Is there little evidence of Jesus’ existence?

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Is there or not?

Holy Scripture, Church Father Writings etc. etc

And :
Secular Non Biblical Sources For The Existence Of The Lord Jesus Christ in History

 

[Hank77]

The Gospels were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus prophesied this coming destruction that is written about in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

 

[John XYZ Thompson]

God seems to regard the four written gospel accounts as evidence enough to convince anyone. They appear to have stood up pretty well against all attacks for close on 2000 years.

 

[Tolworth John]

Is there or not?

What evidence would you accept?
How about the evidence that no historian doubts that Jesus existed, buy the book by Dr Garey Habermous who researched the views of every historian on this subject.
or
try coldcasechristianity for the view of an experienced cold case detective.

 

[Cash80]

I'm with you!

But, usually, when a person is looking for proof, they don't accept the bible as that proof.

Josephus did say, if I remember, that there was "a man" he meant Jesus....that was crucified ...

But I don't remember enough about this to post about it.

Personally, I trust the Apostles.
I believe they were telling the truth.
(apart from Jesus).

Besides Josephus Flavius who mentioned that Jesus was considered a messiah and got crucified, another 1st century Roman historian named Tacitus who accounted for that:
Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia

 

[hedrick]

Non-Christian evidence is very thin. The most explicit statement by Josephus has almost certainly been modify by Christian editors, though most people today think there was originally some reference to Jesus. There's a second reference in Josephus that's probably original. These would point to Jesus' existence, but say virtually nothing about him except that he was called Christ. That's actually fairly significant in itself if you understand what Christ meant.

Tacitus, around 60 AD, refers to Christians and says a small amount about their beliefs. The problem is that it doesn't reflect direct knowledge about Jesus, but refers to Christian claims about Jesus. Still, it's good evidence that Jesus wasn't a myth created later, as I've sometimes heard. It's an early reference for Christian beliefs that's independent of the NT.

Beyond that, the NT and early Christian writings are about the only evidence. I think they're pretty strong. Why would anyone else have written about him? We don't have a file of birth certificates from 4 BC, so about the only documentation you can expect is people who were impressed by him.

Paul is the earliest writer, and appears to reflect traditions that were passed on to him. While Matthew, Mark, Luke and John aren't independent witnesses, they seem to reflect several different sources. So we have a number of traditions all claiming to go back to Jesus, each reflecting somewhat different understandings of him, the earliest from 30 years or so after his death (and in Paul's case reflecting older traditions). I find it hard to imagine a scenario for this that doesn't include Jesus actually existing.

The well-known atheist writer Bart Ehrman got sufficiently upset by people assuming that he thought Jesus didn't exist that he wrote a book describing what he thought we actually know about Jesus. I think some of his interpretations are based on out of date scholarship, but I agree that we have some information about his life and teachings.

 

[Resha Caner]

Non-Christian evidence is very thin.

That is a lay perspective. Historians would say the extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus is quite robust. Lay people (especially those of the Internet era) seem to think documentation of ancient history is encyclopedic, when in fact it rests upon very few sources. Only a few people from ancient history (typically the "great men") have more than a few passing references. So, for example, we really don't know much of anything about entire royal houses of Egypt, China, and India except their names. For some entire cultures all we have is archaeological artifacts or writing that can't be read (such as the Harappans). Even for some "great men" (such as Hannibal) all we have is hearsay by enemies from a century later.

The most explicit statement by Josephus has almost certainly been modify by Christian editors, though most people today think there was originally some reference to Jesus.

It is true that Josephus was likely modified, but again, people seem to fail to realize that is not unique to Josephus. It is a common occurrence for many of the extant documents historians deal with. Conquerors wiped the names of their enemies from monuments (or burned them) and changed documents. People have faulty memories. It's something historians are trained to deal with. History is about constructing narratives, not about certifying absolute certainty of the truth. I wish that were better understood.

Bottom line is: If we can't use Josephus (et. al.) as part of a claim of Jesus' historicity, then we need to discard about 90% of what is claimed about history.

 

[hedrick]

Bottom line is: If we can't use Josephus (et. al.) as part of a claim of Jesus' historicity, then we need to discard about 90% of what is claimed about history.

Sure. I meant "thin" in the sense that there isn't much of it, and that Tacitus is really reporting Christian beliefs, so it's not an independent witness (i.e. independent of Christians). Even Josephus may not be independent. Certainly the NT, early Christian writers, Josephus and Tacitus together make it clear that Jesus existed. Indeed I'd say that was clear even without the non-Christian evidence.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sure. I meant "thin" in the sense that there isn't much of it, and that Tacitus is really reporting Christian beliefs, so it's not an independent witness (i.e. independent of Christians). Even Josephus may not be independent. Certainly the NT, early Christian writers, Josephus and Tacitus together make it clear that Jesus existed. Indeed I'd say that was clear even without the non-Christian evidence.

Shrug. There's no such thing as "independent" or "objective". Another task of the historian is to understand a source's bias. They all have one. So, yes, Tacitus wrote as a Christian, and he is not a primary source. That doesn't invalidate him. You may understand that, but many non-believer amateur historians claim he must be thrown out as a source because of that. Uh huh. And Gibbon wasn't biased when he claimed Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire? Richard Carrier isn't biased with his "Christ myth" theory?

Sigh.

