“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” – John Dominic Crossan (co-founder of the Jesus Seminar)
The more you study religion, the more theories you will inevitably encounter. Although the theory that Jesus never really existed at all is not widely accepted, it has cropped up from time to time (see below), so I want to take this week to reveal the evidence that I have encountered to support the historical Jesus. If there does exist a good deal of latent doubt regarding Jesus’ existence, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to begin an in-depth study of the New Testament until I first establish that Jesus was a real historical figure.
“It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist? Although Jesus probably existed.” - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
(Dr. G.A. Wells actually taught German at the University of London, but I’m sure he presents a strong case.)
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
In a critical examination of the veracity of Biblical text, there is a certain inclination to toss out the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, et al because there is a lack of objectivity inherent in any persuasive literature (and the New Testament certainly qualifies as such). Such a sentiment is certainly understandable; while there is a great deal of biographical information in the New Testament, the authors are definitely attempting to persuade the reader to regard Jesus’ teachings as truth. There are a few things to be considered, though, before setting aside the most comprehensive sources:
1. The dates of the accounts (and the subsequent implications)
2. The potential motivation of the authors
3. The imprisonment and martyrdom of Jesus’ followers
4. The transformation of Saul
This week, I want to set aside any notions of the Bible having been inspired by God or infallible. I simply wish to review the text as a historical document. In their writings, the New Testament authors clearly speak of Jesus’ life and crucifixion. The accounts are purported to be first-hand accounts of either Jesus or His apostles. To a historian, these writings are a rare treasure. With any historical texts, there are certain subtleties that can help scholars to ascertain whether the documents were legitimate. I’ll examine below a few of the nuances that lead the vast majority of scholars to believe Jesus was real.
The Dates
The gospels and Paul’s letters are a rarity, historically speaking. With regards to the early centuries AD, to find written biographies/accounts within several hundred years of the people/events themselves is to find a veritable gold mine of information. For instance, the earliest broad accounts of titanic historical figures like Alexander the Great and Hannibal were written centuries after the fact. In contrast, even conservative figures place Paul’s letters and the gospel writings within the first century AD (though some believe John was written closer to 110 AD) or within about 70 years of Jesus’ death and a majority of Biblical scholars believe that most of the works were written prior to 70 AD*.
* This dating stems largely from the content of the gospels and the Book of Acts. Many scholars believe that there is a sort of deafening silence in that there is no mention of hugely significant events that would have helped the Christian cause or would have had a great deal of historical significance to Christians, such as the fall of the temple that was prophesized in the Old Testament (c. 70-75 AD) or the death of Paul (c. 65-70 AD). Paul’s letters, of course, cannot have been written after his death c. 65-70AD.
Why are these dates significant? Writing and circulating accounts (or speaking to accounts, for that matter) that could easily be discredited (if untrue) amongst those who would wish to discredit the apostles would have been a serious detriment to the Christian movement. Jesus is purported to have traveled the countryside and to have spoken to numerous crowds. The books mention specific events and specific locations (most any modern Bible will contain a map showing Jesus’ journey based solely from the New Testament writings). Jesus supposedly performs wondrous acts in full view of the public. By all accounts, Jesus’ execution was a very public event. The authors write of an “empty tomb”. Could the gospels or Paul’s letters have been convincing if Jesus never existed or if He was never crucified?
Let’s examine a few quick and easy ways people of Jesus’ time could have nipped that pesky Christian cult in the bud:
Hypothetical Conversation 1
Disciple: Behold! You have heard of the great miracles performed by Jesus. I tell you today that He was crucified but that His tomb is empty! He has risen from the dead!
Person in crowd: Je-who?
Hypothetical Conversation 2
Disciple: Behold! You have heard of the great miracles performed by Jesus. I tell you today that He was crucified but that His tomb is empty! He has risen from the dead!
