Non-Biblical References to Jesus

[Arizona_Mike]

Open Source, the “Jesus Mythers” have numerous problems:

1. They discount an entire body of contemporary or near-contemporary writings by first- and second-generation writers. Why? The Didache is a non-Biblical source that clearly establishes that there was a body of people who followed the teachings of Christ. It’s probably older than some of the books of the Old Testament. Why discount it? Because it was written by believers? How else could such a large and vibrant movement arise spontaneously within a few decades of the leader’s purported death unless there actually WAS a charismatic leader who really lived? If there was no Christ, who else created his radically different teachings?
2. They claim that the lack of other contemporary original texts indicates that there is no evidence Jesus existed. They overlook the fact that historians were few and far between in 1st century Palestine. If one was a historian, one usually had a powerful and wealthy patron to support one’s scholarly endeavors. Such patrons usually didn’t care about convicted Jewish criminals who died an ignoble death.
3. Flavius Joseph, who did have a wealthy Roman patron, is pretty much the only historian who described that time and place that we know of. While one of his references to Jesus as having risen from the dead is likely a gloss by an overenthusiastic scribe, surviving Arabic and Syriac versions which did not derive from the interpolated text clearly show that Josephus made reference to a Jesus, whom his followers believe rose from the dead. This is sufficient evidence in and of itself to establish that Jesus was a historical person.
4. There are numerous historical figures described by Josephus that presented a far greater danger to the Roman Empire (at least, in the 1st Century) than Jesus did. As one atheist writer wrote in a review of a poorly-researched book promoting the mythicist hypothesis:

For example, a bandit-rebel who declared himself a Jewish king called Athronges not only gathered enough armed followers to tackle Roman troops but for a while he was able to inflict military defeats on them, until he was defeated circa 4 BC. An unnamed Samaritan prophet led a "great multitude"to the holy mountain of Gerizim, promising them a mystical revelation, around 36 AD. He and his followers were so numerous they had to be attacked by the Romans and dispersed using units of both infantry and cavalry. About ten years later a prophet called Theudas led “a great part of the people” into the desert, promising to miraculously part the River Jordan and had to be dealt with by Roman cavalry in the same way. And another unnamed Jewish prophet, this one from Egypt, led an estimated (though unlikely) “30,000 men” to Jerusalem, telling them its walls would miraculously fall so he could lead them into the city. Again, Roman troops had to be called out to deal with them, leaving hundreds dead and causing the prophet to run away.

It is very hard to see any of these fairly momentous events as “lesser exploits” compared to what even the gospels claim about Jesus. Even if we take their accounts at face value, a chanting crowd greeting his entrance to Jerusalem, a trial that no-one witnessed and a run-of-the-mill execution are hardly big news compared to mass movements that required the mobilisation of troops and pitched battles. Yet how many other historians so much as mention Athronges, the Samaritan, Theudas or the Egyptian? None. Apart from Josephus, no writer so much as gives them a sentence’s worth of attention.

The entire review is well worth reading in full:

armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html

 

[cranster]

Here’s a great resource.
christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html

 

[jschutzm]

I guess non-biased would be a better word for it.

Now this may be dismissed by some hardcore anti-theists as “argument from silence”

BUT… coupled with the references we DO have outside of the bible… the 2 put together are powerful evidence that Christ existed.

Here’s the argument…

BOTH the Jews as well as the Romans had a VERY vested interest in denying the existence of Christ. Early on… Christianity was seen as a spin-off of Judaism by both the Roman authorities as well as the Jewish leadership.

The Romans wanted to squash this 'cult of Chrestus" aka “Christians” as they called it. The Jews wanted Christians to pipe down and stop causing them trouble.

BOTH groups should have spoken up VERY loudly if Christ or the central events of Christianity NEVER happened.

BUT… and this is a HUGE but… But we NEVER see this. What we don’t see are Roman historians, Roman authors, etc. denying that anything like the Christians alleged ever happened.

We don’t see the Jewish authorities ripping Christianity apart, theologically or historically and claiming that Jesus never existed.

We would expect to see this, I’d argue ALOT, if either Christ never existed OR Christ never rose from the dead. – Why don’t we see more non-Christian groups, particularly the Romans and the Jews setting the record straight?

For that matter… why didn’t the other Pagan religions, aka Gentiles, argue against Christianity, especially when Christianity became to take members from it?

While from a philosophical perspective, one can not rest their ENTIRE argument on these ommissions, as that is called ‘argumentation from silence’… coupling the lack of any contradictory information to the contrary with the Jewish historian Josephius, some of the surviving Roman references to Christianity and Christianity’s OWN history… then you DO have a pretty strong argument.

 

[OpenSource]

Thank you for the resources all, you’ve been very helpful. As a side note; I wasn’t trying to “convince” anyone of anything nor make any “weak or deceptive” arguments. I was seeking to understand the positions of some historians and also understand the events that happened at the council of nicea and the compromising political moves that made Christianity what it is today.

A lot of this goes far beyond the Bible, which was written by the church. There are creation stories / myths such as the Epic myth of Gilgamesh / Nimrod. The Epic of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the oldest written story on Earth. It comes to us from Ancient Sumeria, and was originally written on 12 clay tablets in cunieform script. It is about the adventures of the historical King of Uruk (somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE).

I find it compelling that everything we know is based upon this writing. The Bible, the Flood, Noah, the Gods of Egypt, the Titans, the Origin of Mankind, God, Gods, Demi-Gods, the Sons God, Hercules, Zeus, Nimrod, Satan, Adam, Cain, Abel, they are all here.

 

[chosen_people]

There are actualy several non-biblical references to Jesus. The ones I’m most familiar with are roman records that call Jesus a prophet among the Jews who some feared would spark a Jewish rebelion against roman rule. There actualy are court records of Jesus trial as well. However I’m not aware of any non-christian testimony on his miracles.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to give the sources.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Though it’s a bit “profane”, I think this quote from the fanfare song of Jesus Christ Superstar brings out the die-hard skeptic’s position:

"Every time I look at you I don’t understand
Why you let the things you did get so out of hand?
You’d managed better if you had it planned
Why you choose such a backward time in such a strange land?
If you’d come today you would have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication!"
(Judas singing)

The skeptics forget Jesus’s ministry was only 3 years long at most. The also forget afterwards, during the revolt of 70 and Bar Kochba’s revolt circa 132 that not once but TWICE Roman legions smashed Judea, burning and leveling towns. Then eventutaully, it was the Empire’s turn for the barbarians to smash and burn. Its amazing we have any history left from antiquity

 

[R_C]

There doesn’t appear to be any non-biblical references to Jesus Christ.

Quite the contrary

The problem is that it is hard to find a nice index of such references.

A nice one that I have found is in Italian:
it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fonti_non_cristiane_su_Gesù.

As you can see, there are plenty of non-Christian historians and writers that mention our Beloved.

A historical fact that is not well-known but that I find extremely fascinating is related to the story of the emperor Tiberius being healed by the Veil of Veronica (one of the texts here). What is definitely an indisputable historical fact is that the emperor Tiberius proposed to the Roman senate that Jesus be acknowledged as a god (and we have excellent reasons to believe that Tiberius claimed something greater for Jesus than acknowledgment merely as another divinity, for the Senate often incorporated the divinities of the conquered populations, but in this case they refused).

There are also two apocryphal letters, one from Pilate to Tiberius (link, and one from a rather upset Tiberius to Pilate (Italian, translation) that add further evidence to the events.

As you go through the list, there are plenty of sources, and that is by no means an exhaustive index!

 

[R_C]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to give the sources.

This one is not directly related to the question, but it is still fairly interesting.

"He (Josephus) affirms in the treatises that he wrote on the government of the Jews: “in this time lived a wise man that was called Jesus, and his conduct was beyond reproach, and he was known as a virtuous man. And many between the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and die. And those who were his disciples did not abandon their loyalty towards him. They said that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. As a consequence, they believed that he was the Messiah, of whom the Prophets had spoken marvels about.”

Writing of Joseph ben Matityahu known as Josephus, as quoted by Agapius of Ierapolis, a historian who lived in the X century and wrote in Arabic, whose work was recovered for the first time in the 1970s. (My own translation from Italian to English.)

