posted
My column last week debunking some of the more controversial claims of The Da Vinci Code received a great deal of response. Most individuals agree that the facts are simply not there to support the claims of Brown’s novel, or the earlier "non-fiction" Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Again, there is no evidence anywhere that Jesus married or impregnated Mary Magdalene, that the Gnostic gospels are more reliable than the earlier canonical gospels, that Constantine or the Council of Nicea invented Jesus’ divinity, etc. Some objected, however, and argued that there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed. The argument of Jesus’ non-existence is a favorite amongst radical skeptics, but does the evidence support it?
When people demand "evidence" for Jesus’ existence, they are of course not referring to the canonical Scriptures, which have survived 2,000 years of attacks and continue to change the lives of millions. For all the talk about Christians corrupting the text throughout history and mistranslations throughout history, the evidence from studying textual criticism does not support such a notion. While it is true that no two ancient manuscripts are exactly the same, the differences in 90% of the circumstances relate to minor grammatical details. Even with the other 10%, not one major Christian teaching or doctrine is affected.
Keep in mind that the first letters of the Apostle Paul were written in the late 40’s or very early 50’s. Nobody, not even most liberals, argue against the authenticity of many of Paul’s letters. The "undisputed Pauline letters" are Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians and Philemon. Even assuming that those were the only "authentic" Pauline epistles, there is still proof of Paul interacting with Jesus’ contemporaries and the disciples of the gospels. For instance, in Galatians, likely Paul’s earliest letter from around the late 40’s, features an account of Paul and Peter. Peter was, of course, one of Jesus’ closest disciples. If Jesus was not real, was Peter not real also? Was Paul’s audience deluded not only about Jesus’ existence, but about a plethora of other apostolic and early Christian individuals as well? If this argument is followed, not only was Jesus a made up fairy tale, but so were many other individuals, something that would not have got by the original audience.
Some people are not satisfied with the Biblical evidence and want first century extra-Biblical references to Jesus. The fact is that are there at least six extra-Biblical testimonies to Jesus’ existence. The most famous and controversial of these is from the first century Jewish historian Josephus. The citation from Josephus is controversial because in one passage known as the "Testimonium Flavianum" (Ant. 18.3.3) contains language that appears to be much too favorable towards Jesus for a first century non-Christian Jew. However, even when you remove the possible interpolations, the passage still reads as follows:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Here is an extra-Biblical first century source that affirms, (1) Jesus existed, (2) He did "great" things, (3) He was executed under Pilate, and (4) He had a known group of followers who were being killed for their faith. Even aside from the Testimonium Flavianum, there is still another reference to the historical Jesus from Josephus found in Antiquities 20.9.1 which references the trial of James, the brother of Jesus who was the leader of the early Jerusalem church.
The "Jesus Never Existed" crowd would like for you to believe that these citations were all Christian corruptions, but aside from the controversial lines of the Testimonium Flavianum which I have omitted, the majority of scholars do not question the authenticity of these references.
There are several other commonly cited sources as well which will be briefly cited. One of the most reliable is from the very early second century Roman historian Tacticus (Annals, 15.44). He was a vehement critic of Christianity and places widespread Christian persecution as early as the Roman emperor Nero (37–68AD). An undisputed paragraph from his Annals reads:
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.
If Christianity was just based on rumors and lies, certainly Tacticus, who claims Christians practiced "pernicious superstition," would have pointed this out or at least argued in favor of such a theory. Nevertheless, Tacticus asserts that Christianity was widespread by the time of Nero, which assumes that the movement must be older than Nero if it had any time to develop into such a recognizable entity. He affirms that "Christus" was put to death by Pilate. There are no known textual variants of Tacticus that omit this account. Other historical writings and claims of Tacticus are rarely if ever called into dispute. Doubt can only be cast on this reference to the historical Jesus if one purposely blinds him or herself to the evidence.
Pliny the Younger, a late first century and early second century figure who was also governor of Bithynia, is also a commonly referred to extra-Biblical source pointing towards a real existence of Jesus (Pliny, X. 96). In one of his correspondences with the Roman emperor Trajan, Pliny details Christian practices and explains his method of forcing Christians to curse and renounce Christ. Before describing means of punishment, Pliny had this to say about Christian practices:
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.
