I so much enjoyed writing
the first go round at discussing some of the claims of
Zeitgeist, the Movie that I decided to have a second go at it on another point, probably the most important point the movie attempts to make: the historical existence of Jesus Christ. The reasons I want to discuss this portion of the movie in particular are: 1. because of the fallacious way that the topic is presented in the movie; 2. because I haven't seen a truly full response to the movie on this point; and 3. because it's probably the most important point in addressing the claims of the movie.
Here's the quote from the
movie's transcript:
Furthermore, is there any non-Biblical historical evidence of any person, living with the name Jesus, the Son of Mary, who traveled about with 12 followers, healing people and the like? There are numerous historians who lived in and around the Mediterranean either during or soon after the assumed life of Jesus. How many of these historians document this figure? Not one. However, to be fair, that doesn't mean defenders of the Historical Jesus haven't claimed the contrary. Four historians are typically referenced to justify Jesus's existence. Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Tacitus and the first three. Each one of their entries consists of only a few sentences at best and only refer to the Christus or the Christ, which in fact is not name but a title. It means the "Anointed one." The fourth source is Josephus and this source has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years. Sadly, it is still cited as truth.
You would think that a guy who rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven for all eyes to see and performed the wealth of miracles acclaimed to him would have made it into the historical record. It didn't because once the evidence is weighed, there are very high odds that the figure known as Jesus, did not even exist.
The first problem here is Peter Joseph's demand for "non-Biblical historical evidence." Perhaps he forgets that much of the Bible records history and that it is often
used as a guide by archaeologists doing excavations in the Holy Land. Another issue with this statement is related to another claim in the movie: "The reality is, Jesus was the Solar Deity of the Gnostic Christian sect ..." I'm assuming, then, that he trusts in the veracity of the Gnostic Christian texts.
There's a serious problem with trusting the Gnostic texts over the Biblical ones, though. Imagine you live three hundred years from now. You have two possible texts about my life which greatly contradict each other and both claim to be the truth about me. Which do you choose to believe: the one which was written within a generation or less of my death by somebody who knew me or at least someone who knew someone who knew me
or do you trust a text written by somebody who didn't like the people who did know me and written an hundred or more years after my death? The answer should be obvious. And that's exactly the situation we're faced with. Here are the canonical Gospels and some of the more popular Gnostic Gospels in chronological order by date composed, as accepted by a majority of scholars (interestingly, the claims of the Gnostic Gospels concerning Christ seem to get farther and farther from the Christ of Scripture as they get farther and farther away in time):
The fact is, the writings contained in the New Testament are the earliest of Christian writings.
Perhaps this is why they made it into the Bible? Saying "prove Jesus exists but don't use any of the texts about him that are closest to the time he existed and written by people he knew" is just as illogical as telling me to swim across a river without using my hands and feet. But swim I shall.
Something that may not have occurred to Peter Joseph is that there may be good reason why all of the earliest texts about Christ, and all of them that are written by people who actually knew or saw him, are written by Christians. Who would possibly write "Jesus 'rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven for all eyes to see and performed [a] wealth of miracles' but I don't believe in him." If you witnessed somebody rise from the dead, ascend into heaven, and perform miracles, it only makes sense that you would become one of his followers when he calls you.
With all that said, there are still more problems with Peter Joseph's statements concerning a historical Christ. As he recites the words of the quote at the top of this post, the quotes from Pliny, Suetonius, and Tacitus which he is speaking about briefly appear on the screen for a few seconds, not nearly long enough to read even the first line of one of them. He doesn't feature the quotes on
Zeitgeist's website either, or tell us where the quotes are at so we can look at them ourselves. Seems a little fishy, doesn't it? He dismisses them all outright because they speak of "Christ" and not "Jesus." But certainly we can look at them in context and see who it is they're really referring to? Are we supposed to just accept
his word for it? Let's actually examine the quotes. First, let's look at
Pliny the Younger's (ca. 61 - 113) mention of Christ:
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
I'll admit, this is no historical evidence of Christ, but not because it isn't talking about Jesus Christ (it very clearly is and this is even more obvious if you read
the entire letter from which it's taken). The reason this is not historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is that it is talking about persecutions against Christians, not Jesus Christ himself. The letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan is very interesting in a lot of ways (for instance, it contains the earliest written account of the Christian ways of worship) but it is not proof of a historical Jesus.
