Did Jesus Really Exist? Jesus Outside the New Testament part 1

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb,  (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Did Jesus Really Exist? Jesus Outside of the New Testament. Part 1.

I will be dealing with the evidenced laid out by the book "Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst.  Robert E. Van Voorst mentions in the book that he had considerable help by Craig Evans.

So this is not a Muslim who has read one side of the story. On the contrary. This is probably one of the most sober and methodologically speaking well laid out book that approaches the subject matter.


However, after reading the book twice over now. Once as a quick read with reflection. Second was to take it slowly and seriously; all the while taking down notes.

After reading the book I am one-hundred percent convinced that without my presuppositional belief that the Qur'an is the words of God I would have absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus even existed.

I lay that out for all and sundry here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-i-believe-jesus-never.html

So let me get straight down to it.

In the book Robert E Van Voorst says:

"Some readers may be surprised or shocked that many books and essays-by my count, over one hundred-in the past two hundred years have fervently denied the very existence of Jesus."

This book to me was far from being objective. It seems to take a very cautious approach but in the end the author wants Jesus to die more than anything.  Perhaps it is important for his salvation (shrugs shoulders...)

On pg 20 of the book there is a section with the title:
Thallos: The Eclipse at Jesus' Death.

Even the title for the section throws all objectivity aside.  'The Eclipse at Jesus Death'.  Well, there you go! We are already talking about Jesus Death as a foregone conclusion without even examining the evidence for Jesus to begin with! Amazing!

"The earliest possible reference to Jesus comes from the middle of the first century. Around 55 C.E., a historian named Thallos wrote in Greek a three-volume chronicle of the eastern Mediterranean area from the fall of Troy to about 50 C.E. Most of his book, like the vast majority of ancient literature, perished, but not before it was quoted by Sextus Julius Africanus (ca. 160-ca. 240), a Christian writer, in his History of the World (ca.220). This book likewise was lost, but one of its citations of Thallos was taken up by the Byzantine historian Georgius Syncellus in his Chronicle (ca.800). According to Syncellus, when Julius Africanus writes about the darkness at the death of Jesus, he added,

"In the third (book of his histories, Thallos calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, which seems to me to be wrong."

(pg 20 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

Did you see the word Jesus any where in the quote above? Yeah, I didn't either.  Any way lets allow Van Voorst to work his magic.

He says,  "Thallos could have mentioned the eclipse with no reference to Jesus. But it is more likely that Julius, who had access to the context of this quotation in Thallos and who (to judge from other fragments) was generally a careful user of his sources, was correct in reading it as hostile reference to Jesus' death.

"If Thallos had been writing simply as a chronograph-er who mentions an eclipse which occurred in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, Julius Africanus would not have said that he was mistaken, but he would have used his evidence to confirm the Christian tradition."

(pg 21 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)


So it is not possible that Thallos was simply writing as a chronographer?  Is it also not possible that this Thallos is correct and the Christian tradition on the matter is wrong?

If we are talking about an eclipse of the sun a certain Christian apologist by the name of  Mike Licona certainly springs to mind.

However, Van Voorst has presupposed the tradition.

"Who is Thallos? Perhaps he is the Thallos to whom the Jewish historian Josephus refers a Samaritan resident of Rome who made a large loan to Agrippa (Ant. 18.6.4 S167) and who may have been Augustus's secretary. But this rest upon two successive conjectures, one textual and one historical."

(pg 21 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

"However, other fragments of Thallos's history preserved in several sources indicate that he wrote about events at least until the time of the death of Jesus."

Is it not interesting to see the phrase "at least until the time of the death of Jesus" once again presumed without all the evidence being laid out?

Van Voorst book is loaded with such phrases take for example.

"Since Thallos seems to be refuting a Christian argument, he likely knew about this darkness at the death of Jesus from Christians."

"We cannot tell if Thallos gained his knowledge from oral or written accounts."

"Darkness at the death of Jesus was just as likely an element of oral Christian proclamation. As Craig Evans remarks, this reference does not prove that there really was darkness---however it is to be explained---during the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Rather, it is evidence for the early tradition of darkness at Jesus' death."

(pg 21-22 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

"What can be gained from Thallos? Some fog of uncertainty still surrounds Thallos'; statement: its extreme brevity, its third-hand citation, and the identity and date of the author."

"While this fog prevents us from claiming certainty, a tradition about Jesus' death is probably present."

"Thallos accepts a darkness at the death of Jesus."    "Thallos may have been knowledgeable about other elements of the Christian tradition of Jesus' death-it is unlikely that he knew only this small element of the story of Jesus'; death apart from any wider context...."

"His argument makes him (if our dating is correct) the first ancient writer known to us to express literary opposition to Christianity. Moreover, Thallos is also the only non-Christian to write about a Jesus tradition before that tradition was written in the canonical Gospels."

(pg 22 Jesus Outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence" by Robert E. Van Voorst)

Conclusion:  The Christian may read the so called 'testimony' or 'evidence' of Thallos as strong proof for the existence of Jesus outside of the New Testament.

Van Voorst goes so far as to say that, "Thallos accepts a darkness at the death of Jesus."  Or a fanciful proclamation: "His argument makes him (if our dating is correct) the first ancient writer known to us to express literary opposition to Christianity."

For me I saw literary fiction appear before my very eyes. We do not know even know if there is a guy named Thallos, and it rest upon conjecture. His writings are lost, and were quoted by other writings now lost. The citation does not come with the context.

We take a citation without context from a writing lost; based upon another writing now lost: "In the third (book of his histories, Thallos calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, which seems to me to be wrong."

This is than worked into:
"Thallos accepts a darkness at the death of Jesus."    "Thallos may have been knowledgeable about other elements of the Christian tradition of Jesus' death-it is unlikely that he knew only this small element of the story of Jesus'; death apart from any wider context...."

What can I say. Christian apologetic ingenuity knows no limits; and it also knows no shame.