Are they proofs for the existence of Jesus?

[Isearch]

Most of Christian apologetics tend to reference Tacitus or Josephus or Pliny the Younger in order to defend the historicity of Jesus. But, the passage from Josephus apparently can’t be utilized because:

It should be mentioned that as late as 1846 the phrasing was “Jesus, who was Christ”[34] so there may be some translational mucking around going on. In any case, the “him called Christ” makes most sense as a margin note by a later scribe copying the text, inserted by error in a paragraph about Jesus son of Damneus.[35] Drews in The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus stated that, even if the passage was entirely genuine, “brother” could have just meant the James being referred to belonged to a sect that venerated a Messiah called Jesus.[36] Furthermore since “christ” means the same in Greek that “messiah” does in Hebrew (“the anointed one”) it could be used in reference to the anointment of Jesus, son of Damneus as high priest. However, Drews also stated "in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus "[37] which taken literally means as late as 1600 there was a Josephus manuscript with no reference to Jesus anywhere in it. For a contrasting view, see point 5 above, where Origen seems to made a reference to the quote circa 250 CE.

And apparently the passage from Tacitus is suspect:

There is much to question the provenance and veracity of Annals 15.44.[4] There is no other historical confirmation that Nero persecuted Christians for the burning of Rome. Josephus[5] and Pliny the Elder - who were both in Rome in 64 CE - didn’t mention Christians at all, which seems unlikely if Nero had been blaming them for the fire. Seneca the Younger’s lost On Superstition also didn’t mention Christianity, according to Augustine in the 4th century. Furthermore, Neither Origen or Terullian quote Tacitus use this passage despite referring to or citing Tacitus elsewhere.[6] Christian works in the three centuries after Tacitus do not mention that Nero persecuted Christians for the burning of Rome.

Are there any apologetics in recent years that tackle these objections, preferably from 2015 onwards?

 

[FOG]

The “historical” Jesus is undeniable, and well documented.

When we look from the 32,000 foot historical view, down to ground level, it becomes more difficult to defend, even as it is for historical figures in American history over the short span of the last 2 centuries.

In the field of apologetics (“defending the faith”), “faith” is the key word; “history” not so much?

Did George Washington have wooden teeth? No. His dentures were made from Hippopotamus ivory. Did this discrepancy detract from the fact that Washington existed? Certainly not.

 

[BartholomewB]

But, the passage from Josephus apparently can’t be utilized because :

In the Loeb bilingual edition of the Antiquities, a long footnote dealing with this question occupies almost the whole of p. 49. The translator, Louis H. Feldman, summarizes the main arguments on both sides of the debate and reaches the following conclusion: “The most probable view seems to be that our text represents substantially what Josephus wrote, but that some alterations have been made by a Christian interpolator.”

 

[Isearch]

But these were the only non-Christian sources who were closest to the time of Jesus (if he had existed); they were in the position to speak about His existence. And yet the Tacitus passage had possibly been tampered with:

As noted “Tacitus would have had to explain more about the suppression of the new superstition if it died out in the 30’s and started again in Rome around in the 60’s (the Fire was in 64). If the outbreak of the superstition happened in the time of Nero, as Josephus reports, there would be no need to explain what happened.”[10] Based on this temporal jumping it has been suggested that the Tacitus passage originally said:“”Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus , from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Porcius Festus , and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Given that our oldest copy is from the 11th century, and not a single person indicates knowledge of Annals 15.44 before it was first referenced in the 14th century, there is justification to suspect Christians tinkered with it.

As for your assertion that the existence of Jesus is part of the accepted history in the secular academia, I would admit that this is the popular position. But, Dr. Richard Carrier has a peer reviewed work titled On the Historicity of Jesus last 2014, which means there are academics who have different opinions on this subject.

Regarding the Josephus passage, based on the passage I have just referenced here from rational wiki (while the website itself is bias, nevertheless it has sources to back it up), there are evidences that both the Testimonium Flavianum and the James passage were apparently tampered with by some of the early christians.

