I would now like to move to the Roman historian Tacitus, who states in his Annals:
“Christus, the founder of the name, suffered the extreme penalty under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius” [Tacitus, 15.44]
No scholar and very few skeptics question the authenticity of this passage, because the preceding and following passages go on to insult Christianity, calling it a “disease” and a “pernicious superstition” No Christian would have written those words. Further, the passage is in perfect Tacitean style.
The main objection to the reliability of this passage is that it calls Pilate a procurator, when he was actually a prefect. However, both Philo and Josephus called Pilate a prefect. There are two possibilities here, considering the triple attestation. Either at the time of Pilate there was little difference between the titles, or Pilate was both a procurator and a prefect. Either way, that objection certainly does not hurt the authenticity of Tacitus' reference to Jesus.
Skeptics will sometimes object that this passage is hearsay that Tacitus obtained this information from Christians. This simply ignores the critical capability of Tacitus. He called information that he received from his friend, Pliny the Younger, nonsense. Now, Pliny was his friend. Tacitus considered the Christians his enemies, as implied by the tone of the passage. Are we to believe that he borrowed information uncritically from his enemies, while critically analyzing material he received from his friends?
Tacitus wrote in about 115 AD, and was known as an extremely reliable historian who chose carefully from his sources. [Benario, 87] Adding up these factors, this is a superb attestation to Jesus existence and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.
Works Cited
Benario, Herbert, An Introduction to Tacitus, University of Georgia Press, 1975
Tacitus, Cornelius, Annals, The Roman Empire, 115 CE
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Myth of the Jesus Myth: Evidence from Secular History: Josephus
Today in our series, we will be looking at one notable secular historian who mentions Jesus twice. That would be Flavius Josephus.
Josephus mentions Jesus twice. The first is called the Testimonium Flavianum. He says in Antiquities of the Jews:
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of strange works, a teacher of such men as receive the 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 tribes of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” [Josephus, 18.3.3]
Until the mid 18th century, this passage was regarded as wholly genuine and a beautiful attestation to Jesus divine nature and miracles. Charges of this passage being a forgery now run rampant in skeptical literature. [Drews, 121] [Doherty, 207]
Origen, in the second century CE, says that Josephus was not a Christian.
[Origen, I, XLVII] This is in stark contrast with the current version of the Testimonium. This is a clear contradiction that must be resolved.
There are also vocabulary issues that arise. In passages seeming to make Josephus look like a Christian, the vocabulary is at odds with the rest of the Antiquities of the Jews. [Mason, 169] This is another problem that must be resolved.
When the evidence is examined in this manner, it appears a logical conclusion that this passage is forged. In fact, this is the conclusion that most skeptics come to. However, historians come to a different conclusion. Most scholars hold to the view that this passage is partially genuine, but with some Christian interpolations.
The passage most likely originally read like this:
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of strange 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. 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. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Not only does this solve the problems of Josephus sounding like a Christian, but it also resolves the vocabulary problem.[Meier, 63] This is either a remarkable coincidence, or remarkable evidence that some of this passage is genuine.
Still, there are some objections that need to be properly dealt with before we conclude the value of this passage.
We will deal with the “out of context” objection, the lateness objection, and what I will call the “Pleasing Pilate” objection.
The out of context objection is an old and outdated objection that has been abandoned by all but the most ardent of Christ mythers. It states that the passage is out of context with the surrounding text. This objection is without merit. Josephus was indeed very sloppy in his placement. [Meier, 8] Further, this passage is not even out of context! The surrounding text is all talking about events relating to Pontius Pilate, and Jesus, being crucified under him, definitely relates.
The lateness objection argues that the Testimonium is too late to be of any worth. This is utter nonsense. Antiquities was published in about 94, which makes it postdate Jesus by about sixty years. Considering the time gap between other Jewish rabbis, in the hundreds of years, this is an excellent time difference.
The “pleasing Pilate” objection asks why Josephus would write negatively about Pontius Pilate. However, Josephus had no need to please dead leaders! He was writing for the current leaders. He would have been in trouble had he upset them, but insulting Pilate was not offensive.
