Did contemporary historians mention Jesus?

[jcr4runner]

The conjecture that Jesus did not exist was popular for about 25-50 years at the end of the last century. Since that time, even the most skeptical liberal historians have admitted that Jesus was a real person. There is no current credible scholar who makes your claim.

The evidence that Jesus lived in Judea in the first century is overwhelming. Jesus was a historical person recorded by Christian, Jewish and pagan historians. In fact, there are many well-known non-Christian historians who mention Jesus:

• Tacitus in his Annals (c.115 A.D.) mentions that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate and gives detailed descriptions of Nero’s persecutions — which are also alluded to in several places in the New Testament.

• The correspondence between Pliny the younger and the Roman Emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.) corroborates the New Testament history including the persecution of the Christians under the Emperor Nero.

• Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.), the first century Jewish historian, makes mention of Jesus, John the Baptist and the James, the brother of Jesus. Recent scholarship has indicated that at least most if not all of Josephus' mention of Jesus authentic. Other references to New Testament figures corrroborate the Christian Gospel writers.

Scholars note that the New Testament corroborates Josephus in minute detail. Keep in mind that Josephus wrote his history after the time of the New Testament. In other words, both sources were written independently, but both agree with each other. So Josephus testifies to the historical reliability of many passages in the New Testament.

We know of many other early references to Christ by pagan writers, but there are also thousands of manuscripts from the first and second centuries written by Christians. The fact that early Christians recorded their own history does not discount their reliability. Christianity is not a religion that has its origin in shadowy legend, but has definite historical roots, strong personalities and a tremendous amount of source documents to prove it.

[AMbomb]

The story of Jesus is a pagan godman myth. Christianity was originally a pagan mystery religion. There were many pagan mystery religions. They date back millenia before the Jesus myth. Each had its own godman myth and the godman myths were all basically alike. So, what's a more reasonable explanation, that one of these myths came true millenia after it was created, or that the story of Jesus was taken from these earlier myths?

There is no evidence of the existence of Jesus. The Roman archives don't so much as mention him. And the Romans kept tons of records. If there had been someone named Jesus who was tried and executed in Judea, there would've been a record of it. Christians like to site Flavius Josephus. The passage in one of his writings that mentions Jesus is a forgery. It was written in a different style than Josephus's writing and it interrupts what he was writing about. There are no credible extrabiblical sources corroborating the story of Jesus.

Click on this link for more information on the writing of Tacitus:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

Pliny the Younger wrote a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan regarding the Christians, but never actually wrote there was such a person as Jesus. As for Josephus, click on this link: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/question.htm

[jcr4runner]

Do you think it strange that every one of the many passages about Jesus' existence is questioned by the skeptics? An objective investigator would conclude that if there were so many testimonies that corroborated each other in minute detail then the testimony must be accurate to a greatt degree.

If we compare Jesus to the fifth or sixth century legend of King Arthur, we find in Arthur a king who probably did exist. But there are so many variants in the legend it is impossible to pinpoint when and where the legend ends and the historical facts begin. There are no written accounts of Arthur within several centuries of his existence, yet many historians believe there was Briton war lord named Arthur son of Uther Pendragon who lived in the early sixth century.

The story of Jesus is completely different in that we have thousands of accounts giving exact details of His life within 30 years of His crucifixion. In the next 100 years after His death, there are thousands of references to Jesus and the writers of the New Testament.

We know of many other early references to Christ by pagan writers, but there are also thousands of manuscripts from the first and second centuries written by Christians. The fact that early Christians recorded their own history does not discount their reliability. Christianity is not a religion that has its origin in shadowy legend, but has definite historical roots, strong personalities and a tremendous amount of source documents to prove it.

Other first and second century writers who wrote about Jesus as the Son of God, the promised Messiah and Lord of Creation, are:

• Clement (A.D. c. 30-100) the Bishop of Rome

• The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. c. 70-130)

• Polycarp (A.D. 70-155) the Bishop of Smyrna, a student of the Apostle John

• Ignatius (A.D. 35-110) the Bishop of Antioch

• Irenaeus (A.D. 130 -200) the second century Bishop of Lyons

• Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220) the second century apologist

• Clement (A.D. 150 -215) the second century Bishop of Alexandria

[AMbomb]

Those people were all Christians. What they wrote can't be trusted. There are no credible non-Christian sources corroborating the Bible on the existence of Jesus.

[jcr4runner]

Then what you are saying can't be trusted because you are NOT a Christian. This is your logic turned in the other direction. You may doubt that Jesus was the Son of God. That question will be settled at the final judgment. But you cannot name one current credible historian who claims Christ did not exist at all. There is too much mention of Him in histories to make such a claim.

What you claim is patently wrong.

See:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/print/157

-- FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born around AD 38. He served Roman commander Vespasian in Jerusalem until the city's destruction in AD 70. Josephus personally believed Vespasian to be Israel's promised Messiah. When Vespasian later became emperor of Rome, Josephus served under him as court historian. In AD 93, Josephus finished his work Antiquities of the Jews in which at least three passages specifically confirm portions of Scripture:

But to some of the Jews the destruction of Herod's army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism.

...convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.

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 his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;...


-- PLINIUS SECUNDUS (Pliny the Younger)

Pliny was the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Much of his correspondence has survived including a particular letter written circa AD 112 to the Roman emperor Trajan. This letter does not reference Christ directly, but it does establish several beliefs and practices of early Christians. This includes their loyalty to Christ even when it cost them their lives. Pliny's letter states:

In the meantime, the method I have observed towards those who have been denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were in fact Christians; if they confessed it, I repeated the question twice, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed.

...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 verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to perform any wicked deed, never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to make it good; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food - but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.


-- CORNELIUS TACITUS

Tacitus was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and later became governor of Asia. Around AD 116 in his work entitled Annals, he wrote of Emperor Nero and a fire which had swept Rome in AD 64:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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 Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...


-- GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLAS

Suetonius was a chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian writing around AD 120 in his work Life of Claudius:

Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city.


-- LUCIAN

Lucian, the Greek satirist, wrote this rather scathing attack in The Death of Peregrine circa AD 170:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that 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 upon 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.


-- THE TALMUD

The Talmud is essentially the collection of Jewish oral traditions that were put into writing with additional commentary between the years of AD 70 and 200. From the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a includes:

On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of the Passover.

The facts in this passage are somewhat difficult to assimilate. Although Yeshu is referring to Jesus, the announcement that he was to be stoned (a lethal punishment) is followed by the statement that he was hanged (crucified). One possible explanation is that the Jewish leadership's call for his stoning preceded his eventual arrest by at least those forty days. This would be consistent with Scripture's accounts of his numerous near-stonings (John 10:31-33, 11:8 ).

Jesus' death by crucifixion may have then just been a matter of Roman involvement in the affair. Perhaps it is more likely that his sudden crucifixion (which immediately followed his arrest and dubious midnight trial) was gladly allowed by the Jewish leaders to pre-empt the normal forty day holding period for a condemned man. The leaders may have feared that, during this time, Jesus' followers might have been able to organize his release or stir up an outcry against them.


-- SUMMARY

In summary, what can we conclude about the figure of Jesus Christ by only listening to non-Christians of the first centuries? That he was an invented myth? Absolutely not. Just by listening to Jesus' enemies and outsiders, we can put together the following profile on Christ and his influence; the sum of which positively affirms the believability of the Bible and deity of his person:

* Jesus was a wise man and was called the Christ or Messiah, (Josephus)
* Jesus gained many disciples from many nations, (Josephus)
* He healed blind and lame people in Bethsaida and Bethany, (Julian the Apostate)
* He was accused of practicing sorcery and leading Israel astray, (the Talmud)
* Under Herod, and during the reign of Tiberius, Pontius Pilate condemned Christ to die, (Tacitus)
* Christ was crucified on the eve of Passover, (the Talmud)
* His crucifixion was accompanied by three hours of unexplained darkness, (Thallus)
* Christ's disciples, "reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;", (Josephus)
* His disciples took to the habit of meeting on a fixed day of the week and took their name "Christians" from him, (Pliny)
* They gave worship to Christ "as to a god", (Pliny)
* They bound themselves over to abstaining from wicked deeds, fraud, theft, adultery, and lying, (Pliny)
* Christians held a contempt for death and were known for a voluntary self-devotion, (Lucian)
* Christians believed themselves all brothers from the moment of their conversion, (Lucian)
* Christians lived after Christ's laws, (Lucian)
* Christians were willingly tortured and even executed for their refusal to deny their belief in the resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ. (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian)

[AMbomb]