 

[Isearch]

Some of the scholars hold to a position that the whole Testimonium Flavianum had been tampered with. And the what I cited from rational wiki provided evidence of this same tampering with the James passage.

 

[laylow]

The “historical” Jesus is undeniable, and well documented.

Nothing in history is truly undeniable. However, the vast number of critical scholars believe the evidence for the historical Jesus is sufficient to think he was an actual figure. There are many literary works on the subject by experts who have spent their whole lives studying it.

 

[laylow]

But, Dr. Richard Carrier has written a peer reviewed work On the Historicity of Jesus last 2014, which means there are academics who have different opinions on this subject.

Yes, there are always scholars who disagree, acceptance is never 100%. However, the vast majority conclude that a “Jesus” figure existed, which says nothing of the sort that he was divine in any way. Carrier is a bit of a fringe character in terms of the history of early Christianity.

 

[FOG]

As for your assertion that the existence of Jesus is part of the accepted history in the secular academia, I would admit that this is the popular position. But, Dr. Richard Carrier has written a peer reviewed work On the Historicity of Jesus last 2014, which means there are academics who have different opinions on this subject.

Regarding the Josephus passage, based on the passage I have just referenced here from rational wiki (while the website itself is bias, nevertheless it has sources to back it up), there are evidences that both the Testimonium Flavium and the James passage were apparently tampered with by some of the early christians.

Couple of things come to mind, speaking not as an expert, but someone with at least a BA in History:

Carrier is an academic historian. Historians write “Historiography”, which is the opinion based on Events and Chronology. “History” is the sum of Events, Chronology, and Historiography. Events and Chronology are objective; historiography is subjective, so it is not uncommon for diverse opinion on explaining the significance of Events and Chronology among historians, and because one (several) do not share a consensus, that does not mean some all or all of the thoughts of the others are suspect.

So, secondly, if the Josephus passage has been tampered with (although no self-respecting historian would make such assertions based on Wiki, or anything other than primary sources), a single questionable source would not detract from the credibility of other sources.

Again, there is significant sources to attest to the fact that there was a “historical” Jesus. But, this is a site for apologetics, which by definition is “defending the faith”. And, whether this historical Jesus was, indeed, the Holy One, anointed by God, and the Savior of the World is a matter of faith, which is an internal realization, unhampered by historical documentation.

 

[FOG]

However, the vast number of critical scholars believe the evidence for the historical Jesus is sufficient to think he was an actual figure. There are many literary works on the subject by experts who have spent their whole lives studying it.

my point, exactly…the existence of an itinerant preacher and rabbi known as Jesus is well established…what is not, is the claim that he is the Son of God, which is a matter of faith rather than history.

 

[undead_rat]

 

[MadeUpName2]

Since history doesn’t work like mathematics, there aren’t any proofs of Jesus’ existence equivalent to 2+2=4.

The question is, rather, What do you have to give up if you want to consistently deny Jesus’ existence?

And the answer is: You have to give up most of what we know about ancient history. Historians use the same methods to investigate Jesus that they use to investigate Alexander, Socrates, “The Egyptian” in Josephus, etc.

Some atheists are willing to bite that bullet. Alex Rosenberg, for example, denies that history contains any facts at all. But most atheists believe in ancient history. In fact, most atheist attacks on the accuracy of the Bible depend on the same historical methods that prove Jesus existed.

