I
keep having to post this.
On Facebook, I'm active in several different groups dealing with atheism and Christianity. And being so active, I have found I have to repeatedly refute certain claims regarding extra-Biblical proof of the existence of Jesus.
On Facebook, I'm active in several different groups dealing with atheism and Christianity. And being so active, I have found I have to repeatedly refute certain claims regarding extra-Biblical proof of the existence of Jesus.
At
one point, I had to post this three times, to three different people,
over the space of three days. I am disgusted that Creationists just
do not seem to learn, and I'm tired of it. So if there are any
creationists out there, I'm about to give you an ass-whipping you
deserve.
Kevin Jones said, “There is more solid evidence for Jesus Christ than there is for any other historical figure.
Kevin Jones said, “There is more solid evidence for Jesus Christ than there is for any other historical figure.
If
you really believe this, let me just get this out of the way: you're
an idiot, and you're wrong.
And
here is why.
First,
we have no contemporary sources that mention Jesus Christ. None.
Absolutely none. And no, none of the sources Christiants usually
name were contemporary. "Contemporary", since you
apparently cannot understand the concept, means "occurring at
the same time."
Second,
quite often, when they make claims about “historical evidence”,
what they are actually trying to do is use the Bible as evidence for
the Bible. Even if this weren't easily dismissed as a logical
fallacy (go look up “circular reasoning”, folks), it still
wouldn't work. Let me tell you about the Bible, folks. The Bible
has been demonstratably proven beyond any possible doubt to have been
changed, edited, and rewritten to suit the religious and political
dogma of men who lived *centuries* after the supposed lifetime of
Christ.
And
when I say "changed, edited, and rewritten copies", I would
like to point out that sometimes those changes, edits, and rewrites
are substantial.
In
addition, careful study of the Pauline epistles in the New Testament
have shown that while all of the Epistles are supposedly written by
Paul, at least fifteen of them (1 Peter, 2 Peter, James, 1 John, 2
John, 3 John, Jude, Hebrews, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philipians,
Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians) were absolutely not written by
Paul at all. Most of these were, in fact, written between 150 and 250
years after Paul supposedly was martyred in Rome.
The
remaining Epistles (Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, 1
Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and Romans) have been thrown into
doubt as to their authenticity to the point that its entirely
possible that Paul didn't write any of them.
At
the very least, later parties took Paul's original words and heavily
edited and rewrote them. We know this through careful examination of
the vocabulary and the grammar used, and their relationship to the
known timeline of the life of Paul (to put it bluntly, at least two
of the epistles turn out to be happening at the same time, meaning
that Paul was in two places at once -- and these places are hundreds
of miles from each other).
Despite
the fact that Biblical literalists like to claim otherwise, we know
that the Gospels were not written by the men whose names are on them
(indeed, outside of the Bible, there's not a lot of evidence that
these four men even existed). Mark did not write Mark, John did not
write John, and so on. So who did write the Bible? We don't have the
first damned clue.
We
don't even have original copies. What we have are copies of copies of
copies. So we really have no idea what the sources for these
documents, which remember the literalists thing are historically
authoritative, really are.
And
this goes for the apocryphal gospels and epistles also. We don't have
the originals, we don't know when they were written, and most of them
aren't old enough to be contemporary.
The
New Testament canon wasn't assembled until three hundred years after
the alleged death of Jesus. The Bible as we know it right now didn't
exist until the Fourth Century CE. The reason why the New Testament
looks the way it looks is because a man named Athanasius pretty much
unilaterally declared it would look like it does.
But
for the sake of argument, let's look at some of the usual suspects,
the people Christians often claim can be counted as “extra-Biblical
evidence” for the existence of Jesus.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus: Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian. He was born in 64 CE, and he didn't write "Annals" (the history that Christians like to cite as if it proves something) until 109 CE. That's a century after the fact, young man. A century. Trying to claim that Tacitus is contemporary with the supposed life of Christ is like me claiming to be contemporary of Ulysses S. Grant. After all, I was alive in the 1960s and he was alive in the 1860s, right?
Publius Cornelius Tacitus: Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian. He was born in 64 CE, and he didn't write "Annals" (the history that Christians like to cite as if it proves something) until 109 CE. That's a century after the fact, young man. A century. Trying to claim that Tacitus is contemporary with the supposed life of Christ is like me claiming to be contemporary of Ulysses S. Grant. After all, I was alive in the 1960s and he was alive in the 1860s, right?
In
any case, Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus, he mentions "the
followers of a certain man named Christus" and gives no source
for his information. What he's writing about in Annals is information
that he heard from a guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from a
guy, a hundred years after the fact. That's hearsay, and absolutely
has no value.
Thallus.
The problem with Thallus is that we don't actually have anything
from anyone named Thallus that makes any mention of anything that
could be considered close to Jesus. What we have is a 9th Century
Byzantine priest named George Syncellus writing that a 3rd Century
priest named Sextus Julius Africanus wrote about some unknown writer
named Thallus who supposedly wrote a contemporary description of a
solar eclipse at Jesus's crucifixion.
