Jesus did exist. Prove me wrong.
In the beginning of the 20th century, the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell opined, “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him.” [1] Although they are in minority, today there are still some scholars who argue that Jesus never actually existed. But in this post, I will present early non-Christian sources which show that Jesus was a real person.
Tacitus
According to New Testament scholar Gary Habermas, Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus was known as the “greatest historian” from the first centuries after Christ in ancient Rome. [2] The main record made by Tacitus about the early Christian movement is found in the Annals and it reports Nero’s persecution of the early Christians:
Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called 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. [3]
Some important facts should be noted. First, Tacitus agrees about the existence of someone he calls “Christus,” which is probably a misspelling of “Christ,” often done by pagan writers. [4] Second, he confirms the fact related in the gospels that Pontius Pilate was the one in charge of Jesus’ death. Third, he agrees that the Christian movement grew after the persecution of Nero and he even calls this movement “superstition,” which may indicate the “conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.” [5] Oxford University professor Markus Bockmuehl writes that Tacitus’ mention of Jesus is a reliable non-Christian source for the existence of the historical Jesus, he provides “independent confirmation that Jesus lived and was formally executed in Judaea.” [6]
Tacitus had no personal inclination to lie about the existence of Jesus Christ, since he was a Roman historian who worked with several different emperors, many of them against the Christian movement. [2] The mention of Christ could actually be a problem for Tacitus, given that Nero had persecuted the Christians and they were “hated for their enormities.” This non-disposition to argue in favor of the Christians is yet another reason why Tacitus is considered a reliable source for the existence of the historical Jesus.
G. A. Wells, though, raises concerns about the historicity of the writings of Tacitus because he may have inaccurately cited the title of Pontius Pilate at the time: “he gives Pilate a title, procurator, which was current only from the second half of the first century. Had he consulted archives which recorded earlier events, he would surely have found Pilate there designated by his correct title, prefect.” [7] Following this reasoning, Tacitus just repeated what he had heard but he did not check the information, which indicates that he is not a reliable source. Then, he may be also wrong about Jesus.
However, this argument does not hurt the validity of Tacitus’ text, as Tacitus may have just used a more common rank in his time to denote a ruler with great power. John Dominic Crossan, for example, suggests that “Tacitus simply retrojected the title of procurator, current from the time of the emperor Claudius between 41 and 54, back onto Pilate, who was actually prefect at that earlier period.” [8] Given these explanations for the reason why Pilate’s rank is inaccurate in Tacitus’s Annals, the argument presented by the skeptic, that Tacitus was wrong about Pilate and may be wrong about Jesus, does not stand.
There is another skeptical argument that I consider more challenging to the use of Tacitus as an early non-Christian source. This type of argument does not question Tacitus as a reliable source, but actually affirms that it is legitimate. Nevertheless, it argues that this does not verify the existence of Jesus as a historical person. Robert Price writes:
I consider the Tacitus reference authentic … But suppose the Josephus and Tacitus were original to their contexts. All they attest is that by the time of writing, the Christian preaching heralded a historical Jesus, which no one doubts. The question is whether a Jesus-god had already been historicized, a favor others did Hercules and Osiris, and these texts cannot help us there. [9]
In other words, Price argues that Tacitus may be reporting rumors or fairy tales that were already present in his time. In the same way that others have created stories about Hercules and Osiris, Christians may have created stories about Jesus and been able to spread these stories around.
The weakness of this argument, however, can be shown by the presentation of a cumulative case for the historical Jesus. In other words, it is hard to believe that Tacitus is just reporting rumors when we have several different early sources talking about Jesus. The fact that multiple non-Christian sources in the early second century, and Christian sources in the first century, reported that Jesus existed historically, undermines the possibility of this being just a rumor poorly fact-checked by this Roman historian. Besides, as I said previously, Tacitus is considered a trustworthy historian and “acknowledged among scholars for his moral ‘integrity and essential goodness.’” [2] It means he would not simply accept rumors spread by Christians but report a verified case about a real person named Jesus Christ.
Josephus, “James was the brother of Jesus”
Another non-Christian source that talks about Jesus as early as the first-century is Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian. The first quotation from Josephus that mention the name of Jesus is actually very short, where he is talking about James: “he [Festus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who is called the Christ, whose name was James, and some others.” [10] However, it is clear that he not only considers Jesus as a real person in history but also acknowledges that he is called Christ by some at that time. These two points argue further that Jesus was a historical person.