Now let's see what
Suetonius (ca 69 - 140) has to say:
As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Emperor Claudius] expelled them from Rome.
Scholars' issues with this verse stem from Suetonius' use of the word "Chrestus," rather than the more correct "Christus." "Chrestus," meaning "useful," was also a common name for Roman slaves during this time period. However, the spelling "Chrestus" is used several times throughout later Latin writings to refer to Christ. There are two sides to this coin and nobody really knows for sure. Interestingly, the
Jewish Encyclopedia links the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius to the arrival in Rome of the Apostle Paul. Perhaps it was the "Chrestus" that he preached which caused all of these problems? We'll never know for sure. Either way, this verse also is not historical evidence of Christ. At most, it shows a persecution of Jewish Christians in Rome under Emperor Claudius.
Finally, let's look at
Tacitus (ca. 56 - 117):
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Nearly all scholars agree to the authenticity of this verse's authorship; that is, that it was written by Tacitus and is not a later interpolation. The most obvious reason for this is the contents of the text itself, which is rather derisive of Christianity and implies that the Christians may have been responsible for the fire in Rome. It's hard to believe that a later Christian copyist would insert such a passage. It has been theorized by some that Tacitus may have made reference to the official documents relating to Pontius Pilate and the trial of Christ, however, this is unlikely, as these documents were
probably destroyed by the very fire which Tacitus is writing about. More likely, Tacitus is simply putting to paper what he had heard from Christians. This passage, like both of those above, is interesting (not to mention, humbling) as an account of the persecutions which early Christians faced, but is not historical evidence for Christ.
Now we come to
Josephus (ca 37 -100). Being a first century Jew from Palestine, Josephus is closer to Christ both chronologically and geographically than any of the historians above; if anybody would be writing about the historical Christ it would be Josephus, right? Well, this is what Peter Joseph has to say about this passage: "The fourth source is Josephus and this source has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years. Sadly, it is still cited as truth."
But not so fast! Let's look at the quote, first:
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 receive 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.
Peter Joseph is right, scholars almost universally regard this verse as a later insertion to the text, possibly by Eusebius of Caesarea. And it is rightly regarded as a fake; the statement that "he was the Christ" alone is enough to prove that. Josephus was a Jew until the day he died and a statement like that is obviously a confession of faith for a Christian.
But is this really case closed? No. In 1971, Jewish philosophy professor
Shlomo Pines published an English translation of a tenth century manuscript containing an Arabic version of the writing of Tacitus which contains this passage. In the Arabic version the passage is much more neutral and in line with what a faithful Jew would report:
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 the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonder.
The translator and copyist of the passage,
Agapius, cited as his source an earlier Syriac version by
Theophilus of Edessa.
Michael the Syrian also cites a no longer extant Syriac version of Tacitus' writings in his
World Chronicle, giving further credence to the claim.
Alice Whealey has since pointed out that the version which Michael cites agrees with the Latin version of
St. Jerome in the crucial point that "He was the Christ" is instead "He was believed to be the Christ," a statement more in line with Josephus' Jewish faith. This agreement between a Latin and a Syriac version is important because after
the schism that resulted due to the
Council of Chalcedon there was is no interplay between Syriac and Latin texts throughout antiquity. In other words, the exact same phrase is used in two texts which could have in no way been associated with each other. The passage from Josephus as we have it today may not be exactly as Josephus wrote it, but there was almost certainly a reference to Jesus Christ in this text.
Also, this is not the only passage referring to Jesus to be found in the writings of Josephus. Peter Joseph fails altogether to mention another passage from Josephus, from
Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter 9, this one uncontested and accepted in full by nearly all scholars. For your reading pleasure (with the portion mentioning Christ
emphasized):
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
I can see why Peter Joseph would not want to mention this passage. It is damning to his cause, to say the least. Josephus, having been born in the year 37 and lived in Jerusalem until its
destruction in the year 70, could have been a firsthand witness to the martyrdom of
St. James the Just in 62, which he describes in this passage. Whether he was a firsthand witness or not, he recorded it faithfully and gave us undeniable historical evidence of Christ. Also note that the name of the Jewish high priest in this passage, Ananus, agrees with Scripture (Acts 23:2).