Executioner: We only kill thieves and criminals. I think I would have remembered executing someone because he claimed to be God. You say he was the subject of abject humiliation? A crown of what? Thorns? I’m sure I would have remembered that! Pilate only ruled here for about 10 years!
Hypothetical Conversation 3
Disciple: Jesus healed the sick and the lame. He brought Lazarus of Bethany back from the dead!
Bethanian: Lazarus of Bethany? I’ve lived in Bethany my whole life. I knew Lazarus and his sisters… Mary and Martha. He died, but I think I would have known if some Jesus fellow came around saying he could reanimate him. Plus, he’s still dead!
Hypothetical Conversation 4
Disciple: Remember that Jesus fed the crowd of thousands with only a few loaves and fishes! He is indeed the Son of God!
Person in crowd: When was this? You’re saying that thousands of people went to some big field to watch a guy perform miracles? I live a kilometer from there. I never saw a huge crowd walking through my grass. Je-who?
Hypothetical Conversation 5: The early disciples recruit the first Christians
Disciple 1: Behold! I tell you that there existed a man named Jesus who was born to a virgin, who roamed the countryside performing miracles, who was crucified, but who arose from the dead three days later! And, I have NINE other guys who can corroborate this story! Yes, that’s right, NINE!
Person in crowd: Where are the nine other guys?
Disciple 2: Some may already be dead and others have spread out throughout the countryside to spread the good news.
Person in crowd: Um, so there’s only two of you here?
Disciples: Yes, but we swear that are NINE others spreading the good news elsewhere; look, I have a letter from one of them!
Person in crowd: I can’t read. So, you say that this Jesus fellow performed miracles in front of thousands of people?
Disciples: Yes!
Person in crowd: Can I talk to one of them?
Disciples: They’re in faraway lands. But you should stop doing all of the things that you’re doing, because you are being sinful.
Person in crowd: I’ve never heard of this Jesus. Did you say that he performed miracles? And, there’s only nine people who will attest to this?
Potential Motivation
If we are to believe that Jesus did not exist at all, there are two possible conclusions that stem from this with regards to the disciples:
Jesus’ disciples thought they were following Jesus for a number of years, but were mistaken. They also thought they saw Him crucified, but were mistaken. Further, they thought they saw Him perform great, mysterious acts (we’re not yet calling them miracles… let’s assume for now that they were just impressive displays), but were mistaken.
Jesus’ disciples were liars.
1. The Delusional Disciples
How can we reasonably assume that there was no Jesus, but that the disciples experienced some sort of mass hallucination complete with false memories never witnessed in any other psychological/sociological experiments? I don’t think we can. The much more reasonable conclusion would be that if Jesus did not exist, the disciples must have simply made it up.
2. The Liars
Could the entirety of Christianity have been a product of 11 conspirators (who obviously offed Judas when he wouldn’t go along)? Let’s discuss.
”Three can keep a secret if two are dead.” - Benjamin Franklin
”The vanity of being known to be trusted with a secret is generally one of the chief motives to disclose it.” - Samuel Johnson
”Nothing weighs on us so heavily as a secret.” – Jean de la Fontaine
I want to start with a simple premise: Liars make poor martyrs.
If Jesus did not exist, Jesus’ followers went to a lot of trouble to prove otherwise. Here you have a group of Jews who would have decided to contrive a false messiah (even though the officials of the Jewish community strongly objected to this messiah), and who would devote their lives to convincing others of this “truth”. Furthermore, they would leave their families and endure beatings, imprisonment, and even upside-down crucifixion rather than utter the real truth….
The much, much more reasonable conclusion is that they believed what they were preaching! They believed that Jesus was the Son of God. And, for this belief to be possible, they must have known Jesus to be a real, historical figure.
Imprisonment and Martyrdom
Something else we can glean from the suffering of the early Christians is that they were enemies of the establishment. Neither the Jewish leaders nor the Romans of the time wished to see the teachings of Jesus perpetuated. Furthermore, the first martyr (Stephen) was killed only a few years after Jesus’ death, so within a very short span of time we can see evidence that the administrators of the time saw Christians as a threat. Saul of Tarsus (later Paul) was, in fact, charged with rounding up the early Christian leaders in attempt to stop the movement prior to what he describes as an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.
