essays on jesus

YOUR FINAL GRADE - GUARANTEED The Essay Experts

Disclaimer: This essay is provided as an example of work produced by students studying towards a religion degree, it is not illustrative of the work produced by our in-house experts. Click here for sample essays written by our professional writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKEssays.com.

The Life of Jesus Christ

Reference this

The Birth of Jesus Christ

The baptism of jesus.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help! Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

The Temptation of Jesus Christ

The ministry of jesus christ.

• Teaching about Salt and Light
• Teaching about the Law
• Teaching about anger
• Teaching about Adultery
• Teaching about Divorce
• Teaching about revenge
• Teaching about Love for Enemies
• Teaching about Giving the Needy
• Teaching about Prayer and Fasting
• Teaching about money and possessions
• Effective prayers
• The Golden Rule
• The Narrow Gate
• The tree and its fruit
• True Disciples
• Building on a solid foundation
• God blesses those who realize their need for him, for the Kingdom of haven is given to them.
• God blesses those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
• God blesses those who are gentle and lowly, for the whole earth will belong to them.
• God blesses those who are hungry and thirsty for justice, for they will receive it in full.
• God blesses those who are merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
• God blesses those whose hearts are pure, for they will see god.
• God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called the children of God.
• God blesses those who are persecuted because they live for God, for the kingdom of Heaven is theirs. (New living translation, Matthew 5)

Jesus Christ predicts his death

Death of jesus christ, the resurrection, qualities of a leader, cite this work.

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Related Services

Essay Writing Service

• Dissertation Writing Service

• Assignment Writing Service

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please:

Our academic writing and marking services can help you!

• Find out more about our Essay Writing Service
• Undergraduate 2:2
• 7 day delivery
• Marking Service
• Samples of our Service
• Full Service Portfolio

Related Lectures

Study for free with our range of university lecture notes!

• All Available Lectures

Freelance Writing Jobs

Looking for a flexible role? Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher?

Study Resources

Free resources to assist you with your university studies!

• Dissertation Resources at UKDiss.com
• How to Write an Essay
• Essay Buyers Guide
• Referencing Tools
• Essay Writing Guides
• Masters Writing Guides

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Name and title

Summary of jesus’ life.

• The political situation
• Relations between Jewish areas and nearby Gentile areas
• Economic conditions
• The Jewish religion in the 1st century
• Sources for the life of Jesus
• The context of Jesus’ career
• The kingdom of God
• Inclusion in the kingdom
• The relation of Jesus’ teaching to the Jewish law
• Crowds and autonomy
• Scribes and Pharisees
• Jesus’ last week
• The Resurrection
• Jesus Christ
• God’s only Son
• Conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary
• Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried
• He descended into hell
• The third day he rose again from the dead
• He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty
• From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead
• Early heresies
• Constantinople
• The parties
• The settlement at Chalcedon
• The medieval development
• The Reformation and classical Protestantism
• Origins of the debate
• The 19th century
• The 20th century and beyond

• Who was St. Peter?
• How did St. Peter die?
• What is St. Peter the patron saint of?

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia - Jesus Christ
• LiveScience - Who was Jesus Christ?
• JewishEncyclopedia.com - Jesus of Nazareth
• Jewish Virtual Library - Jesus
• Ancient Origins - Tammuz and Jesus: More Than a Distant Connection?
• World History Encyclopedia - Jesus Christ
• Royal Society of Chemistry - Nickel
• Jesus Christ - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• Jesus Christ - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Recent News

Jesus (born c. 6–4 bce , Bethlehem—died c. 30 ce , Jerusalem) was a religious leader revered in Christianity , one of the world’s major religions . He is regarded by most Christians as the Incarnation of God. The history of Christian reflection on the teachings and nature of Jesus is examined in the article Christology .

Ancient Jews usually had only one name, and, when greater specificity was needed, it was customary to add the father’s name or the place of origin. Thus, in his lifetime Jesus was called Jesus son of Joseph (Luke 4:22; John 1:45, 6:42), Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 10:38), or Jesus the Nazarene (Mark 1:24; Luke 24:19). After his death he came to be called Jesus Christ. Christ was not originally a name but a title derived from the Greek word christos , which translates the Hebrew term meshiah ( Messiah ), meaning “the anointed one.” This title indicates that Jesus’ followers believed him to be the anointed son of King David , whom some Jews expected to restore the fortunes of Israel . Passages such as Acts of the Apostles 2:36 show that some early Christian writers knew that the Christ was properly a title, but in many passages of the New Testament , including those in the letters of the Apostle Paul , the name and title are combined and used together as Jesus’ name: Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus ( Romans 1:1; 3:24). Paul sometimes simply used Christ as Jesus’ name (e.g., Romans 5:6).

Although born in Bethlehem , according to Matthew and Luke , Jesus was a Galilean from Nazareth , a village near Sepphoris, one of the two major cities of Galilee ( Tiberias was the other). He was born to Joseph and Mary sometime between 6 bce and shortly before the death of Herod the Great (Matthew 2; Luke 1:5) in 4 bce . According to Matthew and Luke, however, Joseph was only legally his father. They report that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and that she “was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit ” (Matthew 1:18; cf. Luke 1:35). Joseph is said to have been a carpenter (Matthew 13:55)—that is, a craftsman who worked with his hands—and, according to Mark 6:3, Jesus also became a carpenter.

Luke (2:41–52) states that Jesus as a youth was precociously learned, but there is no other evidence of his childhood or early life. As a young adult, he went to be baptized by the prophet John the Baptist and shortly thereafter became an itinerant preacher and healer (Mark 1:2–28). In his mid-30s Jesus had a short public career, lasting perhaps less than one year, during which he attracted considerable attention. Sometime between 29 and 33 ce —possibly 30 ce —he went to observe Passover in Jerusalem , where his entrance, according to the Gospels , was triumphant and infused with eschatological significance. While there he was arrested, tried, and executed. His disciples became convinced that he rose from the dead and appeared to them. They converted others to belief in him, which eventually led to a new religion , Christianity.

A Guide to Jesus Christ, the Central Figure in Christianity

• The New Testament
• Christianity Origins
• The Old Testament
• Practical Tools for Christians
• Christian Life For Teens
• Christian Prayers
• Inspirational Bible Devotions
• Denominations of Christianity
• Christian Holidays
• Christian Entertainment
• Key Terms in Christianity
• Catholicism
• Latter Day Saints

• General Biblical Studies, Interdenominational Christian Training Center

Jesus Christ (circa 4 B.C.–A.D. 33) is the central figure and founder of Christianity. Jesus was a first-century Jewish carpenter from Nazareth in Galilee. His life, message, and ministry are chronicled in the four Gospels of the New Testament. He became a master teacher who performed many miracles of healing and deliverance.

The name Jesus is derived from the Hebrew-Aramaic word Yeshua , meaning “Yahweh [the Lord] is salvation.” The name Christ is actually a title for Jesus. It comes from the Greek word “Christos,” meaning “the Anointed One,” or “Messiah” in Hebrew.

Who Is Jesus Christ?

• Also Known as : Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Anointed One, or the Messiah of Israel. He is Immanuel (of Emmanuel from the Greek), meaning “God with us.” He is the Son of God, the Son of Man, and Savior of the World.
• Known for : According to the Bible, Jesus Christ is the incarnate Word of God, fully human and fully divine, Creator and Savior of the World, and the founder of Christianity. He called 12 Jewish men to follow him, working closely with them to train and prepare them to carry on the ministry, and he died on a Roman cross to give his life as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world to accomplish human redemption.
• Bible References: Jesus is mentioned more than 1,200 times in the New Testament . His life, message, and ministry are recorded in the four Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew , Mark , Luke , and John .
• Occupation : Jesus’ earthly father, Joseph, was a carpenter, or skilled craftsman by trade. Most likely, Jesus worked alongside his father Joseph as a carpenter. In the book of Mark, chapter six, verse three, Jesus is referred to as a carpenter.
• Hometown : Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea and grew up in Nazareth in Galilee.

The Life and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem by order of Pontius Pilate , the Roman governor, for claiming to be the King of the Jews. He resurrected three days after his death, appeared to his disciples, and then ascended into heaven .

His life and death provided the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. The Bible teaches that humankind was separated from God through Adam's sin but was reconciled back to God through Jesus Christ's sacrifice.

In the future, Jesus Christ will return to earth to claim his bride, the church. At his Second Coming , Christ will judge the world and establish his eternal kingdom, thus fulfilling messianic prophecy .

Accomplishments of Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ's accomplishments are too numerous to list. Scripture teaches that he was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. He lived a sinless life. He turned water into wine and healed many sick, blind, and lame people. He forgave sins, multiplied fish and loaves of bread to feed thousands on more than one occasion, delivered the demon-possessed, walked on water , calmed the stormy sea, and raised children and adults from death to life. Jesus Christ proclaimed the good news of the Kingdom of God .

Art Images / Getty Images

He also laid down his life and was crucified . He descended into hell and took the keys of death and hell. He resurrected from the dead. Jesus Christ paid for the sins of the world and purchased the pardon of men. He restored man's fellowship with God, opening the way to eternal life . These are just a few of his extraordinary accomplishments.

Although difficult to understand, the Bible teaches and Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate , or Immanuel , "God with us." Jesus Christ has always existed and has always been God (John 8:58 and 10:30). For more information about Christ's divinity, review this study of the doctrine of the Trinity .

Scripture reveals that Jesus Christ was not only fully God but fully man. He became a human being so that he could identify with our weaknesses and struggles, and most importantly so that he could give his life to pay the penalty for the sins of all humankind (John 1:1,14; Hebrews 2:17; Philippians 2:5-11).

Life Lessons

Once again, the lessons from Jesus Christ's life are far too numerous to list. Love for mankind, sacrifice, humility, purity, servanthood, obedience, and devotion to God are some of the most important lessons that his life exemplified.

Family Tree

• Heavenly Father: God the Father
• Earthly Father: Joseph
• Mother: Mary
• Brothers: James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon (Mark 3:31 and 6:3; Matthew 12:46 and 13:55; Luke 8:19)
• Sisters: Not named but mentioned in Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3.
• The Genealogy of Jesus : Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-37.

Key Bible Verses

Isaiah 9:6–7 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this. (NIV)

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (NIV)

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (NIV)

• What Is the Kingdom of God?
• Profile of Mary Magdalene, Female Disciple of Jesus
• Meet the Apostle James: First to Die for Jesus
• Profile and Biography of John the Apostle
• Meet Caiaphas: High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple
• Book of Hebrews
• Meet Silas: Bold Missionary for Christ
• Intro to Galatians: How to Be Free From the Burden of the Law
• Meet the 3 Kings: Wise Men From the East
• Stephen in the Bible Was the First Christian Martyr
• Meet the Apostle Paul: Christian Missionary Giant
• The Good Samaritan - Bible Story Summary
• Andrew the Apostle
• Parable of the Lost Sheep Bible Story Study Guide
• Profile of Pontius Pilate, Roman Governor of Judea
• Who Was Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus?

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Anchored in Christ

KevinHalloran.net

Kevin / December 19, 2014

31 Reasons Why Jesus Christ Came to Earth

What is the meaning of Christmas?

If you base your answer on Christmas movies and pop culture, you may think it is spending time with family and giving to others. Scripture has a different answer. Christmas is about celebrating the birth of Christ. And we celebrate His birth because of what He came to do.

In  Why Christ Came: 31 Meditations on the Incarnation , authors Joel Beeke and William Boekestein share 31 reasons why Jesus Christ came to earth.

[Download a free PDF of this list .]

1. To Do the Will of the Father

“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.” John 6:38

“Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’” Hebrews 10:7

2. To Save Sinners

“The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” 1 Timothy 1:15

“for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Hebrews 9:26

3. To Bring Light to a Dark World

“I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.” John 12:46

“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.” John 15:22

4. To Be Made Like His People

“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect,so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” Hebrews 2:14-17

5. To Bear Witness to the Truth

“Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”” John 18:37

6. To Destroy the Devil and His Works

“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil…” Hebrews 2:14

“Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” 1 John 3:8

7. To Give Eternal Life

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” John 6:51

8. To Receive Worship

“Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.” Matthew 2:1-2, 11

9. To Bring Great Joy

“And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.” Luke 2:10

10. To Demonstrate True Humility

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death,even death on a cross.” Philippians 2:5-8

11. To Preach the Gospel

““The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor…but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”” Luke 4:18-19, 42; cf. Isaiah 61:1-2

12. To Bring Judgment

“Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt;but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.” John 9:39-41

13. To Give His Life a Ransom for Many

“For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45

“…waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” Titus 2:13-14

14. To Fulfill the Law and Prophets

“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Matthew 5:17

15. To Reveal God’s Love for Sinners

““For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16

16. To Call Sinners to Repentance

“And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him. “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour.” John 12:24-27

18. To Seek and Save the Lost

“And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him,“Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Luke 19:5, 9-10

19. To Serve

20. to bring peace.

