It wasn't until the so-called Age of Enlightenment (1650-1700) did the existence of Jesus ever come into question. For some 1,600 years prior it was never considered an issue. While there were many accusations against Jesus, none of them claimed he didn't exist. Yet in modern times this rumor continues to be perpetuated. So what evidence do we have?
First we have extra biblical sources that mention or allude to Jesus which include:Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus, Phlegon, Pliny the Younger, and the Talmud.
There is also the New Testament itself which should not be excluded as proof because it is historically accurate with factual names and places. If the New Testament is reliable considering historical events then it should also stand to reason that it's also reliable concerning Jesus. The four gospels of Jesus do in fact go through great pains to document the life of Jesus through several eye witness accounts.
Then are the early church fathers who believed in the existance of Jesus including:Polycarp, Eusebiusm Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin and Origen. The fact they were Christians should not counted against them as they all started out as non-belivers.
Two of Jesus half-brother (James and Jude) wrote New Testament books, yet there existence is not questioned. Also of the 12 apostles, three of which also wrote books in the New Testament. Only one the apostles died a natural death, the rest were martyred for there faith. So that begs the question why would men risk death for no monetary gain for something they didn't believe in? All they would have to do was renounce Christ and live, but they didn't.
In closing, Jesus was not a king or ruler like Alexander the Great. He didn't lead any men into battle nor did he hold any political office. He was very much a common man that stayed under the radar, as such he left a small paper trail, so to speak. Rome had little interest in him. Had the historians realized just how big an impact he would have on Western civilization if not the world, no doubt there would be more documentation today. Regardless there are plenty of first and second hand accounts by men who knew him. For believers it's more than enough, for non-believers no amount of evidence will ever be enough.
First we have extra biblical sources that mention or allude to Jesus which include:Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus, Phlegon, Pliny the Younger, and the Talmud.
- The Talmud is the central text of Judaism. The Jews deny that Jesus was the Christ but never that he didn't exist. In the Talmud it says:
"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) … he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover"Yeshu being the Jewish name of Jesus and "hanging" being a term for crucifixion. The pharisees were clearly no fan of Jesus, and it would have been far easier to say he didn't exist than to try to disprove his claims.
- Cornelius Tacitus was a second century Roman historian. Writing about Christian's being blamed for the fire set to Rome by Nero:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.Tacitus doesn't name Jesus by name (either because he didn't know or didn't think it was important enough) but calls him Christus or Christ, which means anointed or specifically Messiah. And as if to clarify who he was talking about he says he was founder of Christianity which started in Judea and spread to Rome, and was put to death by Pontius Pilate. All of which corroborates the biblical account of Jesus.
- Flavius Josephus was a first century Jewish historian. Josephus specfically mentions Jesus by name:
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 law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.Also...
Antiquities 18.3.3 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.
- Thallus was a Samaritan historian. Much of his original writings have perished but some of it has been preserved through the writings of Julius Africanus. Julius talking about the eclipse that is documented in Book of Matthew after the crucifixion of Jesus writes:
" 'Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me' (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died)."Thallus provides the earliest non-biblical reference to Jesus, some 20 years after his death.
- Pliny the Younger was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome. Pliny wrote of his persecution of Christians:
They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.Suetonius, a Roman Historian and annalist under Hadrian around 120 AD, writes:
"As the Jews were making constant disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome".Chrestus likely is an alternate spelling of Christus, which was another name for Jesus Christ.
- Mara bar was a philosopher from Syria. Mara bar wrote a letter to his son Serapion where he says:
"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 their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians 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 teaching of Plato. Pythagoras 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 which He had given."Jesus is not mentioned here by name but the "wise King" most likely alludes to Jesus. It's not sure when this was written but what's important is that Jesus was never considered a myth. That became an invention of more modern times.
There is also the New Testament itself which should not be excluded as proof because it is historically accurate with factual names and places. If the New Testament is reliable considering historical events then it should also stand to reason that it's also reliable concerning Jesus. The four gospels of Jesus do in fact go through great pains to document the life of Jesus through several eye witness accounts.
Then are the early church fathers who believed in the existance of Jesus including:Polycarp, Eusebiusm Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin and Origen. The fact they were Christians should not counted against them as they all started out as non-belivers.
Two of Jesus half-brother (James and Jude) wrote New Testament books, yet there existence is not questioned. Also of the 12 apostles, three of which also wrote books in the New Testament. Only one the apostles died a natural death, the rest were martyred for there faith. So that begs the question why would men risk death for no monetary gain for something they didn't believe in? All they would have to do was renounce Christ and live, but they didn't.
In closing, Jesus was not a king or ruler like Alexander the Great. He didn't lead any men into battle nor did he hold any political office. He was very much a common man that stayed under the radar, as such he left a small paper trail, so to speak. Rome had little interest in him. Had the historians realized just how big an impact he would have on Western civilization if not the world, no doubt there would be more documentation today. Regardless there are plenty of first and second hand accounts by men who knew him. For believers it's more than enough, for non-believers no amount of evidence will ever be enough.
