Board index ‹ Jesus

[Question]

What external sources so we have for the existence of Jesus in history? I have been researching for months now and the only external sources are from way to late to be reliable, or they have been tampered with, for example Josephus. I have yet to see any reliable external source that gives really solid support for Jesus Christ.

I think it's plausible he existed, maybe even probable, but, maybe I'm wrong, so far as I can tell, there is no way he walked the earth for 3 years, bringing 3 people back from the dead, at least 11 miracles per year, resurrected himself and all while being viewed by thousands. If any of those things happened how did no one except 2 direct followers and 2 indirect followers write about it?

If Jesus Christ existed, but wasn't divine and didn't perform the miracles he supposedly did then it is functionally the same as him never having existed.

Also, all the evidence you supplied above is ancillary, but finally irrelevant. Look at any fictional narrative that isn't set in a fantasy world and you will find things which are real, people, places, events, all of which can be proven. Great. But does that evidence prove that everything in the story is accurate? Should we believe that everything in Sherlock Holmes is factual because it happened in London and he consults for the Scotland Yard? I think not.

Also, I'm not really concerned with the bible as a whole right now. I'm specifically concerned with the New Testament and the validity of the Jesus Christ claims.

[jimwalton]

> What external sources though (about Jesus)?

The evidence for Jesus's historical existence is solid.

1. Tacitus is widely regarded as the greatest historian of the Roman Empire. He is thought to have used his sources responsibly, and that his basic accuracy is impeccable. In his *Annals*, XV, 44, he mentions Christians as a religious group and names their founder as "Chrestus" who was executed by Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor. He is obviously getting his information from sources, but he speaks of the historical existence of the founder of Christianity as having been executed by Pilate.

2. Josephus several times in his writings mentions a historical Jesus, the brother of James, whom people followed, who was crucified, who is called the Messiah (Christos). While the accuracy of Josephus is much debated, and though some passages in his writings are considered to have been redacted, at least some of the mentions of Jesus are widely regarded as authentic, doubted by only a few minimalist scholars.

3. The James Ossuary. A bone box has surfaced inscribed with "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." While the Israeli Archaeology Society pronounced it a fake, many scholars have evaluated their assessment and disagree with the IAS, considering the inscription to be authentic, and to probably refer to Jesus of Nazareth.

4. Thallus, a historian writing in about AD 50, is quoted by Julius Africanus (in AD 221) as mentioning darkness on the day of the Passover when Christ died. The reference is highly debated as to its authenticity, but every possibility becomes part of the total picture of what we have.

5. Ignatius (in about AD 100) mentions the historical Jesus.

6. Suetonius, another Roman historian (in about AD 100), also mentions a "Chrestus" who was the founder of the Christian movement.

7. Pliny the Younger (about AD 100) mentions that, regarding the persecution of Christians, they are prompted to "curse Christ." Three times he mentions a man named Christ, who was the founder of the Christian sect.

8. Lucian of Samosata (in about AD 150) alludes to Jesus as a man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced a new cult into the world.

9. The four Gospels all consider Jesus to have been historical.

10. The Apostle Paul (writing in the 50s AD), a one-time hostile source (and therefore not a believer with bias). We have letters by him undisputed by scholars. He regards Jesus as a historical person.

11. Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian, possibly Thallus, and the Babylonian Talmud all mention the crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate. John Crossan, a skeptic who denies the authenticity of just about everything in the Gospels, says, "That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

12. There is little reasonable explanation for the growth of the church in Jerusalem among Jews in the early 30s AD if there were no historical Jesus.

The total evidence is very strong.

> there is no way he walked the earth for 3 years

We don't have much corroborating evidence of many events of Jesus's life from extrabiblical sources, but his crucifixion is well documented. There's no reason to doubt he walked the Earth for 3 years. All of the evidence points to the fact that he did.

It's the miracles you question. Let's look at some of these evidences.

The records of the Gospel writers were still within the lifetime of the people who had been there. Such reporting could easily still be confirmed or debunked. If the tales were easily able to be discredited, it would have made them all look like fools.

