Evidence for Jesus outside the New
Testament
Entries
Written by Michael Gleghorn
Excepting for the occasional
radical, it is accepted by historians that Jesus was really
a person of history. Even most anti-Christian historians
believe this. It will be shown in another article that
the texts we have for our New Testament are the most accurate
of ancient texts of any kind due how close the oldest
copies are to when they were actually written.
Regardless, a few who just don't know the facts,
will claim that there is no evidence for Jesus outside the
New Testament. So here is historical evidence that can
help you correct such folk:
1.
Tacitus
Although
there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is
an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people
are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there
is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates
its statements. In the introduction to one of his books,
F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was
told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure
references in Josephus and the like," there was no
historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1}
This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern
and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."{2}
He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral
proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the
lack of it?"{3} The answer to this question is, "Yes,
such collateral proof is available," and we will be
looking at some of it in this article.
Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that
historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important
reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting
on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the
fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian
Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their
abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus,
from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty
during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius
Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked
for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first
source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}
What all can we learn from this ancient (and
rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians?
Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their
name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin),
or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously
alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion.
This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius
and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much
of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather
enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a
most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose
not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests
that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony
to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had
been crucified had risen from the grave."{6} While this
interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain
the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion
based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7}
How else might one explain that?
1. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins
Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The
Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1998), 82.
5. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The
Case for Christ, 82.
6. N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness
of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary
R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College
Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190.
7. Edwin Yamauchi, cited in Strobel, The
Case for Christ, 82.
back
to top
2.
Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about
Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of
Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor
of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around
A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way
to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being
Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor
about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class,
and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some
of the information he has learned about these Christians:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day
before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a
hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn
oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud,
theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny
a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up;
after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble
to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent
kind.{10}
This passage provides us with a number of interesting
insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians.
First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed
day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ,
demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore,
one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung
to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather
distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped,
Christ was a person who had lived on earth."{11} If this
interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians
were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course,
this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that
Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand
what early Christians believed about Jesus' person,
it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For
instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves
by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards,
which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus.
In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing
a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion
and the "love feast."{12} This interpretation helps
explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food
of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting
to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of
practicing "ritual cannibalism."{13} The Christians
of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus'
teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.
8. Pliny, Epistles x. 96, cited in Bruce, Christian
Origins, 25; Habermas, The Historical Jesus,
198.
9. Ibid., 27.
10. Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth,
rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press,
1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical
Jesus, 199.
11. M. Harris, "References to Jesus in
Early Classical Authors," in Gospel Perspectives V,
354-55, cited in E. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament:
What is the Evidence?", in Jesus Under Fire,
ed. by Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 227, note 66.
12. Habermas, The Historical Jesus,
199.
13. Bruce, Christian Origins, 28.
Back
to top
3.
Josephus
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus
outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus,
a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish
Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing,
reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by
the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the
brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."{14} F.F. Bruce
points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James
in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."{15} And
Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that
Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}
As interesting as this brief reference is,
there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called
the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion
declares:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed
one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising
feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned
him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him
did not give up their affection for him. On the third day
he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of
Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}
Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars
think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but
that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between
the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think
it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult
to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some
of these statements.{19}
For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise
man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if
indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect.
It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite
unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is
also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that
Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus
as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that
on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to
life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite
unlikely to come from a non-Christian!
But even if we disregard the questionable parts
of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating
information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a
wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was
crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship
and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements
with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called
Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes
quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears
that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical
Jesus" are one and the same!
14. Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200,
cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 36.
15. Ibid.
16. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament",
212.
17. Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64,
cited in Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament",
212.
18. Ibid.
19. Although time would not permit me to mention
it on the radio, another version of Josephus' "Testimonium
Flavianum" survives in a tenth-century Arabic version
(Bruce, Christian Origins, 41). In 1971, Professor
Schlomo Pines published a study on this passage. The passage
is interesting because it lacks most of the questionable elements
that many scholars believe to be Christian interpolations.
Indeed, "as Schlomo Pines and David Flusser...stated,
it is quite plausible that none of the arguments against Josephus
writing the original words even applies to the Arabic text,
especially since the latter would have had less chance of being
censored by the church" (Habermas, The Historical
Jesus, 194). The passage reads as follows: "At this
time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct
was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people
from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.
Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those
who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.
They reported that he had appeared to them three days after
his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was
perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted
wonders." (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus
Within Judaism, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited
in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).
Back
to top
4.
The Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus
in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical
writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given
this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references
to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later
ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation
occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference
to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days
before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He
is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery
and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed
that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do
we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua")
is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the
passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't
the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But
the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For
instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged",
and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were
crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus
was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of
the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate
what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If
so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}
The passage also tells us why Jesus
was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel
to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile
source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described
somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make
allowances for this, what might such charges imply about
Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close
parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge
of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus
cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."{25}
But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the
New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats.
Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny.
The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise,
the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's
account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading
the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate
the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry.
Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms
much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.
20. Habermas, The Historical Jesus,
202-03.
21. The Babylonian Talmud, transl.
by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin
43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.
22. Habermas, The Historical Jesus,
203.
23. See John 8:58-59 and 10:31-33.
24. Habermas, The Historical Jesus,
204. See also John 18:31-32.
25. Matt. 12:24. I gleaned this observation
from Bruce, Christian Origins, 56.
26. Luke 23:2, 5.
Back
to top
5. Lucian
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek
satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians
as follows:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished
personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified
on that account. . . . [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.{27}
Although Lucian is jesting here at the early
Christians, he does make some significant comments about their
founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who
introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers
clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of
His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified
on that account."
Although Lucian does not mention his name,
he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach
to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all
men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's
harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved
denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according
to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine
someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian
doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods
combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that
Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in
order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater
God than any that Greece had to offer!
Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus
from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First,
both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as
wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a
powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the
Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus,
Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified.
Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate.
And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover.
Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief
in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth,
Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the
Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate
that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!
I hope you see how this small selection of
ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our
knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many
ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus
as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical
gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for
an authoritative "life of Jesus!"
27. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine,
11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W.
Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949),
vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus,
206.
Back
to top
©2001
Probe Ministries.
|