Reply #113: THE SILENT RECORD: the futile case for an HISTORICAL JESUS

[Rowdy Church]

AS the son of a Southern Baptist Minister I spent a great deal of my life seeking to find empirical evidence or some shred of information that could provide a foundation for the fantastical leaps of faith that xtians are called to make to buy into the premise of a God-Man born of a virgin myth.

In a nutshell I rebelled like hell and was tired of hearing my father answer my queries with "its a matter of faith" or even better -- as long as you live under my roof you'll worship and I dictate. So I read, debated and explored for myself.

What I find utterly amazing is the fact that the majority of xtians do not even know a great deal about the origins of xtianity or how it was manipulated for pure political advantage post Roman conversion.

Needless to say I no longer buy into it and find it suspect on many levels. That is not to say that I disagree with your assessment that there are some kernels of good sprinkled here and there - turning the other cheek, forgiveness, doing unto others and helping the poor and the meek shall inherit .. and all that.

I'll reply to your statement about Josephus -- as a contemporary writer of the era -- by posting an excerpt from this research from a source I found while debating this very subject that I found to be compelling.

--

THE SILENT RECORD: the futile case for an HISTORICAL JESUS:

SNIP

Many have tried to establish the veracity of the historical god-man, jesus, in a convincing & scholarly way. NONE have succeeded.
Clearly, there were NO eye-witness accounts in the bible...NONE. Further, there are no contemporaneous accounts, period! All that is left, at best, is HEARSAY for evidence. There is good reason that belief in such unsubstantiated, supernatural, para-normal phenomena cannot be rational or coexist within the edifice of reality, as revealed by science... but must be relagated to "otherwordly faith".

What then, did the many historians & scribes say of this jesus fellow... working his miracles... followed by 'multitudes' (Mt. 4:24: known throughout "all of Syria")... this 'god made flesh'? Surely, there is a solid, historical record as this was a very literate time, with at least THIRTY noted pagan writers during the alleged time of jesus. Of these thirty or more, who works were voluminous, we only have very brief references from three: Pliny, Seutonius & Tacitus, who wrote at the beginning to the second century, long after the alleged god-man's death. Let's take a look, shall we?

PLINY the younger: a governor in asia minor... wrote a very short memo to the Emperor Trajan (112 CE) regarding how to best deal with unruly, agitating 'christians' ...but alas, no historical references to a unique jesus or christ.

SUETONIUS (Life of the Ceasars): merely documents around 120 CE the Emperor Claudius (41-54 CE) expelled the Jews from Rome: "since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of CHRESTUS, he expelled them from Rome". However, one very large problem for apologists: there is absolutely no evidence putting jesus in Rome! Futhermore, 'Chrestus' means "The Good" in Greek, while "Christus" means "the Messiah"...& of course, many Jews claimed this status. Thus, we just have another account of christians causing problems for the Roman state.

TACITUS: in his account of the fire in Rome (64 CE), regarding Nero blaming the christians: "Nero fabricated as scapegoats, and punished with every refinement, the notoriously depraved christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, one Christus, has been executed in Tiberius' reign by the PROCURATOR of Judea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital".

Tacitus was, like Pliny, a governor, and clearly familiar with the troublesome christians, is writing about 50 years (112 CE) hence. His report was temporally remote & could only reflect what he has in turn heard, or mere (biased?) hearsay. The Romans kept extensive and detailed legal records, and yet, there is NO such record of a trial or execution under Pontius Pilate! What is most interesting, is the error of refering to Pilate as the 'procurator' of Judea, when in fact, he was the Roman PREFECT... the title procurator refered to a Roman administrative office in the second-half of the first century, a bit suspect to say the very least!

