EXPLAIN THIS: Why Did These Ancient Authors Write About ‘Jesus’ If He Didn’t Exist?
Contemporary discussions about Jesus of Nazareth among mixed groups of Christians and non-Christians will not infrequently include at least one mention of the argument that He never actually lived.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all based on an invented character, not a real, living person, according to the argument, so all that “magical stuff” about a resurrection and miracles is not something any rational person would take seriously.
Is that a reasonable argument? If it is, how then do we explain this quartet of ancient writers who affirmed His existence as a real person? These four are only a selection of a dozen such ancient authors who mention Jesus, not as a mythical figure, but as an actual person.
Tacitus:
First, there is the Roman historian Tacitus, who described how the Emperor Nero seized upon the Christians as the scapegoats for the great fire that destroyed much of Rome:
“Therefore, to stop the rumors, substituted as culprits and punished in the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.”
In addition to being recognized as a great historian of the Roman era, Tacitus is known as a well-connected political figure as well. In that regard, Dr. Frank Turek of crossexamined.org responds to four objections that have been made by critics.
Lucian:
Second, the Greek satirist Lucian noted that “the Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.”
Pliny the Younger:
Third, Pliny the Younger, while serving the Emperor Trajan as Governor of Bithynia, told his superior that in having Christians tortured, he found “they affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.”
Mara bar Serapin:
Fourth, consider this passage from a letter written to his son by one Mara bar Serapin after being exiled by the Romans. He wrote: “What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished.”
So What Now?
The response to hearing about these four and the multiple other ancient authors who specifically mentioned Christ is that, since they were all after His death, they all wrote based on what they heard second-hand and from Christians who were clearly biased.
Is that a reasonable refutation? If it is, then much of what is known today about other famous ancients must similarly be rejected as fabrications, myths and fables.
Think about it: That Jesus was a real, live human being who lived 2,000 years ago is an historical fact. That being the case, it’s only reasonable to then consider the claims He and others made about Himself.
But that’s an EXPLAIN THIS: for another day.
Lots of ancient writers wrote about King Arthur, Merlin, Hercules, Odysseus, and Aeneas too, and many of these writers were convinced that these were real people in history. That people wrote about someone after the fact is not evidence they didn’t exist, true, but it’s not conclusive evidence they DID exist either. There are many people who did not exist that have been written about. In 2000 years historians may be arguing about the existence of Sherlock Holmes or James Bond for all we know.
And three of the writers quoted here are merely describing what Christians believe, not vouching for the truth of it. If a Christian writes about what Scientologists believe, is that conclusive evidence Scientology is true?
Let’s stipulate that your first graph is accurate. By what standard then do you decide if any person named by ancient writers actually existed? If a Christian writes about Scientology, that is a statement that there is something called “Scientology,” not a statement about whether Scientology is true or false?
What would you consider conclusive evidence that someone did exist during that time?
Depends on the nature of that evidence and the issue being raised. As Douglas Groothius notes, Polybius, the Greek historian, and Livy, the Roman historian, describe what appear to be two different routes Hannibal used to get his elephants across the Alps. That doesn’t “prove” Hannibal and his elephants didn’t cross the Alps.
I agree and was actually replying to Frederick at about the same time you were with (close to) the same question.
The difference is that the account of Jesus mentions specific people who were known to be real persons, mentions identifiable locations, and takes place in an identifiable time frame within living memory. That isn’t true of the accounts of the ancient figures you mention, whose activities take place on a mythical plane. There are elements to Jesus’ story that can be dismissed as mythical, but the story itself takes place in what is identifiable as a real place that can be visited and where his story could be investigated. You can’t say that about King Arthur, Merlin, Hercules, Odysseus, or Aeneas.
If, in 2000, years, people believe that James Bond or Sherlock Holmes are still alive and will someday return, you may have a point. But I should point out that unlike Jesus, neither Sherlock Holmes nor James Bond is recorded as interacting with real people, nor are real people ever depicted as reacting to or commenting on their activities.
The mentions of Christians by the ancients only show that they knew what Christians believed. By this claim, any god with any worshippers is as real as your god.
Are you good with that?
“What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished.””
it was long before that the kingdom was abolished. It was occupied by Rome before and after this supposed messiah.
More apologetics fail.
No, Tacitus is reporting facts, including the crucifixion of Jesus, that he suggests explain Nero’s response to the great fire. Similarly, Lucian is describing facts about what/who Christians worshipped and why. Pliny served the Emperor Trajan, who ruled from 98 AD to his death in 117, still within the generation that succeeded the apostles and others, who were eyewitnesses. Regarding Serapin, do you doubt that Socrates or Pythagoras were real people? Why then only doubt Jesus but not Socrates and Pythagoras?
@Richard:the story itself takes place in what is identifiable as a real place that can be visited and where his story could be investigated. You can’t say that about King Arthur, Merlin, Hercules, Odysseus, or Aeneas.
England, Wales, Italy and Greece are not real? Rome and Troy were not real? Talk about the baby and the bathwater.
