It is true that a majority of historians believe in a literal Jesus who lived in Palestine during the 1st century CE. I will not argue that but I do want to point out that this quote by Peter Jennings was cut and inserted here in order to imply something that is rather deceptive: A literal Jesus as mentioned in the Bible really existed. Is this a fact? No, it is not. Historians who believe or accept the belief in a literal Jesus can be sub-divided into many category's. Some believe that he must have existed because of the number of followers a century later; some believe he might have existed because it was such a common name and to say that "Jesus" didn't exist is wordplay; some believe that a Hebrew teacher named Jesus existed but he wasn't as described in the Bible; etc and etc. The point here is this: with the lack of solid facts regarding a literal Jesus any belief system that can be argued with conviction will develop a following. In other words, if someone can sound like they know what they are talking about they will develop a following. I don't have a problem with this until facts are twisted to make points that are incorrect. That is what is happening here. Let me show you.
Peter Jennings: "…. All but the most skeptical historians believed that Jesus was a real person. Even though when you come here you do not find any physical evidence."
Voice over guy: "It's good that Jennings admits that Jesus was a real person."
Hold on a minute!
Is that what he said?
Did Peter Jennings say "I investigated this and discovered that the Jesus of the Bible was a real person"?
NO!
What he said was in essence was that most historians believe in a literal Jesus on some level even though there is no physical evidence.
Fact 1:
Peter Jennings is a reporter and not a historian.
Fact 2:
There is no physical evidence for a literal Jesus as mentioned in the Bible.
Fact 3:
Most historians still accept the idea that he existed on some level.
Fact 4:
Without physical evidence all we can do is look at bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence and speculate our conclusion.
Now most Christians believe that they have a personal relationship with this Jesus and for them that is the only piece of circumstantial evidence that they need. For the rest of us, we want more then a hunch or feeling or Goosebumps on our arms while someone is "Beautiful Savior" on Sunday morning. We want to know if what we are being told in church, Sunday School, Bible School and Seminary is true! I have read, studied and searched for answers on these issues for more then 15 years and I personally no longer believe in a literal Jesus as mentioned in the Bible. I can not be considered a historian and can not be considered a Bible Scholar but I am somewhere in between the two. I am not just a man with a baseless opinion. I know what I am talking about and if you listen and look for facts you will see that I am in no way trying to mislead you.
Back to the video
Voice over guy: "The evidence that Jesus lived in Judea in the 1st Century is overwhelming."
Overwhelming???
Are you sure???
What is this overwhelming evidence?
He then goes on to make the bold assertion that "Jesus was a historical person recorded by Christian, Jewish and pagan historians". He then goes on to mention Tactius, Pliny the Younger and Josephus as his "overwhelming evidence" that the Jesus of the Bible was a historical figure. Lets look at this and decide for ourselves whether or not these men and their writings can be considered "overwhelming evidence" for a literal Jesus.
What can be considered overwhelming?
Is first person testimony overwhelming to you? If I told you that I saw a UFO last night would you believe that UFO's are real because of my testimony? Probably not, although my testimony may cause you to rethink your view on UFO's you will not change your view solely based on my testimony. I guess what I am trying to say is this: first hand testimony is good but on it's own is not enough to prove anything. Study after study has shown that first hand testimony is unreliable and can't be trusted in and of itself.
Is physical evidence overwhelming?
In most cases, Yes it is. If I told you that ancient Egyptians built pyramids you may or not believe me based on my word but you would be forced to accept the evidence of a pyramid still standing in the valley of the kings. Both my testimony of the pyramid and the pyramid itself can be considered evidence yet only the pyramid still standing can be considered "overwhelming".
Remember: during the Salem Witch trials over 150 people were convicted of witchcraft and 20 of those put to death based solely on the testimony of 2 girls. There was no physical evidence of witchcraft only circumstantial evidence like testimony and innuendos.
That being said lets look at the historians mentioned.
Tacitus: In Annuals (cc. 116 CE) Tacitus writes about the fire of Rome in 64CE and Nero's persecution of the Christians. That is the extent of any evidence he brings to the table regarding a literal Jesus. If you look at Tacitus the first thing you will notice is that he was born in 56 CE and wrote about issues that took place prior to his birth. Annuals covers the reign of Augustus to the time of Claudius but should be noted that several of his writings are missing. Now if Tacitus choronicaled the life of Jesus during the life of Jesus, that would be good evidence but he didn't. Christians believe that Jesus died in 29 CE and Tacitus was not yet born. In fact, since Annuals was written in 116 CE and Jesus supposedly died in 29 CE one would have to conclude that any evidence that Tacitus brings to the table is weak at best. All this passage proves to us is that by the time of his writing (116 CE) people in Rome believed that Nero blamed the Christians for the Fire in Rome roughly 50 years prior. This is by no means overwhelming evidence for a literal Jesus. In fact, I have to point out that since NO EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITER quotes Tacitus on this passage one would have to look at the possibility that this passage was forged later by Christian writers in attempt to put evidence where it does not exist.
Pliny the Younger: He was a friend of Tacitus and also born at least 30 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. Pliny the Younger was a lawyer and in his writings to the Emperor Trajan he discusses the fact that he has never been to a trial of a Christian but goes on to attempt to speak on their behalf to prevent further executions based on belief. Again this is not "overwhelming evidence" that a literal Jesus ever existed but only that roughly 70-80 years after the alleged death of Jesus there were people who believed in him (to some degree or another). We will look at the different belief systems that existed during the first, second and third century CE at another time but for now we can not draw false conclusions about the existence of a literal Jesus based on a second century definition of what a Christian was nor can we say that a literal Jesus must have existed because we have a second century writing that uses the term "Christian" in it. At best, both PTY and Tacitus are evidence that people who are now called Christians died at the hands of Nero but even that is debatable since the writings were 50 years after the alleged incident. Evidence but not strong evidence much less overwhelming.
Josephus:
There is so much to discuss here and I really don't want to take the time but I will hit on a couple of points and then in part II discuss a little more. First of all Josephus didn't write a thing until about 70 CE or so and the passages claimed by many Christian Scholars weren't written until around the year 93 CE. These passages have been discussed as forgery's for more then 300 years! We have several reasons to believe that they might be.
A) In one of the passages Josephus himself claims to be a follower of Jesus and this is in direct contradiction to everything that he writes both before and after this passage. Josephus considered all of the Messiah figures to come out of Judea to be troublemakers and no where else does he claim to be a follower of any of these guys. I will go into this in more detail on part II.
B) NO EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITER QUOTES JOSEPHUS ON THIS PASSAGE! It is not until 324 CE that this passage gets quoted and passed off to us as proof in a literal Jesus and that is by Eusebius. So it appears as though this passage didn't exist prior to 324 CE.
C) Whether you read this passage in English or Latin it will be obvious to you that words and phrases where added to the original passage. I can not emphasize this enough: read the passage for yourself and then read before the passage and after it before you try to tell me that it is authentic. I have read it; have you?
I am going to leave it at that for now because I have to go to work but I will try to respond to all comments and also try to post part II within the next week. I will not censor any comments posted on this except those that go purpose to go outside of the framework already listed here. In other words….. stick to the topic or I have the right to remove your comment.
Thanks everyone.
Richard