For additional reading, check out Jesus Interrupted, by Bart Ehrman.

It has been some time since I last wrote, and I apologize for that.  Some have asked me if I was reconsidering my views; I am not.  At any rate it would be necessary for god to completely alter history and create new sources to corroborate the events of 2000 years ago for me to believe in Christ again, as well as provide a reality-based theological origin for original sin, since assuming there is no original sin precludes the need for the sacrifice of Christ.  Today I want to examine the evidence for Christ from extrabiblical sources.  Often, apologists attest to the passing mention of a “Christus” or “Yeshua” outside of the gospels by several scholars, but these descriptions are often one-sided.  To their detriment, I chose to read the other side of the story about these writings and realize the utter uselessness of their testimony when verifying the claims about the divinity of Christ posed in the gospels.  I now judge the merit of essays or writings of apologists based on the author’s integrity in reporting the weakness of the testimony, and if they don’t mention these I don’t dare trust what they might say.

At this point, I must make an analogy to help you understand what I believe is true about Jesus.  Saint Nicholas, who lived in the late second century, was a real person.  There are multiple separate attestations of his existence and he was most probably a giving person, who distributed wealth anonymously.  However, whenever someone is perceived as “larger than life,” mythology and imagination have an opportunity to overtake the human mind.  The mythology surrounding Nicholas was already in the realm of fantastical before his life was even over, and the legend of Santa Claus was born out of that.  Parents routinely lie to their children (in the same way that the mythology of God is propagated) about the mythical nature of this real man.  All that to say, I believe there may have been an individual named Yeshua that was a teaching prophet around the time of 0f 0 A.D. (C.E.; doesn’t matter).  I do, however, disbelieve that he was born of a virgin, believed he was the son of god, cured people of blindness through spitting in their faces, fed tens of thousands of people (hundreds by many reconings), or resurrected from the dead.  I say this because I think that things which attest to the human Jesus and not to the divine Jesus help to show the mythology surrounding this man.

The Talmud

The first source for extrabiblical proof of Jesus I want to examine is the Talmud, a collection of Jewish history and writings from Rabbis and Scribes.  It provides a wealth of knowledge about the Jewish tradition and records.  First it is interesting to note that much of Jesus’ purported teaching is directly from the Talmud, and is not at all contrary to the Pharasees’ teachings at the time.

In the writings of the Talmud, there are as many as 5 references to different Yeshuas, scattered throughout the centuries.  Sanhedrin 43a refers to a Sorcerer with 5 disciples that enticed jews to apostasy, and his disciples were killed.  In another iteration of this manuscript, the hanging of Yeshua (called Ben-Stada) on the eve of passover was added (Florence manuscript 1177 CE).  This reference is most commonly used to be proof of Jesus, but this raises multiple questions.  Why was this Yeshua hanged, and not Crucified? Why were only 5 disciples listed, when the gospels clearly attest to 12 disciples? Why is he called a sorcerer, and not a heretic?  The Jewish community was reasonably incensed throughout the gospels, but such acts of blasphemy would have been recorded correctly, rather than as a sorcerer.  Furthermore, the gospels attest to the crucifixion on the day of passover, and not on the eve (Last Supper).  Well, of course, that is ignoring John, who says (19:14) the crucifixion took place on the day of preparation of the passover.  At any rate Crucifixion is not hanging, so I put this account of the talmud up as proof of a possible historical Yeshua that made no claims of divinity, was not crucified, did not resurrect, and was otherwise unimportant.

Josephus

One of the biggest go-to’s of the Christian apologist is Josephus. Josephus was a Hellenistic Jew born in 37 AD who became a very good military tactician. He fought for the Jews in the first Jewish Roman war, from 66-73 AD. After the Jews lost, he was recruited as a general for the Romans, and subsequently fought against the Jews for the roman army. This action created an immense hatred for him within Jewish circles.

After his military career, he set out to write an accounting of the Jewish history for a largely Roman audience. To that end, he has extensive commentary and provides historical corroboration for many events alluded to in the bible, as well as the Talmud. For example, Josephus’ writings are what helped identify the discrepancy in the gospels of Jesus’ birth year because of the nonparallel existence of Herod the Great and Quirinius. Here, however, we are talking about Jesus. There are two references to Jesus in Josephus’ writings. The Testimonium Flavium, named because of its significance as a ‘contemporary jewish source’ reads:

Antiquities 18:3:3
At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if a man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men and they joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the messiah. And our leaders denounced him. When Pilate caused him to be crucified, those who loved him before did not deny him. For he appeared to them after having risen from death on the third day. The holy prophets had, moreover, predicted of him these and many other wonders. The race of Christians takes its name from him, and still exists at the present time.

You would be hard pressed to find a modern scholar not willing to admit that the italicized portions were not added after the fact.  It is nearly unanimous, in a way that many things are not, that the italicized portions were added after the fact.  Some scholars go as far as to believe that the entire section is spurious.  Another argument for a completely spurious insertion is based on the fact that the following paragraph only makes sense if the entire 3rd paragraph is removed (referring to ‘another sad calamity’).  This is evident from the text, and very little of the language follows josephus’ normal writing.  He was a Jew, to be sure, and reveals no information in any of his writing that he was a Christian of any sort.  I personally think he may have made passing mention of a character, but that a majority of the text was not made by him.  At any rate this passage proves nothing more than the mythological nature of Jesus, where zealous copyists are willing to lie to propagate an untruth.

The other passage is much shorter in its mention of Jesus, and it is mainly about a James’ execution (I say a James because it is unclear if this is the James the brother of Jesus or just another James).  From Antiquities 20:9

1. 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, (23) 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 [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; 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 [Agrippa], 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 sanhedrim without his consent. (24) 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.

This James’ execution differs from the execution mentioned by the historian Hegesippus.  Apologists cannot have it both ways.  The emphasis of the story is not on James or Jesus, but on Ananus the crazy high priest.  The portion referring to james as the ‘brother of christ’ makes no sense in the passage, in light of the passing mention of both James and Jesus.   One piece of evidence for interpolation is the fact that in the original Greek, Josephus used the phrase “whose name is James” to indicate that there were no other indicative facts of which James it may be.  He uses this language often elsewhere when he seeks to provide no additional details.  The passage itself is written with the same text as that of the gospels, and in light of the previous interpolation, most likely a Christian addition.

In my opinion, the forgery of such mentions of Jesus does more to allude to the mythological nature of Christ than his historicity.  The talmud barely mentions him, and there is very little detail that lines up with the Jesus of the Gospels.  One of the big steps of my deconversion was the re-examination of these facts; There is very meager extrabiblical evidence for the mythological jesus (one that raised from the dead), and certainly not enough evidence to stake your entire life on.  Josh McDowell makes no mention of the spurious nature of the Josephus passages, and to his detriment.  I feel that sometimes the historicity of Jesus is often based on a lie, or at least a lack of honesty about the true nature of these passages.  I have no reason to trust a god that must rely on falsification of documents for proof of his existence.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and god shows a distinct lack of ability in the evidence department.