Are there any credible accounts of the existence of Jesus outside the Bible?
If so, can you list the sources so I can read them?
Posted Jun 15, 2022, 7:50 PM UTC
524
The existence of the person known as Jesus isn’t a matter of too much debate. A well known historian known as Josephus who lived not long after Jesus’ life documented a lot of writings, political records and so forth that references the person in question.
3
Define "credible." There are zero contemporary accounts of Jesus. Nobody wrote a single thing about him at all until decades later. The consensus among biblical scholars (obvious a self-selective group) is that there was most likely a historical Jesus but the gist of the argument is that we accept as real a lot of other historical figures of the era that likewise have little to no documentary evidence. I find that ... uncompelling.
3†
Well historians think the same thing. If you apply the same methods of analysis as we would any other character, the conclusion is that he existed. Even though the gospels aren’t reliable sources, the fact that Matthew and Luke have to invent a census to explain a Nazarene’s connection to Bethlehem suggests there was a real Nazarene who founded Christianity, or else why not make him a bethlehemite? Although Paul’s epistles are the earliest Christian writings we have, there is evidence that Christianity predates him. Tacitus makes reference to the founder of Christianity’s execution by Pontius Pilate in his annals, so it seems his existence wasn’t contentious among Romans during Nero’s reign. It seems that there was someone who founded Christianity in the 30s AD who was executed by the Romans. We don’t know much of anything else, of course, because like you said, we don’t have any contemporary sources.
1
Well historians think the same thing.
Historians who bother to study Jesus in depth are, unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly Christian.
If you apply the same methods of analysis as we would any other character, the conclusion is that he existed.
Here's the big problem with that: Countless people have dedicated their entire lives to trying to prove the historicity of Jesus and have come up with absolutely nothing. None of the other poorly-documented historical figures that we assume were probably real have had nearly as much effort.
And of course the only relatively detailed accounts we have (the Gospels), we know are untrustworthy since they record supernatural events that couldn't have happened.
Clearly some person or people originally started Christianity but there's no reason to identify that person as "Jesus" with literally any of the other details ascribed to him. The religion was founded and the apocryphal name of the founder is Jesus. Does that mean Jesus was a historical person? Only if we reduce our concept of Jesus exclusively to the completely anonymous founder of Christianity. I don't think that's useful in most contexts, though I suppose it's not too dissimilar from calling the Homeric poets just "Homer."
0
Only if we reduce our concept of Jesus exclusively to the completely anonymous founder of Christianity
That's just how ancient history is done. It's not as rigorous as mathematics or physics. A lot of it is inference. We don't have any contemporary writings about Julius Caesar. We know an army crossed the Rubicon during that time. We know Rome used to be a republic. There's not any reason to distrust later accounts of his life when they explain events that we know happened. We know Christianity, or at least some religious sect that evolved into Christianity, was founded in Judea. Not too long after, Rabbinical Jews and Romans who were both antagonistic to Christianity took the story of a single founder who was executed as an uncontroversial fact. The writers of Matthew and Luke each tell contradictory stories involving a census we know didn't happen that connects a Nazarene to a prophecy about Bethlehem. There's more evidence, of course, but from this we can infer that it was a single person who primarily founded christianity, someone so important that writers needed to rewrite history to connect this particular person to prophecy. We can say he more than likely died by execution. Writings agree his name was Jesus. There's no need not to call this person Jesus. It's like saying Paul Revere didn't exist because almost everything the poem attributed to him didn't happen and you can't call the real Paul Revere by his name because there was a character in a poem with the same name. I get the inclination, but it's even more confusing to talk about it that way. It's different from saying Homer existed, because we don't know if Homer was just a character people wanted to attribute works to in order to give them authority. Nobody attributes extant writings to Jesus. They attribute the gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Those authors are more like Homer, because the authors were anonymous and christians attributed their writings to disciples or companions of Paul when they likely weren't either.
1
I just think it’s really important to clarify that when someone says historians agree there was a historical Jesus, that agreement is to a very vague notion of a person, not the fictional character of the Gospels.