 

[hedrick]

Shrug. There's no such thing as "independent" or "objective". Another task of the historian is to understand a source's bias. They all have one. So, yes, Tacitus wrote as a Christian. That doesn't invalidate him. You may understand that, but many non-believer amateur historians claim he must be thrown out as a source because of that. Uh huh. And Gibbon wasn't biased when he claimed Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire? Richard Carrier isn't biased with his "Christ myth" theory?

Sigh.

Huh? I wasn't commenting on the beliefs of Tacitus or Josephus. Rather, Tacitus' report wasn't about Jesus. It was about Christians, and what they did. In that context, you can't tell whether he had actual independent information about Jesus or it was based on what Christians said. Both views have advocates among scholars. If his statement about Jesus' crucifixion was based on what Christians said, it's not independent evidence.

 

[Resha Caner]

I wasn't commenting on the beliefs of Tacitus or Josephus.

When using Tacitus as a source, one needs to know as much about Tacitus as possible. It is relevant, but not a reason to ignore his comments about Christ. If nothing else, it informs us of Roman knowledge about and attitude toward Christianity.

If his statement about Jesus' crucifixion was based on what Christians said, it's not independent evidence.

"Independent" is not a historical consideration. My point was that no one is "independent". The term a historian would use to indicate what I think you mean to indicate is "secondary". Tacitus is a secondary source with respect to Jesus' crucifixion. He is, however, a primary source regarding Roman/Christian interaction in the first/second century.

Tacitus writes as if he believes Jesus was a real person. While that is not "proof" he was a real person, it is important historical evidence that a Roman Senator living within decades of Jesus believed he was real.

 

[hedrick]

"Independent" is not a historical consideration. My point was that no one is "independent". The term a historian would use to indicate what I think you mean to indicate is "secondary". Tacitus is a secondary source with respect to Jesus' crucifixion. He is, however, a primary source regarding Roman/Christian interaction in the first/second century.

Right. But if his primary source is Christians, then you can't cite him as a non-Christian source about Jesus, in the sense most people mean.

He is, as you note, a primary source about the existence of Christians, which I noted in my original posting. I consider the continuous existence of a Christian church starting as early as we can see after Jesus' death significant evidence. But people often want evidence that is independent of Christians. I'm not convinced it exists, except possibly Josephus. And even that isn't clear.

 

[Cash80]

I recently started reading a book "Jesus and Archaeology" by James Charlesworth, which lists evidence matching things described in the Bible, during the Old and the New Testament, including places where Jesus has been, like Cana.

 

[Resha Caner]

Right. But if his primary source is Christians, then you can't cite him as a non-Christian source about Jesus, in the sense most people mean.

My point is that you can cite Tacitus with respect to Jesus' historicity. You just need to be honest about the nature of the source.

I understand it's not what non-historians mean when they ask for "proof" or "evidence" or whatever. My point there is the implicit assumption that we have that kind of evidence for other historical persons when usually we don't. That assumption is wrong. So, I'd rather try to dispel the misconception than enable it. If you don't, people are left with an impression that the historicity of Jesus is more in doubt than it is for other historical persons from antiquity, which is not true.

 

[Resha Caner]

I recently started reading a book "Jesus and Archaeology" by James Charlesworth, which lists evidence matching things described in the Bible, during the Old and the New Testament, including places where Jesus has been, like Cana.

I'll check it out. My favorite is Kenneth Kitchen.

 

[hedrick]

My point is that you can cite Tacitus with respect to Jesus' historicity. You just need to be honest about the nature of the source.

I understand it's not what non-historians mean when they ask for "proof" or "evidence" or whatever. My point there is the implicit assumption that we have that kind of evidence for other historical persons when usually we don't. That assumption is wrong. So, I'd rather try to dispel the misconception than enable it. If you don't, people are left with an impression that the historicity of Jesus is more in doubt than it is for other historical persons from antiquity, which is not true.

I partly agree and partly disagree. It's not unreasonable of people to ask for evidence for Jesus that didn't come out of the Christian community. We have to be honest in saying that it doesn't exist, and not cite non-Christian sources in ways that our listeners can reasonably consider misleading. Or worse, in ways that they will repeat to non-Christians and then get nailed on it.

What may be more useful is to ask whether we have non-Roman sources for all of the Roman historical figures we know. You can reasonably maintain that in most cases the Roman historians that we cite are about as close to the people they describe as the variety of Christian sources we have for Jesus, and no more numerous.

The same is true for other ancient cultures also. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise.

 

[Resha Caner]

It's not unreasonable of people to ask for evidence for Jesus that didn't come out of the Christian community.

Agreed.

We have to be honest in saying that it doesn't exist ...

I strongly disagree. It does exist. You're worried about misinterpretations, but only in one direction. You're worrying people will misinterpret a citation of Tacitus as positive primary evidence. You don't seem to understand it's just as damaging to misinterpret "it doesn't exist" as meaning Tacitus has no value with regard to Jesus' historicity.

When you say, "it doesn't exist" those not schooled in historical method will take that as a victory of sorts - a concession there is no "valid proof" because they are implicitly assuming such proof exists for other historical persons.

... and not cite non-Christian sources in ways that our listeners can reasonably consider misleading. Or worse, in ways that they will repeat to non-Christians and then get nailed on it.

Agreed. Educate them.

[edit: P.S.] My historical focus was not ancient or early Christian history, but I've studied it a lot because that's where everyone's mind goes when you say "Christian history". People are perplexed when I say my focus was Christian history in the U.S. They seem to think: what is there to know about that? When I tell them, they're often fascinated to learn the path religion has taken in the U.S.