I spoke above about the ease with which the early Christians could have been discredited, and here we have evidence that it would have been beneficial to the leaders of the time to do so. The Romans and the Jews saw Christians as a threat. So, why not stop the movement at its earliest stages by simply presenting the counter-evidence to Jesus’ existence? The Romans spent a considerable amount of time and resources imprisoning Christians, when it would have been much easier to simply discredit them. If we assume, however, that Jesus did walk the earth and did perform wondrous acts, word of Jesus would have spread (just as the Bible tells us) and Rome would lose all credibility if an attempt was made to deny Jesus’ existence.
The Transformation of Saul
“Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about [Saul] and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” - Acts 9.
Saul was known to the Christians. Accounts of his mistreatment of the Christians don’t stem solely from his own letters. He was feared by his enemies and lauded by his peers; not only that, but Saul described himself as a “Hebrew of Hebrews”. According to his own testimony, he believed at the time that what he was doing – stopping the actions of those preaching a false messiah – was righteous. So, why stop? Guilt for doling out punishment to Christians? Christians who were converting his fellow Jews to follow a false idol whose very existence could not be confirmed?
Whether you believe Saul encountered Christ on the road to Damascus, there is little doubt that something happened. He went from one of Christianity’s most fearsome opponents to its most cherised proponent in a matter of days. Even if you do believe Paul simply had a change of heart, this doesn’t explain why he would turn to a non-existent Jesus.
SECULAR SOURCES
CORNELIUS TACITUS
c. 110 AD: "The name (Christians) is derived from Christ who the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius".
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
c. 94 AD: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was the doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him 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 who 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."
James " the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ"
JUSTIN MARTYR
c 150 AD: Described Jesus’ crucifixion in detail, including reference to Pilate.
LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA
c. 120-180 AD: Jesus "introduce this new cult into the world" and was "crucified in Palestine".
MARA BAR-SERAPION
c. 73 AD – third century: Refers to Jesus as the King of the Jews, stating that they (the Jews) had crucified him.
PLINY THE YOUNGER
c. 61-113 AD: Referred to Christians singing "a hymn to Christ as a god".
SUETONIUS
c. 69-122 AD: Refers to "Chrestus" (another spelling of Christus) in his 'Life of Claudius'.
TERTULLIAN
c. 155-220 AD: "Tiberius accordingly, in those days the Christian name made it's entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal."
In total, there are 10 secular sources (not all shown here) that refer to Christ within the first and second centuries and from these sources, we can piece together the following information:
1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Ceaser.
2. He lived a virtuous life.
3. He was a wonder-worker.
4. He had a brother named James.
5. He was acclaimed to the the messiah.
6. He was crucufied under Pontious Pilate.
7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
8. Darkness and an earthquaked occurred when he died.
9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief.
11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshipped Jesus as God.
(list taken from Turek/Geisler)
All of these secular accounts line up with the Biblical accounts.
There are few things that John Dominic Crossan and I agree upon, but I’ll use his quote once again to close the same way I opened:
“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Hey Randy, nice post. I like all the points you bring up. Some I have heard many times, while others I have not heard before or thought about. I appreciate the insight. I have a question for you. How do you respond to the fact that there are many persons of varying beliefs who die for what they believe in? From suicide bombers who seem to be dying as essentially an "easy ticket to martyrdom and everlasting glory" - seems like brainwashing, but also considering their are probably many others accounts of people who died for their religion when they were persecuted. I don't know off the top of my head any example, but perhaps you or someone else does. Or, perhaps Christianity is the only belief system that has martyrs who truly died for their religious cause in a selfless way? Anyway, I'd be interested in hear some debate on this topic as the fact that the disciples were so passionate about their beliefs is a VERY VERY strong indication to many people including myself that something big happened after Christ died on the cross, to change the path of the disciples lives after Christ's death. Thanks man!