To sum up the discussion of the Testimonium Flavianum, it is an extremely valuable passage, and it confirms that Jesus existed, was crucified under Pontius Pilate at the suggestion of the Jews, aka “the principal men among us”, and that he still had a following at the time of writing.
Josephus’ second reference to Jesus is called the “Jamesian reference”. It is extremely short, but it does confirm a few things. It says this,
“James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ”
Note that Jesus is only called the “so-called Christ” instead of “the Christ” so that is not subject to Christian interpolations. No scholar worth his salt disputes the authenticity of this passage.
Josephus provides a considerable amount of evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Tomorrow we will look at the evidence that the Roman historian Tacitus provides us.
Works Cited:
Doherty, Earl, The Jesus Puzzle, Age of Reason Publications, 2005
Drews, Arthur, The Christ Myth, Prometheus Books, 1998
Josephus, Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews, The Roman Empire, 90 CE (approximately)
Mason, Steve, Josephus and the New Testament, Hendrickson Publishers, 1992
Meier, John P, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday, 1991
Origen, Contra Celsum, Self-Published, mid third century
Josephus mentions Jesus twice. The first is called the Testimonium Flavianum. He says in Antiquities of the Jews:
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of strange works, a teacher of such men as receive the 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 tribes of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” [Josephus, 18.3.3]
Until the mid 18th century, this passage was regarded as wholly genuine and a beautiful attestation to Jesus divine nature and miracles. Charges of this passage being a forgery now run rampant in skeptical literature. [Drews, 121] [Doherty, 207]
Origen, in the second century CE, says that Josephus was not a Christian.
[Origen, I, XLVII] This is in stark contrast with the current version of the Testimonium. This is a clear contradiction that must be resolved.
There are also vocabulary issues that arise. In passages seeming to make Josephus look like a Christian, the vocabulary is at odds with the rest of the Antiquities of the Jews. [Mason, 169] This is another problem that must be resolved.
When the evidence is examined in this manner, it appears a logical conclusion that this passage is forged. In fact, this is the conclusion that most skeptics come to. However, historians come to a different conclusion. Most scholars hold to the view that this passage is partially genuine, but with some Christian interpolations.
The passage most likely originally read like this:
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of strange 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. 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. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Not only does this solve the problems of Josephus sounding like a Christian, but it also resolves the vocabulary problem.[Meier, 63] This is either a remarkable coincidence, or remarkable evidence that some of this passage is genuine.
Still, there are some objections that need to be properly dealt with before we conclude the value of this passage.
We will deal with the “out of context” objection, the lateness objection, and what I will call the “Pleasing Pilate” objection.
The out of context objection is an old and outdated objection that has been abandoned by all but the most ardent of Christ mythers. It states that the passage is out of context with the surrounding text. This objection is without merit. Josephus was indeed very sloppy in his placement. [Meier, 8] Further, this passage is not even out of context! The surrounding text is all talking about events relating to Pontius Pilate, and Jesus, being crucified under him, definitely relates.
The lateness objection argues that the Testimonium is too late to be of any worth. This is utter nonsense. Antiquities was published in about 94, which makes it postdate Jesus by about sixty years. Considering the time gap between other Jewish rabbis, in the hundreds of years, this is an excellent time difference.
The “pleasing Pilate” objection asks why Josephus would write negatively about Pontius Pilate. However, Josephus had no need to please dead leaders! He was writing for the current leaders. He would have been in trouble had he upset them, but insulting Pilate was not offensive.
To sum up the discussion of the Testimonium Flavianum, it is an extremely valuable passage, and it confirms that Jesus existed, was crucified under Pontius Pilate at the suggestion of the Jews, aka “the principal men among us”, and that he still had a following at the time of writing.
Josephus’ second reference to Jesus is called the “Jamesian reference”. It is extremely short, but it does confirm a few things. It says this,
“James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ”
Note that Jesus is only called the “so-called Christ” instead of “the Christ” so that is not subject to Christian interpolations. No scholar worth his salt disputes the authenticity of this passage.
