Jesus (The) Christ
Why
would the Roman government brutally persecute peaceful followers of a
non-historical figure? Why were tens of thousands of first century
Christians (almost exclusively Jewish believers in Jesus) who lived
within forty years of the "mythical events," willingly suffer the loss
of all possessions and status, and be murdered for a myth? Why would
Saul of Tarsus, a Jewish Pharisee, a leader of the Jews, be willing to
give up everything and join the crowd that he had admittedly been
persecuting? These are some of the questions that the myth theory
doesn't satisfactorily explain.
Obviously, if Jesus of
Nazareth was a true historical figure, and if he truly was who his
disciples claimed he was, then there should be historical references to
his existence other than the New Testament documents.
As
we search for "extra biblical" (i.e. non-Christian) sources for the
existence of Jesus, we will discover that the skeptic hasn't a leg to
stand on, when he argues that Jesus was a non historical figure. There
are numerous historical references to Jesus, from both neutral and
antagonistic sources, as early as the mid first century.
When
a historian sets out to prove the historical existence of an individual
there are a number of sources that are sought. Perhaps the most
reliable sources of historical evidence are from those who were not
sympathetic to the person or his cause. A source that is either
indifferent or antagonistic to Jesus or the church, could not be accused
of bias and therefore part of the "evil plot" to create a mythical
figure. As we look at historical references we will try to focus mainly
on such historic sources.
Joseph ben Matthias, was born in
the year 37 C.E., and died around 100 C.E. As the son of a Jewish
priest, he eventually became a priest himself and a member of the
Pharisee sect of Judaism. In 64 C.E. He went to Rome to secure the
release of certain priests and became convinced that Rome could not be
defeated by the Jewish revolt which began in 66 C.E. (The Jewish revolt
ended in 70 C.E. When Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans).
In
July, 67 C.E. He was captured by Rome and was eventually hired as a
scribe and an interpreter by the Roman government. He was given the name
Flavius Josephus by his Roman associates and wrote under that name.
In
70 C.E., he rode into Jerusalem with the Roman general Titus and
observed the annihilation of Jerusalem. Josephus recorded incredibly
graphic details about the destruction of Jerusalem, as well as the
crucifixion, and death of millions of Jews.
There are
three passages in his writings that are pertinent to Christianity. In
his book, Antiquities of the Jews, book eighteen, chapter three, in the
third paragraph, he makes a comment about Jesus of Nazareth.
"Now,
there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call
him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as
received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the
Jews and many of the gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at
the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the
cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he
appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had
foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him;
and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this
day."
Josephus verifies that Jesus was an historical
figure who was crucified by Pontius Pilate that he had a great
following, did miracles and rose from the dead on the third day.
Josephus does not attempt to explain away the historicity of Jesus of
Nazareth nor does he try to explain away the miracles or his
resurrection from the dead. Consequently, this is an incredibly valuable
historical reference to Jesus of Nazareth.
Needless to
say, because of its testimony of Jesus, this passage, commonly called
the Testimonium Flavianum, a very controversial passage. Critics have
claimed that this passage was a Christian insertion. However, there is
strong evidence from the ancient manuscripts that this passage was in
the original. It is present in all of the extant ancient manuscripts and
was quoted by early church fathers, such as Eusebius, as early as 325
C.E.
The main points of contention are the statements, "He
was the Messiah," "if it be lawful to call him a man," and "He appeared
to them alive again the third day." Josephus, described as an Orthodox
Jew by some scholars, was apparently never converted to Christianity.
Origen, a third century Christian, states twice that Josephus "did not
believe in Jesus as the Christ." Therefore, opponents argue that it is
very unlikely that he would ever say these things of Jesus. Most
historians do, however, believe that the reference to Jesus of Nazareth
being "a wise man," "a doer of wonderful works", and being crucified
under Pontius Pilate, are valid portions of Josephus' original work.
A
complete fourth century Arabic version of Josephus' Antiquities of the
Jews, which contains the Testimonium, includes basically the same
content as above text, with a couple of very slight variations. Instead
of saying "He was the Christ," it says "He was so-called the Christ."
"At
this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct
was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among
the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to
be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not
abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them
three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he
was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted
wonders." [Pines, Shlomo. An Arabic Version of the Testamonium Flavianum
and its Implications, Jerusalem Academic Press, 1971.]
This
very ancient copy of Antiquities increases significantly the
reliability that Josephus did, in fact, make historical reference to
Jesus of Nazareth. Although there are significant stylistic differences
in this Arabic version, the basic elements of the Greek version are
preserved in this text. Jesus is described as an historical figure who
was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Regarding the Messiahship of Jesus,
he is described in more neutral terms, stating, "He was perhaps the
Messiah." Finally, this version confirms that Jesus was of excellent
character, that he gathered many disciples to himself and that
Christians were still in existence at that time.
This
version can hardly be criticized as a Christian fabrication. It is very
unlikely that a Christian in the second or third century would describe
Jesus as "perhaps the Messiah." Christians at that time were routinely
tortured and murdered for believing in Jesus, therefore, it is very
unlikely that a person under such a threat would describe Jesus in such
equivocal terms."
The next passage is also in Antiquities of the Jews, book eighteen, chapter five, paragraph two. Josephus states:
"Now
some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from
God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John,
that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man,
and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness
towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism;
for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they
made use of it, not in order to the putting away,[or the remission] of
some sins [only,] but for the purification of the body; supposing still
that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now,
when many others came to crowd about him, for they were greatly moved by
hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence of John
had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise
a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise,)
thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he
might cause, and not to bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a
man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late."
Although
Jesus is not specifically mentioned in this passage, the portrayal of
his forerunner, John the Baptist, is in complete agreement with the
record of John in the New Testament. Therefore, the historical
reliability of the New Testament overall is further established. To
Josephus, John the Baptist was an historical figure. Josephus validates
what the Christian New Testament says about John. He was a righteous man
who had great popularity among the people and he baptized people for
the remission of sins. Almost all historians believe that this is a
passage from the original text. It is also in the Arabic version.
The
third reference is in Antiquities of the Jews, book twenty, chapter
nine, paragraph one. This is in reference to the Jewish high priest,
Ananius, and the brother of Jesus.
"After the death of the
procurator Festus, when Albinus was about to succeed him , the
high-priest Ananius considered it a favorable opportunity to assemble
the Sanhedrin. He therefore caused James the brother of Jesus, who was
called Christ, and several others, to appear before this hastily
assembled council, and pronounced upon them the sentence of death by
stoning. All the wise men and strict observers of the law who were at
Jerusalem expressed their disapprobation of this act...Some even went to
Albinus himself, who had departed to Alexandria, to bring this breach
of the law under his observation, and to inform him that Ananius had
acted illegally in assembling the Sanhedrin without the Roman
authority."(Antiquities 20:9)
Most historians believe that
this passage was penned by Josephus and was not a Christian insertion.
Louis Feldman, professor of Classics at Yeshiva University states of
this passage:
"Few have doubted the genuineness of this passage."
These
three references, though not without controversy, are considered by the
majority of historians to be substantially from the pen of Josephus.
Professor Shlomo Pines, a well known Israeli scholar, discusses the fact
of Jesus' historicity and the references to Jesus by Josephus:
"In
fact, as far a probabilities go, no believing Christian could have
produced such a neutral text: for him the only significant point about
it could have been its attesting the historical evidence of Jesus. But
the fact is that until modern times this particular hare (i.e. claiming
Jesus is a hoax) was never started. Even the most bitter opponents of
Christianity never expressed any doubt as to Jesus having really lived."
No comments:
Post a Comment