The Jesus of History Probably Existed - C

Introduction I will argue that there is extremely little evidence to support the theory that Jesus of Nazareth existed. No Direct Eyewitnesses The most important concept to understand why we should be skeptical about the Jesus myth is that we do not have a single direct eyewitness or contemporary account of the life of Jesus. Most biblical scholars agree that the NT gospels are probably not first-hand eyewitness accounts. In fact, we cannot even be certain who wrote the NT gospels, as they are written anonymously. The names attributed to them (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) were provided by Papias somewhere around 150CE. We know this because Eusebius, writing around 330CE, tells us so. So, the best we can say is: A guy living in 330CE (Eusebius) tells us that a guy who lived 180 years earlier (Papias) was told by someone else (we don't know who) that another guy (Mark) knew a guy (Peter) who said he witnessed the life of another guy (Jesus) who performed miracles. It's a terrible case of Chinese whispers that loses even more credibility when you realize that everyone involved was a religious zealot living in the Middle East 1700 - 1900 years ago. The Argument From Silence It's important to understand that aside from the fact that we don't have a single eyewitness account of the life of Jesus, we also don't have a single CONTEMPORARY account, or a recorded mention of such an account, that was written during his lifetime. There were plenty of literate people, including writers and historians, that lived in and around Jerusalem in the 1st century. None of them even mentions Jesus. For example, Philo of Alexandria (c25 BCE - c47 CE) wrote extensively about the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. We have copies of about thirty manuscripts. Yet Philo doesn't write a single word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. Surely such writers would have written about a Jew who was raising the dead, overturning tables at the temple, healing the sick, walking on water, and who rose from the dead? Even if it was to deny that he was the Messiah, he would have deserved a mention. The Case of Tacitus This clause in Tacitus has problems. For a start, no early Christian writers refer to Tacitus. The Christian defence is that this is because his reference is negative, but Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo don't even make reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero, when it would have been entirely relevant. Perhaps they weren't aware of the work, but that presents a problem in the case of the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (c. 363 – c. 425), where the a clause is present almost word-for-word, without reference to Tacitus. Tacitus: Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Severus: He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night. (1) The Tacitus passage also mistakenly calls Pontius Pilate a procurator instead of a prefect. Tacitus, a proconsul himself, would have known the difference. Furthermore, recent investigations by Oskar Augustsson, Institute for Higher Critical Studies, using ultraviolet photography on the oldest existing copy of Tacitus, shows what appears to be alterations of the word chrestianos ("the good") overwritten as christianos ("the Christians") by a later hand. (2) Josephus As my opponent correctly points out, the section of Josephus' "Antiquities Of The Jews" most commonly referred to by Christians, the "Testimonium Flavianumm", is considered a forgery by most scholars. This in itself is a telling point. We have to accept that the early Christian authorities were happy to, and felt the NEED to, create forgeries in order to bolster their assertions that Jesus actually lived. Once they had become a major power in Rome in the 4th century, they had the ability to destroy documents that didn't suit them and doctor whatever other documents they required. The section of Josephus referred to, which is found in Book 20 of the Antiquities, mentions SEVERAL men called Jesus, including Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, and Jesus, the son of Damneus, who were both high priests. If we accept that the works of Josephus were tampered with by Christian authorities, we should automatically be skeptical of any reference contained within them about to Jesus. The oldest versions we have of Josephus date from around 1000CE (3). It is quite possibly a later insertion. Extrabiblical Accounts Reference in the Gospels to actual living persons is not evidence that the Jesus in the Gospels actually lived. The Iliad and The Odyssey of Homer are just two examples of mythologies involving Gods and humans with supernatural powers set in actual places and involving characters which may have been historical. Insufficient Time My opponent writes "there was not enough time between Jesus death and the writing of gospels for there to have been a formulated Jesus legend hypothesis". This argument makes no sense. If Jesus never existed or, as some people believe (4), the story was based on the legends of Yeshu ben Pandera (a Jewish mystic whose mother was Mary, who was born out of wedlock, who performed magic feats in Egypt, challenged the authorities and was crucified around 70 BCE), or is just an amalgamation of other mystery cults, then there was plenty of time for a mythology to evolve before it was codified. The Rule of Parsimony In contrast to the claim made by my opponent, the Rule of Parsimony actually works in FAVOUR of the Jesus myth hypothesis. See my conclusion for details. Comparisons with Mediterranean mystery religions As this debate is trying to determine the historicity of Jesus, and not where the individual elements of the Jesus myth may have been adapted from, there is no need to attempt to draw analogies between other Mediterranean mystery religions. All that we need acknowledge is that other Mediterranean mystery religions not only existed but were commonplace during the 1st century CE as they had been for many centuries and that the fables of Mithras, Krishna, Dionysos, and other mystery gods contain elements of the Jesus story (5) (born on the Winter Solstice, virgins birth, a son of a god, the saviour, was crucified, resurrected, ascended into the sky, etc), although none matches all of the elements. Conclusion Here are the basic facts as I understand them: 1. Not a single firsthand eyewitness account of Jesus exists. 2. Not a single contemporary account of Jesus exists. 3. The majority of historians writing in and around Judea in the 1st century make no mention of Jesus. 4. The few historians who do seem to mention him are either proven frauds or suspect. 5. The details of Jesus' life and his deeds are paralleled in the story of many other mystery gods that predated or co-existed with him. 6. Logic states that if it looks like a mystery cult and it smells like a mystery cult, and there is no firsthand eyewitness evidence to the contrary, then it probably *is* a mystery cult. Sources: 5. Mystery Cults and Jesus http://tinyurl.com... 1. Severus http://www.ccel.org... 2. Augustsson http://chrestianos.jesuspusslet.se... 3. Josephus http://www.windmillministries.org... 4. Ben Pandera http://en.wikipedia.org...