Joseph, as I mentioned earlier, was a first century Jew from Palestine. Being born in 37 AD and raised in Jerusalem, Christ would have been a historical contemporary of his parents and, in fact, anybody around him of his parents' and grandparents' generations. And he never once casts doubt upon the historicity of Christ.
As we have seen, Peter Joseph not only hides an undisputed passage by Josephus and mischaracterizes another passage from Josephus, he also issues an unwarranted dismissal of the other three passages, two of which certainly refer to Jesus Christ (or, at least, his followers, the Christians) and one of which very probably does.
But is this the only evidence? No, and this is where Peter Joseph again misleads his audience. He conveniently fails to mention several very clear references to Christ in extra-Biblical writings. And here they are (in no particular order):
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a (a Jewish rabbinical writing, dating circa 120): On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.
Later in the same passage, there is also a mention of the execution of five of Yeshu's disciples shortly after the execution of their master. Note also that "hanged" here refers to being "hanged" on a cross, not with a rope as the common terminology today has it.
Julius Africanus, writing about the Crucifixion, cites a no longer extant work (ca 152) by Thallus (a non-Christian, probably Jewish, historian of the mid-second century): On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.
Lucian of Samasota wrote ca 150: The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was cruficied on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.
St. Quadratus of Athens wrote circa 120 that he had met people who had been healed and even raised from the dead by Christ: The words of our Savior were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who rose from the dead, those who were not only seen in the act of being healed or raised, but were also always present, not merely when the Savior was living on earth, but also for a considerable time after his departure, so that some of them survived even to our own times.
St. Papias also records circa 90 speaking with people who knew Christ, including the Apostle John: …if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders — that is, what according to the elders Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, referring to St. Clement of Rome, wrote in his Against Heresies (ca 180): "He had seen the apostles and associated with them, and still had their preaching sounding in his ears and their tradition before his eyes — and not he alone, for there were many still left in his time who had been taught by the apostles."
St. Matthetes wrote in a letter to Diognetes (ca 130): "I am not speaking of things that are strange to me...for I have been a disciple of apostles, and now I am becoming a teacher of the Gentiles."
Especially worth noting are the
writings of St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, all of whom had met and spoken with Apostles and other first generation Christians, that is, those who had personally met or known Christ. St. Polycarp had even accompanied the Apostle John for several years. The majority of the writings attributed to them are unchallenged by any scholar as to date and authenticity of authorship. The case against a historical Jesus Christ, as well as the theory of a "
Great Apostasy" which the case against the First Ecumenical Council includes, rests on the assumption of a dearth of firsthand information from early Christianity. These three authors,
along with many others, disprove that assumption. There is a very clear unbroken chain of believers whose writings come down to us today that begins with the New Testament writings of the Apostles. And
they share a
startlingly similar faith and practice throughout, often
even down to
the minutest details.
In addition to those mentioned above, there is also a document, commonly
referred to as the Acts of Pilate, which is, unfortunately, no longer extant, that
St. Justin Martyr writes about in 150. Apparently, it was Pontius Pilate's account to his superiors about what had transpired in Judea (namely, the Crucifixion of Christ and his followers' subsequent claim that he had Resurrected and Ascended). Although we may no longer have the document today, his word that it existed is trustworthy because the letter he mentioned them in was a letter to the Roman Senate, encouraging them to go and look up the Acts in their own archives and read from one of their own about the events surrounding Christ's death! Obviously, he wouldn't do this if he wasn't sure that the document had existed; you can't lie to a man about the furniture he has in his own house.
There is another document, now lost to history, which a majority of scholars believe may have existed as early as the year 30 (which means it may have been written in the same year that Christ was crucified) and no later than the year 60 (still within the lifetime of the majority of eyewitnesses), upon which
St. Mark, in part, based his narrative of the Passion. Scholar
Gerd Theissen makes a compelling argument in favor of its probable existence.
So much for a scarcity of evidence for a historical Jesus Christ! As noted New Testament scholar and theologian
James Dunn has
stated, the belief that there was no historical Jesus is a "thoroughly dead thesis."
Once again, I hope you've enjoyed reading this as much as I have enjoyed researching and writing it.