Josephus provides a considerable amount of evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Tomorrow we will look at the evidence that the Roman historian Tacitus provides us.
Works Cited:
Doherty, Earl, The Jesus Puzzle, Age of Reason Publications, 2005
Drews, Arthur, The Christ Myth, Prometheus Books, 1998
Josephus, Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews, The Roman Empire, 90 CE (approximately)
Mason, Steve, Josephus and the New Testament, Hendrickson Publishers, 1992
Meier, John P, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Doubleday, 1991
Origen, Contra Celsum, Self-Published, mid third century
Monday, June 9, 2008
The Myth of the Jesus Myth: Introduction to the Christ Myth
Recently on the Internet, there has been some raving madmen going around claiming that the historical evidence supports the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure. Let me be plain and clear. Such an idea is absolute nonsense and is recognized as such by nearly the entire scholarly community.
In support of the mythicist position, they offer usually three pitiful arguments. The first is the silence of contemporary historical writers concerning Jesus. The second is the silence of the Pauline epistles concerning an earthly, historical Jesus. (it is generally argued by mythicists that Paul believed in a Jesus who did not live on Earth, but in sublunar heavenly plane) The third, and by far stupidest argument, is that Jesus closely parallels the pagan deities and mystery religions of that time.
In this series of blogs, we will be doing a refutation of the Christ myth theory. First, we will examine the positive evidence for the existence of Jesus from secular sources. Second, we will examine the evidence the Gospels give us concerning the existence of Jesus. Third, we will examine the evidence the Pauline epistles give us concerning the existence of Jesus. Fourth, we will be refuting the first argument of the mythicist camp, the argument that secular writers are silent. We will do this by examining each of the silent writers they list and demonstrating why their silence is insignificant. Fifth, we will refute the argument that Paul believed in a non Earthly Jesus. Sixth, we will be examining the pagan deities that Jesus mythicists say parallel Jesus.
Have a nice day.
In support of the mythicist position, they offer usually three pitiful arguments. The first is the silence of contemporary historical writers concerning Jesus. The second is the silence of the Pauline epistles concerning an earthly, historical Jesus. (it is generally argued by mythicists that Paul believed in a Jesus who did not live on Earth, but in sublunar heavenly plane) The third, and by far stupidest argument, is that Jesus closely parallels the pagan deities and mystery religions of that time.
In this series of blogs, we will be doing a refutation of the Christ myth theory. First, we will examine the positive evidence for the existence of Jesus from secular sources. Second, we will examine the evidence the Gospels give us concerning the existence of Jesus. Third, we will examine the evidence the Pauline epistles give us concerning the existence of Jesus. Fourth, we will be refuting the first argument of the mythicist camp, the argument that secular writers are silent. We will do this by examining each of the silent writers they list and demonstrating why their silence is insignificant. Fifth, we will refute the argument that Paul believed in a non Earthly Jesus. Sixth, we will be examining the pagan deities that Jesus mythicists say parallel Jesus.
Have a nice day.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Introduction and Testimony
Hey, I'm Tommy. I'm 15 and I have two YouTube channels.
www.youtube.com/kabane52 (defending evolution)
www.youtube.com/kabanethechristian (defending Christianity)
At this point in time, I prefer my second channel as I have come to enjoy apologetics far more than evolution. Apologetics will be the primary focus of this blog. Let me give my testimony, which I have also given in two videos of mine.
My father is a deist. My mother is an evangelical Christian and has been so since I was two. My father didn't care if I was raised in evangelicalism. He disagrees with it, but does not find it harmful. So I went to Sunday School, was taught bible stories such as creation, the flood, David and Goliath, and the story of Jesus. I believed everything I was taught, including literal, six day creationism. I was baptized in third grade at my own will because I believed I was a true Christian who had a desire to follow God's Word.
This all continued until the summer before eighth grade. There was a church class titled "Science and the Bible". I decided that I was interested and I chose to attend. They told us that an old earth and evolution were compatible with the Bible and proceeded to lay out a few interpretations of Genesis (I currently like a variation of the Day-Age model) that resolved the problem of the age of the Earth. They also taught resolutions to the death before sin problem.
