The Historical Christ

[LEDO]

Fair enough. I will refrain from using Biblical sources as anything more than back-up (e.g. Circumstantial evidence).

First off I would like to say that I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick when it comes to the wittings of Josephus. Yes many scholars agree that 'At about this lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one might call him a man...' was a latter tampering with the text by Christian copyists-the operative word being 'tampering'. There is no evidence that I can find which suggests that this passage was complete invention. In fact it is far more likely to be Christians changing an existing passage which does not agree with their world view.

Why is this more likely? Well latter on in the text, Josephus says 'James the brother of Jesus, called the Christ'. We know that this (and other passages) is probably not the work of Christian copyists because it questions Christ's Messiahship. As you said yourself, no-one promotes like a Christian hence it is extremely unlikely that pro-Christians doctored this type of passage. That Josephus questions Jesus' divinity rather than his existence suggests that he had access to earlier sources which have since been lost.

If there was any remaining doubt that Josephus wrote about Jesus as an historical figure, then please welcome Origen. He wrote in a time when Christianity was yet to be institutionalized and hence pre-dates Christian copyists (all the manuscripts were written by slaves at the time-very few of which would have been pro-Christian). He complains about Josephus' attempt to discredit Christ by arguing against his Messiahship. Clearly the latter Christian monks doctored the book, but changed the words of an existing passage rather than invented a new one.

Now that Josephus is taken care off, I can move on to the Mishnah, Baraitha and Tosefta. These are Jewish works from around the first and second centuries AD, and make reference to Jesus (although the Mishnah does not mention him by name) several times. Any threat of them being doctored by Christians is throwen out the window if you read the passages. They paint Christians and Christ in a less that favorable light (again an unlikely characteristic of a Catholic monk), but clearly confirm his existence. The fact that they are written for use by Jews further aids their authenticity as they tended to be ignored by Christian scholars, so Jews did most of the copying. These Jewish Rabbi-so strongly anti-Christian-are unlikely to doctor a document in favour of Christianity.

One of the biggest problems with the myth senario is brought up by the critics of Christianity. If there had been even a small chance that Jesus was not real, they would have jumped upon it. As it stands all the critics of antiquity question that Christ was sent by God, not his existence. This suggests (as it does in Josephus' work) that, when they were writing, his existence was undeniable. The burning of anti-Nicene documents after Constantine means that this evidence for his existence has since vanished, but, in the works mentioned, it leaves a deep trace.

However, the last nail in the coffin for the myth theory is the disciples themselves. Chatpilot, you said yourself that the disciples where real historical figures, and yet they said that they saw Jesus, the real man. You are left with two choices: they are lying or Christ existed. Which will it be?

Is this enough secular evidence or should I continue?

I would say there were no writings of Josephus making a reference to Jesus. While his work was known, no early church father cited the passage. Most likely it was added after it was realized there was no reference to Jesus and there needed to be one.

I would also say Jewish references to Jesus were written to slur an "existing" fictional Jesus believed to have existed.