Literalist (as opposed to gnostic) Christian writers can't be trusted because we already know they believed Jesus existed. Otherwise, they wouldn't be literalist Christians. The fact that someone who we already know believes Jesus existed wrote that he existed proves nothing.
Here's a quote from http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:
TuNVCGBa22kJ:www.infidels.org/library/modern
/gordon_stein/jesus.html+lucian+jesus&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8
"Likewise, Lucian's sarcastic comment, written in the second century, is worth nothing except as evidence that he was aware that the Christians of the time (of which there were a goodly number) felt or thought that there was a man who was crucified in Palestine" as the basis of their sect. This was written far too late to be used as historical evidence, nor is it offered by Lucian as such."
I already posted links for Josephus and Tacitus. Pliny, as you admit, makes no specific mention of Jesus. As for Seutonius, there's no indication he was referring to Jesus. Crestus was a common name. So, it's not logical to assume it was a corruption of Christ. Even if it was, Christ is a Greek translation of messiah. There were any number of would be messiahs inciting rebellion among the Jews. And even Christians don't believe Jesus ever visited Rome. It doesn't say he did in the Bible. Does it? As for the Talmud, Yeshu was an extremely common name and even if that passage does refer to Jesus, it can't be treated as evidence because it was written so late. The Talmud wasn't written until the year 200 and we don't know if that was an early passage. 27 pagan writers wrote within 100 years of the time Jesus supposedly lived. Their works could fill a library. Yet none of them mention Jesus.

[Tanja_von_Hannover]

as the body of jesus has not yet been found, it cannot be proven or disproven that he did in fact, exist.

now weither he died and was ressurected, or if his body was stolen and distroyed is a completely different subject.

but as there is no body of Jesus, it cannot be proven that he existed, or that he did not.

[jcr4runner]

27 pagan writers wrote within 100 years of the time Jesus supposedly lived. Their works could fill a library. Yet none of them mention Jesus.

The problem with your conjecture is that no serious historian actually believes Jesus did not exist. The contemporary debate concerns not His existence, but His divinity. In light of the archaeological discoveries of the past century, the evidence that Jesus was a first century Jew who lived in Galilee is overwhelming.

There may be some weloggers such as yourself who publish their amateurish attempt at criticism, but you cannot name a single credible researcher or historian who currently holds to your view.

First of all, there are volumes of works from the first and second centuries mentioning Jesus and quoting the New Testament. Even if all of the copies of the Bible in the entire world were burned, we could still reproduce all of scripture from the writings of the Church Fathers of the first and second centuries alone.

To name just a few:

* The Didache, a late first century catechism, quotes extensively from the New Testament.

* Ignatius (A.D. 35-110), the Bishop of Antioch, quotes from 16 New Testament books.

* Irenaeus (A.D. 130 -200), the second century Bishop of Lyons, makes 1,819 references to New Testament scriptures.

* Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220) quotes from the New Testament 7,258 times.

You cannot account for the fact that the New Testament was written in the first century if Jesus did not exist.

There are no longer any Higher Critics who deny the existence of Christ. We now have only to contend with those critics searching for a "historical Jesus." The problem even with this version of liberalism is that we have volumes of work by the Church Fathers who were writing in the late first and second centuries. Since they quote from the New Testament books extensively, we can know that the church in many areas of the Roman Empire had access to all of the New Testament scriptures. So the Gospels must have been written sometime in the first century, during the time of the Apostles.

[AMbomb]

You can cite Christian writers till the bombers come home. It doesn't mean a thing. I've already explained to you why their writings can't be trusted.
According to Wikipedia, http://64.233.179.104/
critical estimates place the New Testament as being written between 150 and 225. But, let's assume earlier. So what? The Bible being written in the first century is not an indication that there was such a person as Jesus. Earlier pagan godman myths predate the Jesus myth by millenia.

[jcr4runner]

All but the most skeptical historians admit jesus was a real person. You cannot find one credible researcher who currently denies this as a historical fact. You cannot produce the name of one published historian.

There were certainly pagan writers who mention Jesus. Some deny this using the confabulated means to explain them away as you have done. Of course, there were not as many recrods of Jesus by pagan writers as Christian writers. This is due to the fact that up until the second century Christianity was a small sect except for a few dozen churches in large urban areas, such as Rome, Antioch and Jerusalem. It is not surprising that pagan historians took little notice until the sect grew. But there is mention of Jesus and Christians by a handful of late first century and second century pagans. Most non-religious historians accept these sources although some think the accounts may have been embellished.

It is certain that Nero persecuted the Christians within 35 years after Jesus' death and several of the Apostles were executed by the Emperor. There are ample recordings of this event.

Denial is evidence of an irrationally biased agenda.

You also write that:

"Critical estimates place the New Testament as being written between 150 and 225."

How is it then that we have writers from the late first century and early second century quoting the New Testament extensively? The scriptures must have been widely disseminated for at least a generation in order for this to been the case.

William Foxwell Albright, one of the world’s foremost archaeologists, said: “In my opinion, every book in the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the 40s and 80s of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 to 75).”

[jcr4runner]

But, let's assume earlier. So what? The Bible being written in the first century is not an indication that there was such a person as Jesus. Earlier pagan godman myths predate the Jesus myth by millenia.

And the difference is that those myths have no historical corroboration, while the New Testament can be corroborated by independent historians and archaelogical evidence in minute detail.

