(click on the name to jump to the section on this page)
A. Let's "Pretend" He Did
B. Would You Write About “Jesus”?
C. Historical Records
D. The Survey Says...
LET'S "PRETEND" HE DID
There is no way that I could exhaustively treat this topic, indeed there are numerous books whose entire purpose it is disprove or prove that Jesus was a real man. That being said however, I do not think that one has to write a book to provide an ample answer to this question.
As we begin to discuss this topic, let us start by asking “If merely for the sake of argument we say Jesus did exist, who would he have been?”. I am not saying he was or wasn’t here at this point, nor am I talking about whether or not he was divine; I am speaking hypothetically about what his material heritage, trade, culture and his life span would have been if he really walked the earth between 2 and 34 A.D..
If we go by the outline provided in the books attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Jesus would have been born around 3 or 4 A.D. into a less than wealthy Jewish family. We know they were not rich because they offered turtledoves at the temple, which was a sacrificial offering given by those too poor to provide a lamb. (Leviticus 5:6-11)
It was said that he grew up in an out of the way place called Nazareth, which had a reputation for producing troublemakers (John 1:46). There he grew up, lived, and worked (Luke 2:39-40) with his father as a carpenter (Mark 6:3) before beginning his ministry as a prophet at about thirty years of age (Mark 1:9-12, Luke 3:21-23). After this, Jesus went about teaching and preaching for three and a half years. We know it was three and a half because after Jesus began his ministry four Passovers, which happened once a year in the spring, transpired. The fourth Passover was his last one (John 2:13.23; 6:4; 11:55 – 12:1; 13:1). Finally, Jesus was crucified, largely due to the religious leaders’s manipulation of the people and powers (John 19:1-13).
From this information, I would like to ask you, would it be more likely or less likely that any historian from that timeframe would have mentioned Jesus at all? The answer of course is very clear to be less likely.
To begin with, Jesus was a Jew in a day and age where the Jewish people were not the point of interest, rather the mighty Roman Empire was. Plus, the Jewish people never seemed to get along well with the Romans, and eventually under Titus’s leadership they burned down the temple in Jerusalmen in 70 A.D. Why then would a Roman historian go into great length or make any effort at all to record or pursue the study of things which would glorify a Jew?
Not only was Jesus a member of a smaller and less important people of that time, he came from a place his people thought was, “the bad side of town”.
Jesus was not only born in Nazareth, he spent almost all of his life there as a carpenter. This was not a man who lived to be old like some of the other great thinkers such Buddha, Leonardo de Vinci, Muhammad, etc. Jesus did not enter the stage of Jewish until he was about thirty, and once he arrived on the scene, he only lived for three and a half more years before dying the most cruel and shameful death a human could experience in that age.
In light of this, it is no wonder that no historian met Jesus first hand. It is even less surprising that not many wrote about him.
Back to the Top
WOULD YOU WRITE ABOUT "JESUS"?
Pretend for a moment that you are a historian in our day and age. You catch wind that there is a person from the slums of Detroit, a member of a racial minority (Arabic, Hispanic, Indian, Chinese, etc.), who is teaching revolutionary concepts and doing miracles. When you ask what kind, you learn that the lame walk, deaf hear and that even the dead are raised! Curious, you inquire as to where you might go to meet them and you’re told that you cannot, for he was recently killed by lethal injection because he was a terrorist leader, instructing people to defy America. Would you believe such things, would you even care to look into them if the person was “guilty” of treason? It is highly doubtful. Now add to the equation that the person is of a religion you do not agree with, Islamic or Druidic (which I use only because most Americans profess some sort of Christianity, there is no disrespect intended by their mention)?
Not only would probably never even take the preceding claims seriously you would probably not even bother to be sad they were dead.
Likewise, a Roman historian (practicing polytheism, or Mithraism ) who hears that there was a Jewish (monotheist) wonder worker that was killed for treason against Rome and later raised from the dead would probably do nothing more than laugh, scoff, or move on.