“For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.” Ephesians 2:14-18

21. To Bring a Sword

““Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

22. To Bind Up Broken Hearts

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; to grant to those who mourn in Zion—to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit; that they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he may be glorified.” Isaiah 61:1-3

23. To Give Us the Spirit of Adoption

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.” John 14:16-17

“And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”” Galatians 4:6

24. To Make Us Partakers of the Divine Nature

“…by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature,having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.” 2 Peter 1:4

25. To Reign as King

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.” Isaiah 9:6-7

26. To Restore Human Nature to Holiness

“And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.” Luke 1:35

27. To Be a Merciful and Faithful High Priest

“Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” Hebrews 2:17-18

28. To Be the Second and Greater Adam

“Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” Romans 5:14-15

29. To Satisfy Our Deepest Thirst

“Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”” John 4:13-14

30. To Be Loved by God’s Children

“Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.” John 8:42

31. To Reveal God’s Glory

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

Shared with kind permission from Reformation Heritage Books.

Read this post in Spanish .

Let’s Connect!

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Instagram

Subscribe to my YouTube channel

My Book: When Prayer Is a Struggle

Popular Posts

Recommended Resources

A Mini-Course on Prayer

FTC Disclosure of Material Connection: I sometimes share affiliate links, meaning if you make a purchase through a link, I make a small commission at no extra cost to you to cover blogging expenses.

Who Is Jesus Christ And What Is His Mission To The World?

Jesus Christ is the central figure of Christianity and one of the most influential people to have ever lived. His life, teachings, death, and resurrection form the foundation of the Christian faith. If you’re short on time, here’s a quick answer to your question: Jesus Christ is believed by Christians to be the Son of God and savior of humanity whose mission was to bring salvation to the world through his death and resurrection .

Now let’s explore this topic in more depth.

In this approximately 3000 word article, we will examine who Jesus Christ is, his origins, his ministry and teachings, his death and resurrection, and his enduring legacy and mission to the world.

The Life and Identity of Jesus Christ

Jesus’s origins and early life.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem around 4 BC. His mother was Mary, a virgin, and his father was God himself. Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. As a child, Jesus grew up in Nazareth with Mary and Joseph.

The Bible says that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. Before beginning His public ministry, Jesus worked as a carpenter.

Jesus’s ministry and public life

Jesus began His public ministry around the age of 30 when He was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan river. For three years, Jesus traveled with His twelve disciples teaching large crowds about the kingdom of God.

He performed many miracles like healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, and even raising the dead. Jesus’ teachings often used parables and focused on God’s love, forgiveness, and salvation. Many believed Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God.

However, Jesus also had critics like the Pharisees who opposed His claims.

Jesus’s identity and claims of divinity

Jesus made radical claims about His identity. He declared, “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). On multiple occasions, Jesus overtly claimed to be the divine Son of God. When asked if He was the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus replied “I am” (Mark 14:61-62).

Jesus accepted worship, forgave sins, and stated that He existed before Abraham. To reinforce His authority and divine identity, Jesus performed public miracles. Ultimately, Jesus was crucified for making Himself equal with God. But He proved His divinity by conquering death and rising from the grave.

The Teachings and Parables of Jesus Christ

Overview of jesus’s moral and ethical teachings.

Jesus’s moral and ethical teachings emphasized love, forgiveness, compassion, and service to others. Some of his most important teachings included:

• Love God and love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-39)
• Treat others as you want to be treated (Matthew 7:12)
• Forgive others who wrong you (Matthew 6:14-15)
• Help those in need, like the poor, sick, and outcasts of society (Matthew 25:35-45)
• Be humble and serve others rather than seeking power, status, or wealth (Matthew 20:26-28)

Jesus often taught using vivid stories and examples that captivated audiences. His teachings revealed a revolutionary new model of moral leadership – one that uplifted the meek rather than the powerful.

He taught that the kingdom of God was open to all who embodied the virtues of love, mercy, and humility.

Jesus’s teachings on the kingdom of God

A core theme of Jesus’s message was the coming of the kingdom of God. He taught that the kingdom was not a place or government, but rather God’s spiritual reign in the hearts and minds of people. The kingdom was both a present reality and a future hope.

Jesus described what the kingdom of God is like in many parables. It is like a mustard seed that grows into a large tree, showing how God’s reign grows from small beginnings (Matthew 13:31-32). It is like a pearl or hidden treasure that one joyfully obtains at great cost (Matthew 13:44-46).

Jesus compared the kingdom to a wedding banquet open to all (Matthew 22:1-14).

To enter the kingdom, one must have childlike faith and humility (Matthew 18:3-4). It is open to all who accept it in their hearts regardless of social status or righteousness (Matthew 21:31). But it requires persistent effort and sacrifice (Matthew 11:12).

According to Jesus, living by kingdom values was far more important than material wealth or status (Matthew 6:33).

Important parables told by Jesus

Jesus was a master storyteller, and parables made up a large part of his recorded teachings. Here are some of his most famous and impactful parables:

• The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) – Emphasized compassion for others in need
• The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) – Conveyed the forgiving love of God
• The Sower (Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23) – Showed how God’s message is received differently
• The Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32) – Illustrated how God’s kingdom grows from small beginnings
• The Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) – Encouraged using one’s gifts and abilities for God

These vivid stories spoke to the hearts of people, conveying deep spiritual truths through unforgettable characters and imagery. Jesus used parables to challenge and provoke his listeners to discover insights into God’s truths on their own.

The Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Jesus’s trial, suffering and crucifixion.

Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane and brought before the Sanhedrin council, who condemned Him to death. He was mocked, beaten, and sentenced to crucifixion by Pontius Pilate the next day. Jesus was forced to carry His cross to Golgotha, where He was nailed to the cross between two thieves ( Luke 23:32-33 ).

His suffering fulfilled Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah’s sacrificial death for humanity’s sins.

As Jesus hung on the cross, He forgave those who crucified Him and promised eternal life to one of the thieves crucified beside Him. After about six hours on the cross, He said “It is finished” and died ( John 19:30 ).

His death paid the penalty for sin once for all and opened the way for people to have a restored relationship with God.

The resurrection – Jesus rises from the dead

On the third day after His death, Jesus rose again in a resurrected, glorified body. Women who came to His tomb found it empty except for the burial cloths, and angels declared He had risen ( Luke 24:6 ).

Jesus began appearing to His disciples and others for 40 days, showing His resurrected body and teaching them about God’s kingdom ( reference ). His resurrection demonstrated His power over death and His deity as the Son of God.

Jesus appeared multiple times to more than 500 witnesses in His resurrected body over the course of 40 days ( 1 Corinthians 15:6 ). These eyewitnesses testified to the truth of His bodily resurrection, which was foundational to the spread of Christianity.

Significance of the crucifixion and resurrection

Jesus’ death by crucifixion and His miraculous resurrection three days later are at the heart of the Christian faith. Christians believe Jesus willingly took on the punishment for humanity’s sins by dying on our behalf.

His resurrection proved He defeated sin and death, and it represents His victory being offered to all who believe in Him ( 1 Peter 1:3 ).

The crucifixion and resurrection provide the way for people to receive salvation, forgiveness of sins, and reconciliation with God. Those who put their trust in Jesus can spiritually die and rise again with Him to a new, meaningful life ( Romans 6:4 ).

His resurrection also assures believers they too will be resurrected when He returns.

The Enduring Legacy and Mission of Jesus Christ

The worldwide growth of christianity.

Christianity has grown from a small movement in first century Judea to the world’s largest religion practiced by over 2.5 billion people globally . The faith founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ has spread across continents and cultures, adapting unique regional traditions while retaining the core message of salvation through faith in Christ.

A 2021 report by the Pew Research Center found Christianity is still the dominant religion in Europe and the Americas. However, the faith’s influence is also growing rapidly in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the Pacific.

By 2050, researchers predict over 60% of Christians will live in Africa and Latin America .

Jesus Christ’s continuing influence in society and culture

The life and teachings of Jesus have profoundly shaped laws, customs, arts, literature and philosophy across civilization. Concepts like human rights, charity, compassion and forgiveness championed by Christ still inspire movements for social reform and justice worldwide.

Jesus’s call to “love your neighbor” laid the ethical foundation for modern humanitarian efforts. Christian clergy like Martin Luther King Jr. and Desmond Tutu spearheaded anti-racism and reconciliation causes.

And Christian aid agencies like the Red Cross provide disaster and poverty relief globally.

In the arts, Jesus and biblical themes still feature prominently across media, from classic works like Michelangelo’s “Pieta” sculpture to modern films like “The Passion of the Christ.”

Jesus’s mission to bring salvation to the world

The central purpose of Jesus’s life and preaching was to reconcile humankind to God through his sacrificial death and resurrection. This mission of cosmic redemption from sin and death is now carried forward by his followers everywhere.

Christian clergy and missionaries spread this message of salvation to nearly every country today. In 2018 alone, over 250,000 Christian missionaries were working abroad spreading their faith according to data from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity ( source ).

And churches run compassion ministries providing food, education, healthcare and disaster relief to millions in need.

By transforming hearts and serving the poor, modern Christians still strive to continue Jesus’s reconciliation of the world to God – a mission over two millennia in the making that persists changing lives globally.

In conclusion, Jesus Christ is believed by Christians to be the divine Son of God, whose life, teachings, death and resurrection form the basis for the Christian faith. His mission was to bring salvation and redemption to humanity through his sacrifice on the cross.

Jesus changed the course of history, and his influence continues to be felt around the world today. Through his teachings, Christians believe he shows the way to salvation, spiritual truth and everlasting life.

Amanda Williams is a dedicated Christian writer and blogger who is passionate about sharing Biblical truth and encouraging believers in their faith walks. After working as a youth pastor and Bible teacher for several years, she launched her blog in 2022 to minister to Christians online seeking to grow deeper in their relationship with Jesus Christ. When she's not creating content or connecting with readers, Amanda enjoys studying theology, being out in nature, baking, and spending time with family. Her goal is to provide practical wisdom and hope from a genuine Christian perspective. Amanda currently resides in Colorado with her husband, daughter, and two rescue dogs.

Similar Posts

Who Can Baptize You According To The Bible

Baptism is an important rite of passage for many Christians. If you’re wondering who can perform a valid baptism according to biblical teaching, you’ve come to the right place. If you’re short on time, here’s a quick answer to your question: according to the Bible, any disciple of Jesus Christ can baptize a new believer….

How To Read Bible Verse Numbers

The Bible contains thousands of verses across its 66 books. Reading and understanding Bible verses can seem daunting, especially when verse numbers are involved. However, with some basic knowledge, reading and referencing Bible verses by their numbers can become second nature. If you’re short on time, here’s a quick answer to your question: Bible verse…

Is Dax Shepard A Christian?

Dax Shepard’s religious beliefs have been a source of curiosity for many of his fans. Shepard is an acclaimed actor, comedian, writer and podcast host who is married to actress Kristen Bell. If you’re wondering whether Dax Shepard is a Christian, here’s a quick answer: Dax Shepard was raised Christian but now considers himself agnostic….

What Does The Bible Say About Angels Visiting You?

Have you ever wondered if angels actually visit people on earth? Many believers have stories of supernatural encounters that leave them wondering. If you want to know what the Bible really teaches about angels making personal visits, you’ve come to the right place. If you’re short on time, here’s a quick answer: The Bible contains…

How Long Will The Empire State Building Last?