The treatise being mentioned is “Antiquities of the Jews”, written in the year 93 AD. The statement in the Latin version is slightly different:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day

That’s perhaps the most relevant one, but there are others.

 

[chosen_people]

This one is not directly related to the question, but it is still fairly interesting.

Writing of Joseph ben Matityahu known as Josephus, as quoted by Agapius of Ierapolis, a historian who lived in the X century and wrote in Arabic, whose work was recovered for the first time in the 1970s. (My own translation from Italian to English.)

The treatise being mentioned is “Antiquities of the Jews”, written in the year 93 AD. The statement in the Latin version is slightly different:

That’s perhaps the most relevant one, but there are others.

This passage (one of two concerning Jesus) from Antiquities of the Jews 18:3:3 first appears in the writings of Eusebius in the early part of the fourth century of the common era and was apparently unknown to Celsus, Origen, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria in their earlier writings about Josephus . It is a forgery. Not only does it first appear in the writings of a person who advocated fraud in the interest of Christian faith, it does not fit into the context of the surrounding text and it is written from the perspective of a devoted and believing Christian, while Josephus was a Jew. It should be noted that in the debate between Origen and Celsus over the merits of Christianity, Celsus remarked that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the christ (Contra Celsum by Origen) - this shows that the second century version of the Josephus’ Antiquities in the hands of Origen did not contain these two passages.

I was more interested in your reference to “transcripts” of the alleged “trial of Jesus” which supposedly took place before the Sanhedrin. This “trial” according to John’s version never took place, every single procedural is wrong under Jewish law and Jesus is charged and convicted of the wrong crime under Jewish law.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

This passage (one of two concerning Jesus) from Antiquities of the Jews 18:3:3 first appears in the writings of Eusebius in the early part of the fourth century of the common era and was apparently unknown to Celsus, Origen, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria in their earlier writings about Josephus . It is a forgery. Not only does it first appear in the writings of a person who advocated fraud in the interest of Christian faith, it does not fit into the context of the surrounding text and it is written from the perspective of a devoted and believing Christian, while Josephus was a Jew. It should be noted that in the debate between Origen and Celsus over the merits of Christianity, Celsus remarked that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the christ (Contra Celsum by Origen) - this shows that the second century version of the Josephus’ Antiquities in the hands of Origen did not contain these two passages.

I was more interested in your reference to “transcripts” of the alleged “trial of Jesus” which supposedly took place before the Sanhedrin. This “trial” according to John’s version never took place, every single procedural is wrong under Jewish law and Jesus is charged and convicted of the wrong crime under Jewish law.

My understanding of the Christian interpolation of Josephus is that most academics (including Christian believers) agree it happened in giving the idea Josephus belived Jesus was the Messiah. However, the older, Russian-origin text seems to lack the interpolation and has Josephus refering to Jesus as executed under Pilate and some people still believed he was the Messiah and they constituted a continuing religious movement that existed at the time of the Revolt.

In John and the synoptics it may be called a trial, but its obvious it’s a “kangaroo court” Proper procedure is NEVER called for when the end is pre-determined. As it is, Jesus admits co-equality with God, and “that is that”–get him over to Pilate and cajole and berate the Procurator until he gives forth some “Roman justice”. Pilate, being vulnerable with his patron, Sejanus, being very discraced and very, very dead “rolls over”.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Despite the wealth of surviving ECF writings, what we have is a fraction of what they wrote and what they discussed. And this is with the Church taking great pains to preserve them, almost as much as they did for what became the NT. To say particular ECFs did not mention it is only to claim we do not have mention of it in the surviving writings.

The survival of texts becomes even more problamatic with non Christian documents–there was simply less motivation to preserve them. Example, Aristotle’s Athenian Constitution was thought utterly lost, despite it being one of the most famous documents of antiquity. A mostly complete copy was discovered in the late 19th century only because it was written on the backside of some rich man’s tax return, stuck in an amphora, and then mistakenly tossed out in the trash dump (Oxyrynchus, I believe).

