Part 5 (2/2)
Although dated by scholars to between 107 and 116 ad/ce, the vaunted pa.s.sage in Roman senator and historian Tacitus's Annals (15:44) does not appear in the literary record until the 14th century, while the earliest extant ma.n.u.script possessing book 15 dates only to the 11th century. Hence, the authenticity and value of the Annals remain dubious. The pertinent pa.s.sage in the Annals-considered by some apologists as the best evidence outside of the gospels for Christ's historicity-goes as follows: Therefore, in order to abolish that rumor, Nero falsely accused and executed with the most exquisite punishments those people called Christians, who were infamous for their abominations. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, this destructive superst.i.tion erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated. Therefore, first those were seized who admitted their faith, and then, using the information they provided, a vast mult.i.tude were convicted, not so much for the crime of burning the city, but for hatred of the human race. And peris.h.i.+ng they were additionally made into sports: they were killed by dogs by having the hides of beasts attached to them, or they were nailed to crosses or set aflame, and, when the daylight pa.s.sed away, they were used as nighttime lamps. Nero gave his own gardens for this spectacle and performed a Circus game, in the habit of a charioteer mixing with the plebs or driving about the race-course. Even though they were clearly guilty and merited being made the most recent example of the consequences of crime, people began to pity these sufferers, because they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man.1 In the Latin ma.n.u.script that is the basis of this particular translation, Tacitus refers to a ”Christus,” with an ”i,” but he claims the ”cla.s.s hated for their abominations” were called ”Chrestians,” with an ”e,” meaning ”the good” or ”the useful,” etc., rather than ”followers of Christ.” However, the ma.n.u.script tradition of the Annals also reveals that the word ”Christus” has been interchanged with ”Chrestus,” presenting yet another difficulty in discerning an original, and reflecting that the text has been altered.2 Moreover, Tacitus's a.s.sertion that these Chrestians const.i.tuted a ”vast mult.i.tude” at Rome by Nero's time (64 ad/ce) is incorrect, and, despite the repeated claim to the opposite, there is no other evidence of a ma.s.sive Neronian persecution of Christians for setting the fire at Rome. Concerning this development, Drew University Professor of New Testament Darrell Doughty comments: ...it is highly remarkable that no other ancient source a.s.sociates Christians with the burning of Rome until Sulpicius Serverus in the late fourth century... The dramatic and fantastic description of the tortures suffered by the scapegoats resembles the executions portrayed in later legendary Acts of Christian Martyrs.
Indeed, even though there is one mention in Tertullian of Nero being the first persecutor of Christians at Rome, his predecessor Irenaeus says nothing about it. Nor does Eusebius elaborate upon the Neronian persecution, neither a.s.sociating it with the fire nor claiming that there were ”vast mult.i.tudes” of Christians ”thrown to the lions,” so to speak. In addition, if there were a ”vast mult.i.tude” of Christians in Rome by Nero's time, why would Suetonius write some 40 to 50 years later that Christianity was a ”new” superst.i.tion? Particularly if these mult.i.tudes of Christians had notoriously been blamed for the fire and persecuted thereafter? How could Suetonius fail to discuss such a scenario in his Life of Nero, especially when the historian does record the fire but blames it on Nero himself, making no connection between the fire and the alleged punishment of Christians previously mentioned?
Other arguments against the authenticity of this text include that it is written in different and rougher Latin than Tacitus's other, more well-known works. Furthermore, in all of Tacitus's other works, no mention is made of Christ, Christians or Christianity-how do we account for this fact, if there were already a ”vast mult.i.tude” of Christians at Rome by the time of Nero, several decades earlier? And whom Nero supposedly had blamed for the infamous fire that almost destroyed Rome? And who were allegedly horribly persecuted-yet, not one other writer of the time or thereafter recorded these significant facts?