The Empire State Building has towered over New York City’s skyline since 1931. This architectural marvel is a testament to innovative engineering and sturdy construction meant to stand the test of time. If you’re wondering about the lifespan of this iconic structure, read on to learn all about the factors that will determine how long…

Idioms Drawing With Meaning: A Comprehensive Guide

Have you ever found yourself puzzled by the peculiar phrases people use in everyday conversations? Idioms are those quirky expressions that add color and depth to our language, yet their meanings often defy literal interpretation. If you’re a language enthusiast or simply someone who wants to communicate more effectively, understanding idioms is a must. If…

Jesus Christ the Saviour and His Mission to the World Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

For many people, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, healing and guiding the world on the path of righteousness. He was a prophet, a prophecy, and a representative of God, coming to save humanity. However, what exactly did he come for, and how can he help us today?

According to the Bible, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born on Earth to save us. He was a prophet sent by God to give people a choice: to accept or reject him. As it is written in the Bible: “But whoever received him, he gave power to become the children of God” (Hickey, 2021, p. 150). Jesus was a manifestation of humanity, reflecting the goodness of God.

The mission of Jesus Christ was, first and foremost, a saving and enlightening one. He wanted to show people the way to God, help them overcome their sins, and live in service. He spoke of the necessity of loving and merciful to others and the need to adhere to the laws of God. He said, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.” (Hickey, 2021, p. 110). Thus, Jesus Christ is an inspiration to people around the world.

In conclusion, Jesus Christ is a great prophet sent by God to change the world. His mission was to impart the truth and spiritual enlightenment to people. He called people to love and kindness and to follow God’s commandments. His teachings and examples should be applied and implemented by people to this day to make the world a more just and better place to live.

Hickey, M. (2021). Themes from the Gospel of John . Rowman & Littlefield.

Use these guidelines if the customer asks for appendices. The first paragraph of the appendix should be flush with the left margin. Additional paragraphs should be indented.

Begin each appendix on a new page with the word “Appendix” at the top center. Use an identifying capital letter (e.g., Appendix A, Appendix B, etc.) if you have more than one appendix. If you are referring to more than one appendix in your text, use the plural appendices (APA only).

Label tables and figures in the appendix as you would in the text of your manuscript, using the letter A before the number to clarify that the table or figure belongs to the appendix.

Demographic Information for Cummings et al. (2002)’s Review

If an appendix consists entirely of a table or figure, the title of the table or figure should serve as the title of the appendix.

• A Chaplain's Work in Problematic Situations
• Different Religions: Progressive Creationism
• Prophecy in the Book of Daniel
• Divine Mercy and Compassion in the Old and New Testament
• What Is the Definition of Sin?
• Theology: Religion and Healthcare
• A Non-Traditional View of the Days of Genesis 1
• Perception and Understanding of Theology
• The "Dynamics of Faith" Book by Paul Tillich
• Image of Salvation: Everyday Theology
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 17). Jesus Christ the Saviour and His Mission to the World. https://ivypanda.com/essays/jesus-christ-the-saviour-and-his-mission-to-the-world/

"Jesus Christ the Saviour and His Mission to the World." IvyPanda , 17 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/jesus-christ-the-saviour-and-his-mission-to-the-world/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Jesus Christ the Saviour and His Mission to the World'. 17 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Jesus Christ the Saviour and His Mission to the World." February 17, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/jesus-christ-the-saviour-and-his-mission-to-the-world/.

1. IvyPanda . "Jesus Christ the Saviour and His Mission to the World." February 17, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/jesus-christ-the-saviour-and-his-mission-to-the-world/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Jesus Christ the Saviour and His Mission to the World." February 17, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/jesus-christ-the-saviour-and-his-mission-to-the-world/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Photo by Larry Towell/Magnum

There was no Jesus

How could a cult leader draw crowds, inspire devotion and die by crucifixion, yet leave no mark in contemporary records.

by Gavin Evans   + BIO

Most New Testament scholars agree that some 2,000 years ago a peripatetic Jewish preacher from Galilee was executed by the Romans, after a year or more of telling his followers about this world and the world to come. Most scholars – though not all.

But let’s stick with the mainstream for now: the Bible historians who harbour no doubt that the sandals of Yeshua ben Yosef really did leave imprints between Nazareth and Jerusalem early in the common era. They divide loosely into three groups, the largest of which includes Christian theologians who conflate the Jesus of faith with the historical figure, which usually means they accept the virgin birth, the miracles and the resurrection; although a few, such as Simon Gathercole, a professor at the University of Cambridge and a conservative evangelical, grapple seriously with the historical evidence.

Next are the liberal Christians who separate faith from history, and are prepared to go wherever the evidence leads, even if it contradicts traditional belief. Their most vocal representative is John Barton, an Anglican clergyman and Oxford scholar, who accepts that most Bible books were written by multiple authors, often over centuries, and that they diverge from history.

A third group, with views not far from Barton’s, are secular scholars who dismiss the miracle-rich parts of the New Testament while accepting that Jesus was, nonetheless, a figure rooted in history: the gospels, they contend, offer evidence of the main thrusts of his preaching life. A number of this group, including their most prolific member, Bart Ehrman, a Biblical historian at the University of North Carolina, are atheists who emerged from evangelical Christianity. In the spirit of full declaration, I should add that my own vantage point is similar to Ehrman’s: I was raised in an evangelical Christian family, the son of a ‘born-again’, tongues-talking, Jewish-born, Anglican bishop; but, from the age of 17, I came to doubt all that I once believed. Though I remained fascinated by the Abrahamic religions, my interest in them was not enough to prevent my drifting, via agnosticism, into atheism.

There is also a smaller, fourth group who threaten the largely peaceable disagreements between atheists, deists and more orthodox Christians by insisting that evidence for a historical Jesus is so flimsy as to cast doubt on his earthly existence altogether. This group – which includes its share of lapsed Christians – suggests that Jesus may have been a mythological figure who, like Romulus, of Roman legend, was later historicised.

But what is the evidence for Jesus’ existence? And how robust is it by the standards historians might deploy – which is to say: how much of the gospel story can be relied upon as truth? The answers have enormous implications, not just for the Catholic Church and for faith-obsessed countries like the United States, but for billions of individuals who grew up with the comforting picture of a loving Jesus in their hearts. Even for people like me, who dispensed with the God-soul-heaven-hell bits, the idea that this figure of childhood devotion might not have existed or, if he did, that we might know very little indeed about him, takes some swallowing. It involves a traumatic loss – which perhaps explains why the debate is so fraught, even among secular scholars.

Secondo Pia’s photograph of the Shroud of Turin (May 1898), digital print from the Musée de l’Élysée, Lausanne. Courtesy Wikipedia

When I’ve discussed this essay with people raised as atheists or in other faiths, the question invariably asked goes something like this: why is it so important for Christians that Jesus lived on earth? What is at stake here is the unique aspect of their faith – the thing that sets it apart. For more than 1,900 years, Christianity has maintained the conviction that God sent his son to earth to suffer a hideous crucifixion to save us from our sins and give us everlasting life. Jesus’ earthbound birth, life and particularly his death, which ushered in redemption, are the very foundation of their faith. These views are so deeply entrenched that, even for those who have loosened the grip of belief, the idea that he might not have been ‘real’ is hard to stomach.

Y ou’d think that a cult leader who drew crowds, inspired devoted followers and was executed on the order of a Roman governor would leave some indentation in contemporary records. The emperors Vespasian and Titus and the historians Seneca the Elder and the Younger wrote a good deal about 1st-century Judea without ever mentioning Jesus. That could mean simply that he was less significant an actor than the Bible would have us think. But, despite the volume of records that survive from that time, there is also no death reference (as there was, say, for the 6,000 slaves loyal to Spartacus who were crucified along the Appian Way in 71 BCE), and no mention in any surviving official report, private letter, poetry or play.

Compare this with Socrates, for example. Though none of the thoughts attributed to him survive in written form, still we know that he lived (470- 399 BCE) because several of his pupils and contemporary critics wrote books and plays about him. But with Jesus there is silence from those who might have seen him in the flesh – which is awkward for historicists like Ehrman; ‘odd as it may seem,’ he wrote in 1999, ‘[i]n none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.’ In fact, there are just three sources of putative proof of life – all of them posthumous: the gospels, the letters of Paul, and historical evidence from beyond the Bible.

Christian historians base their claims for a historical Jesus on the thinnest mentions of early Christians by the Roman politicians Pliny the Younger and Tacitus (who write of Christians they interviewed early in the 2nd century – in Pliny’s case, a tortured female deacon – all followers of ‘The Way’ who talked about Jesus) and by Flavius Josephus, a Romanised Jewish historian. Josephus’s 20-volume Antiquities of the Jews , written around 94 CE, during the reign of Domitian, contains two references to Jesus, including one claiming that he was the Messiah crucified by Pontius Pilate. This would carry some weight if Josephus actually wrote it; but the experts, including evangelicals like Gathercole, agree this reference was likely forged by the 4th-century Christian polemicist Eusebius. The other reference is to ‘the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James’. Some scholars say the ‘called Christ’ bit was a later addition, but it hardly matters when Josephus was drawing from stories told by Christians more than six decades after Jesus’ assumed crucifixion.

If the crucifixion was prophesied, then how can it have been embarrassing?

The earliest evidence testifying to a historical figure comes not from contemporary records, but from the letters of Paul, which date broadly from 50 to 58 CE (of the 14 letters originally attributed to Paul, only half are now thought to be mainly his writing, with the rest thought to be written sometime in the 2nd century) . The problem with Paul for proof-seekers is how little he says about Jesus. If Jesus lived and died in Paul’s lifetime, you might expect he’d refer to Jesus’ ministry on earth – to his parables, sermons and prayers – and that his readers would want this crucial life story. But Paul offers nothing on the living Jesus, such as the stories or sayings that later appear in the gospels, and he provides no information from human sources, referring only to visionary communication with Jesus and to messianic Old Testament quotes.

Which brings us to the gospels, written later, and not by those whose names they bear (these were added in the 2nd and 3rd centuries). The gospel of Mark, which borrows from Paul, came first and set the template for the gospels that followed (Matthew draws from 600 of Mark’s 661 verses, while 65 per cent of Luke is drawn from Mark and Matthew . ) The first version of Mark is dated between 53 CE and around 70 CE, when the Second Temple was destroyed, an event it mentions. The last gospel, John, which has a different theology and stories that contradict those of the three ‘synoptic’ gospels, is dated at around 100 CE. All four gospels include sections written in the 2nd century (among them, two different virgin birth narratives in Matthew and Luke), and some scholars place the final 12 verses of Mark in the 3rd century. Several historians assume that Matthew and Luke had an earlier source they call Q. However, Q has never been found and there are no references to it elsewhere. Barton suggests that a belief in Q may serve a ‘conservative religious agenda’ because to say these gospels drew from an earlier source ‘is an implicit denial that they made any of it up themselves’.

Taken together, what can the gospels tell us about the historical Jesus? Secular scholars agree that much of their content is fictional, and note, as Ehrman puts it, that ‘these voices are often at odds with one another, contradicting one another in minute details and in major issues’. And yet Ehrman is convinced that Jesus existed; he contends that the gospel writers heard reports about Jesus and ‘decided to write their own versions’. A few basic facts, like the dates of Jesus’ birth and death (gleaned from their mention of various rulers), are widely accepted, and several of Jesus’ sayings are said to be close to his real words. To separate the factual wheat from the fictional chaff, they employ ‘criteria of authenticity’ – stories and words that ring true. The three main criteria are: embarrassment (are those details out of step with 1st-century Judaism and, if so, why would the gospel writers invent things that would cause problems?); multiple attestation (the more sources, the better); and coherence (are details consistent with what we know?)

However, there is good reason to interrogate this approach. With regard to the criteria of multiple attestation and coherence, we know the gospel writers borrowed from each other, so we’d expect them to include the same stuff. The gospel of Luke, for instance, borrowed Matthew’s ‘consider the lilies of the field’ speech, but if Matthew’s tale is fabricated, Luke’s repetition hardly adds credibility. In addition, the ‘embarrassment criterion’ relies on our knowing what went against the grain. But the Church was diverse when the gospels were written and we can’t be sure what might have embarrassed their authors . It’s often argued, for example, that the gospel writers went to such great lengths to show that the crucifixion was predicted in the Hebrew scriptures in order to make it palatable to an audience convinced that no true messiah could be thus humiliated. But this argument can be turned on its head if we accept that the crucifixion tale was included because the gospel writers – pace Paul – believed it was required to fulfil prophesy. If the crucifixion was prophesied, then how can it have been embarrassing?

On the subject of the crucifixion, it’s worth noting that, while the four accepted gospels have Jesus sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate, in the non-canonical gospel of Peter it is Herod Antipas who does the deed. The gospel of Thomas, meanwhile, makes no mention of Jesus’ death, resurrection or divinity at all. According to the 4th-century theologian Epiphanius, the Torah-observant Nazorean Christians (thought to have descended from the first group of believers), held that Jesus lived and died during the reign of King Alexander Jannaeus (10- 76 BCE) – a century before Pontius Pilate. And the Babylonian Talmud agrees, claiming that Jesus was executed by stoning and ‘hanging’ in the town of Lydda (not Jerusalem) for ‘immorality, sorcery and worshipping idols’. So, even when the ‘criteria of authenticity’ are met, historical consensus is hard to establish.

T he most concerted effort to separate fact from fiction started in 1985 when a group of mainly secular scholars were drawn together by the lapsed Catholic theologian Bob Funk. Funk’s ‘Jesus Seminar’ met twice a year for 20 years to ‘search for the historical Jesus’. At its launch, Funk said the group would enquire ‘simply, rigorously after the voice of Jesus, after what he really said.’ These scholars (eventually numbering more than 200) used the ‘criteria of authenticity’ to assess the deeds and words of Jesus as reported in the gospels. Many seminars later, following much debate, they concluded that Jesus was an iconoclastic Hellenistic Jewish preacher who told stories in parables and spoke out against injustice; that he had two earthly parents; and that he did not perform miracles, die for people’s sins or rise from the dead. The veracity of his sayings and deeds was decided by a group vote. Scholars were invited to place plastic beads in a box: red (three points) if Jesus said it; pink (two points) if he probably said it; grey (one point) if he didn’t, but it reflected his ideas; black (zero) if invented. When tallied, there were black or grey beads for 82 per cent of Jesus’ Biblical sayings, and 84 per cent of his deeds.

Such methods are regarded as quaint, at best, by scholars researching non-Biblical historical figures. One of those I canvassed was Catharine Edwards, professor of classics and ancient history at Birkbeck, University of London, who said that some historians of the ancient world tend towards scepticism – ‘for example, we can’t really know anything about the earliest stage of Roman history beyond what is gleaned from archaeological evidence’ – while others tend towards ‘extreme credibility’. But, even among those, ‘criteria of authenticity’ are not a familiar tool. She added that the coloured-beads approach ‘sounds naive and on the credulous end of the spectrum where scholars make assumptions about the character of a particular ancient individual and on that basis decide what they think he (invariably) may or may not have said.’

Hugh Bowden, professor of ancient history at King’s College London, said that there was more evidence for the existence of Socrates and Pericles than for Jesus, but ‘much less hangs on it’. The focus on the historicity of Jesus has ‘no real equivalent in other fields, because it is rooted in confessional preconceptions (early Christianity matters because modern Christianity matters) even when scholars claim to be unaffected by personal religious views. Historians in other fields would not find the question very important.’

The sceptics believe that Jesus was a mythical figure who was subsequently historicised

If we remove those preconceptions, it seems commonsensical to apply caution to the historicity of the gospels and let doubt lead our interrogations. The first gospel, Mark, was begun nearly half a century after Jesus’ ministry (and its final verses much later). Jesus’ Aramaic-speaking followers were probably illiterate, and there were no reporters taking notes. The likelihood of Jesus’ words being accurately reproduced by writers who’d never met him, and were elaborating on increasingly fanciful tales passed down through the decades, seems remote.

One scholar who was part of the Jesus Seminar and yet harboured such doubts, is Robert Price, a respected New Testament professor with a PhD in ‘Systematic Theology’, and a former Baptist pastor turned atheist. Price came to query the methodology used to establish historicity, prompting him to doubt whether Jesus ever lived. ‘If there ever was a historical Jesus there isn’t one anymore,’ he said, later writing: ‘There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure.’

Price became the heavyweight figure for a fringe group of ‘Christ myth’ sceptics – historians who propose that early Christians, including Paul, believed in a celestial messiah and that he was placed in history by the gospel writers in the next generation. So, while most of the 200 believe Jesus was a historical figure mythologised by the gospel writers, the sceptics believe the opposite: he was a mythical figure who was subsequently historicised.

Such ideas have been around for centuries. Thomas Paine was an early adopter but it was the 19th-century German philosopher Bruno Bauer who advanced the theory most assiduously. Bauer, an atheist, recognised the gospel themes as literary rather than historical, arguing that Christianity had pagan roots and that Jesus was a mythical creation.

I n recent decades, it has become widely accepted by secular scholars that the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is more myth than history. In particular, the Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein and his American colleague Neil Asher Silberman have written in The Bible Unearthed (2002) that none of the patriarchs, from Moses and Joshua backwards, existed as historical figures; that there was no record of Jews having been enslaved in Egypt (instead, they descended from the Canaanites); that David and Solomon were warlords rather than kings; and that the first temple was built three centuries after Solomon. But the view that the Christian Bible is similarly lacking in veracity has, until recently, been drowned out by those arguing for a flesh-and-blood Jesus. One reason for the consensual chorus may relate to the fact that tenured positions in departments dealing with Bible history tend not to be offered to those who doubt that Jesus was real. So the revival of the ‘doubters’ camp’ owes much to the internet, as well as to the missionary zeal of its key proponents.

Momentum began to gather in the 1990s with a series of books by Earl Doherty, a Canadian writer who became interested in scripture while studying ancient history and classical languages. Doherty claimed that Paul and other early Christian writers did not believe in Jesus as an earthly figure, but instead as a celestial being crucified by demons in the lower realms of heaven and then resurrected by God. His views (ironically, on the face of it, the most ostensibly religious, in being so thoroughly spiritualised) were rejected by historical Jesus scholars who claimed that Doherty lacked the academic nous to understand ancient texts. But the next wave, which included Price, was more firmly rooted in academia.

Price believes that early Christianity was influenced by Middle Eastern myths about dying and rising deities that survived into the Greek and Roman periods. One was a Sumerian legend, ‘The Descent of Inanna’, which tells of the queen of heaven who attends an underworld funeral only to get killed by demons and hung from a hook like a piece of meat. Three days later, however, she’s rescued, rises from the dead, and returns to the land of the living.

For ‘Christ myth’ scholars, the Jesus story fits the outlines of the mythic hero archetype

Another is the Egyptian myth of the murdered god-king Osiris. His wife, Isis, finds his body, restores it to life and, via a flash of lightning in one version, conceives his son, Horus, who succeeds him. Osiris goes on to rule over the dead. In Plutarch’s Greek version, Osiris is tricked to lie in a coffin, which floats out to sea before washing up at the city of Byblos. There, Isis removes Osiris’ body from a tree and brings it back to life.

Several Jewish texts in circulation at the time reinforced the messianic aspects of these narratives. For instance, 1 Enoch (a book written mainly in the 2nd century BCE, and particularly revered within the Essene community, thought to be responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls) refers to the ‘Son of Man’ (a phrase used for Jesus in the gospels) whose name and identity will be kept secret to prevent evildoers from knowing of him until the appointed time.

The favourite ‘Christ myth’ source is the Ascension of Isaiah , written in bits and pieces in the 1st and 2nd centuries. It includes a section dealing with a journey through the seven heavens by a non-human Jesus who is crucified in a lower heaven by Satan and his demonic ‘archons’ who are the rulers of that realm and yet do not know who he is. Again, the story ends with Jesus rising from the dead.

‘Christ myth’ scholars believe that ancient tales of death and resurrection influenced the gospel writers, who also borrowed from Homer, Euripides and the Hebrew Bible. For them, the Jesus story fits the outlines of the mythic hero archetype of the time – a spiritual saviour killed by ‘archons’ before rising triumphant. They contend that later Christians rewrote Jesus as a historical figure who suffered at the hands of earthly rulers.

The rock star of scepticism is Richard Carrier, a Bible scholar with a very modern aptitude for using social media (some of his lengthy YouTube videos have attracted more than a million viewers). He enters into fervent debates with rivals, lectures, and writes acerbic, clinical and fact-laden books . With his PhD in ancient history from the University of Columbia and his record of publishing in academic journals, his credentials are less easily dismissed than Doherty’s. Ehrman, for instance, acknowledges Carrier and Price are serious New Testament scholars.

At one time, Carrier accepted the historicity of Jesus but he became contemptuous of the mainstream position because of what he saw as the parlous state of scholarship supporting it. He and the Australian Bible historian Raphael Lataster use Bayes’ theorem, which considers historical probabilities based on reasonable expectations (weighing up the evidence and attaching mathematical odds to it), to conclude that it is ‘probable’ that Jesus never existed as a historical person, although it is ‘plausible’ that he did.

T he ‘Jesus myth’ advocates get plenty of airplay, but the fringe label has stuck, and not just because religious studies departments freeze them out. Their own methodology has been criticised, not least their use of Bayesian methods. Bizarrely, Carrier offered odds to his readers, concluding that the likelihood of a real-life Jesus was no better than 33 per cent (and perhaps as low as 0.0008 per cent) depending on the estimates used for the computation, which illustrates the wooliness of this use of Bayes’ theorem.

Carrier and his comrades do a fine job poking holes in the methods of historicists but what they offer in exchange seems flimsy. In particular, they have found no clear evidence from the decades before the gospels to show that anyone believed Jesus was not human. Each reference in the epistles can be explained away as referring to a celestial saviour, but it all feels like a bit of a stretch. Paul frequently refers to the crucifixion and says Jesus was ‘born of a woman’ and ‘made from the sperm of David, according to the flesh’. He also refers to James, ‘the brother of Christ’. Using these examples, Ehrman says there’s ‘good evidence that Paul understood Jesus to be a historical figure’. Which was certainly the view of the writer/s of Mark, a gospel begun less than two decades after Paul’s letters were written.

Like the grain of sand that begat Robin Hood, the Jesus story developed fresh layers over time

If we accept this conclusion, but also accept that the gospels are unreliable biographies, then what we are left with is a dimly discernible historical husk. If Jesus did live at the time generally accepted (from 7- 3 BCE to 26- 30 CE) rather than a century earlier as some of the earliest Christians seemed to believe, then we might assume that he started life in Galilee, attracted a following as a preacher and was executed. Everything else is invention or uncertain. In other words, if Jesus did exist, we know next to nothing about him.

One way of looking at it is to think of a pearl, which starts as a grain of sand around which calcium carbonate layers form as an immune response to the irritant until the pearl no longer resembles the speck that started it. Many legends have developed in this way, from the tale of the blind bard Homer onwards.

The outlaw and thief Robert Hod was fined for failing to appear in court in York in 1225 and a year later he reappeared in the court record, still at large. This could be the grain of sand that begat Robin Hood, whom many people assumed to have been a historical figure whose legend grew over the centuries. Robin started as a forest yeoman but morphed into a nobleman. He was later inserted into 12th-century history with King Richard the Lionheart and Prince John (earlier versions had Edward I), along with his ever-expanding band of outlaws. By the 16th century, he and his Merry Men had mutated from lovable rascals to rebels with a cause who ‘tooke from rich to give the poor’.

The Jesus story likewise developed fresh layers over time. At the start of the common era, there may well have been several iconoclastic Jewish preachers, and one of them got up the noses of the Romans, who killed him. Soon his legend grew. New attributes and views were ascribed to him until, eventually, he became the heroic figure of the Messiah and son of God with his band of 12 not-so-merry men. The original grain of sand is less significant than most assume. The interesting bit is how it grew.

Main character syndrome

Why romanticising your own life is philosophically dubious, setting up toxic narratives and an inability to truly love

Anna Gotlib

Food and drink

The joy of foraging

Offering an escape from industrial foods, foraging nourishes the soul and body, but it needs democratic access to the land

Design and fashion

When luxury is good

The waste and exploitation of fast fashion shouldn’t blind us to the joys of making beautiful clothing with care

Roger Tredre

Race and ethnicity

The forging of countries

Two distinct and conflicting forms of nationalism – civic and ethnic – helped create the nation-states of Europe

Luka Ivan Jukić

Rituals and celebrations

Tender, yet creepy

Dolls help children create wonderfully vivid and imaginative worlds, while also serving as unsettling reminders of the abyss

Tishani Doshi

Film and visual culture

The risk of beauty

W Eugene Smith’s photos of the Minamata disaster are both exquisite and horrifying. How might we now look at them?

