DOES INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE SHOW DOHERTY IS WRONG TO SAY JESUS DID NOT EXIST?
Jesus Neither God or Man The Case for a Mythical Christ by Earl Doherty is an
interesting read. It says the original Jesus was a myth figure not a
historical one. Christians try to attack that view by saying there is
evidence that this man lived.
What about what purports to be independent testimony about Jesus? What about
Tacitus who said Pilate nailed Christ?
Doherty is right to say that the bit where Tacitus insults Rome by saying it is
where all hideous movements and ideas in the world make their centre is an
interference. Tacitus would not demean Rome like that. And Jerusalem was the
centre of Christianity then. It sounds like an attempt to make Rome the head
centre of the Church which happened some time later. So how reliable is our
text? We do not know if we can trust it about Christ who incidentally is not
said to be Jesus.
Doherty asks why a forger of the testimony of Josephus to Jesus put it where it
is instead of naturally after the bit where he wrote about John the Baptist?
That could imply the gospels which inseparably linked the two are lying. Doherty
shows that Eusebius wrote that the testimony was positioned where Josephus wrote
about Pilate. That is in book 18 but before the John material. It is not there
now! It is suspect if the testimony was moving around. What else was going on?
Josephus in the current text mentions James the brother of Jesus the so-called
Christ. Here is the James text. 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 - Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 20.
The logic is that if Jesus had any chance of being Messiah then James would be
in line to the throne and would have had feared royal blood. What if the names
have been swapped? What if originally it was, "he assembled the sanhedrin of
judges, and brought before them the brother of James, who was called Christ,
whose name was Jesus"? Why is James not considered a Christ or potential
claimant? Josephus sounds definite that those people had no royal blood. Jesus
was a common name and if James's parents married twice there could have been
more than one Jesus in the family.
Doherty points out that Justin Martyr told Trypho that the Jews have ordained
ministers to go everywhere saying Jesus was a Galilean sham whose disciples
stole him from his grave to pretend that he rose from the dead and is now in
Heaven. The idea that they went to all that effort when there is so much silence
about Jesus is insane. Justin is lying. Why? It sounds like a boast in a way. It
is making Jesus out to be so important that the Jewish religion just turned into
a debunking industry over him!
Trypho accused the Christians of saying Jesus was crucified and ascended
(Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 29). So he was saying it was just their word one
had to take for the crucifixion.
Doherty refers to Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full
moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth —
manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an
earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a
perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded
for a long period. But it was a darkness induced by God, because the Lord
happened then to suffer. And calculation makes out that the period of 70 weeks,
as noted in Daniel, is completed at this time."
There had to be tombs that were opened thanks to earthquakes getting the stones
to come free and break. It was easy to invent a tomb story for Jesus when that
was the inspiration. His tomb was supposedly found with the stone rolled away.
I just wish to stress how it mentions rocks begin torn apart and says that the
earthquake was universal. It is a miracle if this happened and nobody has
recorded it or mentioned it apart from one or two.
Doherty quotes the Toledoth to argue that the Jesus story is legend and so the
gospels are legend too. They diverge from the gospels hugely. I would remark
that if the Jews were not consulting the gospels to get the facts right or
half-right then that shows how sure they were that they were insignificant
nonsense. Maybe the Jews knew best?
I wish to quote the Toledoth.
"Then, taking him out to the place of punishment they stoned him to death. Then
the wise men commanded him to be hung on a tree, but no tree was found that
could support him, for all, being frail, were broken. His disciples seeing this,
wailed and cried out, Behold the goodness of our Master Yeshu, whom no tree will
sustain. But they knew not that he had enchanted all wood when he was in
possession of the name. But he knew that he would surely suffer the penalty of
hanging, as it is written, When any man shall be judged to death for an offense
and shall be put to death, then you shall hang him. Then Judas, when he saw that
no wood would hold him up, said to the wise men, Behold the subtlety of this
fellow, for he has enchanted the wood that it might not sustain him. But there
is in my garden a great stem of a cabbage [carob tree?]; I will go and bring it
here; perhaps it will hold the body. To whom the wise men said, Go and do so. So
Judas went at once and brought the stalk, and on it Yeshu was hanged. Toward
night the wise men said, It is lawful for us to break one letter of the divine
law in regard to this fellow; we must do to him what the law demands, even
though he did seduce men. Therefore, they buried him where he was stoned.
MY COMMENT: This is clearly Jesus Christ. Remember how the Jews were asking for
trouble by saying they hanged Jesus. That shows how convinced they were that
they had. That would refute the crucifixion. For all we know, Jesus could have
been removed from the tree dead and then crucified by some one trying to make a
spectacle of him. All they had to do was nail him to something. It didn't have
to be an official crucifixion as the Romans would have engaged in.
Now about the middle of the night his disciples came and sat down by the grave
under the brook. Judas, seeing this, took away the body and hid it in his garden
under a brook. Diverting the water elsewhere, he buried the body in the channel
and then brought the water back. On the morrow, when the disciples came again
and sat down to weep, Judas said to them, Why do you weep? Look and see if the
buried man is there. And when they looked and found he was not there, the
miserable crowd cried out, He is not in the grave but has ascended to heaven.
For he foretold this himself when alive, and as if concerning himself the saying
was interpreted, But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave; for he
shall receive me; Selah.