“Jesus mentions specific people who were known to be real persons, mentions identifiable locations, and takes place in an identifiable time frame within living memory.”
Two words: Forrest Gump.
Where is Camelot? Where are the Augean Stables? For that matter, where did King Augeus reign? Where is the island Calypso lived on? Where is the Cyclops’ cave?
If you investigated the record, you would find that there was no Medal of Honor winner named Forrest Gump who was decorated by LBJ, no one named Forrest Gump ever met JFK at the White House, etc. Anyway, Forrest Gump was written as fiction and the author never made any pretense that it was otherwise.
One thing to focus on would be to prove whether Peter, Paul, and other apostles existed and whether they were killed for their claims of being with a resurrected Jesus. Unlike subsequent people who willfully went to their deaths for their faith, they went to their deaths for claims that they personally witnessed. At their deaths, each were separated from each other by hundreds of miles and could have easily saved themselves without the others knowing.
It’s unlikely that people would willfully die for something they know is not true.
Prove their existence and the manner of their deaths and you prove the resurrection.
Well, not Paul (Roman citizen Saul Paulus, from the town of Tarsus). He was not among the twelve apostles. One thing that would be fascinating is to resolve the questions about the census that Luke reported was ongoing when Christ was supposedly born (and, especially, if the records indicated that/when Joseph was in Bethlehem, especially if the records indicated “dependents” in some manner). Or if someone were to locate the punishment records from the governorship of Pontius Pilatus, fifth governor of Judea).
There are indeed questions about Luke’s census reference, but it is far from clear that the answers would require the conclusion that Luke got it wrong and therefore the Bible is not inerrant. For those interested in pursuing these questions, I suggest reading this excellent analysis by Ryan Leasure: https://crossexamined.org/was-luke-wrong-about-the-census/
Good.
It’s the things the Lefties fear that they try to suppress. Letting people know the truth is the first step to putting an end to their lies.
@Andrew Mark Gee:It’s unlikely that people would willfully die for something they know is not true.
Not every Christian would accept this in the case of Joseph Smith.
Prove their existence and the manner of their deaths and you prove the resurrection.
At most you proved they believed it. But here’s another historical example that I don’t think you would believe, it’s from the year 1660:
“I went out to Charing Cross, to see Major-General Harrison hanged, drawn, and quartered; which was done there, he looking as cheerful as any man could do in that condition. He was presently cut down, and his head and heart shown to the people, at which there was great shouts of joy. It is said, that he said that he was sure to come shortly at the right hand of Christ to judge them that now had judged him; and that his wife do expect his coming again.
Thomas Harrison was not a man to die for what he didn’t believe to be true, but almost all of us reading here would not believe it merely because he died for it. On the contrary most of us here would say he was gravely mistaken, though no doubt sincere.
For some reason, the comment I left yesterday never appeared, so I’ll try to reproduce its two main points from memory.
First, the authors you cite are not acknowledging that the man we have come to know as Jesus Christ existed, let alone that he was capable of raising himself from the dead. Lucian didn’t see Christ crucified. The are describing the intense beliefs of others. If the authorities you list believed what those others sad, they’d have converted to Christianity, too. And the intensity of that belief – yes, some were willing to die horribly for it – is weak evidence of Christ’s existence, let alone his divinity. Nineteen affluent men were willing to die for their religious beliefs about twenty years ago, but that does not constitute a scintilla of evidence that the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammed – at least not to me. What do you make of it?
In your Instapundit link to this post, you ask rhetorically why one should believe that Socrates, Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar existed if one doesn’t believe in Christ. Well, Socrates is a bad example, since one does not have to believe he existed to derive value from Socratic ideas. Nor do you have to believe that, about thirty-six hours apparently dying from his consumption of hemlock, he got back up, hung out with Plato and some other buddies for a few weeks, and then, one day, self-levitated up to the sky, disappearing from view. Same for Alexander and Caesar. We are not asked to believe that they walked on water or turned it into wine. But you need those miracles for your Jesus. I don’t know if a rabbi who has come to be known as the Christ ever actually lived. Maybe he did. But if he did, he was obviously an eccentric rabbi who gained a large following, and around whom fantastic legends grew – or so one would conclude unless one’s mind were overwhelmed with religious fervor.
Jim, I just went back through all of the comments that have been submitted for this post and I don’t see any from you. I generally post every comment that comes in, regardless whether the author agrees or disagrees, unless it includes libelous or defamatory statements, personal attacks or insults on or about others, or profanity.
As for the substance of your comment, the issue raised by this post is simple: Did the historical Jesus exist or not. The issue is not whether he walked on water or was resurrected. Plain and simple.
I didn’t suspect you of censorship! You’re an honest man.
P.S. In that case, I’ll point out that I think it slightly more likely than not that the stories set forth in the Gospels are based on a person who actually lived roughly a century before they were written. I took your second paragraph as an implicit acknowledgement that the historical existence of the person and all of “the magic stuff” were inextricably intertwined. Otherwise, this website has no raison d’être. Or so it would appear to me.