In the last article, we discussed the importance of knowing the truth about Jesus. This article will show that even early anti-Christian sources support the Christian position that Jesus lived, died, and rose again in real space-time in the first part of the first century AD.
Before we dive into the topic of the historicity of Jesus, I want to clarify one issue associated with historical research. Because no one can capture every aspect of a particular event, we cannot know for certain that the event in question happened in a particular way, in contrast to how we can know precisely the answer to a math or physics problem. For example, I cannot prove without question that Alexander the Great was born on August 8, 358 BC, at night, but I can prove to you without question that 2 + 2 = 4, quite literally. I will spare you from that proof for now, but my point is that historians cannot prove things in the same way that masters of the hard sciences can. Historians must determine to what conclusion the facts most strongly point. However, although we do not have the certainty of a mathematical proof, we can know things from history. It is similar to the court of law. When a lawyer tries a civil case, the lawyer must demonstrate that the preponderance (or majority) of the evidence supports his conclusion. Then, after the jury decides that the majority of the evidence supports Conclusion A, the judge declares that conclusion A is true. Historians are jurors examining the case in order to determine the conclusion that best explains the evidence.
With that history lesson in hand, there are multiple ways to address the “historical Jesus.” This article will examine some non-Christian sources to see what information they contain about the life of Jesus. In Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh and Sean McDowell discussed allusions to Jesus Christ in the following sources: Toledot Yeshu, a rabbinical source from the fifth century; the Qur’an; Suetonius, the second century Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia from 111 – 113 AD; Mara bar Serapion, the 70 AD stoic philosopher; Cornelius Tacitus, the Roman historian who wrote his Annals around 100 AD; and Flavius Josephus, the first century Jewish historian. All of these sources have one thing in common, which is that they were not Christians, but in their writing about the first century, they had to discuss Jesus because he was the most prominent historical figure of that time period. They knew that their records would be laughable if they left out the most important historical figure.
Using these non-Christian sources to glean information about Jesus is useful because no modern critic of Christianity can label them as biased toward the Christian position. Early church fathers such as Polycarp and Clement of Rome, not to mention the Bible, certainly have a lot to say about Jesus; however, some critical “scholars” claim that these Christians lied or exaggerated to support their own arguments. I would disagree with this contention. Many of the early church fathers died a martyr’s death, never renouncing their faith in Jesus. I am no psychologist, but I would think that if these men were lying regarding Jesus, they would have admitted to their lying in the end to save themselves from the hangman’s noose. The fact that these martyrs maintained their position even to death strengthens their argument, showing at least that they believed strongly in their claims about Jesus; therefore, their writing is worthy of consideration. But still, some critics make the argument that these followers of Jesus were biased in favor of Christianity. They cannot make that argument when it comes to sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, and the Qur’an.
In History, as in law, the most valuable evidence is first-hand. In a court of law, second-hand evidence is inadmissible as hearsay. For example, if Sally witnesses Johnnie’s car wreck and tells Suzy all about it, Sally’s testimony is admissible and relevant, while Suzy’s is inadmissible because only Sally actually witnessed the wreck. In like manner, the further in time a historian writes his record from the time at which the event happened, the more likely it becomes that the report contains inaccuracies. First-hand reports recorded on the day of the event make the best evidence, and other records lose value loosely in proportion to a combination of the distance in time they are from the event and distance in people. There is a children’s game called Telephone where children gather in a circle. Child One whispers some phrase into the ear of Child Two. Child Two whispers the phrase to Child Three, and the process continues accordingly around the circle. Without fail, the phrase has changed by the time it makes it back around to the Child One. Similarly, time and the people chain tend to weaken the strength of historical documentation such that the report of an eyewitness on the day of the event is best, and second-hand and third-hand testimony becomes weaker the further in time the testimony is recorded from the original event. With this historical analysis lesson in hand, let us now attempt to examine some of the historical record regarding Jesus.
First, consider the attestations to Jesus in the Qur’an. The Muslim prophet Muhammed dictated the Qur’an. Ergo, it stands to reason that the Qur’an probably harbors some polemic devices against Christianity, yet look at the information it contains about Jesus. According to the Qur’an, Jesus performed miracles, uttered prophecies that came true, and was born of a virgin. It also argues against the Christian doctrines of Jesus’ divinity, the Trinity, and even Jesus’ crucifixion. I believe the only reason that the Qur’an mentions Jesus at all is because his fame was already so widespread at the time of its writing. The Qur’an, purporting to be a religious book, had to include some true information about Jesus to give it any credibility whatsoever. Although its denial of Jesus’ crucifixion, as well as several other errors, invalidates it, its information about the miracles surrounding Jesus’ life mirrors that of the other historical accounts we will analyze.
