Transcription
Hey everyone, it's Jarren from Christ Before Jesus. I wanted to not only thank you guys for getting us to 1,000 subscribers and a big shout out to Justin from Deconstruction Zone for having me on his live not too terribly long ago and that really helped kind of boost some traction over there at YouTube. That's awesome. So thank you so so much. One of my friends on Discord had actually reached out to me and said, "Hey, could you do a response video to this particular video?" And they sent it to me and said it maybe it could be something for YouTube and I thought I will take you up on that offer. Let me take a look at it and I watched this video. It's not too terribly long. I'm actually going to be seeing most of it. I actually watched just a portion of it already, but I will be watching most of it live and you will get my honest like first time reaction here. So let's go ahead and get into it.
>> Are you ready for this?
>> Bring it on.
>> Pat De-programming Cults says, "There's actually no historical evidence of the Jesus Christ in history other than the books in the New Testament, all of which were written decades after he supposedly died by people who say they believe in him. There's not one artifact, there's no historical document, nothing."
>> So yeah yeah, I I would generally agree. I would just say that you got to be a little careful when you first approach people and say that there's no evidence for Jesus because lots of times they're going to start bringing up things that while they aren't good evidence and definitely far from proof, they're still things that mention him. So for instance, if you really want to get technical like with the semantics and stuff like that, like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone would technically be evidence for Harry Potter, but it's not good evidence because when we actually look behind the curtain, we see that it doesn't go anywhere. It's the same thing for Jesus, but we'll get more into that as this clip goes on.
>> Wow. I'm not really sure actually if this person is joking or not, but we'll address it anyway. I just want to say that I don't want to overlook the New Testament as a historical document. You know, this person said there's no evidence outside the New Testament of Jesus and before we go on to that actual evidence, I don't want to overlook the fact that the New Testament is a very respected historical document written by eyewitnesses.
>> Respected by who? I mean it it it just kind of depends. Are there some things in the New Testament that are historically accurate? And yes, the short answer is definitely yes. The longer answer would be it's generally going to be your background characters or the people who kind of set the stage as being the like the anchors for time. So this is going to be like Caesar Augustus, Tiberius, Herod Antipas, it would be Pontius Pilate. These would be people who kind of set the stage for the reader for like what time period you're reading in. But similar to Barack Obama being in one of the Amazing Spider-Man comics, that doesn't make the story true. It doesn't make the main character true just because he interacts with people who are real life figures. It just kind of again sets the stage for the reader. For instance, if Peter Parker is meeting Barack Obama then that while he's president then that means that this particular story is taking place between 2009 and 2017.
>> Or those who recorded eyewitness testimony. So for example, in Luke, Luke actually emphasizes his careful investigation. So he interviewed eyewitnesses. And he talks about how he how many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us just as they were handed down to us by those from the first were eyewitnesses and servants to the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
>> So this is actually incredibly misleading. Uh let's go ahead and address the elephant in the room, which is Luke. It says nowhere in the Gospel of Luke that it's by anybody named Luke. So I mean I get that maybe he's just using the term because like it's just the name of the Gospel. So like every once in a while I'll say like "Ooh, Luke says this." And what I mean by that is Luke as in the book Luke says this. Uh but in no way shape or form does it ever say in any verse in any of the Gospel of Luke or Acts for that matter that it's written by somebody named Luke. But I do want to point out that the word investigated is doing a lot of a lot of heavy lifting. It's very dishonest to use this word. It's found in the NIV, which is a very theologically motivated translation, bringing the bringing the Bible into modern English, but also changing some things around for theological purposes. But the word investigated implies that there is some kind of active research that had been done by the author of Luke, when in reality, the NRSVU is much closer to the Greek term that's used and it says, I just have a firm grasp from the start. So, I just understand it. I just know it. It does not at all imply that he ever talked to anybody regarding their eyewitness testimony or anything like that.
>> So, we're coming from the perspective here of a historian. So, so these accounts were written during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses, meaning that the claims could be challenged if they were untrue.
>> No. No. Even if Luke had said, which he didn't, that he had interviewed eyewitnesses, that doesn't mean that the account is being written during the lifetime of the eyewitness. That doesn't make any sense. If Luke is someone who is younger than the eyewitnesses, he could absolutely be writing it later on. I mean, hell, when it comes to the Gospel of Mark, Papias apparently had stated sometime in the 2nd century that Mark did his best to recall from memory what Peter had told him because Mark was supposedly, according to Christian tradition, a translator for Peter.
>> Now, you have a really good point that you like to bring up about this.
