Third part
Let us conclude yesterday’s analysis by stating our disagreement with the view of certain researchers, such as Meier, Vermes, and Feldman, who accept the existence of a “reduced core” within Josephus’ passage. They do acknowledge its falsification, but in the form of an addition to an already existing reference to the person of Christ.
For us, however, such a view—unworthy of scholarship—resembles a kind of compromise: “Let us grant the theologians something, in order to secure their agreement on the falsity of the passage. Even if it is only half false, that will suffice!”
But we grant them nothing, because we owe theologians nothing. On the contrary.
The most probable conclusion, therefore, is that Josephus makes no reference whatsoever to the person of Jesus—certainly not in the following reconstructed form of supposedly authentic lines:
“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man; for he was a teacher of people who gladly receive the truth. And he drew over many Jews, and also Greeks. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, those who had first loved him did not cease. And to this day there exists the tribe of those called Christians after him.”
The reasons for rejecting the existence of such an authentic core—upon which the forgery was allegedly built—are more numerous than those supporting it. Specifically:
Only a few years after the death of Christ, if we assume his historical existence, his followers were very few, and there was no reason to mention their leader. Numerous zealots and pseudo-Messiahs appeared from time to time in Israel. Jesus was neither unique nor the most significant among them so as to be mentioned by Josephus.
The mention of Pilate’s name and the claim that such a Messiah was executed (crucified!) by him further reinforces the fraud, since it aligns with the Gospel narrative. This reference was the most necessary element for the forgers, in order to “prove” the historical existence of Christ through “pagan sources.” All other arguments for forgery are secondary.
The reference in another passage to Jesus as the brother of James, “the so-called Christ,” is likewise spurious. The word “Christ” (the anointed one) is a title, not a name. A Pharisee would never refer to Jesus as Christ—Messiah—especially with such mild qualification, given that for Josephus Jesus is a completely nonexistent figure. The forgers, much later than Josephus (3rd–4th century), likely copied here from Tacitus, if we accept the likewise disputed reference of the historian to “Christians” .
This entire supposedly authentic “core text” has no basis for existence, also for the following additional reasons (noted in parentheses):
“At this time (which time?) there appeared Jesus, a wise man (would the Pharisee Josephus call a pseudo-Messiah a ‘wise man’?) for he was a teacher of people who gladly receive the truth (a clear contradiction: Josephus himself would be recognizing that such a pseudo-Messiah teaches truth!). And he drew over many (in reality, very few at the time—perhaps around seventy people) Jews and Greeks. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross (here, as we said, the forgery practically cries out for itself), those who had first loved him did not cease (loved him, indeed!). And to this day there exists the tribe of those called Christians after him.” (The term “Christians” was given by the Romans much later, in the brief reference of Tacitus, which, like that of Josephus, also appears to be forged.)
3. Τhe third and last is the so-called “testimony” of Publius Cornelius Tacitus (116 AD) is as follows:
«ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.»
“Therefore, to suppress the rumor, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on those whom the populace, detesting them for their crimes, called Christians. The originator of that name, Christ, had been executed during the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate; and the pernicious superstition, checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in the City (Rome), where all things atrocious and shameful from everywhere come together and are celebrated.”
(Tacitus, Annals 15.44)
This forgery too is glaringly obvious. Let us recall that ten (10) centuries passed between its composition and the earliest surviving manuscript of Tacitus’ Annals. One compelling reason to reject the authenticity of this passage is the obvious fact that none of the early Christian writers ever cite this testimony of the historian. Such a “treasure”—and no one discovered it? They would have made it their banner for ten whole centuries!
The temporal gap between Tacitus’ account and the medieval manuscript of the Annals is enormous. Alterations by monastic copyists—especially in texts related to the Christian religion—were commonplace. After all, they held both the knife and the melon.
If we add to this Tacitus’ confusion over whether Pilate was a procurator or a prefect, his eagerness to confirm—without particular necessity at this point—the execution of Jesus under Pontius Pilate (as the Gospels assert), and the statement that “Nero fastened the guilt on others and inflicted punishments on those whom the populace, hating them for their crimes, called Christians” (such naivety on the part of the forger—as if Tacitus himself were a Christian!), it becomes clear that Tacitus’ reference, written years after that attributed to Josephus, is likewise a forgery.
We owe him no explanation or “apologia” in response. We shall, however, reiterate what we have consistently stated here for years: THE NON-RELIGIOUS PERSON IS ONE THING, AND THE ATHEIST IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
All religions are human inventions—constructs born of fear and insecurity in the face of the unknown and the “beyond,” expressions of a need for “paternal” protection and cohesion. They are also instruments for the control and surveillance of the masses by structures of power.
The divine or transcendental nature attributed to religions does not withstand even the most elementary critical scrutiny, for many reasons. One, and the most fundamental, is that THEY ARE UNNATURAL. They not only oppose and violate Nature and its laws, but also undermine the very concept of God itself.
If there exists a DIFFERENT ENTITY, which in human language is designated as “God,” it is inconceivable as a concept, incomprehensible, devoid of any compatible interpretation; consequently, it is impossible to define its characteristics and properties by means of human intellectual faculties. IT IS INACCESSIBLE TO THE HUMAN MIND.
The arrogance and “impiety” (in the sense of the ancient Greek notion of Hubris) of religions, their Messiahs, and their prophets lies precisely in this: they insult, debase, and diminish the notion of this ENTITY by anthropomorphizing it and confining it within the suffocating limits of “mortal” reasoning and judgment.