Toledot Yeshu is similar to the Qur’an in its polemical elements. It is a Jewish commentary written around 450 AD that discusses Jesus Christ, calling him essentially a false prophet, certainly denying his godship. Toledot proposed that Jesus was a disrespectful charlatan who mastered demonic magic to gain a following. It stated that the Romans crucified Jesus and erroneously reported that his body was stolen by his disciples and ultimately recovered by the Sanhedrin. Clearly a Christian would disagree with this polemic’s contention about the recovery of Jesus’ body, but notice the tacit referent to three core Christian tenants. First, where Toledot noted that Jesus mastered magic, it attempted to account for Jesus’ well-documented miracles that he performed throughout his life, interestingly doing so in the same way that Matthew documented the Jewish leaders doing during Jesus’ lifetime. Second, Toledot agreed that the Romans crucified Jesus. Toledot disagreed with the Christians as to the purpose of Jesus’ crucifixion, but it agreed that Jesus was indeed crucified. Finally, it tacitly attested to Jesus’ resurrection. Toledot suggested that Jesus’ body was stolen and later recovered, again mirroring the story that Matthew, in his Gospel, told us that the Jewish council fabricated. This attempted cover-up reinforces the Gospel accounts that Jesus rose from the grave. Toledot Yeshu had to address these three issues regarding Jesus because his story was already so widespread by the fifth century. Like the Qur’an, Toledot Yeshu likely does not contain any independent information about Jesus due to its late date, but, here again, Jesus’ critics help to verify the Gospel account of Jesus’ life.
Next, let us examine some documents written much closer in time to Jesus’ life. Suctonius, the second century Roman historian, mentioned “Chrestus” as the reason for Jewish disturbances and their expulsion from Rome in 49 AD. “Chrestus” almost certainly is a misspelling of “Christus”, which is the Greek spelling of Christ. Thus, Suetonius’ record tells us, at the very least, that differences in opinion about Jesus within the Jewish community aroused the attention of Rome. Mara bar Serapion, a Syrian stoic philosopher, wrote about Jesus in a letter to his son in 70 AD. Mara described Jesus’ teaching by calling Jesus the “Jew’s wise king.” Neither of these men were Christians, nor were they particularly invested in the Christian movement. Nevertheless, both discussed Jesus in their works around the end of the first and the beginning of the second century.
The writings of Cornelius Tacitus present a different situation altogether. From his works, it is obvious that he despised Christians. Tacitus lived between 56 and 120 AD, and historians today consider him the greatest Roman historian of all time. He wrote about Jesus in his Annals toward the end of the first century. Tacitus claimed that Christians worshiped Jesus Christ as their god and that Pontius Pilate, under Emperor Tiberius, crucified Jesus in the 30s. Tacitus considered the Jews to be an inferior race. He likened them to rodents, so he would not have used Jewish sources in his records; ergo, Annals represents a source that is completely independent from the Gospels but still attests to Jesus’ life and death by crucifixion. How about that lasting confirmation from a man who admittedly hated Christians!
Finally, Flavius Josephus mirrors Tacitus in his timeline and his disdain for Christianity, as well as his independent support of the Gospel record of Jesus’ life. Josephus was a Jewish historian and politician who lived between 37 and 100 AD. He wrote Antiquities of the Jews to explain Jewish history to the Romans. Josephus was probably related to Caiphas and Annas, the two Jewish high priests during Jesus’ life, who instigated Jesus’ crucifixion, and Josephus shared their opinion about Jesus and his followers. They viewed Christianity as a cult that endangered the Jewish nation, and they wished to eradicate it. In Antiquities, Josephus mentioned James, the brother of Jesus Christ, being one of the early leaders of the Christians and described James’ death by stoning. He also labeled Jesus the crucified founder of the sect and the man who Christians worshiped as God. Josephus described these two topics while castigating the Christian faith, and his information likely came from the very men who crucified Jesus. With Flavius Josephus, we have another source independent from the Bible that called Jesus the founder of Christianity who really lived and whom the Romans crucified. In fact, Antiquities of the Jews even presents Jesus as resurrected, although, admittedly, this detail seems to have been added at a later date by an interpolator.
These works represent only a sampling of the references to Jesus in ancient historical documents. McDowell and McDowell referred to even more documents in Evidence That Demands a Verdict, but these should be enough to put to rest any doubt about whether or not Jesus really lived in history as the Bible claims. These sources, other than the Qur’an, also confirm the Gospel account of Jesus’ crucifixion. Frankly, the last two references alone, one from a Roman historian and the other from a Jewish historian, disprove the absurd contention that Jesus never lived or was not actually crucified. Jesus Christ really lived. He is a verified historical figure. To deny that Jesus lived is to deny the historicity of anyone from the Greco-Roman period, including Plato, Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great. He is no allegory or mythical character invented by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is up to you to decide if you will believe God’s promises and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. If you have not already, I sincerely hope that you will.