>> Yeah, I mean, I think everything you said really sets the stage with the historical background. But I mean, this person is sort of just going against the commonly accepted scholarly perspective. Like, not even just a Christian perspective. I just pulled up Wikipedia. Okay, the first paragraph on the Wikipedia article about the historicity of Jesus, it says, um, "Today scholars agree that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century AD, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed constructed."
>> Right.
>> So, this is not just like a Christian perspective. This is like any Ivy League university, you know, this is like the historical um, perspective. Of course, what what you believe about who Jesus is varies a lot. But but it's widely agreed upon that he was a historical figure who did live at this time, who was crucified by the Romans, etc.
>> Right. That's not really a problem. I mean, I understand that the vast majority of scholars are going to say that Jesus existed. A lot of that is due to certain reasons that I'm not going to get into necessarily right now. But nevertheless, the big question to ask is why do they believe that? What exactly is behind why they say, "Hey, Jesus existed or he likely existed or probably existed." What what's what's the big reason that they say these things? And hopefully they get into this.
>> I'm not sure if people have ever thought about the connection between the New Testament and the book Robinson Crusoe. Have you heard of Robinson Crusoe?
>> Sure.
>> Okay, the guy who like lives on a deserted island, you know, and survives. Okay, so why Robinson Crusoe is so famous as a piece of literature is because it that book is considered to be a a literary breakthrough in the style verisimilitude, meaning a story that's told with all these little details to try to make it sound real, right? So Robinson Crusoe and there were and he caught the fish and there were 10 fish. And then he, you know, whatever, cleaned the fish. I don't know, but it's like every little detail, which is not real, but it's trying to create a story that feels real cuz it's so detailed. So okay, Robinson Crusoe was written in 1710,
>> Mhm.
>> 1,700 years after the New Testament or you know, 1,600 years depending on which books we're talking about. So either the New Testament is a historical document based on eyewitness interviews, right? Cuz it's not written in a like mythology. You can read, you know, mythology from that time period, it sounds nothing like the New Testament. Either it's a historical document based on real interviews of real people who are remembering real details of their lives or it's a it's a literary miracle because it's a book written in a style that wasn't invented until 1,600 years later.
>> Wow.
>> So, I mean, either way you go, it's pretty significant of a book not to be dismissed lightly.
>> That is incredibly dumb, incredibly ignorant. So, first of all, um yeah, I guess if you compare the New Testament to mythology from like hundreds of years prior, it doesn't really look like it. But, I mean, what? Those same scholars who say that uh Jesus likely existed would also say that a lot of the people from the Old Testament didn't exist, but yet they're still written in a fairly similar style. What? There are actually stories written in this time period that are very similar to the story of Jesus. So much so that even like Bart Ehrman, a scholar that's leading in this particular field, uh he points to the similarities in his classes that he teaches. Uh this would be like a story from uh Apollonius of Tyana. The story of Apollonius of Tyana is so incredibly similar to Jesus that a lot of people think that Apollonius actually did exist. But, truth be told, we don't really have a lot of very good evidence for this guy. So, apparently, the style is not ahead of its time by 16, 1700 years. I'd also like to point out the irony of her mentioning that in Robinson Crusoe, it mentions the amount of fish. And she's trying to say that that is a very specific detail that makes it seem like this is a real person, even though it's not. Likewise, there is a passage in John where Jesus has the disciples catch fish, and they pull in 153 fish. It is very specific. It's not an even number, it doesn't end in five or anything like that. It seems really specific. So, likewise, just like the fish in Robinson Crusoe, you might think, "Oh, well, it would have to be real if it's giving this specific number." But, a lot of this is actually lost on us today because that number is affiliated with Pythagoras. So, there's a reason why it's included. There's a theological motivation or even a political motivation where they're trying to tie in with current cults that are around. So, there's a reason why it's included. So, if you're looking at the Bible and you're going, "Wow, this is so specific what it says about Jesus and what he does and what he says. It's so very specific. It's a lot like Robinson Crusoe." Well, just like Robinson Crusoe could have some elements in there for a reason, which is I want to trick people into thinking this is real, this could simply be, "Hey, we are putting in these very fine details into the story of Jesus because we're wanting to trick people into thinking it's real or because we're wanting to actually tie it in with something that people already know."
>> Wow, that's a that's a powerful point to make. And and that we can segue from that into the non-Christian historical references to Jesus. All right, I've got a I've got five here. I've got one from Tacitus, okay, he's a Roman historian. He confirms Jesus' execution under Pontius Pilate. We have Josephus, a Jewish historian. He describes Jesus as a wise teacher crucified under Pontius Pilate. We have Pliny the Younger, Roman official in the 2nd century, who notes Christians worshipping Jesus as God in correspondence with Emperor Trajan.