Joanna Pocock

Search Journey with Jesus Website

Translate journey with jesus website.

• Six Lessons from Job

Lectionary essay for the October 6, 2024 RCL

TITLE: Six Lessons from Job

Images and descriptions for the lectionary essay: use the 4 images with descriptions from here,  https://journeywithjesus.net/essays/383-the-story-of-job-certainty-but-no-security

Image for upper left module: use the second image from here,  https://journeywithjesus.net/essays/383-the-story-of-job-certainty-but-no-security

Poem for upper right module: Alegria, From the Bridge ,  https://journeywithjesus.net/poemsandprayers/259-from-the-bridge

Image for upper right module:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claribel_Alegr ía#/media/File:Claribel_Alegria.jpg

Teaser text for upper right module: Claribel Alegría (1924-2018) was a poet, novelist, essayist, and journalist. She was featured in Bill Moyers’ PBS series, “The Language of Life.” Her forty books have been translated into more than ten languages.

Weekly Prayer  at end of essay:  https://journeywithjesus.net/poemsandprayers/2571-a-prayer-for-people-critically-ill-or-facing-great-uncertainty

Job 1:1, 2:1–10 or Genesis 2:18–24 Psalm 26 or Psalm 8 Hebrews 1:1–4, 2:5–12 Mark 10:2–16

From Our Archives

Debie Thomas, What Are We? (2021); Debie Thomas, Bone of My Bones (2018); Dan Clendenin, World Communion Sunday  (for October 6); and Dan Clendenin on Psalm 8, Between Nature and Grace (2009).

This Week's Essay

Job 1:22, "In all this, Job did not sin."

For Sunday October 6, 2024

Lectionary Readings ( Revised Common Lectionary , Year B)

Everyone has a story about unjust suffering. Here's mine.

After I finished grad school and got my first job at a small college, I moonlighted at a Presbyterian church as a pastor for home visitation. The very first person I visited that July in 1985 was a widow named Jan. I could barely comprehend her story as I sat in her living room.

Just a few weeks before I visited her, Jan had lost her husband, two sons, her father, an uncle, and a nephew in a single boating accident on a lake in Minnesota. Six loved ones had perished in a freak storm on their annual "father-son" fishing trip. I remember how Jan described that at church when she walked down the hallway, people parted like the Red Sea because nobody knew what to say.

Jan is a modern day Job. And as the four images for this week show, the suffering of Job has captured our human imagination for millennia.

Even people who are ignorant of the Bible speak about the "patience of Job" as a complimentary proverb, but I've never understood why. Job is anything but patient.

Between the prologue (1:1–2:13) and the epilogue (42:7–17), most of the story is a tedious and acrimonious debate between Job and his phony friends — Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar (3:1–31:40). They insist that Job deserves his misfortune; it's obviously a punishment for his sins. He therefore needs to repent.

But from start to finish, Job protests his innocence. He complains, despairs, doubts, questions, anguishes, and, finally, resigns himself to his tragic fate.

Nor does the story of Job deal directly with important questions — like why the wicked prosper, why God sometimes feels silent and hidden, or why the moral calculus in our world sometimes does not add up. Those important matters are peripheral to a more narrow question.

Job explores a specific question about the relationship between piety and prosperity. Although Job never learns the origin or purpose of his ordeal, the writer-narrator informs us as readers. We know some things that he doesn't.

Satan comes before God with a provocative accusation: "does Job fear God for nothing?" (1:9). He says that Job's faith has ulterior motives. Doesn't Job expect a  quid pro quo  of some sort, a divine blessing for his faith?

The accuser-adversary (the literal meaning of his name in Hebrew) then makes a wager with God. He bets that he can prove that for Job, an immensely wealthy man with a wonderful family, God is little more than a Cosmic Sugar Daddy. His faith in Yahweh is fueled by its benefits. God, Satan charges, is really no more than a rabbit's foot or good luck charm. If you test him and try him, squeeze him hard, Satan wagers, you'll see that Job's faith is opportunistic and egocentric rather than gratuitous and theocentric.

God accepts the bet. He permits Job to be "ruined without reason" (2:3). A first wave of disasters decimates Job's extravagant wealth, and kills his ten children. Then Satan ravages Job himself with festering boils from head to foot. To say that life hands him a dramatic reversal would be a gross understatement.

But despite his impatience, his agonizing questions, and emotional outbursts, Job passes these dreadful tests with flying colors at each stage of the drama. A close reading of the story makes this crystal clear.

Before his fiasco began, we read that Job was "blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil." (1:1).

During the crisis, the narrator says that "in all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing;" "he did not sin in what he said" (1:22; 2:10). Though "ruined without reason," God tells Satan that Job "maintained his integrity" (2:3).

And then, the epilogue ends with another reversal, but of a different sort. Whereas at the beginning of the story Job sought the help of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, at the end God commands them to seek Job's prayers and intercession. They had wrongly charged Job with impiety, but God rightly charged them with "folly" — his three false friends "have not spoken of me what is right,  as my servant Job has. " (42:7).

The story of Job contains at least five important lessons. In the New Testament, James commends Job for his perseverance (James 5:11).

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar warn us of trying to "help" or "fix" our friends with pious cliches when they suffer, despite our good intentions. Sometimes it's best to sit with our friends in silence. I still remember sitting in Jan's living room and telling myself to keep my mouth shut.

Even though he wore his heart on his sleeve and vented his emotions, God affirmed that Job "spoke rightly," which is a reminder that we never have to sanitize our feelings of anger and despair before God.

Job also teaches that we should not make a direct connection between rewards and punishments in this life with a person's sin or righteousness. Jesus categorically rejected such thinking in John 9:1-5 about why a man was born blind.  It was not because someone had sinned, and earned such a "punishment."

Encountering the majesty and mystery of God, Job confessed that he "surely spoke of things I did not understand" (42:3), and it was precisely his admission of ignorance that led him from second hand knowledge about God to a direct and personal experience with God: "My ears had heard of you, but now my eyes have seen you." (42:5). Job knew God in his unknowing.

In addition to these five lessons, though, the central lesson of this ancient story includes a most contemporary application. Many television preachers and books teach that God wants us healthy, wealthy, and wise (if you send them your money). Job exposes that lie. In his book  Forty Acres and a Goat,  the Baptist pastor Will Campbell derides such teachers as "electronic soul molesters."

Genuine faith doesn't manipulate God for material gain, fear of punishment, or avoidance of unjust suffering. The British novelist and poet Mary Elizabeth Coleridge (1861–1907) captures such authentic faith in her poem  After Saint Augustine :

Sunshine let it be or frost, Storm or calm, as Thou shalt choose; Though Thine every gift were lost, Thee Thyself we could not lose.

I've always appreciated how the Lutherans of the Protestant Reformation distinguished between earthly "security" ( securitas ) and divine "certainty" ( certitudo ). Security, they said, depends on human guarantees. Certainty depends on God's promises.

Job reminds us that while life doesn't offer us any guarantees of security, we do have the certainty that nothing can separate us from God's love.

Weekly Prayer Anonymous Prayer for People Critically Ill or Facing Great Uncertainty God of the present moment, God who in Jesus stills the storm and soothes the frantic heart; bring hope and courage to all who wait or work in uncertainty. Bring hope that you will make them the equal of whatever lies ahead. Bring them courage to endure what cannot be avoided, for your will is health and wholeness; you are God, and we need you. —Adapted from New Zealand Prayer Book, p. 765

Dan Clendenin:  [email protected]

Image credits: (1) Curious Christian; (2)  Wikipedia.org ; (3)  Wikipedia.org ; and (4) Curious Christian.

Support us on Patreon!

Latest Essays

• The Original Queen Esther
• Suffer the Children
• Creation's Praise

Home — Essay Samples — Religion — Jesus Christ — Who is Jesus to You: Exploring Perspectives on Jesus

Who is Jesus to You: Exploring Perspectives on Jesus

• Categories: God Jesus Christ

About this sample

Words: 704 |

Published: Sep 16, 2023

Words: 704 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

The historical jesus, the son of god, a moral and ethical teacher, a symbol of hope and comfort, conclusion: a personal journey.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Religion

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

11.5 pages / 5237 words

8 pages / 3519 words

3 pages / 1357 words

1 pages / 641 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Jesus Christ

While reading the articles about the Pharisees, I discovered quite a bit of new and informative pieces of information that I did not know previously. So, while reading these articles I learned a lot of new things about the [...]

Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.Ehrman, B. D. (2003). Lost Christianities: The battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew. Oxford University [...]

Christmas, a beloved holiday celebrated by millions around the world, has a rich history that spans centuries. The way we celebrate Christmas today has evolved significantly from its origins, reflecting changes in culture, [...]

The figure of Jesus Christ has been a central subject of contemplation, veneration, and debate for over two millennia. As the key figure in Christianity, Jesus' portrayal varies significantly across different contexts, including [...]

The atonement of Christ according to this Moral Influence theory is that Jesus Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes through the teachings of Jesus alongside His [...]

Shakespeare’s Caesar in “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” is often mistaken as being a tyrant. This view comes from the characterization of Caesar through Cassius and Brutus’ eyes. Caesar’s qualities that make him a martyr instead [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Kindle Store
• Kindle eBooks
• Religion & Spirituality

Promotions apply when you purchase

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

Buy for others

Buying and sending ebooks to others.

• Select quantity
• Buy and send eBooks
• Recipients can read on any device

These ebooks can only be redeemed by recipients in the US. Redemption links and eBooks cannot be resold.

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Interpreting Jesus: Essays on the Gospels (Collected Essays of N. T. Wright Book 2) Kindle Edition

Draws together the most important articles on Jesus and the gospels by distinguished scholar and author N. T. Wright.

Interpreting Jesus puts into one volume the development of Wright's thought on this subject over the last three decades. It collects the essays—written for a wide variety of publications—that led up to his groundbreaking book Jesus and the Victory of God , and it includes such wide-ranging themes as:

• The Biblical Roots of Trinitarian Theology
• The History, Eschatology, and New Creation in John's Gospel
• The Evangelists' Use of the Old Testament as an Implicit Overarching Narrative
• And The Public Meaning of the Gospels

Interpreting Jesus displays Wright's engaging prose, his courage to go where few have gone, and his joy to bridge the work of the academy and the church.

Here is a rich feast for any serious student of the Bible, especially of the New Testament. Detailed, incisive, and exquisitely nuanced exegesis, this collection will reward you with a clearer, deeper, and more informed appreciation of the recent advances in Jesus studies, and their significance for theology today.

Many of the included studies have never been published or were made available only in hard-to-find larger volumes and journals.

• Book 2 of 3 Collected Essays of N. T. Wright
• Print length 356 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Zondervan Academic
• Publication date July 14, 2020
• File size 1088 KB
• Page Flip Enabled
• Word Wise Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting Enabled
• See all details

Shop this series

• All 3 $101.97

This option includes 3 books.

Customers also bought or read

• Customers Also Enjoyed
• In This Series
• By N. T. Wright
• New Testament
• Bible Study & Reference

Customers who read this book also read

From the brand

Scroll right for more.

Shop Zondervan Academic

Visit the Store

New Releases

Zondervan Academic serves the needs of Christian scholars, pastors, and students. Since 1931, we have been privileged to partner with the scholarly community to develop Christ-honoring resources in service of the academy and the church worldwide.

Together we produce works in various areas of biblical-theological studies that exhibit faithfulness to historic Christian faith, cultural relevance, excellence, and innovation.

From the Publisher

Praise for the Collected Essays of N.T. Wright

“Just when I wondered what N. T. Wright might write next we get a 3 volume circus of revolving themes and perspectives and worldviews that illustrate why Wright is the most influential biblical scholar in the English-speaking world: Wright is one of the few who shapes conversations in both Gospels studies and Pauline studies. These essays bring to the front Wright's engaging prose, his undeniable courage to go where few have gone, and his joy to bridge the work of the academy and the church. Another treasure trove of studies.”