I became an evolutionist and read a lot on the topic. I would debate my three best friends on the issue (they are now three evolutionists as I am) and I defeated them every time. I then found YouTube. The first video on evolution that I watched was "Memo to Creationists" by chadagg. I was then directed to "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design". I found lots of great videos on YouTube on evolution.
And the people who defended evolution also often defended atheism. I found a video demanding evidence for God's existence and evidence for Christianity. I was shocked. I just realized, that for all the years I had believed Christianity, I had no real reason to. I then found videos on Mithraism and Christianity, claiming that Jesus never existed and was simply a syncretistic characted derived from pagan gods such as Mithra, Dionysus, Attis, and Adonis.
I was crushed. I held on desperately to Christianity for emotional reasons, and I often found myself near tears because of the stress my crisis of faith had been causing me. When Christmas that year came, we sang "O Come O Come Emmanuel". The words felt empty to me and I wasn't sure if Christianity was true anymore.
In January 2007, I decided to defend evolution with a YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/kabane52). Of course, this worsened my crisis of faith because I became quite popular with atheists who then tried to deconvert me, pressing the issues that had me already worried.
In February, I decided to read "The Case for Christ" to see the evidence that apologists presented. I was happy, because I found the case convincing and my crisis of faith went into recession. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of believing that by reading the Case for Christ, I could debate any atheist and win.
I didn't find much on the pagan copycat thesis in the book, so I decided to create my own solution to it, which I posted as a YouTube video entitled "Jesus Came From Osiris-Dionysus? A Defense of Scripture", which I posted on Easter sunday. It argued that the parallels were actually derived from messianic prophecy (a poor argument) I made a video entitled "Why I am A Christian", in which I summarized some of the evidence presented in "The Case for Christ"
I was then invited to the Rational Response Squad stickam (www.stickam.com) room to debate a few atheists. I did, and failed miserably. They presented the standard atheist responses to "The Case for Christ", which I did not know how to respond to. They presented the translation issue in Isaiah 7.14, telling me that the word translated virgin (almah) actually should be translated "young woman" and that the real word for virgin was betulah.
I was devastated. It seemed to me that the evidence which I clung to was false after all, and that I had been deceived. I then decided to examine all the evidence, and follow it to its conclusion. That took about two months (even though it wasn't ultra thorough) and I eventually did conclude that Christianity was true. The pagan copycat argument still plagued me.
I created a YouTube channel defending Christianity (www.youtube.com/kabanethechristian) and tried to refute the Jesus Myth theory. It wasn't a great refutation, but it did the job alright.
I have much better refutations now.
Over the summer, I continued to study the issue and found a website called www.tektonics.org. It was the best discovery I'd made. It had answers to EVERYTHING. The best was its answer to the copycat thesis. All along, I had forgotten to ask the most basic questions. Did the parallels really exist at all? What is the evidence for the parallels? I realized that there WAS no evidence for the parallels, and my biggest issue was resolved. I reread the Case for Christ, and read the Case for the Real Jesus (an excellent book). I went back to Stickam and found some atheists.
Using the case for the resurrection presented by Mike Licona in the Case for the Real Jesus, I defeated the atheists in multiple debates on the resurrection of Jesus. I was fully confident in the truth of Christianity. I read many articles on Tekton, and began creating more videos on my KabaneTheChristian account.
And since then, I have become (if I say so myself) a competent YouTube apologist, and have helped others in their crises of faith. This blog will be discussing the issues of apologetics and the evidence for Christianity, and I hope you enjoy it.
www.youtube.com/kabane52 (defending evolution)
www.youtube.com/kabanethechristian (defending Christianity)
At this point in time, I prefer my second channel as I have come to enjoy apologetics far more than evolution. Apologetics will be the primary focus of this blog. Let me give my testimony, which I have also given in two videos of mine.
My father is a deist. My mother is an evangelical Christian and has been so since I was two. My father didn't care if I was raised in evangelicalism. He disagrees with it, but does not find it harmful. So I went to Sunday School, was taught bible stories such as creation, the flood, David and Goliath, and the story of Jesus. I believed everything I was taught, including literal, six day creationism. I was baptized in third grade at my own will because I believed I was a true Christian who had a desire to follow God's Word.