There were many stories about gods who died and were resurrected, but they were thought of as legends, or as myths symbolic of the renewal of spring after winter. Adonis, Hercules, the Norse god Balder and other heroic God-man figures died and rose from the dead "long ago and far away." Jesus, on the other hand, died at a particular time and place in history, under the jurisdiction of Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea from 26 to 36 A.D., during the last ten years of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.

[AMbomb]

The New Testament is totally uncorroborated! That's what I've been trying to explain to you. The godman myths, including the Jesus myth, are all essentially identical. It's the same story told over and over again with different names. The Jesus story isn't 2,000 years old. It's at least 5,000 years old! I want you to do two things:
1. Click on this link: http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/
2. Read The Jesus Mysteries.

[jcr4runner]

When you say that the New Testament is totally uncorroborated, you are saying that it contains no factual record of history recorded by independent historians?

The fact is that the Jews recorded exact historical references -- the best of all the ancient historians -- because they believed that God was trying to teach them something through history. In keeping with this tradition, the writers of the Gospels sought to record accurate historical events surrounding the life of Christ.

For instance, in Luke 2:1, we see that Jesus was born in the days when Quirinius was governor of Syria; and when Caesar Augustus was Emperor. In Luke 3:1, we are given the exact year of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry: “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar; Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea; Herod being tetrarch of Galilee; his brother Phillip the tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis; and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.”

These were the rulers of the surrounding countries of Judea in the first century. These are all true persons and places that may be corroborated in other recorded histories.

There are many examples of how recent archaeological finds have corroborated the people, places and events that are recorded in the Gospel stories.

The difference between the Gospels and the pagan god-man myths is that the Gospels record dates, actual historical events and people. There is real physical evidence for the reliability of the Gospel stories. Recently, there have been inscriptions found about Caiaphas the High Priest and Pontius Pilate that were previously unknown.

In addition to the New Testament, there are volumes of writings by Christians who were eyewitnesses of Jesus ministry or the ministry of the Apostles. They believed Jesus lived, performed miracles, died on a cross and was resurrrected.

In contrast, the pagans viewed their stories as myths. The ancient Greeks did not actually believe that Hercules was a historical person. There is no date assigned to any ancient myth because there were no eyewitnesses who recorded the events. In fact, the recorders of ancient myths do not even pretend to be factual.

You may have read over the weekend that a statue of Ramses II was found in Egypt. These archaeologists accept the biblical account that this was the Pharoah whom Moses confronted in the story of the Exodus. These archaeologists assign a date to Ramses rule which is corroborated by the chronologies and genealogies given in the Bible.

Your claims that these people never existed are not held even by the most skeptical of historians. Many historians will doubt the accuracy of biblical stories (the accounts of miracles, the creation account, etc.) but they do not doubt that the people, places and events recorded in the Bible actually existed. In fact, archaeology has proven tthe Bible to be the most accurate historical document from ancient times.

[jcr4runner]

"When we say that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter" [Justin Martyr, First Apology, 21].

The quote is used at the web site you mention in an attempt to prove that Chrsitianity was "borrowed" from ancient myths. The idea is that somehow this is the record of two religious groups debating whose "myth" was superior.

On the contrary, no one in the ancient world (except for children and simple people) actually believed that Jupiter or Zeus had sons who were historical persons.

In the time of Justin Martyr, there were Christians still alive who had been taught by the Apostles who in turn claimed to be eyewitnesses of the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. In contrast to the pagan myths, the eyewitnesses of Jesus ministry and those Christians who came afterward were so convinced of the Lordship of Jesus that they were willing to die as martyrs. They were executed not because they claimed Jesus was a god, but because they claimed Jesus REALLY was God and that Caesar was not their Lord.

There are no such records concerning Hercules or the "sons of Apollo."

The arguments of the early Christian apologists were not made against a competing myth, but against the idea that a Caesar could actually have an authority greater than Christ. Even though several Emporers were deified, this was thought of mainly as a symbolic tribute. There were many such gods and sons of gods in the Greek and Roman world.

So why did the Romans view the early Christians as a threat? Only for the reason that they actually believed and were willing to die for their belief. If this Jesus really was the Son of God, then the entire Roman political system was threatened because there was a king with greater authority than Caesar.

[AMbomb]

The New Testament is totally uncorroborated with respect to Jesus. Just because they record dates and real people doesn't mean that what the Gospels say is true. The Gospels, in fact, contradict eachother. And for the googeplexeth time, the writings of Christians cannot be trusted! I've already explained to you why. Stop bringing them up. You should ask yourself why there's no non-Christian corroboration of the Gospels. And by the way, the Jews were never in Egypt. So, the biblical account of Moses's confrontation with a Pharaoh is fiction.