—Rev. Canon Dr. Scot McKnight, Professor of New Testament, Northern Seminary

“N. T. Wright’s collection of essays on Jesus, Paul, and Scripture are a brilliant trilogy of Wright’s miscellaneous works. It is not only convenient to have them all together in one literary deposit, but they deserve reading as Wright waxes eloquently and with wisdom about who is Jesus, why is Paul so controversial, the atonement, the church, and how the Bible is authoritative today. An important part of the Wrightonian corpus for present and future generations or for anyone who wrestles with Jesus, Paul, God, and Scripture."

—Rev. Dr. Michael F. Bird, Academic Dean and Lecturer in Theology, Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia

“Few, if any, modern biblical scholars have written with the depth and breadth of N. T. Wright. These essays, from a wide variety of settings and publications, are full of treasures, old and new—even some modifications of earlier positions. They will delight Wright enthusiasts, challenge his critics, and educate all readers. No biblical scholar, theologian, or theological student should be ignorant of the most recent Wright perspectives on so many aspects of Scripture, Jesus, and Paul.”

—Michael J. Gorman, Raymond E. Brown Chair in Biblical Studies and Theology, St. Mary’s Seminary & University, Baltimore

“A trilogy of N. T. Wright’s seminal essays on Scripture and hermeneutics, Jesus and the Gospels, and Paul and his Letters with a number of brand-new contributions thrown in for good measure? Count me in! For roughly three decades now, Wright’s voice has been among the most valuable and valued by both the church and the academy. Rightly so! This three-volume collection—which will prove to be a treasure trove for serious students as well as for scholars of Bible, history, and theology—reveals why time and again.”

— Todd D. Still, Charles J. and Eleanor McLerran DeLancey Dean & William M. Hinson Professor of Christian Scriptures, Baylor University, Truett Seminary

All essays are preceded by brief reflections written by N. T. Wright; these reflections serve to contextualize the writing of each essay and to highlight their place and significance within Wright’s voluminous corpus.

Get the Complete Set:

• Interpreting Scripture
• Interpreting Paul
• Interpreting Jesus

COLLECTED ESSAYS OF N.T. WRIGHT

N. T. WRIGHT has been called the most prolific biblical scholar in a generation, perhaps the most important apologist for the Christian faith since C. S. Lewis. Interpreting Jesus brings together his most important articles on Jesus and the Gospels over the last three decades. Many of the included studies have never been published or are only available in hard-to-find larger volumes and journals.

Each essay will amply reward those looking for:

• Detailed, incisive, and exquisitely nuanced exegesis
• A clearer and deeper understanding of Scripture
• A more informed appreciation of Scripture's application to Christian life and thought

You may also enjoy these books by N.T. Wright:

Editorial Reviews

About the author.

N. T. Wright is the former bishop of Durham and senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University. He is one of the world’s leading New Testament scholars and the award-winning author of many books, including? After You Believe ,? Surprised by Hope ,? Simply Christian ,? Interpreting Paul , and? The New Testament in Its World , as well as the Christian Origins and the Question of God series.

Product details

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081MTVX41
• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Zondervan Academic (July 14, 2020)
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 14, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1088 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Up to 5 simultaneous devices, per publisher limits
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 356 pages
• #1,448 in Christian New Testament Criticism
• #2,726 in Christian Pastoral Resources (Kindle Store)
• #4,460 in Christian Ministry

About the author

N. t. wright.

N.T. WRIGHT is the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England and one of the world’s leading Bible scholars. He is now serving as the Chair of New Testament and Early Christianity at the School of Divinity at the University of St. Andrews. For twenty years he taught New Testament studies at Cambridge, McGill and Oxford Universities. As being both one of the world’s leading Bible scholars and a popular author, he has been featured on ABC News, Dateline, The Colbert Report, and Fresh Air. His award-winning books include The Case for the Psalms, How God Became King, Simply Jesus, After You Believe, Surprised by Hope, Simply Christian, Scripture and the Authority of God, The Meaning of Jesus (co-authored with Marcus Borg), as well as being the translator for The Kingdom New Testament. He also wrote the impressive Christian Origins and the Question of God series, including The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, The Resurrection of the Son of God and most recently, Paul and the Faithfulness of God.

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 79% 7% 7% 0% 6% 79%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 79% 7% 7% 0% 6% 7%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 79% 7% 7% 0% 6% 7%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 79% 7% 7% 0% 6% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 79% 7% 7% 0% 6% 6%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

Report an issue.

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Registry & Gift List

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

• Featured Essay The Love of God An essay by Sam Storms Read Now
• Faithfulness of God
• Saving Grace
• Adoption by God

Most Popular

• Gender Identity
• Trusting God
• The Holiness of God
• See All Essays

• Best Commentaries
• Featured Essay Resurrection of Jesus An essay by Benjamin Shaw Read Now
• Death of Christ
• Resurrection of Jesus
• Church and State
• Sovereignty of God
• Faith and Works
• The Carson Center
• The Keller Center
• New City Catechism
• Publications
• Read the Bible
• TGC Pastors

U.S. Edition

• Arts & Culture
• Bible & Theology
• Christian Living
• Current Events
• Faith & Work
• As In Heaven
• Gospelbound
• Post-Christianity?
• The Carson Center Podcast
• TGC Podcast
• You're Not Crazy
• Churches Planting Churches
• Help Me Teach The Bible
• Word Of The Week
• Past Conference Media
• Foundation Documents
• Regional Chapters
• Church Directory
• Global Resourcing
• Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

The Christian Life

The holy spirit, jesus christ, systems and methods of theology, biblical theology.

"The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus"

Author:  King, Martin Luther, Jr. (Crozer Theological Seminary)

Date:  November 29, 1949 to February 15, 1950 ?

Location:  Chester, Pa. ?

Genre:  Essay

Topic:  Martin Luther King, Jr. - Education

This paper, written at the beginning of the second term of Davis’s course Christian Theology for Today, indicates King’s estrangement from the conservative Baptist theology he learned as a child. As he had done in his earlier outline of William Newton Clarke’s  An Outline of Christian Theology , King dismisses the conception of an inherent divinity in Jesus and concludes: “The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit  [ of ]  God.” By establishing Jesus as human, King allows for the possibility of progressive improvement in earthly society through individual action. Commenting on the essay, Davis warned: “You need to proofread your papers before turning them in. Note corrections on p. 4.” Nevertheless, he marked the work a B + and praised the paper as “a solution which would appeal to the liberal mind.”

Many years ago a young Jewish leader asked his followers a question which was all but astounding. He had been working with them quite assiduously. During their work together he was constantly asking them what his contemporaries were saying about him. But one day he pressed the question closer home. It is all very well to say what other people think of me, but what do you think? Who do you say that I am?

This question has gone echoing down the centuries ever since the young Jewish prophet sounded its first note. 1  Many have attempted to answer this question by attributing total divinity to Jesus with little concern for his humanity. Others have attempted to answer this question by saying that Jesus was a “mere” good man with no divine dimensions. Still others have attempted to get at the question by seeing Jesus as fully human and fully divine. This question, which was so prominent in the thinking of the early Christian centuries, was not answered once and for all at the council of Chalcedon, rather it lurks forth in modern theological thinking with an amazing degree of freshness. In grappling with the question of the person of Christ, modern Christian thinking is unanimous in setting forth the full humanity of Jesus, yet Christians have not been willing to stop there. Despite all the human limitations of Jesus, most Christian thinkers have been convinced that “God was in Christ.” 2  To be sure, Christian thinkers are often in conflict over the question of how and when Jesus became divine, but as to the presence of the divine dimension within him we find little disagreement in Christian circles. At this point we may turn to a detailed discussion of the humanity and divinity of Jesus.

The Humanity of Jesus

If there is any one thing of which modern Christians have been certain it is that Jesus was a true man, bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, in all points tempted as we are. 3  All docetist, Eutychean, Monophysite errors which explained away the humanity of our Lord have now been jettisoned be all serious theological thought. 4  Theologians of all shades of opinions have declared that in respect to His human nature Christ is consubstantial with ourselves.

We need only read the Gospels to attest to the fact of Jesus’ genuine humanity. There is not a limitation that humanity shares that Jesus did not fall heir. Like the rest of us, he got hungry. When at the well of Sameria he asked the women who was drawing water for a drink. When he grew tired, he needed rest and sleep. He leared obedience, we are told, in the way we must learn it. When his disciples were unfaithful it was very cutting to his heart. The blindness of the city he longed to save moved him to tears. In the garden he experienced the normal agony of any individual in the same situation. On the Cross, he added to all physical tortures the final agony of feeling God-forsaken. 5

Notice how the unknown writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the humanity of Jesus. Nowhere in the New Testament is the humanity of Jesus set forth more vividly. We see him agonising in prayer (5:7) embracing the Cross with joy and faith (12:2). Springing from the tribe of Judah, He passed through the normal development of human life, learning obedience, even though a Son, by the things which he suffered (5:8). Like all other men he was tempted. Yet no corrupt strain existed in His nature to which temptation could appeal. Here we find a frank emphasis of the humanity of Jesus, paralleled nowhere in the New Testament.\[Footnote:] H. R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of The Person of Jesus Christ, p. 78.\ 6

Again we may notice that Jesus was by no means omnicient. His knowledge was essentially limited by human conditions. This fact was set forth as for back as 1912 by the notable theologian, H. R. Mackintosh. In dealing with this question of Jesus’ omnicience He states: “The question can be decided solely by loyalty to facts; and these, it is not too much to say, are peremptory. Not only is it related that Jesus asked question to elicit information—regarding the site of Lazarus tomb, for example, or the number of the loaves, or the name of the demented Gadarene—but at one point there is a clear acknowledgment of ignorance. ‘Of that day or that hour,’ He said, respecting the Parousia, ‘knoweth no man, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.’ If he could thus be ignorant of a detail connected in some measure with his redemptive work, the conclusion is unavoidable that in secular affairs His knowledge was but the knowledge of His time.”\[Footnote:] Ibid, p. 397.\

Again we may notice the human character of our Lord’s moral and religious life. His religious experience was in the human realm. Certainly he had a human faith in God. As Dr. Baille has so cogently stated, “Our Lord’s life on earth was a life of faith, and His victory was the victory of faith. His temptations were real temptations, which it was difficult and painful for Him to resist.”\[Footnote:] D. M. Baille, God was In Christ, p. 14.\ Jesus overcame his temptations not by relience on some inherent divine dimension, but by the constancy of his will. 7  So we are moved to the conclusion, on the basis of peremptory evidence, that Jesus shared fully our human life.

The Divinity of Jesus

After establishing the full humanity of Jesus we still find an element in his life which transcends the human. To see Jesus as a “mere” good man like all other prophets is by no means sufficient to explain him. Moreover, the historical setting in which he grew up, the psychological mood and temper of the age and of the house of Israel, the economic and social predicament of Jesus family—all these are important. But these in themselves fail to answer one significant question: Why does he differ from all others in the same setting. Any explanation of Jesus in terms of psychology, economics, religion, and the like must inevitably explain his contemporaries as well. These may tell us why Jesus was a particular kind of Jew, but not why some other Jews were not Jesus. Jesus was brought up in the same conditions as other Jews, inherited the same traits that they inherited; and yet he was Jesus and the others were not. This uniqueness in the spiritual life of Jesus has lead Christians to see him not only as a human being, but as a human being surrounded with divinity. 8  Prior to all other facts about Jesus stands the spiritual assurance that He is divine. As Dr. Brown succinctly states in a recent book, “That God was in Christ is the very heart of the Christian faith. In this divine human person the ever recurring antinomy of the universe is presented in a living symbol—the antinomy of the eternal in the temporal, of the infinite in the finite, of the divine in the human.”\[Footnote:] W. A. Brown, How To Think of Christ, p. 9.\

As stated above, the conflict that Christians often have over the question of Jesus divinity is not over the validity of the fact of his divinity, but over the question of how and when he became divine. The more orthodox Christians have seen his divinity as an inherent quality metaphysically bestowed. Jesus, they have told us, is the Pre existent Logos. He is the word made flesh. He is the second person of the trinity. He is very God of very God, of one substance with the Father, who for our salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate be the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary.