* Jesus’s miracles were one of the major evidences to convince them that He was who he claimed to be. His healing of people, the Transfiguration, and His resurrection were a large part of what motivated them to accept that He was God. Their faith was based in part on the miraculous signs they saw Him perform.
* The inclusion of verifiable historical data in the miracle stories lends credibility to the entire narrative. When Peter drew his sword and chopped off Malchus’s ear in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus heals the man on the spot (John 18.10). The verifiable data is given: His name is Malchus, he works for Caiaphas, and it was his ear that was injured. These details are given so the story could be verified as historically accurate. The authors obviously intended their accounts of the miracles to be interpreted as historical events, and for people to find out for themselves if the stories were true.
* Josephus, in a text considered to be historically reliable, mentions “Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who did surprising deeds.”
* A bowl recently discovered in Alexandria, Egypt, dates from about 125 BC to the first century AD. The engraving reads (in Greek) “dia chrstou o goistais,” translated by the excavation team as “through Christ the magician.” It is speculated that a first-century magician used it in the work he was doing to invoke the name of Jesus, showing from an extra-biblical source that Jesus was known for His miracles.
* The Paris Magical Papyrus, dated to about AD 300, describes an elaborate exorcism ritual that begins with, “I beseech you by the god of the Hebrews,” and then lists a number of mystical names, of which Jesu is the first one listed. The papyrus then continues with numerous other references to biblical events and persons, some of which are undecipherable. It is yet another evidence from an extra-biblical source that Jesus was known as a worker of wonders, a successful exorcist, and called “the god of the Hebrews.”
* The cultural milieu of Jesus’s life speaks to the truthfulness of the record. The era of 1st-century Palestine was not one characterized by superstition and gullibility. Jews were educated people, and Romans and Greeks were skeptics. That the Gospels record that people swarmed around Jesus, both requesting and experiencing miracles, is evidence of their veracity. What is also often recorded is that the people were skeptical of Jesus’s ability to do miracles until they saw with their own eyes and were convinced. What is lacking is corroborative writing other than the written record of Jesus’s miracles is in the Bible itself.
* Jesus’s enemies even admitted that He performed miracles (Matthew 12.22-24; 14.54-57; John 3.2).
* Alternative interpretations of the miracles (mass hallucinations, mythical creations of biased authors, etc.) lack credibility upon examination. There is no such thing as mass hallucination, and the historical nature of the narratives, along with the intent of the authors to have been recording history speaks strongly against alternative interpretations
* The resurrection of Jesus is immensely compelling.

> If any of those things happened how did no one except 2 direct followers and 2 indirect followers write about it?

Remember that the Church grew by thousands right in Jerusalem (where the crucifixion and resurrection happened) within 2 months of that event. In other words, thousands of people who lived in that city and were there, many of whom could have been eyewitnesses to the events, believed in His resurrection and became followers.

Why didn't more write about it? Remember that the majority of writings from the era have been lost. We have only half of Tacitus's works, and he was an authorized Roman historian. All but a fragment of Thallus's "Mediterranean History" is gone. The writings of Asclepiades of Mendes are completely gone. Nicholas of Damascus (the secretary of Herod the Great) wrote his Universal History in 144 books: none have survived. Papias's work is lost. Josephus's originals are gone (except for what we have through Eusebius). Quadratus wrote to Emperor Hadrian—all lost. Why didn't more write about it? Maybe they did. We're fortunate to have 4 surviving records.

> Look at any fictional narrative that isn't set in a fantasy world and you will find things which are real, people, places, events, all of which can be proven.

First of all, historical fiction is virtually an unknown genre in the ancient world. Aside from the Iliad and the Odyssey, and perhaps the Trojan Wars, there is no such thing. Secondly, the Gospels are not that kind of writing. They share stylistic elements with the best and most trustworthy biographers and historians of Rome at the time (such as Plutarch, Herodotus, Thucidides, and Polybius). Thirdly, the intent of the Gospel writers was to record history (Luke 1.1-4; Mk. 1.1; Mt. 1.1), not historical fiction, legend, or mythology.

> But does that evidence prove that everything in the story is accurate?

Of course not. We examine everything. But if the stories are reliable accounts with much corroboration, the authors are not detectably insane or dishonest, the material was accepted by the peer audience, the stories are likely possible if not plausible. Except for the fact that many people a priori deny the possibility or reasonableness of miracles (which is prejudicial bias), there is little or no reason to doubt the Gospel accounts.