PART TWO
Τhe emperor Claudius had no other reasons, especially religious ones, to expel the Jews from Rome. On the contrary, the policy of the Romans was that the central authority should respect and protect the customs, traditions, and especially the religions of the conquered peoples.
However, when the beliefs and teachings of a national religion disturbed order and created unrest and conflicts, naturally the reaction of the administration was expected, taking the appropriate measures (often strict ones) to impose order.
The same happened in this case of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome. Claudius listened to the descriptions of his advisors about what was happening in the city, both because of the disputes between Jews and Christians concerning the Messiah, and because of the Christians themselves regarding the novel and fear-inducing doctrines which we analyzed. He perceived the danger of the unrest spreading and of panic, and accepted the proposal of his advisors for the expulsion from Rome of those responsible for the disturbance, that is, the Jews.
Suetonius, who from his work as a whole appears to have had good access to sources, especially imperial records, will judge this incident as a historical fact and will record it. For this reason alone, without of course intending to preserve the memory of Jesus Christ, the god and savior of the Christians, he gives us the name “Christ.” He does not seem to doubt that this name belonged to a real person.
Of course, one could object that the historian does not mention the name Jesus, but Christ, who was the Messiah of the Jews, as the Septuagint refer to him. This too is not impossible; we do not have further arguments to refute such a view.
2. Flavius Josephus . The Impious Forgery
That forgery is monumental, which was carried out by the so-called “interpolating hand” (most likely Eusebius of Pamphilus) in the text of the Histories of Josephus, who wrote the History of the Jews.
Josephus was born in 37 AD in Judea. He is the most contemporary learned historian of Jesus Christ. His parents, that is, were roughly contemporaries of Jesus. On the other hand, many of those who lived with Christ were still alive when Josephus was born and came of age. What we mean is that the historian had “first-hand” sources regarding the person of Jesus Christ.
And yet. In his work on the History of the Jews (Jewish Antiquities), he does not mention a single word (not even as a token) about Jesus Christ. And one should consider that this Jewish historian often goes into such detail that he even becomes… tiresome.
And yet, for a Jesus who raised the dead and who walked among the living in the city (the Jewish parents of Josephus would have had much to say about such a great miracle!), who lifted paralytics, who gave sight to the blind—terrible, unprecedented phenomena for all ages and not only for that time—the meticulous historian completely ignores them.
In order for someone to understand (in simple terms) the magnitude of Josephus’ omission regarding the person of Jesus Christ and his work, it is as if someone were writing a history of the Greek Revolution of 1821, but in his account completely ignored or forgot… Kolokotronis. That is the kind of provocation we are talking about.
But how could Josephus write about someone who either never lived, or whose deeds as described in the Gospels never actually occurred?
JESUS CHRIST DOES NOT EXIST AS A HISTORICAL PERSON. AT ALL.
The only sources that mention him as a person and describe his work are the Gospels.
The striking silence of Josephus, the only historian close to the time when Christ is said to have lived, was a real challenge for the new religion. A resounding slap to the priesthood, which recognized this tragedy from the very beginning. The lack of information from the Jewish historian about the founder of the Christian religion was a scandal.
Thus, it was decided that the “interpolating hand” should… bring Josephus back into line. That is, to add to the historian’s text what he himself did not know and did not include.
Here is what the impious hand dared to write:
Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή. ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο: ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον. (Ιουδαϊκή Αρχαιολογία, Ιώσηπος).
But the most serious argument that the paragraph is a 100% foreign addition is this: the earlier copyists of Josephus, before the forger, are COMPLETELY UNAWARE of this specific paragraph. And how could it not be absent from their texts, since it was added later (most likely) by Eusebius?
Thus, the historicity of Jesus Christ is left dramatically unsupported. He may never have existed even as a person, as a human being.
As for his divine nature and the supernatural phenomena that the Gospels describe as having taken place during his time, we do not have a single historical source to assure us—not only of these miraculous deeds—but not even whether there lived in this vain world SOMEONE called Jesus Christ, son of Joseph and Mary, born in Bethlehem of Judea.