Certainly this view of the divinity of Christ presents many modern minds with insuperable difficulties. Most of us are not willing to see the union of the human and divine in a metaphysical incarnation. Yet amid all of our difficulty with the pre existent idea and the view of supernatural generation, we must come to some view of the divinity of Jesus. In order to remain in the orbid of the Christian religion we must have a Christology. As Dr. Baille has reminded us, we cannot have a good theology without a Christology. 9  Where then can we in the liberal tradition find the divine dimension in Jesus? We may find the divinity of Christ not in his substantial unity with God, but in his filial consciousness and in his unique dependence upon God. It was his felling of absolute dependence on God, as Schleiermaker would say, that made him divine. Yes it was the warmnest of his devotion to God and the intimatcy of his trust in God that accounts for his being the supreme revelation of God. All of this reveals to us that one man has at last realized his true divine calling: That of becoming a true son of man by becoming a true son of God. It is the achievement of a man who has, as nearly as we can tell, completely opened his life to the influence of the divine spirit.

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: “Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have.” In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers.

The appearance of such a person, more divine and more human than any other, andstanding  and standing in closest unity at once with God and man, is the most significant and hopeful event in human history. This divine quality or this unity with God was not something thrust upon Jesus from above, but it was a definite achievement through the process of moral struggle and self-abnegation. 10

Bibliography

1. Baille D. M., God was in Christ, Scribner’s, 1948.

2. Brown, William A., How To Think of Christ, Scribner, 1945.

3. Hedley, George, The Symbol of the Faith, Macmillan, 1948.

4. Mackintosh, H. R., The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, Scribner, 1912.  

1.  William Adams Brown,  How to Think of Christ  (New York: Scribner, 1948), p. 3: “Many years ago a young Jew put to a little group of his companions what in its setting seems a strange question. He had been asking them what his contemporaries were saying about him and they had repeated a variety of answers. Now he presses the questions closer home. It is all very well to tell me what other people are thinking about me. What do you  think  I am?… It has been so ever since. The question of the young Jewish Rabbi has gone echoing down the centuries.”

2.  See Donald Macpherson Baillie,  God Was in Christ  (New York: Scribner, 1948), cited in King’s bibliography.

3.  Brown,  How to Think of Christ , pp. 6–7: “If there is any one thing of which Christians have been certain it is that Jesus is true man, bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, in all points tempted as we are.”

4.  Baillie,  God Was in Christ , p. 20: “all serious theological thought has finished with the docetist, Eutychean, Monophysite errors which explained away the humanity of our Lord and thus the reality of the Incarnation.” 

5.  Brown,  How to Think of Christ , p. 7: “If further evidence of Jesus’ genuine humanity were needed, one has only to read the Gospels. There is not a limitation to which our human kind is heir but Jesus shares it with us. Like the rest of us, he was hungry. At the well at Samaria he asked the woman who was drawing water for a drink. When he grew tired, he needed rest and sleep. He asked questions, and expected answers. He was a learner, and not from books alone. He learned obedience, we are told, in the way in which we must all learn it, by the things which he suffered. He was cut to the heart by the faithlessness of disciples. He knew what it was to be betrayed by a friend. The blindness of the city he longed to save moved him to tears. In the garden he was in agony and sweated blood. On the Cross, he added to all physical tortures the final agony of feeling God-forsaken.”

6.  H. R. Mackintosh,  The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ  (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913), p. 79: “Nowhere in the New Testament is the humanity of Christ set forth so movingly … We see Him proclaiming salvation (2:3), agonizing in prayer (5:7), embracing the Cross with joy and faith (12:2), suffering the last penalty without the city gate (13:12) … Sprung from the tribe of Judah, He passed through the normal development of human life, learning obedience, even though a Son, by the things which He suffered (5:8).… Yet no corrupt strain existed in His nature to which temptation could appeal.… A frank emphasis, without parallel in the New Testament, is laid on His human virtues.”

7.  Baillie,  God Was in Christ , p. 15, quoting William Temple’s  Christus Veritas , p. 147: “He overcame them exactly as everyman who does so has overcome temptation—by the consistency of his will.”

8.  Davis underlined “surrounded with divinity,” and asked, “Was not divinity ‘in’ him?”

9.  Baillie,  God Was in Christ , pp. 42–43.

10.  A version of this paragraph appears in a previous paper for Davis during the first term of Christian Theology for Today: “The appearance of such a person, more divine and more human, than any other, and standing in closest unity at once with God and man, is the most significant and hopeful event in human history. This divine character or this unity with God was nothing thrust upon Jesus from above, but it was a definite achievement” (“Six Talks in Outline,” 13 September–23 November 1949, p. 247 in this volume).

Source:  MLKP-MBU, Martin Luther King, Jr., Papers, 1954-1968, Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center, Boston University, Boston, Mass.

©  Copyright Information

• Free Courses
• Social Media
• Online Courses
• Course Bundles
• Courses Login
• NINT Conference
• Consulting & Editing
• Book Bart to Speak
• Bart’s Biography
• Books Published
• Curriculum Vitae
• BART’S BIOGRAPHY
• CURRICULUM VITAE

Who Was Josephus? (And What He Wrote About Jesus)

Written by Marko Marina, Ph.D.

Author |  Historian

Author |  Historian |  BE Contributor

Verified!  See our guidelines

Verified!  See our editorial guidelines

Date written: March 25th, 2024

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The name Flavius Josephus always reminds me of my first encounter with him and his writings. In the first lecture of my graduate course on Early Christianity, a fierce debate emerged between my professor and one of the students about the importance of Josephus' testimony in establishing the historicity of Jesus.

The intensity of that discussion underscored the pivotal role Josephus plays in the study of Early Christianity and the broader field of ancient history.

Flavius Josephus , a name that stands at the crossroads of Judaism and early Christianity, offers a unique perspective on the tumultuous era that saw the rise of both these faiths against the backdrop of Roman dominion. Born into a priestly Jewish family in the first century C.E., Josephus found himself amid political upheaval, war, and cultural transformation.

This article aims to shed light on the life of Josephus , delving into his birth, upbringing, and the dramatic turn of events that led him to adopt Roman citizenship and a new name. 

We’ll touch upon his major works, including “The Judean War” and “Antiquities of the Jews”, with a particular focus on his references to Jesus and other figures from the New Testament.

Join us as we embark on this journey through the life and legacy of Flavius Josephus, whose writings continue to intrigue, inform, and inspire debate among historians and scholars across the world.

But, wait a minute! Before we begin, I must invite you to consider joining a captivating course “ Paul and Jesus: The Great Divide ” by a renowned scholar of early Christianity Bart D. Ehrman . In it, Dr. Ehrman explores the key theological differences between two pivotal figures of the world’s most popular religion! 

Josephus: Early Life Set in the Historical Context

Born Yosef ben Matityahu in Jerusalem, in 37 C.E., Josephus lived through one of the most tumultuous periods in Jewish history. His life spanned the Roman occupation of Judea and the First Jewish–Roman War , events that shaped the socio-political landscape of his time. 

The backdrop of Josephus' early years was marked by increasing tensions between the Jewish population and the Roman authorities, tensions that would eventually lead to the catastrophic Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.

Within this volatile environment, Josephus' family background offered him a unique vantage point from which to observe and later narrate the complexities of Judean society.

Discussing Josephus' lineage in his autobiography, Vita, Frederick Raphael notes, "Since childhood was never a topic in ancient literature, Josephus’ Vita doesn’t describe his early years. He merely lays claim, through a remote ancestor of his mother’s, to ' royal ' blood (that of the 'Hasmonaeans,' as the Maccabees were formally known)... Although Josephus doesn’t give any details of his father’s wealth or property, he takes pride in belonging to a leading, certainly conservative, family. "

Josephus’ Education & Mastery of Greek

This assertion of noble and priestly heritage underscores Josephus' standing within the Judean society—a position that afforded him both privilege and perspective.

As a member of a priestly and noble family, Josephus would have had access to a traditional Jewish education , which included learning Hebrew scriptures and possibly some aspects of Jewish law and traditions. 

In his Vita (2.7.), Josephus, for instance, describes how he, at the age of 16, undertook a journey to learn about the various sects within Judaism . These included the Pharisees, Sadducees , and Essenes, as well as a fourth group, led by a man named Banus, who lived in the desert and practiced a lifestyle of purification and asceticism. 

Furthermore, through his writings, he demonstrated a considerable knowledge of the Greek language and literature. However, Josephus himself notes that he didn’t learn Greek until he went to Rome (Against Apion 1.50.) and, sometimes, he used the help of his literary assistants to polish his Greek.

Nevertheless, Josephus possessed significant composition and language skills. But how widespread was this level of education? Should we just assume that Josephus was one of the many educated Jews living in 1st-century Palestine? 

Referring to the customs of Jews, he notes: “We take pride in raising children and make keeping the laws and preserving the traditional piety that accords with them the most essential task of our whole life (Against Apion 1.12.60.).”

In another instance, Josephus mentions that the Jewish children were instructed in reading so that they knew the laws and knew about their forebears and the virtues they stood behind (Against Apion 2.25.204.). 

However, critical scholars acknowledge that Josephus here presents an ideal , formulated from the perspective of well-educated upper-class Jews. In other words, he projects his elite status to all of the Jews.

In reality, literacy rates were extremely low and the majority of people were either illiterate or literary only at the very simplest level. The elite to which Josephus surely belonged, however, had access to both Jewish and Greco-Roman education. 

Josephus’ Significance

Who was Josephus? He wasn’t merely a historian but also a man deeply entrenched in the religious and political fabric of his time. His writings, from this standpoint, do not merely chronicle historical events but also offer a window into the identity, beliefs, and struggles of the Jewish people under Roman rule. 

Josephus' works, therefore, serve as a valuable source for the Jewish world of the Second Temple period , offering insights into the historical context (e.g. Pharisees) of early Christianity and the Judaic traditions from which it emerged.

But his works also provide us with a notable glimpse into the broader currents of the Roman Empire . That brings us to the biggest change in Josephus’ life. How did a Jewish military leader and historian become one of the emperor’s closest associates? Let’s take a look! 

FREE COURSE!

WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN

Raw, honest, and enlightening. Bart's story of why he deconverted from the Christian faith.

Over 6,000 enrolled!

The Turn of the Lifetime: Josephus and the Roman Rule

You might think that Jews were the ones diligently copying Josephus' writings through the ages, but you would be quite off the mark. Despite Josephus' significant contributions to historical writing and our understanding of the Judeo-Roman world, his standing among his fellow Jews in late antiquity and beyond was, to put it mildly, less than stellar. 

Josephus, once a dedicated Jewish priest and a leader in the Jewish revolt against Rome, became "persona non grata" (an unwelcome person) among his people for reasons that are as complex as they are intriguing.

Josephus' journey from a Jewish rebel to a Roman historian is a tale of survival, adaptation, and transformation. During the First Jewish-Roman War (66-70 C.E.), Josephus served as the commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee. However, after the Roman forces besieged and captured Jotapata, Josephus and his companions were taken prisoner.

It was here, in captivity, that Josephus' life took a dramatic turn. According to his account, he provided the Romans with intelligence and, after a prophecy that Vespasian would become Emperor, ingratiated himself with the Roman leaders.

Per Bilde describes the event that unfolded right after Josephus surrendered: “On the way, the Romans gathered around him to get a glimpse of the Jewish general, and many Roman officers, among whom was Titus (Vespasian’s son) took pity on him. Therefore, Titus appealed for Josephus, and this is the main reason why his life was spared.”

Vespasian, upon becoming Emperor, granted Josephus his freedom, after which Josephus assumed the Flavian family name, becoming Flavius Josephus.

This act of survival, however pragmatic, was seen by many Jews as an outright betrayal. Josephus' transition from a Jewish commander to a historian under the patronage of the Flavian dynasty (the very rulers who crushed the Jewish revolt and destroyed the Second Temple) solidified his reputation as a traitor among his people. 

As a Roman citizen and a client of the Flavian emperors , Josephus wrote extensively about Jewish history, the Jewish War, and other topics from a perspective that many contemporaries and later Jewish readers found uncomfortably reconciled with Roman viewpoints.

Navigating the delicate line between historical record and personal allegiance, Josephus’ life story sets the stage for a deeper exploration of his literary legacy.

As we transition from the controversies of his journey to the contributions of his pen, it’s clear that Josephus' writings, born out of a unique blend of Jewish heritage and Roman patronage, offer a rich tapestry of insights into the ancient world. 