Back to the Top
HISTORICAL RECORDS
That being said there are still some mentions from ancient writers that point to the actual existence of a man bearing the title of Christ, who founded the religion followed by Christians. “Zeitgeist” mentions some of these guys but they do it in such a way as to make the words they wrote seem an obvious lie, or misapplication. This is not the case though.
Back to the Top
TACITUS
Let us first consider what Tacitus wrote a little after 100 A.D. in his, “Annals of Imperial Rome, 15:44”. It read as follows:
“To suppress therefore the common rumor, Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishments upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known as Christians. They had their denomination from Christus [Christ] who in the reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though checked for a while, broke out again, and spread not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city of Rome also.”
|
From these words it is very clear that the man known as “Jesus Christ” in the writings of the Bible, and the “Christ” referred to by Tacitus are one and the same. The commonality between them is too great. What other man put to death between the years of 14 and 37 A.D. (the reign of Tiberius) by Pontius Pilate bore the title of “Christ”, began his ministry in the area of Judea and had a bunch of followers called Christians?
Back to the Top
PLINY
Next, let us consider Pliny the Younger, who was the governor of Bithynia (Turkey). Many of the correspondences he had with Emperor Trajan are still preserved today. Writings around 100 -111 A.D., Pliny wrote the following (contained in his Epistles X.IXIV [10.96]) to Trajan regarding the interrogation of Christians:
“I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and a third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished…
They also declared that the sum total of their guilt and error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before the dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery and adultery…
This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth from two slave women, whom they called deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths.” |
Here again it is quite clear that even though the name of “Jesus” is not mentioned in the text it is Jesus Christ that is being referred too. What other Christ founded a group called “Christians” who worshipped him as a god, would rather die than deny him, had women called “deaconesses” in their ranks (the female version of a “deacon” see 1 Timothy 3:8-13), and swore to live a life of purity?
Back to the Top
SUETONIUS
Suetonius is the next of the three historians mentioned by those who say there is extra biblical evidence for the life of Jesus. Suetonius was a Roman Historian who was born around 70 A.D. and died sometime around 130 A.D. He makes a couple statements regarding Christians. One of them is found in “Suetonius: De Vita Caesarum Nero: XVI”, which lists the punishment of Christians among the many acts of Nero which reads as follows:
“During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food, the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city. “ |
Suetonius, here writing about a hundred years after the death of Jesus, confirms that there was indeed a group called “Christians” who were followers of a “new superstition”. It is not some grand coincidence that those who followed Jesus were called “Christians” (Acts 11:26) and that those who bore this title were following a religion that was very new at the time; Jesus had only died about 90 years before this in 33 A.D. If after learning the fact that “Christians” then existed and that their religion was “new”, we ask who then does history say started this “new” faith and are provided with one answer: Jesus Christ.
The other reference that Suetonius makes which is said to relate to Jesus is found in his “De Vita Caesarum Claudius: XXV”, where among the other doings of Caesar Claudius he mentions:
“Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome”. |
This statement is disputed and perhaps justly so. The name could be a variation of “Christus”, which is Greek for anointed, or it could be the name of an actual human named “Chrestus”. Also the mention is so vague, in my opinion; it really should not be used by any as a proof of the existence of Jesus. Why use such a weak historical comment when the others are quite strong and clear?
Back to the Top
LUCIAN
Lucian of Samosata, though not mentioned in the movie, is another who I think can contribute to the validation of Jesus’ existence. Lucian was a playwright and a satirist. For those who do not know a “satirist” is, it is some one who writes things which mock human experiences. A couple examples of satire is the “Colbert Report”, with Stephen Colbert and “The Great Dictator” by Charlie Chaplin.
