>Early Non-Christian References To Jesus Christ
>(Adapted from Consider Christianity: Evidence for the Christian Faith
>by Elgin L. Hushbeck, Jr.)
Do Christians never stop spreading the same tired old lies....?
Let's look at the facts: X'ians have laid claim to the mention of Jesus in Josephus' "The Antiquities of the Jews" ( 93 a.d., XVIII 3,3 63-64), as evidence (of the extra-Biblical sort) for Jesus' existence. Nothing could be more erroneous than reliance on such discredited and flimsy evidence.
In the first place, the mention of Jesus is found in what is known as the "Testimonium Flavianum Passage", a clear and obvious interpolation into Josephus' narrative. No 'honest' Biblical scholar would accept the "T.F.P." as legitimate, origional, honest, or compelling.
The Passage is clearly and obviously intrusive in the context in which it appears. It's appearance, in the midst of a story of misfortunes during a Jewish uprising, totally breaks the continuity of the story....which then picks up with the account of how Tiberius expels the Jews from Rome!
The Passage is not found in the earliest copies of "Antiquities...", and is first 'discovered' by Eusebius around 300 a.d.. The fact that Eusibius is considered by some to be "...the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.", with "...many falsifications, suppressions, and fictions which have been proved in his work..."(Jakob Burkhardt, Leben Konstantins, 1860, pp.307, 335, 347.) should suggest the real source of the "T.F.P".
Canon Farrar ("Life of Christ", vol. 1, pp.63) points out that the "Single passage in which Josephus alludes to (Jesus) is interpolated, if not wholly spurious.". The Passage has been thoroughly analysed and discredited in "Chrestos" (L. Herrmaun, 1970, Belgium).
The fact remains, there is nothing at all, in ALL of recorded (extra-Biblical) history, to prove that the Biblical Jesus Christ ever walked the face of the earth.
Several books that reveal and conclude as much include:
"Man and His Gods", Homer W. Smith
"The Historical Evidence For Jesus", G.A. Wells (pp.22-23).
"The Jesus of the Early Christians" and "Did Jesus Exist?", G.A. Wells
"Jesus: God, Man, or Myth", Herbert Cutner
"The Quest for the Historical Jesus", Albert Schweitzer
"The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined",
David Friedrich Strauss
"Jesus Outside the Gospels", R. Joseph Hoffman
And scores of others.....
Nope, the phony-baloney (and copy-cat, god- man) Jesus Christ went totally unrecognised by contemporary and later historians as a real and historical entity. In other words folks, the biblical Jesus Christ never existed outside the myths, legends, folk-lore, and hero-tales contained in the Bible.
This might interest you too:
Jesus in Talmud....!
In their desperation to locate any kind of extra-biblical evidence for their Jesus Christ, Christians often propose: ...Multiple Jewish sources, attacking Christ and Christians... as evidence for Jesus' existence. Well, as usual.....X'ians are selling a corrosive, contentious, and corrupt 'bill o' goods' which we'll now look at somewhat closer than their vague suggestion.
What DO Christians have to say on the issue?
But first, it might be useful to list some of the Jewish Talmudic references that are often offered by Chriustians as extra-biblical evidence for Jesus Christ:
Mary was a whore and Jesus an evil man--Sanhedrin 106a & b
Mary played the harlot with 'carpenters' (plural)--Sanhedrin 106b (See Herford, 'Christianity in the Talmud', pp 48-70)
Mary was an adulteress, and Jesus a magician & a fool who carved magic formulas into his own skin--Shabbath 104b
Jesus was a magician who worshipped a brick--Sotah 47a
Jesus was a bastard born of adultery--Yebamoth 49a & b
Jesus teaches a disciple foul insults for priests--Abodah Zarah 17a
Jesus was guilty of apostasy and sorcery; he and his disciples deserved execution--Sanhedrin 43a
Jesus is being punished in Hell with boiling excrement for mocking the Rabbis--Gittin 56b & 57a
Jesus died at age 33-34 because "Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days..."--San- hedrin 106a & b (See Jewish Encyclopedia under 'Balaam' for the Jesus connection here.).