>> This is yet again another misleading statement from this guy. What the hell is this guy's problem? So, first of all, those three people that they just gave, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, only one of those mentions the name Jesus. Two of them say Christ. He threw in the word Jesus for all three of them because it makes it sound better. And this ties in with what we talk about in our book Christ Before Jesus, right here. Um it's the synonym problem. Just because you see the word Christ, that doesn't automatically mean Jesus Christ like of the New Testament. The word Christ is a Greek term that means anointed and was used for prior gods and prior people. Hell, it's used a bunch in the Septuagint to simply mean high priest or even Cyrus the Great or in the Jewish Apocrypha, Alexander the Great. Next, I tackle Tacitus and Josephus and Pliny the Younger on the lives all the time. If you're watching on YouTube, if you're watching on TikTok, you definitely want to check out one of the lives. We talk about this ad nauseam. Probably, oh my god, probably about
>> [laughter]
>> five or six times a day. Josephus or Tacitus are brought up. Every once in a while Pliny the Younger is brought up, but no, Pliny the Younger never even insinuates that the Christ that they're talking about is actually a man. Doesn't mention any kind of details, doesn't mention the name Jesus, doesn't mention anything from the New Testament or any kind of connection to Judea or Jewish thought or religion or anything like that. Tacitus, we can tell that that line has been interpolated, especially since there's giant red flags like the word Christ being used with Christians, which is the word that is used for the group. That doesn't really make a lot of sense. Christ wouldn't be where the Christians would then need to get their name. On top of that, Christ is a title and not a name, as I just pointed out, in which case it's not going to be on any kind of crucifixion or arrest record. That doesn't make any sense. Also, we call this Pontius Pilate a procurator when Judea didn't have a procurator for another about 8 years after the dismissal of Pilate in 36. As for Josephus, the line he's talking about from Josephus is the Testimonium Flavianum, found in Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3, section 3, and that is garbage because it's very clearly from Eusebius. It's in no way, shape, or form written by a practicing Jewish person or a Jewish person really at all living at the Roman Emperor's compound in the '90s. That is not something at all that Josephus wrote. It is absolutely glazing Jesus. It says that the divine prophets foretold the resurrection of Jesus, this and 10,000 other wonderful things about him. It is definitely not Josephus. It is something that is interpolated by a later Christian known as Eusebius.
>> And last but not least, we have the Babylonian Talmud, which talks about Jesus. Um it acknowledges Jesus's crucifixion, though critically in Sanhedrin 43 A.
>> This one is a fun one. Shout out Justin from Deconstruction. Uh because a lot of people do bring this up without really thinking what are the reasons why this particular line would be included in the Babylonian Talmud. Notice it's not in the Jerusalem Talmud at all. It's in the Babylonian Talmud. But if you look closely, there's a reason why they put it in there. First of all, the Babylonian Talmud is written between the 3rd to 6th century. So, it's not really that good of evidence, and it could have been written after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380, so the late 4th century. But, I digress. What they call Jesus is Jesus the Nazarene. That's how we know that they're talking about the Jesus from the New Testament and not some other Jesus like the Talmud mentions a Jesus who is unalived during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, which would be in 100 BCE. So, that's definitely not the Jesus from the New Testament. But, Jesus the Nazarene would have to be, right? Well, here's the thing. It also refers to Christians as Nazarenes, and that's a little strange, but maybe that's because they're worshipping a guy from Nazareth. Well, come to find out it doesn't mention Nazareth, either. It doesn't say Jesus is from Nazareth. It just says the Nazarene, and never once in the Babylonian Talmud or the Mishnah or the Jerusalem Talmud do the Jews ever mention Nazareth. Nazareth isn't mentioned in the Old Testament, it's not mentioned on maps or lists, it's not mentioned by Philo of Alexandria, it's not mentioned by Josephus, who was born in Galilee in 37. It's not mentioned in Jewish apocrypha. It is absolutely not mentioned at all. So, the fact that they're calling him the Nazarene means that they're using the gospel story as opposed to remembering something that happened well before it's being written, and even before the ransacking and the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple when rabbinic Judaism actually starts, which is where we get these stories from rabbis.
>> And so, these are just some of the extra-biblical sources that refer to Jesus, and these are widely known and and widely agreed upon. With regard to the archaeological corroboration, there's really no direct artifacts from Jesus' existence, which is really actually typical for figures of his time. But, discoveries like the Pontius Pilate stone, the Pilate stone, and Caiaphas' ossuary supports the historical accuracy of the gospel events.
>> This is, yet again, more dishonest drivel from this guy because the proof of Pilate is proof for, wait for it, Pilate. And the proof for Caiaphas is proof of, you guessed it, Caiaphas. Never once do either of these pieces of archaeological evidence prove or these people ever mention Jesus. And again, just because we know that Barack Obama is a real person, that doesn't make Peter Parker or Spider-Man a real person whenever they meet each other in The Amazing Spider-Man comics.