In “The Works of Lucian Volume IV” we find the story called, “The Death of Peregrin” or “The Passing Peregrinus”. This is a satire about the deeds of a philosopher named Peregrine, or Proteus, who after killing his father because he was tired of waiting for him to die, ran away due to the circulation of his act among the people. It was upon his travels that the man in our story meets a group of Christians and of that meeting Lucian writes:
“It was now that he came across the priests and scribes of the Christians, in Palestine, and picked up their queer creed. I can tell you, he pretty soon convinced them of his superiority; prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue--he was everything at once; expounded their books, commented on them, wrote books himself. They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president. The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. Well, the end of it was that Proteus was arrested and thrown into prison. This was the very thing to lend an air to his favourite arts of clap-trap and wonder-working; he was now a made man. The Christians took it all very seriously: he was no sooner in prison, than they began trying every means to get him out again,--but without success.
Everything else that could be done for him they most devoutly did. They thought of nothing else. Orphans and ancient widows might be seen hanging about the prison from break of day. Their officials bribed the gaolers to let them sleep inside with him. Elegant dinners were conveyed in; their sacred writings were read; and our old friend Peregrine (as he was still called in those days) became for them "the modern Socrates." In some of the Asiatic cities, too, the Christian communities put themselves to the expense of sending deputations, with offers of sympathy, assistance, and legal advice. The activity of these people, in dealing with any matter that affects their community, is something extraordinary; they spare no trouble, no expense. Peregrine, all this time, was making quite an income on the strength of his bondage; money came pouring in. 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 on 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.
All this they take quite on trust, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property. Now an adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who has seen the world, has only to get among these simple souls, and his fortune is pretty soon made; he plays with them.”
|
Even though this bit of play is fictional and designed to convey the idea of Christian gullibility, it touches upon some valid points of Christian doctrine.
Written probably around 160 A.D., this satire shows that the name and fundamental concepts of Christianity were so common as to be easily recognized by those who were exposed to it. If this were not the case how could it be true satire for no one would know what on earth Lucian was talking about? Though written about 130 years after the death of Jesus it shows that the concepts presented New Testament such as, the worship of Jesus as God, the death of Jesus for his unique teachings, the denouncing of other gods, the unity of believers, and the sharing of goods, were circulated and well known before the Council of Nicea; which did not occur till a century later.
Back to the Top
JOSEPHUS
The final historian that I would like to mention is the famous Flavius Josephus. Born around 37 A.D. and died around 100 A.D., he recorded the history of his people, the Jews, from creation to his day in his book titled, “The Antiquities”. Even though he was unpopular among the Jews for his surrender to Vespasian, a Roman general, during the siege of Jotapata, the contribution he made to the understanding of the Jewish people was great.
Being very close to the time of Jesus one would expect to find in Josephus’s works references to the life of Jesus, as well as to the lives of some the other key players in mention in the New Testament if these things did indeed happen. As one reads his works they find that these mentions, though hotly debated due to the effect they have on the existence of Jesus debate, are indeed there.
Josephus not only records the death of Jesus, he also mentions the death of Jesus’ brother James, as well as the death of John the Baptist by the hands of Herod. The mentions are recorded as follows, the first in Antiquities of the Jews, book XVIII, chap. III, section 3, the second in book XVIII, chapter V, section 2 and the last in book XX, chapter IX, section 1.
About Jesus:
“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 amongst 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.”
|
About John:
“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him. “
|
About James:
“But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…”
|
Each of these quotes provides a great deal of confirmation for the events and lives that are recorded in the gospels. It is said in Galatians 1:19 that Jesus had a brother named James, the story of John’s death is found in Matthew 14:1-12, and the events surrounding the life of Jesus are the main theme of the entire New Testament.
That being said, I would like to point out that even though the stories of James and John probably are not interpolations -additions to the main text - by later translators, it is almost certain that some of the information contained in the reference to Jesus is.