St Justin Martyr, a Roman lawyer, in his Apologia to Antonitus Pius essentially is writing a legal brief to the Emperor. Perjury to a Emperor is a capital offense. In the letter, Justin matter-of-factly says check out Pontius Pilate’s report on Jesus’ miracles and trial, and also refer to the census that records Jesus being born at Bethlehem. Now, the existence of such documents would be pure gold to Christian apologists, but being part of a warren of documents in the Imperial palace, if not eaten by rats, they may have been burned by the Goths or Vandals in one or another sack of Rome.

 

[R_C]

It is a forgery.

Perhaps I did not make my point clear.

While the Latin text appears to show some sort of interpolation, the first text that I quote is unadulterated.

The paper on the discovery of this text is “An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its implications”, by Shlomo Pines, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971

 

[Hunter24]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to give the sources.

Someone has already sighted Tacticus. Mara bar Sarapoin also wrote about the exicution of the “wise king of the Jews”. There are several old roman government documents aswell.

 

[chosen_people]

Perhaps I did not make my point clear.

While the Latin text appears to show some sort of interpolation, the first text that I quote is unadulterated.

The paper on the discovery of this text is “An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its implications”, by Shlomo Pines, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971

I’m afraid you may have misunderstood Pines’ paper. Pines asserts that the Arabic Agapius version (Agapius known as Agapius the historian died around 941-942 c.e. was a Christian) shows that the Eusebius version was altered and “Christianized” as the Agapius version was much more neutral. He postulates that while Jesus and the Christian sect are mentioned by Josephus this was done in a very lukewarm and neutral manner. This is no different then what was said by Tacitus. Reporting that there existed a Christian sect and that this sect holds that their leader may have been the Messiah, is not what is in the Eusebius version. On the other hand, if we are to go by Suetonuis (75 c.e. - 150 c.e.) in “Lives of the Caesars Or the Twelve Caesars” published 119-120 c.e. at Claudius 25, we must conclude that “Chrestus” (Jesus?) was alive in 49 c.e. and in Rome. The letter of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan around 112 c.e. from Asia Minor (letter 10,96) merely mentions that certain Christians had cursed “christ” to avoid being punished. It does not mention Jesus or claim that this “christ” really existed.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I’m afraid you may have misunderstood Pines’ paper. Pines asserts that the Arabic Agapius version (Agapius known as Agapius the historian died around 941-942 c.e. was a Christian) shows that the Eusebius version was altered and “Christianized” as the Agapius version was much more neutral. He postulates that while Jesus and the Christian sect are mentioned by Josephus this was done in a very lukewarm and neutral manner. This is no different then what was said by Tacitus. Reporting that there existed a Christian sect and that this sect holds that their leader may have been the Messiah, is not what is in the Eusebius version. On the other hand, if we are to go by Suetonuis (75 c.e. - 150 c.e.) in “Lives of the Caesars Or the Twelve Caesars” published 119-120 c.e. at Claudius 25, we must conclude that “Chrestus” (Jesus?) was alive in 49 c.e. and in Rome. The letter of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan around 112 c.e. from Asia Minor (letter 10,96) merely mentions that certain Christians had cursed “christ” to avoid being punished. It does not mention Jesus or claim that this “christ” really existed.

The reference in Claudius 25 involves the agitations in the Jewish community which led to the expulsion of some Jews from Rome by Claudius, and is likely the same event mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2).51] Most historians date this expulsion to around AD 49-50.73]51] Suetonius is somewhat confused in this passage and refers to ‘Cherstus’ as the leader of Christians, and assumes that he was alive at the time of the disturbance and was agitating the Jews in Rome.51]74] The term Cherstus (which may have also been used by Tacitus) was common at the time, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful 75]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Suetonius

Pliny and Trajan talk of the willingness of Christians to die for Christ. Where did Pliny and Trajan ever say they thought the Christians were dying for a mythological man?

Pliny the Younger admited to executing and torturing Christians who refused to deny Christ. People who denied charges were ordered to curse the name of Christ and exalt Roman gods. Pliny said to Emperor Trajan that too many people were being killed for refusing to deny Christ

Pliny said in letter to Trajan

I asked them directly if they were Christians…those who persisted, I ordered away… Those who denied they were or ever had been Christians…worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ. They used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god… All the more I believed it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by means of torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped the examination, and hastened to consult you…on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are brought into danger…