Also, this pa.s.sage const.i.tutes the only Pagan reference that specifically a.s.sociates Pontius Pilate with Christ. In describing Pilate, Tacitus anachronistically uses the term ”procurator,” when it has been a.s.serted that Pilate was a prefect and that there were no procurators until after his era.1 Moreover, even though it was the pa.s.sion and duty of Church historian Eusebius to compile all non-Christian references to Jesus in his work History of the Church, he failed to mention the Annals pa.s.sage. All in all, the pa.s.sage smacks of being a late Christian interpolation or at the least a redaction for the purpose of establis.h.i.+ng not only the historicity of the gospel tale but also the early martyrdom of Christians, with the anti-Christian sentiment representing an attempt at ”verisimilitude, reflecting what Christian apologists later attributed to pagans and what someone thought Tacitus also might have said.”1 If, on the other hand, we are to accept this pa.s.sage as genuine, the question needs to be asked why Tacitus-a Roman senator-himself would make such derogatory remarks about Rome, calling it the city ”to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated?” Would a respected Roman senator and historian truly state that a mult.i.tude of people were hideously tortured and killed not for the crime of burning the city-for which they were ”falsely accused and executed”-but in reality because they hated the human race? Why does Tacitus first say that the Christians were falsely accused and then conclude that they were ”clearly guilty,” yet they were not killed for the ”public good” but because of the ”fierceness of one man,” i.e., Nero? Why is Tacitus so vicious towards the Christians, if they were not guilty of burning Rome? This pa.s.sage is confused and hardly seems to reflect the thinking of ”Rome's greatest historian,” as Tacitus has been deemed.
These brief remarks represent all we find in Tacitus's writings concerning Christ or ”Chrestians”; hence, there is no evidence whatsoever for the presumption by certain apologists that Tacitus utilized official Roman doc.u.ments for his commentary. The biggest flaw in this argument would be the use of the epithet ”Christ”-and no other name-in an imperial doc.u.ment, as no Roman record would refer to an executed criminal as ”the anointed” or ”the messiah.” Nor would someone interested in historical accuracy-particularly ”Rome's greatest historian” Tacitus-refer to Pilate as a ”procurator,” especially if he had Roman records in front of him.
Nevertheless, Meier considers the Tacitus pa.s.sage to be ”obviously genuine” and attempts to show it as a Christian interpolation to be ”feeble.”1 Yet, he also admits that Tacitus is of little value as an independent source and additionally remarks that ”Josephus is our only independent non-Christian source of information about the historical Jesus in the first century.”2 Nor does Meier consider Pliny and Suetonius of any value as independent witnesses, as ”they are simply reporting something about what early Christians say or do...”3 References in the works of other non-Christian sources such as Lucian of Samosata (2nd cent.)-who doesn't even mention Jesus Christ by name-are far too late to serve as evidence of anything other than a tradition established by that time. Much too late also is the testimony of the Pagan critic Celsus, who, instead of serving as ”evidence” of any historical Jesus, essentially focuses on shredding to pieces any rationality or logic claimed of Christianity. His purported testimony to the life of Christ const.i.tutes an attack rather than a validation.
Even if we were to accept these writings in the works of Jewish and Roman authors as genuine and relevant, they represent traditions and emerge too late to serve as eyewitness accounts demonstrating that any of the gospel events happened at any time in history. Indeed, these resources do not provide us with any biographical material useful in our quest to find out who Jesus was, an a.s.sessment also averred by Bruce and Meier, to name a few Christian scholars.4
Thallus, Phlegon and Mara Bar-Serapion, et al.
A close study of the purported evidence outside of the New Testament discloses a disturbing trend on the part of Christian apologists: The efforts to demonstrate any kind of pertinent, non-Christian testimony for the historicity of the gospel story display a seemingly desperate situation in which apologists glom onto suspect ”references” and ”artifacts” that, upon scrutiny, reveal little more than the practice within apologetics of misinterpreting and misrepresenting data.
For example, within mainstream apologetics we find a much-ballyhooed pa.s.sage in the works of Christian monk George Syncellus (9th cent.) relating that in the writings of an early Church father named Julius Africa.n.u.s (c. 160-c. 240) appears a brief mention of a Roman writer named Thallus or Thallos, who purportedly reported on an eclipse sometime during the first century, which is interpreted to be the darkness that allegedly accompanied Christ's death. Hence, playing the children's game ”Telephone,” we possess a testimony several times removed from what Thallus actually wrote. Firstly, we know practically nothing about this Thallus-a common name of the time-and cannot determine with certainty whether or not he was discussing an eclipse that occurred during the first century ad/ce. We do not even know when Thallus lived, as it could have been anytime well into the second century; nor do we even know for certain if he was a Samaritan, as has been a.s.serted previously. The contention by apologists that Thallus wrote around 52 ad/ce appears to be mere wishful thinking, based not on any concrete evidence but only on the a.s.sumption that he penned his work shortly after the end of the 207th Olympiad or Olympic games. Since we possess only a rumor that Thallus wrote about an Olympiad, we can only guess which one, with three candidates for determining the terminus a quo for the composition of his ”Histories”: the Olympiads of 109 bce, 52 ad/ce or 92 ad/ce.1 According to Syncellus's account, after referring to the darkness that allegedly fell and the earthquake that purportedly struck upon Christ's death, what Africa.n.u.s literally said was: , , .
This darkness-”an eclipse of the sun,” Thallos calls [it] in the third of the histories, which to me seems unreasonable.2 The phrase ”this darkness” refers to the subject of the discussion preceding this sentence, which is not necessarily a reflection of what Thallus himself was discussing. As this report stands, considering that Africa.n.u.s apparently never made any comment whatsoever that Thallus had actually mentioned either Christ or his crucifixion, the most logical conclusion regarding this remark is that Thallus was merely reporting on a solar eclipse that later Christians themselves a.s.sociated with the crucifixion of Christ. Since, according to our knowledge of his work, Thallus only mentions a solar eclipse and nothing more, unless Christ is the sun Thallus's writing is useless in demonstrating anything about Jesus.
In addition, nowhere else does anyone claim that Thallus himself a.s.sociated this eclipse with the darkness upon Jesus's demise. All of these details and interpretations are by Julius Africa.n.u.s or Syncellus, writing decades to centuries afterwards. These facts of the absolute uselessness of Thallus in the quest for a historical Jesus are entirely ignored by apologists, who even go to the misleading lengths of such sophistry as: ”One of the first secular writers who mentions Christ is Thallus!”3 This statement is utterly erroneous, but it has been repeated numerous times within the apologist community. As another example of an inaccurate conclusion, in The Historical Jesus Christian apologist and evangelical scholar Dr. Gary Habermas also remarks of Thallus: ”At least the death of Jesus was mentioned in an ancient history...”1 Yet again, it is dishonestly and inaccurately claimed that Thallus serves as one of the ”ancient secular sources [who] mention various aspects of Jesus' life.”2 Even noted Christian scholar and evangelist F.F. Bruce bizarrely falls into this trap, erroneously claiming, ”Thallus did not doubt that Jesus had been crucified...”3 In making such a misstatement, Bruce gives the impression that Thallus did in fact mention Jesus, when, in reality, there is no evidence at all of such a remark. Apologists will also make the contention that Thallus ”did not deny the existence of Jesus,” when, again, in reality there is no evidence that Thallus-whoever he was and whenever he lived-had ever even heard of Jesus Christ!
Regarding Thallus, Bruce concludes: But the writings of Thallus have disappeared; we know them only in fragments cited by later writers. Apart from him, no certain reference is made to Christianity in any extant non-Christian Gentile writing of the first century.4 To reiterate, the evidence demonstrates that even not apart from Thallus we possess no certain references to Christ, Christians or Christianity in non-Christian works of the first century.
In the same pa.s.sage by Syncellus appears a pa.s.sing remark regarding a Roman writer named ”Phlegon,” who apparently lived during the second century. This Phlegon evidently reported on an eclipse and earthquake, which is a.s.sociated by a couple of early Church fathers with Christ's death. Indeed, Origen mentions Phlegon in his Contra Celsus (II, 14): Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions. (Emph. added) Later in the same discourse (II, 33), Origen remarks: And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles. (Emph. added) And again, Origen brings up Phlegon (II, 59): He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention; but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered.
Whether or not the pa.s.sage concerning Phlegon in Syncellus/Africa.n.u.s is an interpolation or error is immaterial. Nor does the oblique testimony in Origen provide evidence of who Jesus was, as it is too late, and we cannot be certain, I think, what Phlegon actually said about Christ, or even if he did say anything about him at all. It is very odd that, if this testimony is original to Origen and not an interpolation, no other Christian writer who discusses Phlegon, including Eusebius (Chronicle, II) and Michael the Syrian (12th cent.), claims that he said anything whatsoever about Christ. Nor does Eusebius mention Phlegon at all in his History-if Phlegon had truly written so much about Jesus as Origen suggests, Eusebius surely would have cited him as one of his proofs, especially since the Church historian does discuss the purported evidences in Josephus and Pliny. Oddly enough, Eusebius also does not mention Suetonius or Tacitus as providing testimony to Christ. It is possible that Eusebius ignored Suetonius because he discussed ”Chrestos,” not ”Christos,” and Tacitus because the pa.s.sage in The Annals was unknown at the time and may well be a forgery. In any event, it appears that, if this material were known to Eusebius, he did not find it helpful in his pa.s.sionate defense of the faith.
Another source cited by apologists is a pa.s.sage in the writing of a Syrian author named Mara Bar-Serapion-who wrote anywhere from sometime after 73 ad/ce all the way up to the 3rd century. Thus, several decades to a couple of centuries after the alleged advent of Christ, Bar-Serapion purportedly made a pa.s.sing reference to a ”wise king” of the Jews, after whose ”execution” the Jewish ”kingdom was abolished.” Bar-Serapion, in fact, does not identify this ”wise king” as Jesus but could be referring to a number of individuals in Jewish history. Upon scrutiny, this source does not provide valid, scientific evidence for the existence of Christ or the historicity of the gospel accounts.
For those who are sincere about discovering information regarding who Jesus was, it is disturbing that we must rely on such sketchy and basically useless sources. It is especially peculiar that under scientific scrutiny there is no evidence to back the contentions in the gospels regarding the astounding supernatural events that purportedly occurred upon Jesus's death-in reality, not a word of these incredible occurrences was recorded by anyone anywhere obvious.
The Talmud.
Despite claims to the contrary, the Jewish composition the Talmud rates as worthless in establis.h.i.+ng the existence of Christ and the historicity of the gospel tale. The supposed references in the Talmud-largely consisting of unflattering commentary about Jesus-are all too late to demonstrate anything more than traditions pa.s.sed along decades to centuries later. Furthermore, some of the pa.s.sages cited do not seem to refer to the gospel Jesus at all. Moreover, the earliest stratum of the Talmud, the Mishna, is virtually silent on the subject of Jesus, while it is only the later commentary on the Mishna called the Gemara (4th-5th cents.) that contains any solid reference to ”Jesus of Nazareth.”1 As the Catholic priest Meier says: ...scholars of rabbinic tradition do not agree among themselves on whether even a single text from the Mishna, Tosefta, or Talmud really refers to Jesus of Nazareth. For instance, a radical position is represented by Johann Maier, who maintains that not only the Mishna but also both Talmuds lack any authentic, direct mention of Jesus of Nazareth.... His conclusion is that even the original text of the two Talmuds never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth; all such references to Jesus are later interpolations inserted in the Middle Ages.2 While Meier is wary of Maier's overall thesis, he too concludes, ”Jesus of Nazareth is simply absent from the Mishna and other early rabbinic traditions.” Meier further states that ”apart from Josephus, Jewish literature of the early Christian period offers no independent sources for inquiry into the historical Jesus.”3 Concerning the dates of the Talmud, Meier also remarks that the ”earliest collection of rabbinic material,” the Mishna, emerges at the end of the second to beginning of the third century, while ”all other collections are later still.”1 Hence, it could be stated that the earlier dates given by apologists for Talmudic references to Jesus are simply erroneous and represent not science but wishful thinking. Meier further admonishes against placing too much value on these Talmudic accounts, such as claiming they represent ”independent traditions,” and reminds of the words of Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner ”who wrote...that the very few references to Jesus in the Talmud are of little historical value...”2 As we have seen, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia concurs with this a.s.sessment.
