part0007

We have seen that the gospel accounts are utterly unreliable as history and cannot serve as evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed. Now we shall examine if there are any non-biblical, non-partisan records by historians during the alleged time of the astonishing events: To wit, a virgin-born “son of God” who was famed widely as a great teacher and wonderworker, miraculously healing and feeding multitudes, walking on water and raising the dead; who was transfigured on a mount into a shining sun; whose crucifixion was accompanied by great earthquakes, the darkening of the sun and the raising from their graves of numerous “saints”; and who himself was resurrected from the dead. Of these alleged events, Eusebius asserts:

Surely these extraordinary events known far and wide were recorded by one or more competent historians of the time! As noted, the centuries surrounding the beginning of the Christian era, the periods of Tiberias and Augustus, were, in fact, some of the best-documented in history, as admitted even by Christian apologists. cx For example, the Roman historian under Augustus, Livy (59 BCE -17 CE ), alone composed 142 volumes, over a hundred of which were subsequently destroyed by the conspirators trying to cover their tracks.

Despite this fact, however, there are basically no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus’s purported advent. As Walker says, “No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing.” Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and philosopher Philo (20 BCE -50 CE ), alive at the purported time of Jesus, was silent on the subject of the great Jewish miraclemaker and rabblerouser who brought down the wrath of Rome and Judea. Nor are Jesus and his followers mentioned by any of the some 40 other historians who wrote during the first and second centuries of the Common Era, including Plutarch, the Roman biographer, who lived at the same time (46-120 CE ) and in the same place where the Christians were purportedly swarming yet made no mention of them, their founder or their religion. As is related in McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Theological Literature:

Enough of the writings of [these] authors…remain to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ. cxi

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian, especially because he wrote during the first century. His father, Matthias, was a reputable and learned member of a priestly family, and lived in Jerusalem contemporaneously with Pilate. Certainly he would have told his historian son about the bizarre and glorious events depicted in the gospels, had they occurred just years earlier. Josephus himself was appointed to Galilee during the Jewish Wars and was in Rome at the same time Paul was supposed to have been there incurring the wrath of the authorities upon him and his community of Christians. Yet, in the entire works of the Josephus, which constitute many volumes of great detail encompassing centuries of history, there is no mention of Paul or the Christians, and there are only two brief paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus. Although much has been made of these “references,” they have been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and James, “brother of Jesus.” No less an authority than Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (1698-1779) labeled the Josephus interpolation regarding Jesus “a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.” cxii Of Josephus and this stupid forgery, Wheless says:

The fact is, that with the exception of this one incongruous forged passage, section 3, the wonder-mongering Josephus makes not the slightest mention of his wonder-working fellow-countryman, Jesus the Christ—though some score of other Joshuas, or Jesuses, are recorded by him, nor does he mention any of his transcendent wonders.… The first mention ever made of this passage, and its text, are in the Church History of that “very dishonest writer,” Bishop Eusebius, in the fourth century…CE [Catholic Encyclopedia] admits…the above cited passage was not known to Origen and the earlier patristic writers. cxiii

Wheless, a lawyer, and Taylor, a minister, agree with many others, including Christian apologists such as Dr. Lardner, that it was Eusebius himself who forged the passage in Josephus. In any case, the Josephus passages are fraudulent, leaving his sizable works devoid of the story of Jesus Christ. Of this absence, Waite asks:

…Why has Josephus made no mention of Jesus, called Christ?…It is true that Josephus was not contemporary with Jesus if the latter was crucified at the time commonly supposed. But during the administration of Josephus in Galilee, the country must have been full of traditions of the crucified Galilean. But a single generation had passed, and the fame of Jesus being now spread abroad in other lands, could it have been any less in Galilee? Paul was contemporary with Josephus, and in his travels, if the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles can be at all relied upon, he must, more than once, have crossed the track of the Jewish priest and magistrate. cxiv

One of the pitifully few “references” held up by Christians as evidence of Jesus’s existence is the letter to Trajan supposedly written by the Roman historian Pliny the Younger. However, in this letter there is but one word that is applicable, “Christians,” and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is also suspected of the entire “document.” It has been suggested on the basis of Pliny’s reportage of the Essenes that, if the letter is genuine, the original word was “Essenes,” which was later changed to “Christians” in one of the many “revisions” of the works of ancient authorities by Christian forgers.