MY COMMENT: Jesus's body was removed by Judas and thrown into a river? Judas was
indeed probably alive when Jesus was buried.
Meanwhile, the Queen, finding out what had been done, commanded the wise men of
Israel to appear; and when they came she said to them, What have you done with
this man who you have accused of being a sorcerer and a seducer of men? They
answered, We have buried him according to the requirement of our law. Then she
said, Bring him here to me. And they went and sought for him in the grave, but
did not find him. Then returning to the Queen, they said, We know not who has
taken him from the grave. The queen answered and said, He is the Son of God and
has ascended to his Father in heaven; for thus it is prophesized for him, For he
shall receive me; Selah. Then the wise men said, Do not allow these thoughts
into your mind, for surely he was a sorcerer; and they gave proof by their own
testimony that he was a bastard and the son of an adulteress. The Queen replied,
Why do I exchange words with you in vain? For if you bring him here, you shall
be found innocent, but if not, none of you will survive. They all responded in
these words: Give us time that we can determine the outcome of this affair.
Perhaps we may find him there, but if we do not succeed, do unto us whatever
pleases you. She allowed them three days time, and they departed, grieved at
heart, lamenting, and not knowing what to do.
Therefore they ordered a fast, and when the appointed time came and they had not
found the body, many left Jerusalem to escape the sight of the Queen. Among the
rest went a certain old man named Rabbi Tanchuma. He in great sorrow, wandering
the fields, saw Judas sitting in his own garden, eating. Coming up to him, Rabbi
Tanchuma said, How is this? Why do you take food when all the Jews fast and are
in sore distress? Judas, greatly astounded, inquired why they fasted. Rabbi
Tanchuma replied, It is because of the bastard who has been hung and buried near
the place of stoning; he has been taken away from the grave, and none of us know
who has taken him. But his worthless disciples declare that he has gone up to
heaven, and the Queen threatened all of us Israelites with death unless we find
him. Then Judas asked, If this fellow shall be found, will it bring safety to
the Israelites? Rabbi Tanchuma said, Indeed it will. Then said Judas, Come, and
I will show you the man, for I took him away from the grave because I feared
that perhaps the impious followers might steal him from the tomb, and I hid him
in my garden, and made the brook run over him. Then Rabbi Tanchuma hastened to
the wise men of Israel and related the matter.
Therefore they all assembled, and tying the body to a horse's tail, brought it
and threw it down before the Queen, saying, Behold the man of whom you have
said, He has gone up to heaven. When the Queen saw him, she was overwhelmed with
shame and unable to speak. Moreover, while the body was dragged about for some
time, the hair of the head was pulled out. And this is the reason why now the
hair of a monk is shaved off in the middle of the head; it is done in
remembrance of what happened to Yeshu.
MY COMMENT: Like Magalene, if the Jews had any sense they would simply just say
that they don't know who stole the body. They would not really be blaming his
disciples.
Ben Stada was hanged according to Jewish lore and he seems to be Jesus. This
could fit the crucifixion claim for the Romans did sometimes crucify dead bodies
as an example or spectacle. Crucifixion was about show and fear-mongering more
than execution.
It has been suspected long ago that Jesus was involved in terrorism and this has
been covered up. It explains why he was executed as a terrorist. Doherty quotes
Severus. It is a pity Doherty didn't point out Severus' implication that
Christians and Jews were engaging in terrorism. Regarding the destruction of the
Temple in the first century, "The number of those who suffered death is related
to have been eleven hundred thousand, and one hundred thousand were taken
captive and sold. Titus is said, after calling a council, to have first
deliberated whether he should destroy the temple, a structure of such
extraordinary work. For it seemed good to some that a sacred edifice,
distinguished above all human achievements, ought not to be destroyed, inasmuch
as, if preserved, it would furnish an evidence of Roman moderation, but, if
destroyed, would serve for a perpetual proof of Roman cruelty. But on the
opposite side, others and Titus himself thought that the temple ought specially
to be overthrown, in order that the religion of the Jews and of the Christians
might more thoroughly be subverted; for that these religions, although contrary
to each other, had nevertheless proceeded from the same authors; that the
Christians had sprung up from among the Jews; and that, if the root were
extirpated, the offshoot would speedily perish. Thus, according to the divine
will, the minds of all being inflamed, the temple was destroyed, three hundred
and thirty-one years ago. And this last overthrow of the temple, and final
captivity of the Jews, by which, being exiles from their native land, they are
beheld scattered through the whole world, furnish a daily demonstration to the
world, that they have been punished on no other account than for the impious
hands which they laid upon Christ."
Doherty mentions how Christians was so unknown as a term that writers were using
Chrestians at the time when there should have been a reasonable number around.
Doherty tries to turn the gospels into midrash - symbolic tales not to be taken
as history but which copy and use Old Testament plots - but they don't claim to
be midrash and plus the constant use of words meaning reliable oral tradition
and claimed testimony from witnesses proves they are not. They are lies pure and
simple. The gospels do borrow from the Old Testament but not in a midrash way.
Joseph Smith stole Bible plots for the Book of Mormon and the same thing
happened here.
The notion of the gospels being midrash is apparently compatible with them
being history. Midrash would only refer to the history being written in a
certain way - a preaching way full of rich learning opportunities.