Obviously, the Talmud is not an ”eyewitness” account of the events of the Christian tale. In fact, whatever statements appear in the Talmud occur in response to later Christian legends already in existence and do not serve as a record of actual events. Therefore, the Talmud is worthless as a non-Christian source demonstrating the historicity of the gospel tale and does not add much acceptable material to our quest to find out Jesus was.
Gnostic Sources.
There have existed many texts cla.s.sified under the genre of ”Gnosticism,” which is a.s.serted to be a Christian heresy that rose to prominence in the second century and for a couple of centuries afterwards. While these texts provide interesting insights into the myriad Gnostic-Christian sects, they are not seriously considered by most scholars to provide any useful data concerning the ”historical” Jesus. In the first place, the Gnostic texts are generally composed in a highly fanciful manner that does not come across as being either historical or biographical. Secondly, these texts are all too late to provide any evidence as to the historicity of Jesus Christ, although if we accept that there was such a person, it appears permissible at least to consider the fanciful tales and peculiar sayings found within these texts in our attempts to pad out a biography for Christ. Nevertheless, fundamentalist and evangelical Christians do not allow anything about Jesus found within Gnosticism that is not already present within traditional Christianity as based on the New Testament. In reality, these texts could be used to cast doubt upon the historicity of the gospel tale, as they contain much material that is both mythical and contrary to that found within the canon.
Extrabiblical Christian Sources.
Concerning the issue of extrabiblical Christian testimony for Christ, F.F. Bruce concludes: Of independent Christian information about Jesus, beyond what the New Testament writers supply, there is nothing apart from a number of sayings attributed to him. The best-known collection of these [sayings] belongs to the second century, and is extant in a fourth-century Coptic translation from the Greek, the Gospel of Thomas...1 Of course, there were several Church fathers of the second century who wrote about Jesus the Christ, including Ignatius, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, while Clement of Rome may have written during the last decade of the first century. A survey of the writings of these Church fathers would require another volume. However, as Bruce a.s.serts, these commentaries provide us with only a slight amount more than what is found in the New Testament-such as Irenaeus's claim that Christ was ”more than fifty” when he died, nevertheless based on the gospel of John (8:57)2-and they do not serve as valid scientific, eyewitness evidence of the historicity of the gospel tale.
The Stones are Silent.
Contrary to the claims of Christian apologists, there is no valid credible and scientific archaeological evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ or the gospel story. In the first place, archaeological artifacts thus far known such as those from the Christian catacombs at Rome or papyri fragments from Egypt are useless in our quest, dating too late to serve as evidence of the gospel tale. Indeed, other than some possibly earlier papyri fragments there are no solid Christian artifacts earlier than the third century. This fact begs the question as to why, if there were a mult.i.tude of Christians at Rome a century and a half earlier for instance, there are no certain artifacts of their existence.
The James Ossuary.
Also marring the field of Christian archaeology are such artifacts as the notorious James ossuary and the Jesus tomb found at Talpiot in Jerusalem, as well as the fake relics and artifacts peddled throughout Christendom over the centuries. In the first place, the inscription ”brother of Jesus” on the ossuary or bone box was determined by several scholars within a number of disciplines to have been a forgery.3 Even if it were not, it would not establish anything more than that there was a James who had a brother named Jesus-two very common names in the ancient Jewish world. This fact did not prevent Christian advocates from jumping on the bandwagon and making such statements as those by Dr. Crossan: If the inscription is authentic, then the ossuary not only once housed the bones of James the brother of Jesus and leader of the early Church, it also provides to date the earliest tangible evidence of Jesus.1 In this commentary, Crossan is presuming that any bone box from the general era with the inscription of ”James, brother of Jesus” would in fact be that of the famous apostle, which is in reality not an automatic a.s.sumption, in consideration of the commonality of both these names. Moreover, the a.s.sertion-made many times in the press-that the ossuary would in reality represent the ”earliest tangible evidence of Jesus” is striking, in that it reveals there currently exists no ”tangible evidence of Jesus” from the era of his alleged advent.
The Many Jesus Tombs and Bone Boxes.
<script>