Jesus Christ Existed As A Historical Figure

1. Strawman. My attack of the credibility of Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts is that they were based on UNKNOWN and UNVERIFIABLE and UNSPECIFIED external sources. The situation with Alexander the Great is completely different. Josephus 2. My opponent then says that if Josephus had relied on Christian accounts, he would be making references to Christ's miracles. This, of course is incorrect on several grounds. Firstly, contrary to what my opponent says, Josephus DID make references to the sect's claims of miracles. He mentions Christ's "wonderful works" and his "resurrection on the third day". This is quoted by my opponent himself in his first round. Secondly, there's no reason to expect that Josephus, even if relying on sources from the sect, should give any credit to the sect's beliefs. The existence of a man called Jesus who had a ministry is, after all, far more plausible than any claim that said Jesus is a divine figure who performs miracles. As it turns out, Josephus' account of Christ is VERY MUCH CONSISTENT with having been obtained from early Christians. It mentions resurrection and "wonderful works" which are unquestionably Christian doctrines. They are outside the scope of historical account of facts and are in the realm of the mythical/supernatural. Any claim of supernatural events must, for obvious reasons, be investigated with the utmost scepticism. This is where sources need to be checked with more than the usual scrutiny. My opponent further claims that I contradicted myself because I have criticised Josephus for omitting to mention the Apostles and Christian doctrines. In response, I say that this was not a contradiction at all. The point I was making was based on scholars who question the AUTHENTICITY of the account (that is, whether the parts in question come from Josephus AT ALL as opposed to coming from a Christian who edited Josephus' works later); William Whiston, The works of Flavius Josephus, the learned and authentic Jewish historian and celebrated warrior, Volume 4, T. & J. Allman Publisher, 1826. pp 380-385. 3. My opponent then says that it's unlikely that Josephus would recount a mythical figure being killed by a historical one. Well, that argument is self-serving. If it were true, then any writing that includes even the slightest bit of truth, would have to be considered to be ENTIRELY true. Why would that be the case? The fact of the matter is that Josephus may have himself believed the accounts of whoever it is that he sourced his information from. But that doesn't change the fact that there's no evidence that it was based on any contemporary records (and indeed there are none). And this of course means that was most likely relying on hearsay information (ie, legend) some 50+ years after Christ's death. Thus, we can't give his account any more credit than is deserved by the weakest link in his chain of information and this gives Christ the exact status I've been claiming; A LEGEND. 4. I am not interested, with respect, in my opponent's opinion regarding my personal knowledge of the matter. I consider his comments ("judging from the way you only cited Wikipedia") to be a species of Ad Hominem and in bad form. Note that this is an online forum and, in the interests of allowing judges to check our sources, it makes better sense to quote sources that are in fact available online. That said, I agree that no scholars claim that all of Josephus' writings are a forgery. How does that help us? It does not. It's quite possible that some of the account was indeed written by him (based on the legend of Jesus) and some of it was later embellished by early Christian translators. 5. My opponent then says that Josephus was not a Christian and therefore "why would he mention Christian doctrines". The answer is that his failure to mention any of these doctrines (apart from resurrection) is consistent with the text being really written by somebody who wrote it in times when the doctrines were already well known. At least that's how I understand Whiston's reasoning. And there's no evidence that early Christians (those pre-dating Josephus) referred to Jesus as "Christ Jesus". In fact, there's no evidence what term they used at all. Even the New Testament (which was written AFTER Josephus) does not use the phrase "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus Christ"). 6. My opponent then says that I ignored his initial argument regarding linguistic style. Well, perhaps I did. For several reasons. Firstly, linguistic analysis is a field of expertise and I don't believe my opponent is qualified to make such judgments himself. I certainly am not. This leaves us having to trust scholars. And scholars are in hot debate about the authenticity of Josephus' accounts. Secondly, the style-related argument in my opponent's first round discusses the ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the work and therefore doesn't even qualify for any type of analysis. Linguistic analysis must be conducted in the original language of the works, if it is to be of any benefit at all. Tacitus 7. Another strawman. My opponent claims that it is my argument that Tacitus must have been wrong about crucifixion because he confused the names of two daughters. Well, that was not my argument at all. I was citing scholars who have analysed Tacitus' Annals and concluded that their reliability is questionable for a COMBINATION OF REASONS; firstly, they're not based on any reliable sources (as opposed the The Histories) and secondly they are KNOWN to be inaccurate. This means that whatever sources Tacitus used HAVE BEEN KNOWN to be inaccurate which puts into issue his ability to select RELIABLE SOURCES when conducting second-hand work in the Annals. 8. "Have you even read the Annals of Tacitus? He lists where he got his information from; reports and memoirs (15.16), personal testimony (11.73), physical evidence (15.42), first hand sources (15.41), and written evidence (12.67, 13.17). " I have to ask for clarification of the above statement made by my opponent. What exactly does Tacitus say about his sources where it comes to accounts of Jesus? 9. "My argument was that if Tacitus had been forged or sourced by a Christian his passage wouldn't contain an anti-Christian tone. " The above is non-responsive to my argument. I never attacked the authenticity of Tacitus' works. The only attack on authenticity related to Josephus. I made it clear in my first round that it's accepted that Tacitus is the true author of The Annals and The Histories. 10. My opponent then claims that if Josephus was citing Jesus as a legend, he wouldn't have knowledge about the death of James because this event was not contained in the Bible. But let's remember that the New Testament wasn't written until later. Let's also remember that the canons selected FOUR gospels out of some TWENTY candidates. And let's also remember that not everything that early Christians told each other by way of legend had to make its way to the New Testament or be written down AT ALL. The fact that accounts of James' death are not in the New Testament is therefore irrelevant. 11. "Why didn't Josephus and Tacitus point out that the existence of Jesus was a legend but instead mention Jesus being crucified by a historical figure (Pilate)? " The answer is simple: a) Josephus. Josephus mentions resurrection as if it is a fact. I would venture, however, that he did not believe in Christ's resurrection. This clearly indicates that Josephus in fact omits to mention that his account is a legend, although he must believe that it is a legend. Unless it was a forgery in the first place. b) Tacitus. As mentioned above, Tacitus is known to rely (in The Annals) on inaccurate and questionable sources and to get things wrong. This is consistent with him lacking judgment (in The Annals) about whether a sources is to be accepted or rejected.