John-
Not to answer for Randy, I just happened to jump on here first this morning. He may have more to add...
In my opinion, the difference between the disciples and other martyrs (later Christians, Muslims, suicidal cults, etc.) is that they were eyewitnesses to the events they were defending. Other martyrs are obviously passionate and sincere in their faith, but they cannot know that their beliefs are true; they weren't witnesses to the events. The disciples claim to have seen the risen Jesus- they walked with him, talked with him, ate with him, etc. They were in the unique position to know without a doubt whether or not the claims they made were true, whether or not he had truly risen.
"I have a question for you. How do you respond to the fact that there are many persons of varying beliefs who die for what they believe in?"In a way, you answered your own question. They believe it... that's the simplest solution. Using the same logic, I would assume then that you would conclude that the disciples also believed. The difference, as Kristin stated, is that the disciples had access to the primary source. It appears that the evidence was overwhelming to the disciples, who were witnessing the events themselves. I, on the other hand, began to believe in Christ for the reasons I'm attempting to outline here, but I did not witness the events first hand... nor did the martyrs you're referring to.
I'll review in the coming weeks why the evidence - as presented by the disciples - was so compelling. For now, the fact that they clearly believed Jesus to be the messiah should be sufficient evidence that Jesus existed. It's difficult to fathom that they would freely die quite literally for nothing.
That was a long one, Randy! I admire your focus in putting it all together.
A few points to add:
One again, I think the silence about Christianity in Jewish and pagan writings of the first century are more about the movement’s early obscurity than an inability to refute the evidence. If it was culturally relevant at the time, one would think there would be more of a record. Paul did persecute Christians, according to his own words, but we don’t know how big a group they were then. Acts is probably not a very reliable historical picture.
Is it reasonable to think that Rome would dispatch their own Mulder and Scully to investigate the claims of the pesky Christians and disprove them? Creating new religions was illegal in Rome. They punished people who did that. The Jews got a pass because of respect for the antiquity of their religion.
Besides, how could the Roman (or Jewish) establishment disprove what Tacitus called “superstition”? If Jesus had been crucified and buried in a mass grave (the common way for criminals), there is no way they could have found him again. Paul mentions no empty tomb and “buried” and “raised on the third day” in 1 Corinthians 15 do not necessarily imply one. The Christians didn’t seem to make a shrine or anything out of an empty tomb. Why not? Some say it’s because Jesus was no longer buried there. But wasn’t it still the spot of the resurrection in the gospels? The empty tomb story comes from Mark, which was then used as a source for the gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Peter. Let’s also remember that the gospels were possibly written far away from Jerusalem of Galilee.
Your hypothetical conversations may have occurred many times in the first decades after the crucifixion. After all, most Jews did not buy into Jesus as the Messiah. Doesn’t this mean, that for many living in and around Jerusalem 2,000 years ago, the evidence wasn’t compelling enough?
“mass hallucination” We don’t have a lot of independent sources in the NT. We have Paul, who never knew Jesus on earth. And then we have gospels and letters from later Christians. No word in the NT is written by Jesus or anyone who knew the “pre-risen” Christ. Paul claimed direct revelations of Christ, and he stressed that his gospel was independent of anyone else’s. We also know that early Christians disagreed ferociously. Paul tells his churches many times that other Christian leaders are preaching a false gospel. The early Christians were fragmented into several different groups over the first two centuries.
“liars make poor martyrs” - I think Paul believed what he said he believed. But we also know that many Christians recanted or avoided authorities and were not martyred.
“And, for this belief to be possible, they must have known Jesus to be a real, historical figure. “ - we know that Paul didn’t know the real historical Jesus, and he’s the only direct eye-witness (of the resurrected Christ) whose accounts we can read. Church tradition attributes certain writings to the followers of certain apostles but we have no accounts of those who knew the living, pre-resurrected Jesus. No word in Scripture was written by someone who knew Jesus directly.