>> So, if you look at a figure like Socrates, whose existence is undisputed, there's actually more historical documentation supporting the existence of Jesus than there is of Socrates.
>> Not at all. So, first of all, we actually have eyewitnesses to Socrates and actual contemporaries of Socrates who talk about him. Plato and Xenophon both talk about Socrates as if he was a person who existed at the same time as them at some point in time. We don't have that for anything on Jesus. There is never once anyone who writes anything who says, "I am an eyewitness or I am someone who is alive at the same time as Jesus was." Also, I'd like to point out that there actually are some people who question whether or not Socrates was a real person. So, the whole like exaggerated claim that he's not contested at all, no.
>> One of the things that I really love personally is how many of the eyewitness testimonies included in the New Testament are of women,
>> Mhm.
>> which is also so unprecedented at that time that women would be considered reliable sources of history. In those In that era, women were not, you know, able to testify in court as a reliable source. So, the New Testament, I think is um so ahead of its time in so many ways. It's a brilliant piece of literature.
>> Uh no. So, the oracles, the Greek oracles, they were women. So, not really that big of a deal. Uh you're really only kind of working it backwards and saying, "Hey, if it was a real story, it would have been in Judea. And if it was in Judea, then Jewish culture would have a problem with the fact that blah blah blah blah blah." And then you get into maybe how there's some misogyny there. But, nevertheless, there is no actual testimony from these people. There's no testimony whatsoever from the women. The women don't actually say, "Hey, I am giving this testimony." They don't. In fact, in the earliest gospel of the four canonical ones, they don't even tell anybody.
>> Whatever you, you know, think about about it Jesus' teachings, you can't deny it's a brilliant piece of literature ahead of its time with many, many complimentary historical sources that verify a lot of the events that took place.
>> Uh no. You can absolutely weave some kind of crazy story inside another. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has a lot of things that we can prove actually happened, but that doesn't mean that he was a vampire hunter. This is historical fiction. It's like she's never heard of this concept whatsoever.
>> Yeah, totally. And and also we can't ignore the transformative impact that Jesus has upon people, you know, like Christianity's rapid growth and the willingness of early followers of Jesus to die for what they say they saw in the resurrection of Jesus. You know what I mean?
>> No, there's no evidence whatsoever that the early Christians died for what they say they saw. The earliest kind of sort of potential mention of anything you could remotely spin into persecution and not just prosecution or punishment for like an actual crime comes from Pliny the Younger in 111. But they don't say, "Hey, we saw Jesus resurrect or we know that Jesus resurrected" or anything like that. That is not mentioned whatsoever either in Pliny's letter to Trajan or Trajan's response back. So again, this guy is very, very, very deceptive, misleading, and dishonest.
>> People aren't willing to die for something they know to be a lie.
>> That is not true either and we still see results of that today. Not only did people follow Jim Jones down to Jonestown, we also have the Mormon Wars which people don't talk about enough. There were actual massacres of the Mormon people in America. There is a statement from the grandson of Sidney Rigdon, one of the cohorts of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, who said it was an open secret amongst the Mormons that Sidney, his grandfather, and Joseph Smith had kind of cooked the whole thing up. So they knew in part that this was a fake story. They were just, you know, going along with it because they enjoyed the benefits of being part of that in-crowd. So these people were literally dying for what they knew was a lie, but they still stood up for it. So yeah, people do die for things that they know are lies.
>> So in conclusion, you know, the existence of Jesus is just not really debated on, you know, anymore by scholars and, you know, contemporary scholars and teachers.
>> It is. It actually is. I could actually name you quite a few scholars. There is a post on Richard Carrier's blog that goes through a whole bunch of different people who are either mythicist or at least at some point in their life were people who took mythicism seriously. So yeah, it it actually is it's still debated.
>> Honestly, faith is really the key here in accepting Jesus as Messiah, but historical and archaeological evidence strongly supports his existence.
>> Yeah, faith is actually the main thing for all of it. I mean, we didn't go through anything that was really good evidence once you actually put it through like actual scrutiny with data science or literary analysis, these things fall apart. So, yeah, uh it takes faith to not only believe that Jesus was divine, but to believe Jesus was even here. It's mythology. That's what it is. It's just we don't generally call it mythology because we generally reserve that for beliefs of a religion that isn't around in great numbers anymore.
>> Well, we welcome these comments and we encourage people to leave them and you know, we encourage people to be respectful. Um but, you know, freedom of speech, you can say whatever you like and we'll be happy to comment on it. So, thank you for watching and stay tuned for the next comment.