The historical evidence of Jesus

[foundmyfaith]

Maybe some of you can help educate me.

First of all, I believe that Jesus exists. This is not a ‘prove it to me’ thread. I am just curious about the historicity of Jesus. I read somewhere that there is no historical, documented proof that Jesus of Nazareth ever actually existed, and that there is no proof that he didn’t exist. This would exclude the bible, naturally.

I got into a discussion with a baptist about this. She was horrified that I would say such a thing. Her exact words were, “There is documented PROOF that Jesus exists. There is no question.” I agreed that Jesus exists, but that my acceptance of his existence was based completely on faith. I really feel like the beauty of taking faith as absolute proof is a wonderful experience. Look at my name. I lost my faith at one time, and it didn’t come back because of a document that proved His existence. It came back because He knocked on my door and I answered Him. I felt like asking Jesus to prove that he existed by tax records or something was pretty ridiculous. She insisted that documented proof exists.

So, can anyone give a non-church source that documents the existence of the man, Jesus of Nazareth?

 

[edwest2]

Here is one:

thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[foundmyfaith]

Thanks, Ed! I am reading through it.

 

[AyJaySimon]

I think the figure of Christ as depicted in the Gospels was likely based on a real person, but to answer your question, there is no extra-biblical account of Christ’s life or death that was written by anyone who could’ve even plausibly been there to witness it. All the existing extra-biblical accounts were written decades after the event they purport to describe, and by men who weren’t even alive at the time.

 

[wmw]

Yes, it is helpful to seek “extra biblical” evidence and there is!

Still, this is rather rude to the painstaking collection and exact reproduction of the witness and accounts within the Bible. The reviews of how little it has changed and the process of rebuilding the best possible current translations. How difficult it was to preserve such a collection of evidence and documents over such a difficult stretch of time. Then to say “this has been too cared for, too well collected, by those who believe in him that we now must exclude this as tainted evidence and must go elsewhere.” This is an extreme position that no historian would take of any other person.

Another aspect of this seeking of proof. The definition of proof is only that there is enough evidence to convince someone that a belief is true. Essentially if you believe it then there is enough evidence for proof to you and you are never going to satisfy everyone, because they will just refuse to believe.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

found

**So, can anyone give a non-church source that documents the existence of the man, Jesus of Nazareth? **

Non-church sources are not necessary as a way to convince anyone that Jesus existed. The New Testament as a whole, including all the gospels and the letters of Paul are more than sufficient to prove that a man named Jesus of Nazareth lived. The real problem, for those in doubt, is to prove that he did not live. One can search diligently through all the non-church documents of the 1st Century to find a single denial, by the Jews who killed him or anyone else, that Jesus did live and was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate. Certainly if the life and death of Jesus was entirely a fiction, by the end of the 1st Century, when Christianity had become a threat to the empire, it would have been discredited by all who had a reason to do so and there would be an abundance of documents to prove that.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi FoundMyFaith,

I always find this kind of demand rather puzzling, primarily because it is not a demand we would make of anyone else in history. I’ll explain what I mean.

There is scant contemporaneous evidence (by which I mean, created while the person in question was alive) of any person in the ancient world. There is, for example, no contemporaneous evidence of Socrates, though we know a substantial amount about the sage from his followers and students. Any person for whom such evidence would exist was usually a figure of political or social significance. A carpenter in a backwater like Galilee was hardly someone to create great ripples with the Roman educated elite. I suppose, then, we should be very surprised to find such contemporaneous evidence.

Having said that, there is a great deal of evidence that was created shortly after Jesus’ death (by which I mean, within a generation or two). The problem for some people is that this evidence has been collected in the New Testament. Do we when discount the NT and concentrate only on extra-biblical sources? I don’t see why any historian would. If you are not Christian, that’s fine, just take them as uninspired and fallible documents. The only reason for not accepting the NT documents is because one has a prejudice against using material from a disciple or follower of Jesus because it may be hopelessly biased. But if that were the case, we should accept nothing that Plato or Xenophon wrote about Socrates and know next-to-nothing about him. Historians work with biased sources all the time so I don’t see how such an objection can be maintained.

Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that the NT isn’t one source but a collection of sources, and therefore serves as a number of lines of evidence.

Finally, there are plenty of extra-biblical sources (far more than practically anyone in ancient world) about Jesus that date to within 100-200 years of his death, which is pretty good for the time.

 

[bjh13]

I think the figure of Christ as depicted in the Gospels was likely based on a real person, but to answer your question, there is no extra-biblical account of Christ’s life or death that was written by anyone who could’ve even plausibly been there to witness it. All the existing extra-biblical accounts were written decades after the event they purport to describe, and by men who weren’t even alive at the time.

You are right that none of the extra Biblical references to Jesus come from his lifetime or from people who were even alive when the crucifixion occured, but the references from Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius all come from less than 100 years after it happened and are in no way supportive of Christians. Considering the loss suffered regarding historical records since the Fall of the Roman Empire, both from pillaging destroying writings and from well meaning monks altering existing documents, it’s a miracle we even have these three references that historians pretty uniformly consider legitimate.

 

[foundmyfaith]

Yes, it is helpful to seek “extra biblical” evidence and there is!

Still, this is rather rude to the painstaking collection and exact reproduction of the witness and accounts within the Bible. The reviews of how little it has changed and the process of rebuilding the best possible current translations. How difficult it was to preserve such a collection of evidence and documents over such a difficult stretch of time. Then to say “this has been too cared for, too well collected, by those who believe in him that we now must exclude this as tainted evidence and must go elsewhere.” This is an extreme position that no historian would take of any other person.

Another aspect of this seeking of proof. The definition of proof is only that there is enough evidence to convince someone that a belief is true. Essentially if you believe it then there is enough evidence for proof to you and you are never going to satisfy everyone, because they will just refuse to believe.

As I mentioned in my post, I don’t need any proof that Jesus exists. Seeking knowledge is never rude. I was under the impression that there was no ‘proof’ and that my faith was enough. However, if one wants to prove that Jesus exists, going to a church source will always be refuted by non-believers.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Ah, this question comes up every few months or so. I always like to whip out my favorite reply.

For fourteen years (from AD 54 to 68), Nero Caesar was the flippin’ Emperor of the Roman Empire. At fourteen years, his reign was among the longest of the Roman Caesars. He was, without a doubt, the most powerful and influential man in the entire world for fourteen years. He ruled the greatest empire on earth for fourteen years. You have heard of him. Your friend has heard of him. Everybody with a high-school education has heard of him. Are you following me so far? Good.

Can you cite anybody who actually knew Nero Caesar who wrote about him? What about someone who knew someone who knew Nero Caesar. Can you cite me such a name?

You cannot. And, notice that I have not imposed some idea that the sources must not be Roman citizens (as you insist upon non-Christian historians).

The “most contemporary” historian to write about the Emperor of the Roman Empire for fouteeen years wrote about 100 years after Nero’s death. The next closest “contemporary” authors (all of - ahem - two of them) wrote fifty years later (about 150 years after Nero’s death). 150 years after the death of the most powerful man in the world, we have all of three historical accounts. All written by Romans.

Those scant three authors who wrote about Nero between 100-150 years after his death were Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, who were all members of the Roman Senatorial caste. I have no idea who was the first non-Roman historian to write about Nero, but I think I am safe in assuming that it was a LONG time later.

Now consider Jesus. He was Emperor of nothing. He was a member of a conquered race living in a conquered land. He was one of MANY ragtag preachers (Acts 5:34-37 describes the testimony of a Pharisee named Gamaliel who testified on behalf of the Apostles, while citing the failed ministries of other such “teachers” such as Theudas and Judas the Galilean). Jesus attracted a small dedicated following of only twelve men (Gamaliel says that Theudas had 400). His ministry was largely ineffective, as he was condemned by a crowd of his own countrymen in favor of an acknowledged criminal. He was sentenced to a slave’s death by a Roman governor - the cruelest death that the Roman Empire could devise - scourging and crucifixion. He hung on the Cross naked. When he was taken down, he did not even have a grave, but was buried in a donated grave. His execution took only three hours, and the Roman soldiers who executed him were home in time for supper.

In the 150 years after the death of Jesus, how many historians wrote about his life and activities? At least 65 (and I refer to authors, not writings - if we count according to writings, it numbers into the mid-500’s). And some were primary witnesses (such as St. John).

They were all Christians. And Nero’s scant three historians were all elite Romans (who wrote exactly three accounts - not 500+).

Nero was the Emperor of the Roman Empire for fourteen years. Jesus was the head of twelve Apostles for some three years before being executed by the very Empire that Nero would come to rule. And, yet, the ratio is staggeringly unbalanced. 65 to 3 (or 500+ to 3, depending on how you count “sources”).

 

[bjh13]

The “most contemporary” historian to write about the Emperor of the Roman Empire for fouteeen years wrote about 100 years after Nero’s death. The next closest “contemporary” authors (all of - ahem - two of them) wrote fifty years later (about 150 years after Nero’s death). 150 years after the death of the most powerful man in the world, we have all of three historical accounts. All written by Romans.

Not true. See below.

Those scant three authors who wrote about Nero between 100-150 years after his death were Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, who were all members of the Roman Senatorial caste. I have no idea who was the first non-Roman historian to write about Nero, but I think I am safe in assuming that it was a LONG time later.

Tacitus and Suetonius wrote around 116 AD and 122 AD respectively. Tacitus was old enough that he was born only a couple of years into the reign of Nero and would have been able to remember it to some small extent.

In the 150 years after the death of Jesus, how many historians wrote about his life and activities? At least 65 (and I refer to authors, not writings - if we count according to writings, it numbers into the mid-500’s). And some were primary witnesses (such as St. John).

They were all Christians. And Nero’s scant three historians were all elite Romans (who wrote exactly three accounts - not 500+).

Also not true. In fact, when Tacitus and Suetonius write about Nero they specifically discuss Christians, with Tacitus mentioning the Crucifixion itself.