Jesus, a sorcerer, was 'hanged'--San- hedrin 43a and 67a
The above are the usual Talmud quotations (paraphrased here for convenience) that desperate Christian apologists (grasping for straws!) use as extra-biblical evidence for their God, Jesus Christ.
Interested persons can read some of the above citations in the popular Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict' , Chapter 5 and it's bibliography.
But is it really the biblical Jesus and his family who are being addressed in the Talmud? Do X'ians really subscribe to their God being a 'bastard', a 'magician', a 'evil' and 'mocking' deceitful person now being burned in boiling excrement in Hell, etc., etc?
[Actually, not such a great leap is required insofar as the Gospels themselves reveal "...(Jesus') friends... went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself."(Mark 3:21--- --The Greek word 'paraho' translated 'friends', actually means 'family'.
.And the Greek word 'existemi' translated 'beside himself', means 'insane' , 'lunatic',and 'witless'.): and of course, we know that Jesus was 'hanged' [ie, not 'crucified') according to Acts 5:30, 10:39, and 13:29; Galatians 3:13; and 1 Peter 2:24: and so on and on and on.],
Well, the vagueness of the Talmudic passages (some of the 'evidence' is in the form of footnotes in the Talmud!) are really quite un-convincing viv-a-vis the biblical Jesus Christ.
Some might suggest the above represent convincing arguments against using the Talmud as extra- biblical evidence for the Jesus Christ whom his believers and supporters know and love so well.
On balance then, none of the Christians 'evidence' for the historicity
of Jesus Christ, as obtained from contemporary historians and the Talmud,
stand up to any close examination at all. Instead, we're witnessing the
efforts of people desperate to convince others that their 'third-rate'
religion (Christinsanity) has any historic basis in fact as applicable
to the 'cowardly' and 'witless' Jesus Christ, God-man extraordinaire found
within the New Testament.
(END)
And this also:
Remsburg, in "The Christ" names 42 writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the period when Jesus is said to have existed, and from all their writings only four passages are to be found that might possibly support the historicity of Jesus. And of those four passages, not a single one can stand any critical test at all.
Christians usually offer eight (8) possible
So, let's see how far 'off-base' Christians are this time around:
Cornelius Tacitus(55-130 A.D.)--Ann- als XV. 44.....It was not until the 15th century A.D. that the account of "Christus" (Ooooops.... ain't a proper name!) was 'discovered' by Poggio Bracciolini (the suspected author of "Annals"!) in Tacitus' writings. It was then published by Johannes de Spire of Venice in 1468 A.D. The account was never referred to prior to the 15th century. The account only represents a report by Christians about a "Christus" in about 117-120 A.D. The account refers to Pilate as 'procurator' (a term not in general use until perhaps 50 yrs. later. Instead, Pilate would have been until then known as 'prefect'). The account mentions a "vast multitude" of Christians in 64 A.D. Rome. Hah!! It also mentions "death by fire".
Hah!! The Romans did not execute by burning. The account has Christians persecuted for their faith. Hah!! (They were persecuted for their political aspirations and sedition......Hmmmmmm, that has a familiar ring, even today!). The account has Christians being burned in Nero's gardens. Hah!! Another account by Tacitcus has fire victims being HOUSED in Nero's gardens! Besides, Nero was in Antium, not Rome, during the course of the fire (according to another account by Tacitus!).
The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis (Osiris) were called 'Christians' then!!
does Tacitus anywhere refer to Christians.... they were utterly insignificant during his life- time! Nowhere in the whole New Testament do Christians even refer to themselves as 'Christians'. Eusebius' fourth ( and Clement of Alexandria's third) Century catalog of extra- biblical references to Jesus do NOT mention Tacitus account at all!! And on and on and on.........[See G.A. Wells, "The Historical Evidence for Jesus", p.16, for more detail].