Biblical historians usually don’t refute Jesus Mythicism for the same reason that most archaeologists ignore ancient aliens theories. (Also, unlike ancient aliens people, Jesus mythicists are more likely to personally attack you online.) Even so, there are a couple responses:

1. The quickest, easiest overview is probably Tim O’Neill’s “History for Atheists”. O’Neill is an atheist himself, and shares his atheist opponents’ cantankerous argumentative style, so it’s seldom a dull read. [https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/]
2. This link [The Historiography of the Jesus Myth] contains most of what what written by scholars before about 2001. Scholars would write a book every decade or so debunking mythicism. This sometimes happened because a specific Jesus myth theorist managed to annoy a specific scholar enough to write one.
3. More recently, Bart Ehrman, an agnostic Biblical scholar who opposes traditional Christianity and received awards from secularists, wrote a book-length debunking of Jesus mythicism in 2013. [https://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443].
4. Maurice Casey, an agnostic Biblical scholar specializing in Aramaic, wrote another debunking in 2014. [https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Evidence-Argument-Mythicist-Biblical/dp/0567447626].
5. Daniel Gullotta published an article-length response to Carrier’s book in 2017 in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. [https://brill.com/view/journals/jshj/15/2-3/article-p310_310.xml?lang=en].
6. EDIT: If you’re looking for specifically Christian books addressing mythicism, Van Voorst’s Jesus Outside The New Testament and R.T. France’s Evidence for Jesus are often recommended. I’ve also seen Paul Rhodes Eddy’s The Jesus Legend recommended.

There’s more, but that should give you an overview.

As far as Carrier’s authority and trustworthiness go, just remember that he is a secular activist who supports himself financially by selling books to atheists, teaching atheist apologetics courses online, speaking at atheist events, and running an atheist blog. So he’s open to the same charge of bias that Christian apologists like Craig, Licona, et al are.

Finally, RationalWiki is not, in my experience, a good source. I’ve occasionally gone on there looking for discussion of a particular philosophical topic where I agree with them (example: refuting the Omphalos Hypothesis), and they’re usually disappointing.

 

[Wesrock]

If we’re being critical of the gospels, some things seem too absurd. Let me take the critical position of an atheist and look at Jesus’ birth. If the person of Jesus (and his parents) being a Nazarene isn’t a historical fact, why have it? It complicates claims about Jesus being the Messiah, and an atheist may see the whole census and journey to Bethlehem as a fabrication to cover it. But if Jesus is a fabricated character entirely, why have this very complicated work-around instead of just having Mary and Joseph just being people who lived in Bethlehem?

Similarly the crucifixion and the passion narrative. Crucifixion was highly, HIGHLY shameful. A crucified messiah, if Jesus is a wholesale fabrication, seems rather absurd. We’re just desensitized to the fact because we’ve grown up with it. Same with his multiple falls, the resurrection narrative, etc… If I approach this as a skeptic, the more parsimonious explanation for the way these details are handled is that it’s historical fact that there was a Nazarene rabbi and that there was a real crucifixion and that his followers retconned/fabricated details to work around these things. These are not details that really make sense if the character of Jesus is a total fabrication. The fabricators could have come up with a much “better” narrative if it was so without these inconvenient details. Again, the simplest explanation for their being inconvenient details in the narrative is that they are historical.

Sorry for the rushed and repetitive post. I have to run.

 

[undead_rat]

Since history doesn’t work like mathematics, there aren’t any proofs of Jesus’ existence equivalent to 2+2=4.

Scientific proof that Jesus existed is right in front of all of our noses. What a pity that the Church will not formally acknowledge its validity.




Theologically, this is the Sign of Jonah which is the confirmation that He was the Messiah, and it is also proof that He worked miracles since His image here is a miracle.

 

[Dan_Defender]

To me the best proof is that the Catholic Church, starting from such humble origins and having had mostly martyrs for 300 years, is still standing and universal.

 

[MadeUpName2]

Scientific proof that Jesus existed is right in front of all of our noses. What a pity that the Church will not formally acknowledge its validity.

Theologically, this is the Sign of Jonah which is the confirmation that He was the Messiah, and it is also proof that He worked miracles since His image here is a miracle.

Yeah, if you have compelling evidence for Christian miracles, that would also work.

But Jesus mythicism is wrong enough that you don’t even need to appeal to revelation. Atheist historians reject it too.