This all continued until the summer before eighth grade. There was a church class titled "Science and the Bible". I decided that I was interested and I chose to attend. They told us that an old earth and evolution were compatible with the Bible and proceeded to lay out a few interpretations of Genesis (I currently like a variation of the Day-Age model) that resolved the problem of the age of the Earth. They also taught resolutions to the death before sin problem.
I became an evolutionist and read a lot on the topic. I would debate my three best friends on the issue (they are now three evolutionists as I am) and I defeated them every time. I then found YouTube. The first video on evolution that I watched was "Memo to Creationists" by chadagg. I was then directed to "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design". I found lots of great videos on YouTube on evolution.
And the people who defended evolution also often defended atheism. I found a video demanding evidence for God's existence and evidence for Christianity. I was shocked. I just realized, that for all the years I had believed Christianity, I had no real reason to. I then found videos on Mithraism and Christianity, claiming that Jesus never existed and was simply a syncretistic characted derived from pagan gods such as Mithra, Dionysus, Attis, and Adonis.
I was crushed. I held on desperately to Christianity for emotional reasons, and I often found myself near tears because of the stress my crisis of faith had been causing me. When Christmas that year came, we sang "O Come O Come Emmanuel". The words felt empty to me and I wasn't sure if Christianity was true anymore.
In January 2007, I decided to defend evolution with a YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/kabane52). Of course, this worsened my crisis of faith because I became quite popular with atheists who then tried to deconvert me, pressing the issues that had me already worried.
In February, I decided to read "The Case for Christ" to see the evidence that apologists presented. I was happy, because I found the case convincing and my crisis of faith went into recession. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of believing that by reading the Case for Christ, I could debate any atheist and win.
I didn't find much on the pagan copycat thesis in the book, so I decided to create my own solution to it, which I posted as a YouTube video entitled "Jesus Came From Osiris-Dionysus? A Defense of Scripture", which I posted on Easter sunday. It argued that the parallels were actually derived from messianic prophecy (a poor argument) I made a video entitled "Why I am A Christian", in which I summarized some of the evidence presented in "The Case for Christ"
I was then invited to the Rational Response Squad stickam (www.stickam.com) room to debate a few atheists. I did, and failed miserably. They presented the standard atheist responses to "The Case for Christ", which I did not know how to respond to. They presented the translation issue in Isaiah 7.14, telling me that the word translated virgin (almah) actually should be translated "young woman" and that the real word for virgin was betulah.
I was devastated. It seemed to me that the evidence which I clung to was false after all, and that I had been deceived. I then decided to examine all the evidence, and follow it to its conclusion. That took about two months (even though it wasn't ultra thorough) and I eventually did conclude that Christianity was true. The pagan copycat argument still plagued me.
I created a YouTube channel defending Christianity (www.youtube.com/kabanethechristian) and tried to refute the Jesus Myth theory. It wasn't a great refutation, but it did the job alright.
I have much better refutations now.
Over the summer, I continued to study the issue and found a website called www.tektonics.org. It was the best discovery I'd made. It had answers to EVERYTHING. The best was its answer to the copycat thesis. All along, I had forgotten to ask the most basic questions. Did the parallels really exist at all? What is the evidence for the parallels? I realized that there WAS no evidence for the parallels, and my biggest issue was resolved. I reread the Case for Christ, and read the Case for the Real Jesus (an excellent book). I went back to Stickam and found some atheists.
Using the case for the resurrection presented by Mike Licona in the Case for the Real Jesus, I defeated the atheists in multiple debates on the resurrection of Jesus. I was fully confident in the truth of Christianity. I read many articles on Tekton, and began creating more videos on my KabaneTheChristian account.
And since then, I have become (if I say so myself) a competent YouTube apologist, and have helped others in their crises of faith. This blog will be discussing the issues of apologetics and the evidence for Christianity, and I hope you enjoy it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)