This correspondence can probably be dated to around 110AD. Here it is seen that Christians were meeting together on a "fixed day" which agrees with the book of Acts, that believers were worshipping Christ like a god (so much for the idea that a divine Christ was invented much later or at the Council of Nicea) and had a committed moral code. Later in this section, Pliny details how he interrogated Christians and put them to death if they did not renounce their faith.
The extra-Biblical evidence of Christian martyrdom at the hands of the Romans goes back even forty years earlier based on Tacticus’ citing of persecution under Nero in the early sixties. It would indeed be peculiar that so many people were sacrificing their lives, less then a generation after Christ’s death and resurrection, for something that they did not truly believe in beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course, the common counter argument is that these early believers were just morons or deluded about the historical Jesus and His death and resurrection. It is curious that skeptics almost 2,000 years after the fact are more well informed than the contemporaries of Jesus’ own generation who were sacrificing everything for something they were unsure or incorrect about.
There are other extra-Biblical sources as well. One is an early second century playwright Lucian who derides a follower of Christ in one of his plays and cites Christian belief about the crucifixion. If Lucian was himself convinced that the entire faith was founded on someone who wasn’t even real, he certainly would have cited that somewhere as it would have made his satire all the more powerful. Another reference point is a first century Hellenistic historian Thallus who alludes to the darkness that followed the crucifixion. Another possible reference to Christ comes from Suetonius who makes reference to Jews who were expelled from Rome on account of the "instigation of Chrestus." Chrestus was a common misspelling of Jesus’ name in some circles. This is a less likely, but plausible source. If Suetonius wasn’t referring to Christ, it’s not known who he was referring to with any certainty. Thus Jesus is still a reasonable candidate.
Less important examples can also be given, but the information above suffices for a compelling case for the existence for a Jesus. Skeptics still object and want to know why there wouldn’t be even more references to Jesus in antiquity if He was so important. In reality, what we do have is more than sufficient and exceeds most other historical figures of that day. Furthermore, there was not much interest in writing about what was perceived in the first century as a minor religious figure who was an executed criminal. Even the gospels and book of Acts contain examples of the dismissive attitude the secular authorities held towards the person of Jesus and the Christian movement. Quite frankly, most in the first half of the first century did not consider Jesus important enough to write up biographies about.
Also, there were not many comprehensive historical works being written during and immediately after the time of Christ. In the instances where there were significant works being published, such as Philo’s philosophical works, musings about Jesus would have been out of place. However, as earlier stated, Jesus is cited in one of the most important first century historical writings by Josephus. When one takes all of this into account, having up to six early extra-Biblical sources of Jesus is most impressive.
To argue that all of these extra-Biblical sources are "forgeries" takes imaginative leaps and can only be rooted in a strong bias. Of course, the New Testament Biblical documents are good sources themselves and those go back as early as the late forties or early fifties with Paul’s writings. To claim that the person of Jesus was just a made up hoax that was believed by thousands and thousands across the entire known Roman world only half a generation after Christ’s death would be most fantastic indeed.
Skeptics and critics of the Scriptures and theism in general like to fashion themselves as extremely thoughtful people with a good handle on the facts. Just look at the titles they bestow upon themselves: "rationalists" and "free-thinkers" being two of the most prominently used, whereas Christians are just silly fools who believe in fairy tales. But when looking at the evidence regarding a historical Jesus, the Christ-deniers are being anything but rational and free-thinking and instead are only reaching their conclusions because of biased presuppositions and a priori assumptions that Jesus never existed.
As Jack Webb said on Dragnet, "All we want are the facts, ma’am." The Christ deniers and The Da Vinci Code enthusiasts both have one thing in common: they are not concerned at all about the facts and will stop at nothing to rewrite history. How convenient that they feebly attempt to accuse their detractors of doing the same. The facts, however, speak for themselves, and they speak very loudly in defense of a very real Jesus.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic