, and this will come as a shock to some Christians, the above piece was indeed tampered with, or at the very least, it is very likely that it was tampered with. Scholars now mostly agree that it is unlikely that Josephus -- who was an orthodox jew -- would make statements such as those marked in italics above. If you read the above passage without the italicised passages, you will find that it flows better and the line of thought is clear.
What escapes me is why this suddenly discredits the story. Even without the extraordinary claims that appears to have been added later, we still have an extra-biblical account that he did indeed exist. In order to completely disqualify it, it would have to be late enough so that there would be nobody around who knew the facts. Clearly that is not the case here. 60 Years simply doesn't cut it.
Nevertheless, if Josephus was the only ammunition the apologist had in his arsenal, it would admittedly be pretty weak. So on to the second report, by Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD). Once again, it is somewhat "late", and accused of being spurious:
Now the source at my disposal (admittedly Christian in nature) made mention of the problems with Josephus, but it does not mention anything about Tacitus being spurious. It only says that this is the only ancient document that has come down to us that mentions Pilate. The facebook post argues that Christus (also spelled Chrestus) means "good" and in no way refers to Jesus. The opposing argument is that Christus was a common misspelling of christ, an error common among pagan writers. Seeing as he was explaining where the name of the group comes from, I actually doubt the facebook poster's argument, but since I am not an expert on the matter one would have to leave room for doubt. All we can safely conclude from this then, is that at the end of the first century, there was a group who called themselves Christians, and that they were followers of a supposedly good man.
Once again, I have to agree that if these were the only documents a Christian had to defend his case, we could probably ignore him right there. But we have no less than six other extra-biblical texts that references Jesus.
Lucian of Samosata
Lucian was a Greek satirist who lived in the second century. Lucian wrote a satire called "The Passing of Peregrinus" where the lead character takes advantage of the generosity and gullibility of the Christians. My other source says he spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians and quotes this:
This one is plenty late. We can conclude safely from this that in the second century there was a group called Christians, and they followed someone who was at some point crucified.
Suetonius
Suetonius was born somewhere between 69 and 75 AD and lived till at least 130 AD. He writes in "Life of Claudius 25.4":
Once again the misspelling occurs. I think it is pretty clear that we are not talking of a good man here. This event, which occured in 49AD, is also described in Acts 18:2.
Pliny the younger
Pliny the younger (so called to distinguish him from the older one) was governor of Bithynia in 112AD. He wrote to the emperor Trajan to seek council on what to do with with the Christians. Up to that point he simply put them all to death, including women and children, but he ended up killing so many people that he wondered if this was the best thing to do. In the same letter, he explains to Trajan that he "made them curse Christ", something which a true Christian cannot be made to do. He also tells how the Christians meet on a certain day of the week to sing a hymn to Christ as to a god, and that they bound themselves not to do any wicked deeds or commit fraud, theft, adultery, or falisify their word (ie lie).
Once again, we can conclude that at the beginning of the second century, there was a group called Christians who followed someone they called Christ.
Thallus
Thallus lived somewhere between the middle of the first century until the end of the second century. Unfortunately none of his works survive to this day, but we have his works quoted by other writers. Around 52 AD (this is an educated guess of course), Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world. One writer who cited this work was Julius Africanus (221 AD). Africanus was a Christian, so this may affect his credibility in the view of modern critics. Africanus writes:
Africanus says the explanation is unreasonable because a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon. That is however not the argument here, he is merely commenting on something that Thallus wrote. What it does show is that there is at least one extra-biblical account that tries to explain away, rather than deny, the darkness that fell upon the land as per the biblical account.
Phlegon
Phlegon wrote a history called "Chronicles". This work has unfortunately been lost as well, but once again Africanus preserved a fragment. Phlegon also confirms the darkness and explains it away as a solar eclipse. Phlegon is also mentioned by the third century apologist Origen.
Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 AD Mara Bar-Serapion writes a letter to his son from Prison. This is dated about forty years after the crucifixion, which could be seen as early. He encourages his son to pursue wisdom and compares Jesus to Socrates and Pythagoras. He calls him the "wise king of the Jews" and says that he lives on in his teachings.
Other references
The Babylonian Talmud reports that Yesua was hanged on the eve of passover, because he practiced sorcery and led Israel astray.
One of the earliest Christian writings is the first letter to the Corinthians, written in 55 AD by the apostle Paul. In this letter is preserved a very early creed of what the Christians believed. Early enough, but it lacks credibility with the critic.
There are also many writings by the so called Church Fathers and other early apologists. I only want to mention Justin Martyr who was born 100 AD. He explains that it can be ascertained from the tax records that Jesus was born in a small village 35 stadia from Jerusalem.
Last but not least, there is also the biblical accounts. Most people are quick to dismiss these, but Luke was actually a brilliant historian and many of the things he writes about checks out.
To conclude this rather long blog post, the point I tried to make all along, is that even if you don't belief all the extraordinary things said about this man, there is enough evidence to suggest that he existed, that he was sentenced to death by Pilate, and that he was crucified. The group of people who argue that he never existed and that we cannot know much about who he was may be in the good company of Bertrand Russell, but it is still a pretty small group of people. To quote F. F Bruce (Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the university of Manchester):
The above facebook posting basically aims to discredit the often quoted (by christian apologists) Testimonium of the Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. (Antiquities, XVIII, 33, italics added).
It is argued that the above piece was obviously forged. Not only was it forged, it was written in 93 or 94 AD, some sixty years after the events it reports, and therefore "late". This meant I had to go back and do some research, because until now I also thought Josephus made a good Witness.
First and foremost, and this will come as a shock to some Christians, the above piece was indeed tampered with, or at the very least, it is very likely that it was tampered with. Scholars now mostly agree that it is unlikely that Josephus -- who was an orthodox jew -- would make statements such as those marked in italics above. If you read the above passage without the italicised passages, you will find that it flows better and the line of thought is clear.
What escapes me is why this suddenly discredits the story. Even without the extraordinary claims that appears to have been added later, we still have an extra-biblical account that he did indeed exist. In order to completely disqualify it, it would have to be late enough so that there would be nobody around who knew the facts. Clearly that is not the case here. 60 Years simply doesn't cut it.
Nevertheless, if Josephus was the only ammunition the apologist had in his arsenal, it would admittedly be pretty weak. So on to the second report, by Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD). Once again, it is somewhat "late", and accused of being spurious:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, not all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also. (Annals XV, 44)
Now the source at my disposal (admittedly Christian in nature) made mention of the problems with Josephus, but it does not mention anything about Tacitus being spurious. It only says that this is the only ancient document that has come down to us that mentions Pilate. The facebook post argues that Christus (also spelled Chrestus) means "good" and in no way refers to Jesus. The opposing argument is that Christus was a common misspelling of christ, an error common among pagan writers. Seeing as he was explaining where the name of the group comes from, I actually doubt the facebook poster's argument, but since I am not an expert on the matter one would have to leave room for doubt. All we can safely conclude from this then, is that at the end of the first century, there was a group who called themselves Christians, and that they were followers of a supposedly good man.
Once again, I have to agree that if these were the only documents a Christian had to defend his case, we could probably ignore him right there. But we have no less than six other extra-biblical texts that references Jesus.
Lucian of Samosata
Lucian was a Greek satirist who lived in the second century. Lucian wrote a satire called "The Passing of Peregrinus" where the lead character takes advantage of the generosity and gullibility of the Christians. My other source says he spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians and quotes this:
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on trust, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property. (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13)
This one is plenty late. We can conclude safely from this that in the second century there was a group called Christians, and they followed someone who was at some point crucified.
Suetonius
Suetonius was born somewhere between 69 and 75 AD and lived till at least 130 AD. He writes in "Life of Claudius 25.4":
As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.
Once again the misspelling occurs. I think it is pretty clear that we are not talking of a good man here. This event, which occured in 49AD, is also described in Acts 18:2.
Pliny the younger
Pliny the younger (so called to distinguish him from the older one) was governor of Bithynia in 112AD. He wrote to the emperor Trajan to seek council on what to do with with the Christians. Up to that point he simply put them all to death, including women and children, but he ended up killing so many people that he wondered if this was the best thing to do. In the same letter, he explains to Trajan that he "made them curse Christ", something which a true Christian cannot be made to do. He also tells how the Christians meet on a certain day of the week to sing a hymn to Christ as to a god, and that they bound themselves not to do any wicked deeds or commit fraud, theft, adultery, or falisify their word (ie lie).
Once again, we can conclude that at the beginning of the second century, there was a group called Christians who followed someone they called Christ.
Thallus
Thallus lived somewhere between the middle of the first century until the end of the second century. Unfortunately none of his works survive to this day, but we have his works quoted by other writers. Around 52 AD (this is an educated guess of course), Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world. One writer who cited this work was Julius Africanus (221 AD). Africanus was a Christian, so this may affect his credibility in the view of modern critics. Africanus writes:
Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness [that occurred at the moment Jesus died] as an eclipse of the sun -- unreasonably as it seems to me, (Africanus, Chronography, 18.1)
Africanus says the explanation is unreasonable because a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon. That is however not the argument here, he is merely commenting on something that Thallus wrote. What it does show is that there is at least one extra-biblical account that tries to explain away, rather than deny, the darkness that fell upon the land as per the biblical account.
Phlegon
Phlegon wrote a history called "Chronicles". This work has unfortunately been lost as well, but once again Africanus preserved a fragment. Phlegon also confirms the darkness and explains it away as a solar eclipse. Phlegon is also mentioned by the third century apologist Origen.
Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 AD Mara Bar-Serapion writes a letter to his son from Prison. This is dated about forty years after the crucifixion, which could be seen as early. He encourages his son to pursue wisdom and compares Jesus to Socrates and Pythagoras. He calls him the "wise king of the Jews" and says that he lives on in his teachings.
Other references
The Babylonian Talmud reports that Yesua was hanged on the eve of passover, because he practiced sorcery and led Israel astray.
One of the earliest Christian writings is the first letter to the Corinthians, written in 55 AD by the apostle Paul. In this letter is preserved a very early creed of what the Christians believed. Early enough, but it lacks credibility with the critic.
There are also many writings by the so called Church Fathers and other early apologists. I only want to mention Justin Martyr who was born 100 AD. He explains that it can be ascertained from the tax records that Jesus was born in a small village 35 stadia from Jerusalem.
Last but not least, there is also the biblical accounts. Most people are quick to dismiss these, but Luke was actually a brilliant historian and many of the things he writes about checks out.
To conclude this rather long blog post, the point I tried to make all along, is that even if you don't belief all the extraordinary things said about this man, there is enough evidence to suggest that he existed, that he was sentenced to death by Pilate, and that he was crucified. The group of people who argue that he never existed and that we cannot know much about who he was may be in the good company of Bertrand Russell, but it is still a pretty small group of people. To quote F. F Bruce (Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the university of Manchester):
Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they do not do so on the grounds of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories.
posted by ispburger at 10:37 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home