However, read what scholar Dr. Gordon Stein wrote in 1982: "Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing." Even the Catholic University scholar John P. Meier allows that Tacitus and Pliny do not help to establish Jesus' historicity: "reflect what they have heard Christians of their own day say", and so are not "independent extracanonical sources" (art. in Biblica, vol. 80 (1999), p. 466)

Of course, writers like: Seneca (4BCE-65CE) among Rome's most prolific writers; Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE), Quintilian (39-96CE), Plutarch (46-119 CE), Epictetus (55-135 CE), Apollonius, Lucanus, Ptolemy, Hermogeones, Columella...Valerius Flaccus & Valerius Maximus, among others, were absolutely silent on the alleged 'god made flesh'...astounding!

Tacitus in "The Annals" as well as Josephus (below), also wrote of Hercules, the most famous mythic god-man of the Greeks, with "believers", dedicated temples, and whose "life" parallels to some degree that of the alleged jesus, as if they were "real" historical figures. A rational person is left to conclude, much like Albert Schweitzer after his exhausive search, that this alleged god-man jesus, never had any real historical existence.

Oh, but what of the Jewish historians?

PHILO Judaeus (20 BCE-50 CE): a Greek speaking jewish philosopher and theologian who lived near Jerusalem & would have been a contemporary of the alleged jesus... was a prolific writer, perhaps the greatest Jewish-Greek historian... relates much about Pontius Pilate, but NEVER MENTIONS JESUS, the Christ! The fact that a jesus figure is utterly absent from his writings, which included matters spiritual and many themes reflected in the NT, is absolutely crushing to those hoping some credible evidence of a jewish god-man.

JUSTUS of Tiberius: importantly, he lived near Capernaum, where jesus allegedly visited often, but again, NO MENTION of CHRIST, in his lengthy history of his time... back to that of Moses! Though his writings have been lost in time, his works were referenced by the 9th century scholar, Photius the patriarch of Constantinople (Bibleotheca, Code 33) in the late 9th century: "of the advent of Christ, of the things that befell him one way or another, or of the miracles that he performed, (Justus) makes absolutely no mention."

Flavius JOSEPHUS (Antiquities 93 CE): a native of Judea, a Pharisee and governor of Galilee... writting about the same time as other (unknown) gospel writers, noted every important event and person in Palestine through 70 CE. However, he has but one isolated paragragh, often quoted by desparate Christian apologists, searching for their ephemeral, historical jesus. This paragraph was a clear INTERPOLATION, a forgery, as it is completely intrusive into the narrative and it is not written in the author's style. This interpolation has this orthodox Jewish author dutifully summarizing Jesus' life & teaching ...his status as the Messiah...his crucifixtion & resurection...and the 'tribe of Christians'...in essence the whole mythology of christianity crammed into just ONE paragrapgh, but then unexplicably, follows that narrative with:

"About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..."! Of course, removing the passage, allows the original narrative to flow logically, which was indeed a series of harrowing stories which have befallen the Jews. Further, it is utterly illogical for Jesephus to compare the christ narrative to "another sad clamity which put Jews into disorder", since that sort of sentiment would only make sense to a christian propagandist!!

Dr. Nathaniel Lardner (in 1838), a very capable christian apologist, quotes Bishop Warburton in his scholarly "Works", Vol. I, chap. iv: "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"

Additonal strong evidence that the good Pharisee, Josephus, would have never written such an account, comes from the early church father, Origen, a meticulous scholar, who acknowledged that Josephus did NOT believe in Jesus as 'the Christ'. In fact, the pro Roman sympathizer, Josephus, did not believe in ANY jewish messiahs (& there were various ones about), but accepted the Roman Emperor Vespasian as the prophesied one, because he was declared Emperor, when in Judea!

Futhermore, the early apologist Clement of Alexandria, would have CERTAINLY utilized this alleged 'historical' passage from Josephus's Antiquites, but of course, since it was inserted later, he never does. It suddenly appears in the 4th century, when Bishop Eusebius (a notorious church propagandist and close ally of Constantine) obtains a manuscript of Antiquities in which the "Testimonium" miraculously appears! Strangely, other copies of the Antiquities do NOT contain this discredited passage. A scholar named Vossius, in the sixteen century, had a manuscript of Josephus, in which the passage was absent! In fact, not a single apologist writing before the 4th century like Clement above or Justin Martyr, Jerome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and others, seems to be aware of this "blockbuster" passage in "Antiquities"!

The only other mention in Antiquities, refers to the killing of "James, the brother of Jesus , him called Christ', and his trial before the Sanhedrin. There is good reason to believe that the reference was modified, as Josephus would have likely referred to a (generic) "James, the Brother of the Lord". Also, it may have refered to "James the Just" (an historical figure), who had the title: "Brother of the Lord". Further, the phrase "him called Christ" was used instead by christian authors and appears in Matthew (1:16) and John 4:25-26! There are also some manuscripts where this passage is absent as well.

As telling as the above, is the fact that in Joshepus's Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, which details the reign of King Herod, especially the many brutalities, utterly fails to mention the gospel story of his ordering the supposed "slaughter of innocents" by his legions, the systematic killing of all male infants in or around Bethlehem of 2 years or less, in a jealous rage after being "tricked by the three wise men"...an inexplicable omission... unless the event was fictional.

In his recent book, Joseph Atwill's "Caesar's Messiah" (Uylesses Press 2005), a rather convincing case is made that the origins of the jesus myth arose with the Emperor Titus (39-81 CE), son (along with Domitian) of the Emperor Vespasian (successor to Nero), in conjunction with their adopted court historian Flavius Josephus (formerly Josephus bar Matthias). Vespasian and Titus were instrumental in crushing the very costly Jewish revolt, which finally ended at Masada (73 CE), and the myth of a peace-loving messiah was concocted as post-war propaganda ("Evangelion" meaning the "good new of military victory", or "gospel" in English) to prevent further uprisings of violence-prone, messianic jews. Josephus' "War of the Jews" (written at the time of the gospels), provided the context, the history for the interwoven narrative of the gospels, which Atwell contends was largely written by Flavian Dynasty (69-96 CE) intellectuals. The "Flavain" NT was certain that the Caesar's authority was respected, Roman soldiers were characterized as "devout" (Acts 10: 1-2), paying taxes encouraged (Romans 13: 2-6)... and the new teachings led by a pacifist messiah, whose "kingdom" was "not of this earth". It seems to solve the problem of Rome's entrenched persecutorial stance towards christians which suddenly and improbably, becomes its very center!

Titus was in fact "the son of a god", since his father, the Emperor died and was deified... and his military campagin paralleled the alleged ministry of jesus: beginning in Gallile and ending in Jerusalem: Josephus wrote: Titus attacks Jewish rebels led by Jesus. The rebels are aboard boats, which the Romans sink. Drowning Jews are killed by darts, spears, and swords. The Romans laugh; they are "fishing for men." Jesus: "I will make you fishers of men." Josephus: Vespasian sends his son, Titus. Jesus: "Sent by his father." Josephus: Siege of Jerusalem. Mary of the village of Bethezob is starving. Ravenous others of the besieged keep stealing what little food she can get. Desperate, she kills her infant son, roasts him, eats half, then hides the rest. Soon, her grotesque meal is smelled and it is demanded that she share. Replies Mary: "This is mine own son, and what hath been done was mine own doing! Come, eat of this food, for I have eaten of it myself!" Jesus: "He took bread, blessed it, and broke it. He gave it to them saying, 'Take this, it is my body.'" There are over a dozen clear literary parallels Atwill exposes between Josephus' narrative of Titus' military exploits and the "jesus-story", which occur in exactly the same order!

Finally, and most intriguing, it gives perhaps a more plausible explanation to the infamous "Testimonim" passage, which can now be seen in an entirely new and logical light.

SNIP

--

ALBERT SCHWEITZER concluded in his work "The Quest of the Historical Jesus": "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, NEVER HAD ANY EXISTENCE. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb."