Before we can consider Jesus as God or Jesus as the Son of God, we must first know whether Jesus ever lived at all. Was there a historical Jesus?
Jesus Christ is the most significant figure in all of human history, yet there are some who believe he never existed at all. Is there sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was real? What can we know about the life of Jesus Christ?
The Mystery of Ancient History
There is a reason why the History Channel does more documentaries on World War II than the Punic Wars. Television is a visual medium, and we have no film footage of the Punic Wars. We don't even have still images from that period, since photography wasn't invented until the 19th century. What's more, we have no eyewitnesses to the Punic Wars still alive to interview for any such documentary.
Does this mean, however, that ancient history is unknowable? Or that the quest for truth in the pages of our distant past is a hopeless endeavor?
Standards of Evidence for Ancient History
Only an extreme cynic who doubts everything and mistrusts everyone will say that ancient history is unknowable. Such a disparager, however, is incapable of honest inquiry, since he or she has long since given up on the very possibility of truth. Most people, fortunately, do not fall into such a category, and are willing to accept that at least some truths can be ascertained from the study of ancient history.
European scholar Amy Orr-Ewing decisively refutes the skepticism surrounding the study of history. (You can listen to her presentation here). She argues that history is knowable via a critical analysis of the following:
Written evidence
Eye witness testimony
Photographs/cartoons/paintings/etching
Archaeological remains
Inferential evidence
Moreover, while we can readily acknowledge bias in ancient historians, this does not mean they are completely untrustworthy. Eusebius, a chronicler of early church history, was shamelessly biased in favor of Constantine. This leads us to certainly bring a higher critical scrutiny to Eusebius' claims concerning Constantine, but doesn't mean that Eusebius was a fraud and a liar. It certainly doesn't mean that everything Eusebius wrote deserves to be cast aside. In short, much can be learned from ancient history, utilizing those sources available to us from the past.
What about Jesus?
This brings us to Jesus. What evidence is there from ancient history to point us to the reality of a historical Jesus? In addition to the numerous references to Jesus in ancient religious literature (references that range from the New Testament to the Gnostic writings to even the Quran), there are references to Jesus by the following:
Tacitus, the ancient Roman historian, who wrote of "Christus" being "put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius"
Josephus, a Jewish historian,who made two references to Jesus in his famous Antiquities
There are also references to Jesus or to early followers of Jesus in the writings of Roman historian Suetonius, second century Greek satirist Lucian, and Syrian philosopher Mara Bar-Serapion.
A note on Josephus: While one of the two references to Jesus was likely tampered with, historians agree there was at least a core reference to Jesus prior to its being edited. Thus, Josephus’ references constitute, at the very least, evidence of the reality of Jesus as a historical figure. In the words of one Princeton Seminary scholar: "We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus."
And What about those Religious Documents?
Radical critics of Christianity dismiss religious writings immediately, particularly those from the Bible, saying: "You can't prove the Bible with the Bible." This superficial (and frankly vacuous) argument misses an obvious point. Before the Bible was "the Bible," it was (and, in the eyes of the skeptic, still is) a collection of ancient writings.
Accordingly, those ancient writings deserve (at the very least) to be analyzed by the same standards as any other ancient document. The Gospel of Luke, for example, cannot be embraced by mainstream, secular historians as "divinely inspired." Such a term means little to the practicing historian. But the Gospel of Luke CAN and SHOULD be assessed as a first century document authored by a man who believed in Jesus and counted himself among Jesus' followers.
Looking at all the New Testament writings with this critical (but intellectually fair) standard reveals much about Jesus, which can be accepted as true. These facts include:
his real existence in first century Jewish Palestine,
his ability to draw crowds,
that many claimed he performed miracles,
that he was crucified, and
that many of his followers believed he rose from the dead.
It is the overwhelming consensus of historical scholars - both biblical and non-biblical, Christian and non-Christian, conservative and liberal - that the first century figure known as Jesus of Nazareth really lived. The late English scholar Michael Grant wrote:
[I]f we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.
Scholar R.T. France writes: “Non-Christian evidence…substantiates the fact of Jesus’ existence, his popular following, his execution and the rough date.”
The Bottom Line
While some may argue that Jesus' life has been embellished, it is an absurd to deny the existence of the historical Jesus. British New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall says it best: “It is not possible to explain the rise of the Christian church or the writing of the Gospels and the stream of tradition that lies behind them without accepting the fact that the Founder of Christianity actually existed.”