I am sure that Josephus’s mention of Jesus as well as the fact that he died at the hands of Pilate is valid, for we find this also in Tacitus. However, I am in grave doubt about the more glorious events (naming of Jesus as the messiah, the “10,000” wonders concerning him, the resurrection, etc) mentioned here for they are out of harmony with the tone of the rest of Josephus’s writings. It is very suspicious to me that in Book 20 when talking of James, the brother of Jesus, Josephus would refer to Jesus as “the so called” or one “who was called” Christ and yet in Book 18, which obviously precedes book 20, he would speak of Jesus in terms which sound as though they are coming from a follower of Jesus.
The being said, there is still a point worthy of mention found on pages 186-187 of the book by Grant Jeffery called, “Jesus: The Great Debate”:
“If scholars had found dozens of ancient copies of Josephus’ book that failed to contain this passage, they would have some evidence that this material was not an original passage written by the Jewish historian. Yet none of these scholars can produce a single ancient copy of Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews”, that does not contain this disputed passage on Jesus. In his book “History of the Christian Church”, Phillip Schaff noted that all ancient copies of Josephus’ book, including the early Slavonic [Russian] and Arabic language versions, contain the disputed passage about the life of Christ.”
|
Back to the Top
SANHEDRIN TEXT 43A
The final ancient source I am going to use comes from an unlikely place and indeed one that doesn’t get along well with the Christian Tradition. The quote is taken from a part of the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin Text 43a as it reads in the Munich manuscript, that was translated around 1343 A.D.
“On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! - Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a _Mesith_ [enticer], concerning him Scripture says, _Neither shalt though spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?_ With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government for royalty [i.e., influential]. Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.”
|
Even if this text was created as a Jewish response to Christian teachings, it still shows that the teachings themselves were existent in the second century A.D. when this text was written.
Not only does it show that the teachings themselves were present, there is an exact correlation between what is written here and what is written in the Bible. In John 19:14-35 it tells how Jesus was “hung” (see Galatians 3:13) just before Passover, the claims that he practiced sorcery and lead Israel astray are found in Matthew 12:22-24; 27:63 and John 11:46-48. Thus again you have a very obvious teaching of the major tenets of the New Testament existing well before some “secret council” where in the early church crafted the stories, doctrines, and events of Jesus.
Back to the Top
JESUS AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS
It would not be complete to mention all the records of the life of Jesus without mentioning the writings of the New Testament era.
In our collection of writings called the “New Testament” there is 27 books. This however is not all of the writings which were in circulation during formation of the early Christian church (40 A.D.—160 A.D. +/-). There were many more writings which were not “canonized”, or made a part of the collection of writings the church later came to use as the standard of faith.
How many more writings? I am not for sure as to how many were not included but I am currently reading “The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts”, by Robert M. Price. As the name indicates there are fifty-four books; that is twenty-seven more books than those admitted by the church authorities into the Bible we have today.
Among those writings are included the orthodox books we have in our Bible, as well as the writings of Gnostics, texts preserved by Sufi mystics, unknown writers, etc. There is however a common thread that runs through them all --- the name of Jesus.
Throughout all these writings Jesus, and the figures and themes which are associated with him (his disciples, miracles, divine origins, wisdoms, etc), are present. Why would many of these texts try to claim Jesus as their author or main character if no influential figure of the name ever lived? Why would some of these texts make Jesus out to be less than the spiritual figures they discussed in them if the name of Jesus was not a real threat to their authority? How could all of these writings have survived and maintained popular respect if they were pure fables? Those who lived in the same place and time would have known they were fake and ridiculed them.
When you consider these questions and all the books from the new testament which attribute great works, wisdom, and spiritual insights to a man named Jesus along side the mentions of Jesus found in non-Christian sources; it becomes clear that a man called Jesus lived in the first century.
Back to the Top
THE SURVEY SAYS...
Was he the Son of God? Did he do all the things the New Testament said he did? Are the writings valid and if so are still able to trust them after all these years? These are good and vital questions to ask but answering them is beyond the scope of this paper. However it becomes clear that one cannot dismiss the words of Jesus and the spiritual heritage he taught as being merely copied fables which have no actual figure upon which they are based.
Back to the Top
Part Nine: Closing Observations