1
As usual, Wikipedia is a good starting point. The big ones are Josephus’ Testistomonium Flavium. Although almost everyone agrees there are parts that have been interpolated by Christians, some of the account is authentic. The annals by Tacitus refer to “cristus” as being the founder of the Christian religion, and say he was crucified by Pontius Pilate. The Jewish Talmud also mentions Jesus. It discredits his actions, but doesn’t deny his existence. There are few who hold onto the Jesus myth theory, but the historical consensus is that Paul did not found Christianity, there was someone before him in the 30s AD who was executed by the Roman government. We call this person Jesus although contemporarily he would have been known as Yeshua which also gets translated to Joshua like the Joshua from the Jericho story whose contemporary name was also Yeshua.
3
It’s still a myth regardless of whether there is a historical person or persons. You still have an account largely unsubstantiated by any other source that speaks of unexplained or supernatural phenomena. Just like a historical King Arthur the establishment of a historical person doesn’t confirm anything but that there was a person. A historical Troy does not validate the Iliad any more than a historical Jesus validates the stories in the bible.
Yes, there are some mythicists who will claim bo Jesus ever existed, because every theory has it’s lunatic fringe. The notion that the biblical account should be treated as a myth no different from any other until any evidence can establish historicity of the details, is not the ludicrous notion you make it out to be.
-1
The question isn't if his powers were real, though. Was there an itinerant preacher in Roman Palestine named Jesus? Probably. Did he inspire a cult? Absolutely, it still exists today. Did he actually do a single thing attributed to him? Almost certainly not.
1
That was the OP’s question. My response was to the framing of Jesus mythicism as relating only to whether or not there was a person, rather than its more broad claim that the biblical story of Jesus should be treated as a myth. The fact that he is not actually documented (only the beliefs of his followers) is often misrepresented as a straw man against the existence of a person when in fact the existence of a historical person does nothing to address the primary argument.
1
But Jesus mythicism does only relate to whether Jesus was a person. Jesus Mythicists say that there wasn’t a person who became mythicized, but that the whole thing came from whole cloth. A lot of them will say he was invented by Paul. You’re simply misunderstanding what Jesus Mythicism means.
2
The closest extra biblical writing we have is a Jewish historian named Flavius Josephus who was born a few years after Jesus would have died.
There are two main passages in his work which people point to as indicating the historical Jesus was real. One of them is almost certainly a forgery; there are several reasons for this, one of which is that he states that Jesus was the Messiah, but as a Jew he certainly would not have believed this to be the case. In the other passage he's essentially reporting on what the Christians say, not saying that it's true, just saying that it's true that that's what they say.
We don't have the originals of either of these passages. What we have is copies that were made much later, copies of copies, and this copying was done by Christian sources.
Josephus actually mentions a total of six different people named Jesus. It was quite a common name in that setting.
The historicity of Jesus is almost universally accepted by modern historians, even non-christian ones. I would recommend Bart Ehrman on this.
3
Have a look at the sources in the wikipedia article "Historicity of Jesus".
There's not any direct, contemporary sources, but there are references in the near-contemporary era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus?wprov=sfla1
2
Yeah, wikipedia has a whole article about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Most historians think he did exist as an actual person, but as far as I know, the main reliance is on things written from about 50-100AD, so it's not completely settled.
2
Jesus was probably just a really talented magician
2
There are very few. I don't have a list handy though I am sure someone will list them.
But I do want to point out that since the New Testament isn't really a book, but a collection of books primarily about Jesus, it's useful to remember that explains why there are so few.
I mean, if there was a somewhat contemporaneous book about Jesus that was written by a guy named Buford, then today, there would likely be a Book of Buford in the Bible.
1
Josephus mentions him, first around AD 26-36, he says this:
"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."
When mentioning Albinus the procurator in Antiquities 20:197 (around 62 AD or so), Josephus mentions Jesus once again. In this case, they only mention Jesus in relation to his brother James, who was brought before the sanhedrin.
"AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. 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, 1 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: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. 2 Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."
There are plenty more references to Jesus, one of them being by Tacitus in Annals 15:44, but he's also mentioned by Pliny the Younger in his letter to Trajan.
1
Yep! This is referred to as historical Jesus
1
Family guy
1
Yes, I think they had a record of his execution in the Roman archives. But I don’t exactly remember, it was history class who knows.
0
The Ancient Romans admitted to killing him so...
-3
The 'Pedia has a whole article on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
" Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure,[note 1][note 2][4][5][6][7] although interpretations of a number of the events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles and resurrection) vary and are a subject of debate.[8][9][10][11]"