Even
worse, we don't even have the document from Africanus that talks
about Thallus. All we have is Syncellus claiming that Africanus says
something about Thallus saying something. More hearsay. No evidence.
Now,
there is note from that notorious liar, con-man, and forger Eusebius
of Caesaria who claims that Josephus also wrote about this Thallus
account, but that's still one guy talking about what a second guy who
got it from a third guy. Even worse, at this point no historian worth
his PhD would accept the word of Eusebius of Caesaria if he said the
sky was blue because he's been shown to be, as I mentioned, a fraud.
Clement
of Rome: Born sometime between 90 and 100 CE. Not contemporary.
Ignatius:
Born sometime between 55 and 65 CE. Not contemporary.
Polycarp:
Born in 69 CE. Not contemporary.
Barnabas:
There's no actual evidence this person was real. Traditionally,
this is the Barnabas mentioned in the Bible, and several works have
been ascribed to him, but most of these works actually date to long
after the man's supposed martyrdom (for which he don't have any
evidence, either) some time around 80 CE. The best account we have of
Barnabas is the journal of Anthemios, Archbishop of Constantia, who
claimed to have been visited by Barnabas in a dream.
So
yeah, the evidence we have for Barnabas even existing is a dream.
Papias:
He wrote his "fragments" between 95 and 120 CE. Not
contemporary.
Justin
Martyr: He was born until 100 CE. A century after the supposed
life of Christ. Not contemporary.
Aristides
the Athenian: He suffers the same problem as Thallus. All we
have of his work is Eusebius the Liar describing how Aristides said
thus and so. We don't actually have copies of his work, so its all
hearsay, and thus no evidence at all.
Athenagoras
the Athenian: He wasn't born until 133 CE. Not contemporary.
Theophilus:
Wasn't born until 165 CE. Not contemporary.
Quadratus
of Athens: Also known as Quadratus the Martyr: Yet another
religious figure we have no evidence actually existed other than the
well-known lying word of Eusebius of Caesaria. Again, we have no
copies of his works, just Eusebius telling us what the man supposedly
said.
Aristo
of Pella: We can put Eristo in the "Eusebius probably made
him up" club, as the only mention we have of him or his work is
Mr. "Lying for the Holy Mother Church is a Virtue" himself.
Melito
of Sardis: We don't actually know when Melito of Sardis was
born. But we do know when he died: 195 CE. Now, seeing as its highly
doubtful that the man was over 200 years old when he died, its
entirely reasonable to say that he, too, was not a contemporary of
Jesus.
The
Didache: The Didache was first mentioned by our favorite
Christian con-man, Eusebius. There is absolutely no evidence for it
being older than the 2nd Century, and all the evidence we do have for
its origins show that it was actually written by Eusebius himself.
Like most of his writings, the Didache claims to be a contemporary
account (specifically, of the actions and teachings of the twelve
apostles), but no credible scholar actually believes this.
The
Epistle of Dignetus: This document was written by an unknown
someone sometime between 130 CE and 200 CE, based on the language and
other textual evidence. Thus, it is not a contemporary document.
Josephus
Flavius: Josephus, the Jewish historian, was born in 37 CE. His
"Antiquities" wasn't even written until 93 CE, after the
first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about
Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as
hearsay. In addition, despite the best wishes of believers and the
lies of Christian apologists, the account found in "Antiquities"
has been definitively proven to be a forgery written by, you guessed
it, Eusebius of Caesaria. So thoroughly has this passage been
debunked that no credible Biblical scholar ever mentions Josephus
except to use it as an example of a Christian forgery and hoax.
Pliny
the Younger: Pliny was born in 62 C.E. Not contemporary. Also,
his letter about the Christians only shows that he got his
information from Christian believers themselves. Lastly, the earliest versions of the manuscript do not have that account. That likely means that the account in Pliny the Younger's work was added later by Christians.
Phlegon
of Tralles: Wrote his histories in 137 CE. Not contemporary.
Lucian:
Born in 125 CE. Not contemporary.
Celsus:
According to Origen, Celsus wrote "The True Word", his
attack on Christianity, in 177 CE. We don't have any surviving
copies, but the fact that Origin places it nearly 200 years after the
supposed life of Christ means he's not contemporary either.
Mara
bar Serapion: Dates to 73 CE. Not contemporary.
Suetonius:
Seutonius has two problems. First, he was born in 69 CE and thus
isn't contemporary. Second, he doesn't mention Jesus at all. He
mentions a criminal named "Chrestus," which was a common
name at the time ("Christ" is a title, not a name). His
account is only about Jesus if you squint, tilt your head, and
pretend.
So to say there is no authentic historical evidence that Jesus Christ walked the earth is simply to be utterly factual and in accordance with modern Biblical scholarship.
So to say there is no authentic historical evidence that Jesus Christ walked the earth is simply to be utterly factual and in accordance with modern Biblical scholarship.
Thus
endeth the lesson.
Thank you for all the research you put into this. It's really good!
ReplyDelete