I‘m not sure that Acts (according to Luke) is a very good source for literal history. It reads like a Hellenistic adventure story. Paul’s own version of events do not seem to correlate well with Luke’s (written decades later). One example - Paul writes that after his revelation of Jesus, he “consulted no flesh and blood person” then he went to Arabia for an unspecified period. In Acts, he sees a vision on the Road to Damascus, and Ananias (never mentioned by Paul in the letters we have) does consult with Paul and heals him of temporary blindness. Then Paul immediately begins preaching in the synagogues. There’s a lot more.....
Your secular sources, which include a few Christians, seem solid. But, I’m sure you’re aware that most of the Josephus quote is considered altered by later Christian scribes. The interpolations do not fit Josephus’ normal writing style, and of course, Josephus never converted to Christianity. He was a Jew. Obviously he didn’t consider Jesus “the christ”.
Steve, I like all the points you bring up too! I am the swing vote!! So much good information is on here from all you who contribute to the discussions on here.
Steven,
You're a few weeks ahead of me on some of this. There are a few things to address at a perfunctory level:
Church tradition attributes certain writings to the followers of certain apostles but we have no accounts of those who knew the living, pre-resurrected Jesus. No word in Scripture was written by someone who knew Jesus directly.I think the evidence indicates otherwise here. Beginning this week, we'll look at Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I'll likely swing back to the OT before Paul... thought it's really difficult to tear away from the NT becuase there is just so much information out there.
If Jesus had been crucified and buried in a mass grave (the common way for criminals), there is no way they could have found him again.But certainly they could have indicated a mass grave burial. Six of one... half dozen of the other.
[Once] again, I think the silence about Christianity in Jewish and pagan writings of the first century are more about the movement’s early obscurity than an inability to refute the evidence. If it was culturally relevant at the time, one would think there would be more of a record.It's important to review this in context. HUGE historical events, even from a Roman standpoint, have few historical records. I think you'll find that the Jews didn't provide in-depth documentation on a great many historical events. There are actually tons of records about Jesus... it's just that most are authored by Christians (most of whom were Jews), as one would expect. Roman history is generally authored by Romans, Jewish history by Jews, etc. The idea of documenting history for the sake of history is a more modern one. In comparison to other people/events of the time, the historical record of Jesus is actually quite staggering. I'll get into this more as I talk about the gospels, Q, etc.
For now, I hope we can agree that the evidence indicates there existed a Jesus to talk about.
To be clear, I don't think it matters if a physical Jesus existed. I don't find it likely that 2000 years ago a man walked on water and was resurrected, no matter his name, the physical act of walking on water is as unlikely today as it was 2000 years ago.
You present a compelling case to the existence of Jesus, but not of his supernatural capabilities. If you remove the supernatural from the story of Jesus, then his story, much like that of Alexander the great, is neither controversial nor unbelievable.
I disagree with Randy and Kristin in how blatantly obvious and reasonable their beliefs are, and genuinely hope the impartial reader would see the leaps for what they are.
"You present a compelling case to the existence of Jesus..."
Thank you (no sarcasm).
"...but not of his supernatural capabilities. If you remove the supernatural from the story of Jesus, then his story, much like that of Alexander the great, is neither controversial nor unbelievable."
I think you're absolutely right. To this point, no compelling case has been presented for Jesus Christ... only Jesus of Nazareth.
Try not to get to upset when I say...
More to come.
(ark myth)
Didn’t mean to jump ahead on you. I thought Acts would be relevant because of the mention of “the conversion of Saul” and “Stephen”
“There are actually tons of records about Jesus”
“The idea of documenting history for the sake of history is a more modern one.”
This is right on - a major point when reading the gospels. Reading them as though written by modern-day historians is probably inadvisable!