Like Pliny, the historian Tacitus did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after “the Savior’s” alleged death; thus, if there were any passages in his work referring to Christ or his immediate followers, they would be secondhand and long after the alleged events. This fact matters not, however, because the purported passage in Tacitus regarding Christians being persecuted under Nero is also an interpolation and forgery, as noted. Zealous defender of the faith Eusebius never mentions the Tacitus passage, nor does anyone else prior to the 15th century CE. As Taylor says:

This passage, which would have served the purposes of Christian quotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of any Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers.… It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotes the works of Tacitus.… There is no vestige or trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15th century. cxv

Christian defenders also like to hold up as evidence of their godman the minuscule and possibly interpolated passage from the Roman historian Suetonius referring to someone named “Chrestus” or “Chrestos” at Rome. Obviously, Christ was not alleged to have been at Rome, so this passage is not applicable to him. Furthermore, while some have speculated that there was a Roman man of that name at that time, the title “Chrestus” or “Chrestos,” meaning “good” and “useful,” was frequently held by freed slaves, among others, including various gods.

Regarding these “historical references,” Taylor says, “But even if they are authentic, and were derived from earlier sources, they would not carry us back earlier than the period in which the gospel legend took form, and so could attest only the legend of Jesus, and not his historicity.” In any case, these scarce and brief “references” to a man who supposedly shook up the world, can hardly serve as proof of his existence, and it is absurd that the purported historicity of the Christian religion is founded upon them.

There were indeed at the time of Christ’s alleged advent dozens of relatively reliable historians who generally did not color their perspectives with a great deal of mythology, cultural bias and religious bigotry—where are their testimonies to such amazing events recorded in the gospels? As Mead relates, “It has always been unfailing source of astonishment to the historical investigator of Christian beginnings, that there is not a single word from the pen of any Pagan writer of the first century of our era, which can in any fashion be referred to the marvellous story recounted by the Gospel writer. The very existence of Jesus seems unknown.” cxvi The silence of these historians is, in fact, deafening testimony against the historicizers.

One might think that there would at least be reference to the “historical” Jesus in the texts of the Jews, who were known for record-keeping. Yet, such is not the case, despite all the frantic pointing to the references to “Jesus ben Pandira,” who purportedly lived during the first century BCE, or other “Jesuses” mentioned in Jewish literature. Unfortunately, these characters do not fit either the story or the purported timeline of the gospel Jesus, no matter how the facts and numbers are fudged.

The story of Jesus ben Pandira, for example, related that, a century before the Christian era, a “magician” named “Jesus” came out of Egypt and was put to death by stoning or hanging. However, ritualistic or judicial executions of this manner were common, as were the name “Jesus” and the magicians flooding out of Egypt. In addition, there is in this story no mention of Romans, among other oversights. Even if ben Pandira were real, it is definitely not his story being told in the New Testament.

It has generally been allowed that the existence of a Jehoshua, the son of Pandira…acknowledged by the Talmud, proves the personal existence of Jesus the Christ as an historical character in the gospels. But a closer examination of the data shows the theory to be totally untenable.… Jehoshua ben Pandira must have been born considerably earlier than the year 102 B.C.… The Jewish writers altogether deny the identity of the Talmudic Jehoshua and the Jesus of the gospels.… The Jews know nothing of Jesus as the Christ of the gospels… cxvii

Of the Pandira/Pandera story, Larson states, “Throughout the middle ages, the legend of Pandera and Yeshu, considered by most scholars a Jewish invention, continued to persist.” cxviii This Jewish invention may have been created in order to capitulate to the Christian authorities, who were persecuting “unbelievers.” Thus we find the tale in the Talmud, written after the Christ myth already existed.

Klausner’s very full survey of the relevant material in [the Talmud] led him to the conclusion that the earliest references to Jesus in rabbinical literature occur not earlier than about the beginning of the second century…If there had been a historical Jesus who had anything like the career ascribed to him in the gospels, the absence of earlier references becomes very hard to explain. When Rabbis do begin to mention him, they are so vague in their chronology that they differ by as much as 200 years in the dates they assign to him.… It is clear from this that they never thought of testing whether he had existed, but took for granted that this name stood for a real person.… But let us see what modern Jewish scholarship, as represented by Sandmel and Goldstein, has to say about Jesus’ historicity. Sandmel concedes that what knowledge we have of him “comes only from the NT”, “since he went unknown in the surviving Jewish and pagan literature of his time”; and that passages about him in the ancient rabbinical literature of reflect NT material and give no information that is independent of Christian tradition. That the Talmud is useless as a source of reliable information about Jesus is conceded by most Christian scholars. cxix

Now that so much in the NT has fallen under suspicion, there is a natural tendency to exaggerate the importance of non-Christian material that seems to corroborate it— even though Christian scholars past and present have admitted that, on the matter of Jesus’ historicity, there is no pagan or Jewish evidence worth having… cxx

To reiterate, “The forged New Testament booklets and the foolish writings of the Fathers, are the sole ‘evidence’ we have for the alleged facts and doctrines of our most holy Faith,” as, adds Wheless, is admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia itself. cxxi