Lucian of Samosata....His quotation about some "...man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced a new cult..." is too nebulous to be given serious attention or concern. Even the Bible N.T. mentions rebels and other Messiahs who paid with their lives for their political aspirations. No biblical Jesus Christ is found in this snippet either.
Seutonius (77-140 A.D.)--Lives of the Caesars, 26.2.....Mention is made of "...Christ- ians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." And in Life of Claudius, 25.4, he mentions a "...Chrestus..." being expelled from Rome with his followers in about the year 49 A.D.!! Hey, talk about rewriting history! Actually, Chrestus was a fairly common name among Roman freedmen. It was also the Roman name for the Sun-god Serapis (Osiris----see Tacitus above).
The Roman historian Vopiscus said "Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians...". Can someone please point out for us where Christians find the 'biblical' Jesus Christ in these snippets!! No eye witnesses, no confor- mation, no matching detail, no evidence, no proof..........Yep, sounds like our X'ian 'Apologists' all over again!
Plinius Secundus, Pliny the Younger (Epistles, X.96)...It's a mystery why anyone would quote this writer as evidence for the biblical Jesus Christ. About the year 113 A.D., he merely mentions his experiences with a cult that calls itself Christians, and who wor- ship a Christ as a god, using sacrificial flesh of their victims. It is an incredible libel to suggest that the gentle Pliny would torture two women in Asia Minor (modern Turkey!) from a large Christian population (?). Insofar as Christ's divinity was not established and canonized until 325 A.D., 'Christians' would NOT then be worshipping him anyhow! First published in the 16th century, it was immed- iately declared spurious.
Thallus...Tsk, tsk, X'ians! You really should check your sources before publishing them here. Looks like someone has been feeding them information from F.F. Bruce or perhaps Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" (Chapter 5). Or do you really expect anyone objectively to take that sort of apologist material seriously? Thallus and his (non-existent) comments about a 'darkness' somehow evidence the existence of the biblical Jesus Christ !! Perhaps, they'd be so good as to elaborate and expound on this so as to provide a convincing argument for your belief in your Jesus Christ. We're all eagerly awaiting to hear how Thallus' 'darkness' can be used as historical extra-biblical evidence for the biblical Jesus Christ.
Phlegon....Hey X'ians, after your offering of Thallus, do you think I'm gonna' waste one minute of my time running this one down.
Letter of Mara Bar-Seraphon (after 73 A.D.!)....Very weak offering ! The quotation "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?" is most un-convincing. Jesus Christ was never the king of the Jews. The Bible reveals as much! Besides, are you taking the stance that the Jews 'executed' Jesus Christ? Slippery slope again, Christians!
So there's the truth of those "...Proof of Jesus's Existence...." being promoted bu Christian 'apologists' and outright 'liars'.
Few more 'Historical Jesus' comments:
The third 'supposed' Josephus 'mention' of Jesus is found in "The Jewish War". It is such an obvious interpolation and clearly spurious late addition that NO honest historian would accept it as historic, legitimate, or truthful. It is not found in any of the surviving Greek manuscripts, but only in the (so- called) Slavonic version.
But to give the Christian ecclesiastical gang their due and all possible opportunities to defend their position on this score, perhaps they'll now provide sufficient and convincing evidence that the mention of this "Wonder-worker" (ie, Jesus Christ) in "The Jewish War" has any historical creditability and acceptance within the Bible scholarship community. Or will they finally admit that it is just another interpolation and forgery on the order of the many hundreds found throughout their holy Bible (and the spurious mentions of Jesus in the works of Josephus').
Incidentally, the 'Wonders' attributed to Jesus Christ are"...simply legends which arose among early Christians and which were projected backwards, under the impact of faith, into the life of the historical Jesus." (Thomas Sheehan, "The First Coming").
Or as David Friedrich Strauss concluded in 1835; "...if we would be candid with ourselves, that which was once sacred history for the Christian believer as, for the enlightened portion of our contemporaries, only fable".("The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined").
