The Jesus Moot Theory

[DeistPaladin]

I guess the options that I can think of are:

1. Jesus is totally a myth.
2. Some guy was around 2000 years ago, did some preaching and had some followers, but was pretty unremarkable.
3. Someone, possibly called Jesus, who did some preaching and attempted say to heal people. Some of the stories are true to some extent, with a lot of embelishment.
4. Everything in the bible about Jesus is true.
5. Somewhere else between 1 and 4.

Does anyone who is well read on this know what is thought to be the most likely? Also from what I understand there were active historians in the area at the right time who completely failed to notice all this going on. Is this true?

I'd say between 1 and 2. I can't prove 1 since I can't prove a negative. I can only prove the dearth of non-Christian testimony shows that he was, at best, an unremarkable also-ran, only later deified by future generations and the real story buried hopelessly under myths.

And yes, it is true. Philo would have been a great historian to have noticed Jesus. He wrote extensively about Jewish theology, including the Logos (or "Word") which likely was one of the early versions of the same Logos mentioned in the intro of the Gospel of John ("In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was made flesh"). Jesus, if he were anything like the Gospel character, should have fascinated Philo. Of course, a historist will quickly cry "argument from silence". This is the hazard of trying to argue for a negative.

The Jewish leaders themselves didn't seem to notice Christianity until later centuries. The only mention a "Yeshua" has is a 4th century entry into The Talmud. This Yeshua was tried for 40 days. Not a similar story and there's no reference as to when it happened.

Odd that the Jews didn't seem to notice the religious upheaval that Jesus caused until later centuries but again, the historist will cry "argument from silence".

Seutonius mentions a "Chrestus" in Rome stirring up the Jews in Rome during the reign of Claudius (circa 50 CE). "Chrestus" means "the good one", not "the anointed one". Also, wrong time and wrong place. Historists sometimes argue that "Chrestus" was a misspelling and the time and place are references to Jesus' influence. Seems like grasping at straws to me but here I am arguing for a negative again.

Josephus speaks quite a bit about the ministry of John the Baptist. He had a huge following at the time. Odd thing, no mention of JtB putting himself down and telling everyone he was just a forerunner. Funny that, huh? What's that? Oh, right, "argument from silence".

Josephus does mention a "Yeshua" in his "Jamesian reference". However, Christians and historists don't quote the whole passage that specifies it's "Jesus Bar Damneus", or Jesus Son-of-Damneus, not Jesus-son-of-Joseph.

The most powerful piece of evidence, and see my back-handed compliment for what it is, are the 2nd century Annals of Tacitus. In this oblique and late passage, Tacitus wrote something along the lines of,

"Christians get their name from 'Christos', who was crucified by one of our Procurators, Pilate".

I'm paraphrasing since I may not be remembering the exact quote but I do remember the only two details are:

1. "Christos" and
2. "crucified by Pilate"

Now, odd thing, Pilate was a Prefect, not a Procurator, a term only used in later times for Roman governors. Historists and Christians will quickly snap "oh picky, picky, picky" at this point.

Also, the passage is so oblique, there is the possibility that Tacitus was only passing along what he'd heard from the Christians. After all, Pilate crucified a lot of Jewish leaders so it may have been a mundane enough claim to not warrant any fact checking. But historists and Christians will retort that I can't prove that assertion, that it's merely plausible.

So there you have it. The total arsenal of non-Christian testimony is:

• A reference to Chrestus in Rome by Seutonius
  
• A refernece to Jesus Son of Damneus by Josephus
  
• A 2nd Century Oblique Reference by Tacitus
  
• A 4th Century Jewish Reference to "a" Yeshua
  

...and you can see my argument for The Jesus Moot.