Ancient
Non-Christian Evidence for the Historical Existence of Jesus
Many skeptics (including a few
popular authors) argue that there is no historical evidence for the existence
of Jesus of Nazareth outside the New Testament (which they don’t consider reliable,
even though it is, but that’s another topic for another blog). However this simply
isn't true. There are several ancient non-biblical references to Jesus of
Nazareth outside the New Testament. These sources attest to his being a Jewish
teacher and prophet, his execution by Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate,
and the fact that his followers "worship[ed] him as a god." Do they
prove he really was the preexistent, divine Son of God, the Second member of
the Trinity and that he really was resurrected? No. They don't. But they
are proof of Jesus' historical existence and of the fact that the earliest
Christians worshiped him as God incarnate. Below are the main ancient
non-Christian references to Jesus of Nazareth, with the dates of their composition.
From Jewish historian Flavius
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3.3 (ca. AD 93):
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 among 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.
Nearly all scholars, whether Jewish,
Christian or atheist, accept that a "core" of this passage, called the "Testimonium Flavianum" or "TF" for short, is
genuine, however many think that an anonymous Christian later interpolated certain words/phrases into it
to make it read more favorable to Jesus, thus it reads in the form we now know
it. However they have reconstructed what Josephus' original probably looked
like, something like:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a
wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive
the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among
many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the
leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him
previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of
Christians (named after him) had not died out.
What we’re left with is language
that looks and sounds exactly like something Josephus would write; it uses many
words and catchphrases Josephus uses. Words and catchphrases not likely to be
used by a Christian (such as the phrase “wise man” and the fact that it says
Jesus gained a significant Gentile following, when, as Christians would know,
but Josephus might not, the gospels state that Jesus restricted his earthly
ministry primarily to Jews; only after his resurrection did the Church begin to
evangelize Greeks).
Furthermore, had an anonymous
Christian simply made up the whole episode, they’d have surely placed it after
the material on John the Baptist, as in the gospels the material about follows
that of John the Baptist, instead of in the section on the excesses of Pontius
Pilate, which is where Josephus actually placed it.
In 1971 Jewish Professor Shlomo
Pines discovered a 10th century Melchite Arabic Christian text of the TF-a text
not in the standard family of GK copies of Josephus. The manuscript in question
appears in the "Book of the Title" written by Agapius, a 10th century
Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis:
For he says in the treatises that he
has written in the governance of the Jews: At this time there was a wise man
who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be
virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his
disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had
become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that
he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was
alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the
Prophets have recounted wonders.
This Arabic translation is important
because it is not a Greek translation that was dependent upon the Greek
Eusebian family of translations of Josephus, but an independent Arabic version.
The copyist who made this translation would be unlikely to have had access to
the Greek version. What all this means is that we have multiple, independent
manuscript attestation for the same thing (the TF) arguing
against the whole of the TF being a forgery. Furthermore, the Arabic version references Jesus' resurrection however unlike the GK versions, it qualifies it by saying that his disciples reported that he appeared to them alive three days later, which sounds much more like what the Jewish Josephus would've actually written. Perhaps this Arabic version, then, is evidence that the Greek version of the TF as we know it is actually a little closer to Josephus' original than we thought?
Regardless, a core of the TF is accepted as authentic by
most Josephan and New Testament scholars.
From Antiquities 20.9.1:
But the younger Ananus who, as we
said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally
daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment
above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a
disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead,
and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and
brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was
James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he
delivered them over to be stoned. . . .
Nearly all historians believe the
above reference is totally genuine.
From the Roman historian Cornelius
Tacitus' Annals (ca. 115 AD) 15.44:2-8:
Consequently, to get rid of the
report [that he was responsible
for Rome's burning], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most
exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians
by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the
extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our
procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked
for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the
evil, but even in Rome. . .
Tacitus was a very careful, deliberate historian, not prone to reporting hearsay. He was also no friend of Christians. True, he and Pliny were friends thus Tacitus could’ve gotten his information on Jesus from Pliny however as Annals 15.53 indicates, Tacitus didn’t uncritically accept everything Pliny told him.
To the objection that no church
fathers quoted Tacitus’ reference to Jesus, so it must be bogus, I would
answer, why would they? The reference is extremely unflattering to Jesus and
the Christians thus no church father would want to draw attention to it for
that reason, and besides, Jesus’ historical existence was never questioned in
antiquity. Thus, there was no need to prove Jesus existed since nobody
questioned that.
It is true that Tacitus refers to
Pilate as a procurator rather than
the more accurate prefect however
this in itself isn’t sufficient cause to reject his testimony. A procurator was a financial administrator
who acted as the Emperor’s personal agent whereas a prefect was a military official however in a backwater province
like Judea there was not much difference between these two positions.
Furthermore, historians are aware that these terms were often used
interchangeably by ancient historians, such as Philo and Josephus, who use both
terms to describe the same office. It’s also possible that Pilate held both
positions simultaneously. And of course it’s also possible that Tacitus,
knowing that prefect was the term
used from 6-41 AD whereas procurator was
the term used from 44-66, may have been using the term his readers at the time
were more familiar with.
From the Roman historian Gaius
Suetonius Tranquillas' Claudius (ca. 115 AD) 25:
Because the Jews
at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of
Chrestus, he [Emperor Claudius] expelled
them from the city.
Note: This is confirmed in the NT
text Acts of Apostles 18:2:
There he [the apostle Paul] met a Jew
named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come
from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all
the Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them. . .
From Suetonious' Nero,
16:
After the great fire
at Rome . . . punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect
professing a new and mischievous religious belief.
From the Roman governor Pliny the
Younger's letter to the Emperor Trajan (ca. 112 AD) Vol. II, X:96, from his
collected "Letters." Pliny had taken action against Christians and
was writing to Trajan to explain his actions and ask for further clarification
as to how to deal with this illegal faith:
They [the Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a
certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a
hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any
wicked deeds, but never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should
be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate,
and then reassemble to partake food-but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
This
reference does two things—first, it is evidence that Jesus existed, and,
secondly, it is extremely early non-Christian evidence for the Church
worshiping Jesus as God incarnate. It dispels the old skeptic argument that
Jesus’ deity was a very late innovation by the Gentile Church. Like Tacitus, Pliny
was also no friend to the Christians and would not be prone to exaggerate details
about a religious sect he was under orders to prosecute. Indeed, the reason he
was writing Trajan was for more precise instructions on how to proceed.
From 2nd century AD Greek satirist
Lucian of Samosata's The Death of Peregrine, 11-13:
The Christians, you know, worship a
"man" to this day-the distinguished personage who introduced their
novel rites, and was crucified on their account . . . You see, these misguided
creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all
time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which
are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original
lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted,
and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his
laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all
worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.
From a letter from Syrian ruler Mara
Bar Serapion, in prison, to his son Serapion (ca. late 1st-3rd century AD).
Mara Bar Serapion is writing from prison to encourage his son to emulate wise
teachers of history:
What advantage did the Athenians
gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a
judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain
from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What
advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after
that that their kingdom was abolished [in 70 AD]. God justly avenged these
three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samaritans were overwhelmed
by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete
dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of
Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching he had
given.
This one
doesn’t reference Jesus by name, but what other “wise king” did the Jews
execute prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70?
From the historian Thallus' history
of the world (ca. 52 AD). The original work has been lost and exists only in
fragmentary citations of other historians. One such historian was Julius
Africanus, writing ca. 221 AD. It is debated whether Thallus was the wealthy
Samaritan referred to by Josephus who was made a freedman by Emperor Tiberius
and who loaned money to King Herod Agriipa I. In writing about Jesus' crucifixion
and the subsequent earthquake and darkness reported in the gospels, Julius
Africanus quotes a reference by Thallus to a great darkness:
On the whole world there pressed a
most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places
in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus,
in the third book of his "History," calls, as appears to me without
reason, an eclipse of the sun.
Obviously
not a reference to Jesus, but to the great darkness that the gospels say
occurred during his crucifixion.
From the Jewish Talmud, Sanhedrin
43a (ca. 70-200 AD):
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu
[Jesus] was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald
went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has
practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say
anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But
since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the
Passover!
There are other possible references
to Jesus in the Talmud however these are disputed.
But there are also extremely early non-Biblical Christian references to Jesus.
From the early Church Father Clement
of Rome (ca. 90-125 AD):
The Apostles received the Gospel for
us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then
Christ is from God and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the
will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and
having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and
confirmed in the word of God with full assurace of the Holy Ghost, they went
forth with glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching
everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, when they
had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should
believe.
Then there's a reference from
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (ca. 110-115 AD):
Jesus Christ who was of the race of
David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly
persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of
those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who, moreover was truly
raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him, who in like fashion will so
raise us also who believe in him.
There are many other extremely early
non-biblical Christian references to Jesus-these are just two.
Taken individually these references
might not look like much, but taken together they look very impressive. To the
extent that the overwhelming majority of scholars and historians believe these
references are authentic. These ancient chroniclers were all either hostile or
indifferent to Christianity, and the historians among them had the reputation
of being careful, deliberate historians, not prone to repeating gossip or urban
legends.
Few educated people, certainly few
academics, question Jesus' existence. Yet many religious skeptics (not all) are resistant
to even believing that Jesus existed at all, as if to admit that Jesus existed also forces you to admit that he was/is the resurrected Messiah, when these are
actually two different arguments. Even the liberal academic, former co-founder
and Fellow of the Jesus Seminar, Prof. John Dominic Crossan, who doesn't
believe in either Jesus' deity or his resurrection (he believes Jesus’ dead
body was eaten by wild dogs) asserts:
That he [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything
historical ever can be. (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p.
145)
Commenting on the ancient evidence
for Jesus of Nazareth, NT scholar Prof. Craig Evans of Arcadia Divinity School
writes:
No serious historian of any
religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in
the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the
governor of Judea and Samaria. Though this may be common
knowledge among scholars, the public may well not be aware of this. . . . (Craig A. Evans and NT Wright, Jesus, The Final
Days: What Really Happened, p. 3).
In fact, of the literally thousands of
New Testament scholars and academic historians worldwide, I only know of two--Richard
Carrier and Robert Price, who seriously question Jesus' historical
existence. Only they and a handful of "Jesus mythicists," such
as popular authors G. A. Wells dispute Jesus' historical existence. In my
opinion, to dispute Jesus' historical existence is akin to arguing for a flat
earth.
Sources:
Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
Craig A. Evans, Fabricating
Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
Craig A. Evans and N. T.
Wright, Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened
Gary Habermas, The
Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ
Timothy Paul Jones, Conspiracies
and the Cross
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities
of the Jews.
John P. Meier, A Marginal
Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus
E. P. Sanders, The
Historical Figure of Jesus
Cornelius Tactitus, The Annals
of Imperial Rome
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, The
Twelve Caesars
N. T. Wright, Jesus and the
Victory of God.
N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God
N. T. Wright, Who Was Jesus?
N. T. Wright and Marcus Borg, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions
Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside
the New Testament," in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship
Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. by Michael Wilkins and J. P.
Moreland
Christopher Price, "Did
Josephus Refer to Jesus?" at: http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
The Talmud, Mishna & Gemara
at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/talmud_&_mishna.html
No comments:
Post a Comment