But to get back to Josephus, none of the early Christian fathers (all familiar with Josephus' writings) ever refer to any mention of Jesus Christ in Josephus' writings. These include Justin Martyr, Photius, Cypian, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Chrysostom. Insofar as any recognition of Jesus Christ by a respected Jewish historian would have been of significant value (for example in Justin's dialogue with Trypho the Jew, or Origen's with Celsus), it is incredible and beyond belief that such knowledge and evidence for the historicity of Jesus would have gone unmentioned.
Consider also that Josephus devotes whole pages to petty robbers and obscure rebels. Nearly 40 Chapters are devoted to a single king! And only a few sentences to The true Messiah, Jesus Christ...a God-man!!!!!
Not bloody likely!
Also, recall that the later interpolation found in book 20, Chapter 9, names the "...so-called Christ...", after earlier (book 18) referring to Jesus as "He WAS the Christ....". Hey, do you suppose Josephus changed his mind or lost faith!
Anyway, James and Jesus were common enough names (James is Greek 'Iakobos', or Hebrew 'Yaakov', or English 'Jacob'). No mention of them being 'the sons of Joseph', the common patristic appellation of the times.
Besides, some X'ian denominations will argue to the death that the Biblical Jesus Christ had no 'brothers' at all (in spite of the spurious Josephus attestment to such).[A reasonably balanced popular article on Josephus' (spurious) mentions of Jesus can be found in the magazine 'Bible Review', 6-91, for those desiring more background on the question]
Nope......whichever X'ian ( most likely Eusebius) later added these spurious references into Josephus' works, likely comes under the indictment of Professor Drews who observes "Does anyone seriously believe, in fact, that Josephus could have concealed from the Romans...the Messianic expectations and agitations of his compatriots and represented them as harmless, in works which were especially concerned with their strained relations to their oppressors?".("Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus"). The answer's gotta be 'no'.
In Schweitzer's "Quest for the Historical Jesus" , Mr. Albert Schweitzer makes quite clear throughout that "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah...never had any existence. His image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which come to the surface one after another."
Remsburg, in "The Christ" names 42 writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the period when Jesus is said to have existed, and from all their writings only four small passages are to be found that could be twisted to possibly support the historicity of Jesus. And of those four passages, not a single one can stand any critical test at all.
CHIVALRY IN BIBLE...?
Among the more incredible Bible morality tales is the one involving Lot and the two visiting angels. Lot invited the two angels to "...turn in, I pray you into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet...And he pressed them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast...But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them."(Genesis 19:1-5-- --the Hebrew 'yada' translated 'know', is a euph- emism for 'sexual intercourse').
And why did the townsfolk think the two angels were candidates for group homosexual activity?
The answer is provided in the New Testament's "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation...Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example..." (Jude 6-7). In effect, this pastoral letter reveals that the two angels were themselves homosexuals.
Although this text is highly obscured, the sense of it is that angels were familiar to the towns- folk for the very purpose that they insisted upon, the opportunity to "...know them...".
Righteous Lot was properly appalled. So he stepped outside and pleaded with the townsfolk "...do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; Let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye with them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing...But they pressed sore upon Lot, and came near to break the door..."(Genesis 19:6-9).
Perhaps not very gallant or chivalrous on Lot's part, it was certainly the lesser of the two possible evils. After all, the two angels were males, whereas Lot's two daughters were merely females.
As it turned out, the two angels were good angels, and not the bad homosexual angels the townsfolk were obviously familiar with. They proceed to blind the townsfolk, and remove Lot and his family prior to the destruction of the city.
Later Lot, clearly a heterosexual himself, has sexual intercourse with his two daughters and "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."(Genesis 19:36). And so Lot, a man considered "...just...that righteous man...godly..." (2 Peter 2:7-9) lived out his life as one of God's favourites, one of the great Bible patriarches.
Ain't the Bible just the greatest toilet full of divinely condoned
immoral tales!!!!!