There were a lot of gospels and records of heroic acts by the apostles and many martyrologies about them as well. One thing I often wonder is how much of the “records about Jesus” are about the Jesus of the 20’s and how much is more about the risen Jesus as experienced by believers at the time the records were written.
As you have rightly stated, history for history’s sake was not a big interest back then. When we read, for example, the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom, as reported by a possible eyewitness, we still see legendary embellishment. Polycarp is burned at the stake but the flames do not engulf him, an odor of sweet perfume fills the air, he is finally stabbed and a white dove ascends from his body. Then blood gushes forth in such quantity that it puts out all the flames.
It’s hard to get back into the motivations of first and second century authors, but they definitely presented theological points through symbolism. Spiritual experiences translated into physical representation.
“But certainly they could have indicated a mass grave burial.”
How? Once again “If Jesus had been crucified and buried in a mass grave (the common way for criminals), there is no way they could have found him again”
Also, if the empty tomb story is a later invention in Mark’s gospel, that’s a long time after Jesus’ crucifixion. Paul writes of “appearances” of Jesus, and he writes of the (oxymoronic) “spiritual body” when describing resurrection. The physical body is like a seed planted in the ground for Paul. Remember that most Christians today view their body as a mere vessel for the spirit. Was Jesus’ resurrection originally seen as physical? Or as more of a spiritual reality, that was later recorded through a physical representation? I wonder this a lot as well.
"Paul writes of “appearances” of Jesus, and he writes of the (oxymoronic) “spiritual body” when describing resurrection. The physical body is like a seed planted in the ground for Paul. Remember that most Christians today view their body as a mere vessel for the spirit. Was Jesus’ resurrection originally seen as physical? Or as more of a spiritual reality, that was later recorded through a physical representation? I wonder this a lot as well.Based on prior discussions, I'm certain we'll get into this more when we discuss Paul. There are vague verses in Paul's writings that can be taken a few ways, but when viewed in context and alongside numerous clarifying verses, generally these vagaries work themselves out.
"How? Once again 'If Jesus had been crucified and buried in a mass grave (the common way for criminals), there is no way they could have found him again'"
I think you missed what I was saying here, but it's a minor note. I just meant that if Jesus were placed into a mass grave, the Romans just had to say, "We put him in a mass grave" instead of "He never rose" or something alluding to the tomb. It's one point among many, though.
I see what you're building to, as far as the history goes. I imagine we'll talk a great deal about the potential for the 'Jesus legend' and other such objections to the validity of the historical record in the coming weeks. It'll be fun, I'm sure... these have historically (no pun intended) been my favorite talking points with you.
"the Romans just had to say, "We put him in a mass grave"
I think I understood your point. I'm just saying that decades later, would the Romans have records of that? seems doubtful. And would Christians have believed them anyway?
The earliest record of the appearances of Christ are by Paul who claims knowledge of the "spiritual body", surely by his visions of Christ. He does not differentiate the appearance(s) to him from those experienced by the other apostles. Spiritual visions. Something to think about!
Definitely interesting stuff to discuss. I am fascinated by how people, and Jews for this discussion, must have thought of the world they lived in 2000 years ago. Spirits behind everything, Roman Imperialism, the temple destroyed (like our white house, statue of liberty, etc. all being destroyed by a greater empire), apocalyptic prophets, etc. etc.
The earliest record of the appearances of Christ are by Paul who claims knowledge of the "spiritual body", surely by his visions of Christ. He does not differentiate the appearance(s) to him from those experienced by the other apostles. Spiritual visions. Something to think about!We'll talk about this some more. For now, I'll just say that I think you're taking one verse out of the context of the whole of Paul's writings and trying to fit it to a belief. Again, I plan to devote a lot of time to Paul, so I'll leave this for a later time.
Maybe there are some Pauline verses emphasizing the physicality of the resurrection. Do you know of any? I can't think of any offhand.
We can't read Paul through the lens of the gospels.
Steven,
I may devote an entire post to this, or it may be a large part of a few Pauline posts.
Post a Comment