The copyright of the article Evidence for Jesus in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Evidence for Jesus must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Nov 26, 2007 7:33 AM
Pink
:
. Not a lot of people deny the idea that Jesus is an historical person who actually existed. . This particular paragraph from the article this post references, <i>"Only an extreme cynic who doubts everything and mistrusts everyone will say that ancient history is unknowable. Such a disparager, however, is incapable of honest inquiry, since he or she has long since given up on the very possibility of truth. Most people, fortunately, do not fall into such a category, and are willing to accept that at least some truths can be ascertained from the study of ancient history."</i>, frames any who question it's premise. Anyone and everyone that does question anything is seen as "an extreme cynic who doubts <b>everything</b>" and is <b>mistrusting</b> of truth. The statement definitely is a spin. That's okay--no complaints on that; but, it is good to recognize that it is a biased spin. So, we can take the article for what it is worth. . So, the first question wonders to whom does the article address itself. .
Nov 26, 2007 9:15 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
To be blunt, it's addressed to those people who are searching "evidence for Jesus" on the Internet search engines. :)
Nov 26, 2007 9:33 AM
Pink
:
. And, so, the second question wonders how the article expects its readers to take the insult that anyone who questions it is an extreme cynic. Is it designed to turn them into little timmies? . . .
Nov 26, 2007 9:37 AM
Boanerges
:
Excellent article, Brian... Especially considering the limitation of article length... informative, good resources and easy to read. A worthy article for the sincere seeker of truth....
Romans 1:16-18 <b>For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;</b>
Habakkuk 2:4 <b>Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.</b>
Nov 26, 2007 9:55 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Pink, re-read the quote...
<i>"Only an extreme cynic who doubts everything and mistrusts everyone will say that ancient history is unknowable. Such a disparager, however, is incapable of honest inquiry, since he or she has long since given up on the very possibility of truth. Most people, fortunately, do not fall into such a category, and are willing to accept that at least some truths can be ascertained from the study of ancient history."</i>
I went after those who claim history (esp ancient history) is "unknowable." I did not extend that "insult" to include those who raise questions about Jesus.
In case Migisi is lurking :), she hasn't gone as far as to suggest that history is unknowable. But she has raised objections to any certitude about Jesus' existence. My "insult" therefore is NOT directed at someone like her.
The people I had in mind with my "insult" are those extreme postmodernists who have completely revised the study of history to the point that the discovery of information is cast into doubt - and history becomes little more than a screen upon which we project our personal perceptions. It is my contention that, while our knowledge of history is LIMITED (esp the further back we go), there are still some things we can KNOW about the past.
Nov 26, 2007 10:06 AM
Pink
:
. I guess I am one of those that believes history is unknowable in any exact way; although the general stream is well known. .
Nov 26, 2007 10:39 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
<i>I guess I am one of those that believes history is unknowable in any exact way.</i>
Touche', my friend, now YOU are the one framing. :)
The two significant words in your sentence are "any" and "exact."
If you were to change "any" to "an," I would agree with you 100%. We cannot know EXACTLY what happened in all of history.
However, you use the word "any," and that opens things up quite a bit - much further than I go along with.
There ARE <b>SOME</b> exact things we can know about history. By "exact things," I mean specific information or tangible, verifiable facts.
We know that Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March, 44 B.C.
We know that Marc Antony had an affair with Cleopatra.
We know that the apostle Paul wrote the book of I Corinthians.
We know that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea.
We know that Constantine legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire.
We know that Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the wall in Wittenberg, Germany.
We know that Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.
And on and on.
I could list out THOUSANDS (literally) of facts we KNOW from history. Tens of thousands, in fact.
Nov 26, 2007 12:32 PM
Pink
:
. That wasn't a frame--it was a spin. :) . The reason we cannot know in any exact way is that records are written by people with a bias. We CAN be pretty sure of things; but, we cannot know for absolute sure. That's what I meant. . For example, history regarding our intrusion into Iraq is not being recorded accurately. We have a government administration that is given to obfuscating the truth in such a way that it is next to impossible to know what is going on. . That throws a sickly cast of doubt over all sorts of history. While we can all abhor the things that Hitler's Nazi regime undoubtedly carried out during the thirties through the war years, it is impossible to know the exact truth of the matters involved. . As far as I know, one of the oldest truisms of history is that it is always written by the winners--the ones that prevail and survive. So, that puts much of what we know about Nazi Germany in some sense of doubt and it will put much of what will be known about American foreign relations during the Bush years in doubt. . These statements of mine make me a cynic. Am I an "extreme" cynic? That will depend on who you ask, won't it? .
Nov 26, 2007 1:45 PM
Boanerges
:
<i>The reason we cannot know in any exact way is that records are written by people with a bias</i>
and.. how do you know that, but not the other? that is the pure definition of bias.. if I am not mistaken!.....
but.. my only entrance here was to make a comment in support of Brian....
I'll allow you to ponder your predicament.... :)
Nov 27, 2007 4:55 AM
Pink
:
. <i>I'll allow you to ponder your predicament.... :)</i> . Your generosity is overwhelming. . But, my predicament? What's that? . The first time I heard that comment about history was from a professor in college. And, I've heard it several times since then. . We read history through the minds of one bias or other. .