Josephus is considered by atheist scholar Bart Ehrman as “one of the truly important figures from ancient Judaism.” [11] Ehrman also adds that Josephus’s writings “are our primary source of information about the life and history of Palestine in the first century.” [11] Thus, the first aspect to consider in this argument is the reliability of Josephus as a historian and his non-Christian origin. Josephus is even a Jewish, which means that talking about Jesus as the son of God or the messiah would be considered heresy for him, and he is not inclined to fabricate these stories. Another aspect of this reliability is his proximity to the very days that Jesus lived on earth, given that he was born “some six or seven years after the traditional date for Jesus’s death.” [11]
Regarding the passage, “Schurer, Zahn, von Dobschutz and Juster are among the scholars who have regarded the words ‘the brother of Jesus, him called Christ’, as interpolated. The words have the character of a brief marginal gloss, later incorporated innocently into the text.” [12] This argument does not stand a deeper observation, though. As John Painter notes, “the passage in which the reference to James the brother of Jesus occurs is present in all manuscripts, including the Greek texts.” [13] For a passage to have been interpolated, it is expected to find at least one manuscript which did not contain that passage, indicating that it was added in a later period. Painter even states that some scribal modification may have happened in this text, but it is definitely not a complete interpolation. [13] In other words, Josephus did make a reference to Jesus and this is still a good argument in favor of the historicity of the person of Jesus.
Josephus’ Testimonium
There is also another reference in the works of Josephus to someone named Jesus, and this time a much longer passage, also known as Josephus’ testimonium. First, let’s see what Josephus says:
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. [14]
It is clear that this passage raises a lot of concerns. First, Josephus was a Jewish historian who did not believe Jesus was the Christ, nevertheless this passage portraits him saying Jesus was the Christ or that he rose from the dead on the third day. Even Christian scholars today acknowledge “that at least a portion of the citation (the distinctly ‘Christian’ words [in italic], in particular) is a Christian interpolation.” [15] This is easily identified, as it is shown in the italicized passages, because the scribes of the medieval period, who probably added them, had such heavy hands and the added passages are “so blatant and obvious” from the manuscripts. [16]
After this concession, though, John Meier states that the text without the italicized passages have a clear flow of thought, where Josephus depicts Jesus as a wise man who gained popularity, and even with the death on the cross, his followers continued proclaiming his message and were still alive by Josephus’ days. [17] It is possible to assert, then, that this passage is yet another early non-Christian source collaborating to the argument of the historical Jesus. As Josh McDowell says, “So even the great first-century Jewish historian Josephus, writing just a little more than half a century after Jesus’ life and crucifixion, attests to the truth that Jesus was not a figment of the church’s imagination but a real historical figure.” [18]
Conclusion
We have showed that reliable sources from the very early days after Jesus point to the fact that he was indeed a real person. Even the famous agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman acknowledges that “the view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet.” [19] and affirms that “for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist.” [20]
It is not necessary for the reader to be an orthodox Christian in order to believe that Jesus indeed existed on this planet during the first century of our era. Nevertheless, this is the next step to be pursued in a journey to understand the truth about the most important figure in human history. So, I leave these as the next questions for you to search for answers: did Jesus claim to be God? If so, was he correct on what he claimed? I hope you continue this journey.
This was a very different post, as I did not review any book. Actually, this is a work done as part of the class Apologetics Research and Writing, in the Masters of Arts in Christian Apologetics, from Biola University. The writing was majorly reviewed by professor Clay Jones, and it was adapted to a format better suited for Medium. Please, tell me if you liked the post! Post a comment below and share it if you think others may benefit from it.
[1] Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (New York: Touchstone, 1967), 16. The original lecture was given in 1927 and the book was published in 1967.
[2] Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 187.
[3] Tacitus, Annals XV, 44, quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Dallas, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 121.
[4] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Dallas, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 120.
[5] Norman Anderson, Jesus Christ: The Witness of History (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 20, quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Dallas, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 121.
[6] Markus Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah, quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Dallas, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 121.
[7] G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (New York: Prometheus Books, 1988), 16.
[8] John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering what happened in the years right after the execution of Jesus (New York: HapperCollins, 1998), 9. Italics added by John Dominic Crossan.
[9] Robert M. Price, “Response to Darrell L. Bock,” in The Historical Jesus: Five Views, eds. James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 285.
[10] Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200, quoted in Darrell L. Bock, “The Historical Jesus: An Evangelical View,” in The Historical Jesus: Five Views, eds. James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 253.
[11] Bart D. Ehrman. Did Jesus exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperCollins, 2012), 57.
[12] G. A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? (New York: Prometheus Books, 1992), 11.
[13] John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1997), 134.
[14] Antiquities, XVIII, 33, quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Dallas, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 125. Italics added by Josh McDowell.
[15] Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 193.
[16] “The Ancient Jewish Historian Josephus on John the Baptizer, Jesus, and James,” James Tabor, accessed Oct 1st 2018, https://jamestabor.com/the-ancient-jewish-historian-josephus-on-john-the-baptizer-jesus-and-james/.
[17] John P. Meier, The Testimonium: Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible. Bible Review. June 1991. Quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Dallas, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 126.
[18] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Dallas, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 126.
[19] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012), 4.
[20] Ibid., 6.