Josephus’ Books: A Brief Overview

Josephus' books provide a comprehensive look into the Jewish world under Roman rule, offering insights that have been pivotal to both historians and theologians. Here, we briefly explore his most significant works, each a cornerstone of ancient historiography and apologetics.

#1 The Judean Wars

This work chronicles the Jewish revolt against Rome from 66 to 70 C.E. , beginning with the events leading up to the conflict and concluding with the fall of Masada in 73 CE. Josephus provides a detailed account of the war, blending historical narration with his eyewitness testimony.

As Steve Mason remarks, "The Judean War deserves its place among the most influential ancient Western texts... Josephus manages the extraordinary feat of meshing his native traditions with Greek political, rhetorical, and historiographical discourses, while yet distancing himself from 'the Greeks' to cement the bond with his host society."

#2 Antiquities of the Jews

Completed in 93 CE, this extensive work traces the history of the Jewish people from the creation of the world as described in the Hebrew Bible to the outbreak of the Jewish revolt in 66 CE. Through 20 volumes, Josephus aims to present the Jewish people and their history in a favorable light to a Greco-Roman audience.

By contextualizing Jewish customs, laws, and beliefs within the broader tapestry of ancient history, Josephus not only seeks to explain Judaism to non-Jews but also to elevate the stature of Jewish history within the annals of the ancient world.

#3 The Life of Flavius Josephus (Vita)

This autobiography defends Josephus' actions during the Jewish revolt and his conduct as a commander in Galilee. It was written as a response to criticisms levied against him, particularly by Justus of Tiberias .

Through "Vita", Josephus presents his genealogy, education, and the philosophical and moral stances that guided his actions, offering readers a glimpse into the personal and intellectual journey that shaped his other works.

#4 Against Apion

This apologetic text is a defense of Judaism as a religion and the Jewish people as a cultural and historical entity, written against the backdrop of Greco-Roman prejudice and misunderstanding. 

Josephus counters the accusations and misrepresentations of the Jewish people made by Apion and other critics, using a blend of historical argumentation, philosophical discourse, and literary analysis. 

John M. G. Barclay’s assessment captures the essence of Josephus' approach: “In this work, we encounter Josephus at his rhetorical best: he displays an impressive cultural range in the knowledge of Greek history, historiography, and philosophy, and his interlocking arguments in defense of Judeans are spiced with acute literary analysis and clever polemics.”

“Against Apion” is thus a testament to Josephus’ skill in navigating and challenging the cultural and intellectual currents of his time.

Each of these works, in its way, contributes to our understanding of the ancient world, offering perspectives that are as enriching as they are essential for grasping the complexities of Jewish history and its interactions with the Greco-Roman world.

Now… Do you recall that spirited debate over Josephus' role in pinning down the historical Jesus I mentioned in the introduction?

It turns out there's more to that classroom clash than meets the eye. As we turn the page from Josephus' vast historical landscape to a particularly contentious patch of textual terrain, let's dive into the heart of that argument.

Josephus’ Description of Jesus: Testimonium Flavianum

Within the extensive writings of Flavius Josephus, a brief passage in "Antiquities of the Jews" has ignited centuries of scholarly debate. Known as the Testimonium Flavianum , this testimony presents a concise account of Jesus, stating: 

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 th e 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 to this day

This passage has long been a cornerstone for those arguing for a non-Christian corroboration of Jesus' historical existence and his early followers. However, the enthusiastic depiction of Jesus has led many scholars to question its authenticity , suggesting that the highlighted parts above are likely later interpolations by Christian scribes . 

In other words, Josephus wasn’t a Christian which makes certain parts of his testimony questionable.

Bart D. Ehrman elucidates this skepticism by highlighting the transmission history of Josephus' works: "It was Christians who copied Josephus' writings through the ages... This reference to Jesus was beefed up a bit by a Christian scribe who wanted to make Josephus appear more appreciative of the 'true faith'.”

Further solidifying this skepticism, John P. Meier offers a critical analysis of the text's flow and tone, noting, "In short, the first impression of what is Christian interpolation may well be the correct impression. A second glance confirms this first impression. Precisely these three Christian passages are the clauses that interrupt the flow of what is otherwise a concise text carefully written in a fairly neutral or even purposely ambiguous tone."

In conclusion, while Josephus' mention of Jesus in “Antiquities of the Jews” continues to be a subject of intense scholarly interest, the consensus leans towards a cautious approach.

The majority of scholars agree that while Josephus likely mentioned Jesus , the more explicit references to his divinity and resurrection are the product of later Christian interpolations , aimed at enhancing the narrative to align with Christian doctrine.

Josephus and Other New Testament Figures

The importance of Josephus is also seen in the fact that he mentions other figures in the New Testament , further bridging the gap between Jewish and early Christian histories.

Beyond the debated testimony about Jesus, Josephus provides accounts of John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus , offering invaluable external attestations to their historical existence and roles within the broader narrative of Judea under Roman rule. 

These references, found within the broader tapestry of Josephus' work, lend a small layer of historical credibility to the New Testament accounts, situating these figures within the tumultuous socio-political context of first-century Judea.

For instance, Josephus' portrayal of John the Baptist underscores his significant influence as a religious figure , echoing the New Testament's depiction of him as a prophet and a forerunner to Jesus.

Similarly, Josephus' mention of James' martyrdom not only corroborates the New Testament's depiction of James as a key figure in the early Christian community but also reflects the complexities of religious leadership in a time of political upheaval.

These accounts, while brief, are critical for historians and scholars, providing a “secular” corroboration of certain elements within New Testament narratives.

Through these references, Josephus unwittingly becomes a vital link in the historical chain connecting Jewish history with the emergent Christian tradition, illustrating the intertwined destinies of these communities within the Roman Empire. 

In retracing the life and legacy of Flavius Josephus, we journey through the intersections of Jewish and early Christian histories, witnessing the complexities of a world under Roman rule through the eyes of a singular figure.

Josephus, through his detailed historical accounts, serves not only as a crucial source for understanding the First Jewish–Roman War and the socio-political dynamics of Judea but also as a bridge connecting the Jewish traditions of the Second Temple period with the nascent Christian movement. 

Josephus’ portrayals of key biblical figures and events provide a rare external perspective that enriches our understanding of the historical contexts in which these figures lived and the movements they inspired. 

While his writings have been scrutinized for their accuracy and biases—particularly his references to Jesus, John the Baptist, and James—they remain indispensable for historians and theologians alike, offering insights that transcend the boundaries of religion and scholarship.

And how did that spirited debate that I mentioned at the beginning end? Well, the professor won. Isn't that always the case? 

Marko Marina

BIBLE HISTORY DAILY

Did jesus exist searching for evidence beyond the bible.

Lawrence Mykytiuk’s feature article from the January/February 2015 issue of BAR with voluminous endnotes

• Total 11.0K

Read Lawrence Mykytiuk’s article “ Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible ” as it originally appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review , January/February 2015. The article was first republished in Bible History Daily in late 2014. —Ed.

THE MAN CHRIST JESUS. Did Jesus of Nazareth exist as a real human being? Outside of the New Testament, what is the evidence for his existence? In this article, author Lawrence Mykytiuk examines the extra-Biblical textual and archaeological evidence associated with the man who would become the central figure in Christianity. Here Jesus is depicted in a vibrant sixth-century C.E. mosaic from the Basilica of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy. Photo: Sant’Apollinare Nuovo Ravenna, Italy/Bridgeman Images.

After two decades toiling in the quiet groves of academe, I published an article in BAR titled “ Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible .” a The enormous interest this article generated was a complete surprise to me. Nearly 40 websites in six languages, reflecting a wide spectrum of secular and religious orientations, linked to BAR ’s supplementary web page . b Some even posted translations.

I thought about following up with a similar article on people in the New Testament, but I soon realized that this would be so dominated by the question of Jesus’ existence that I needed to consider this question separately. This is that article: 1

Did Jesus of Nazareth, who was called Christ, exist as a real human being, “the man Christ Jesus” according to 1 Timothy 2:5?

The sources normally discussed fall into three main categories: (1) classical (that is, Greco-Roman), (2) Jewish and (3) Christian. But when people ask whether it is possible to prove that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, as John P. Meier pointed out decades ago, “The implication is that the Biblical evidence for Jesus is biased because it is encased in a theological text written by committed believers. 2 What they really want to know is: Is there extra-Biblical evidence … for Jesus’ existence?” c

Therefore, this article will cover classical and Jewish writings almost exclusively. 3

Tacitus—or more formally, Caius/Gaius (or Publius) Cornelius Tacitus (55/56–c. 118 C.E.)—was a Roman senator, orator and ethnographer, and arguably the best of Roman historians. His name is based on the Latin word tacitus , “silent,” from which we get the English word tacit . Interestingly, his compact prose uses silence and implications in a masterful way. One argument for the authenticity of the quotation below is that it is written in true Tacitean Latin. 4 But first a short introduction.

Roman historian Tacitus. Photo: Bibliotheque nationale, Paris, France / Giraudon / Bridgeman Images.

Tacitus’s last major work, titled Annals , written c. 116–117 C.E., includes a biography of Nero. In 64 C.E., during a fire in Rome, Nero was suspected of secretly ordering the burning of a part of town where he wanted to carry out a building project, so he tried to shift the blame to Christians . This was the occasion for Tacitus to mention Christians, whom he despised. This is what he wrote—the following excerpt is translated from Latin by Robert Van Voorst:

TACIT CONFIRMATION. Roman historian Tacitus’s last major work, Annals , mentions a “Christus” who was executed by Pontius Pilate and from whom the Christians derived their name. Tacitus’s brief reference corroborates historical details of Jesus’ death from the New Testament. The pictured volume of Tacitus’s works is from the turn of the 17th century. The volume’s title page features Plantin Press’s printing mark depicting angels, a compass and the motto Labore et Constantia (“By Labor and Constancy”). Photo: Tacitus, Opera Quae Exstant , trans. by Justus Lipsius (Antwerp, Belgium: Ex officina Plantiniana, apud Joannem Moretum, 1600). Courtesy of the Philadelphia Rare Books & Manuscripts Co. (PRB&M).

[N]either human effort nor the emperor’s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered [by Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts … whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ [ Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate … Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. 5

Tacitus’s terse statement about “Christus” clearly corroborates the New Testament on certain historical details of Jesus’ death. Tacitus presents four pieces of accurate knowledge about Jesus: (1) Christus , used by Tacitus to refer to Jesus, was one distinctive way by which some referred to him, even though Tacitus mistakenly took it for a personal name rather than an epithet or title; (2) this Christus was associated with the beginning of the movement of Christians, whose name originated from his; (3) he was executed by the Roman governor of Judea; and (4) the time of his death was during Pontius Pilate’s governorship of Judea, during the reign of Tiberius. (Many New Testament scholars date Jesus’ death to c. 29 C.E.; Pilate governed Judea in 26–36 C.E., while Tiberius was emperor 14–37 C.E. 6 )

Tacitus, like classical authors in general, does not reveal the source(s) he used. But this should not detract from our confidence in Tacitus’s assertions. Scholars generally disagree about what his sources were. Tacitus was certainly among Rome’s best historians—arguably the best of all—at the top of his game as a historian and never given to careless writing.

Earlier in his career, when Tacitus was Proconsul of Asia, 7 he likely supervised trials, questioned people accused of being Christians and judged and punished those whom he found guilty, as his friend Pliny the Younger had done when he too was a provincial governor. Thus Tacitus stood a very good chance of becoming aware of information that he characteristically would have wanted to verify before accepting it as true. 8

CHRESTIANS OF CHRIST. Book XV of Tacitus’s Annals is preserved in the 11th–12th-century Codex Mediceus II, a collection of medieval manuscripts now housed in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence, Italy, along with other manuscripts and books that belonged to the Medici family. Highlighted above is the Latin text reading “… whom the crowd called ‘Chrestians.’ The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate …” Photo: Codex Mediceus 68 II, fol. 38r, the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence, Italy.

The other strong evidence that speaks directly about Jesus as a real person comes from Josephus, a Jewish priest who grew up as an aristocrat in first-century Palestine and ended up living in Rome, supported by the patronage of three successive emperors. In the early days of the first Jewish Revolt against Rome (66–70 C.E.), Josephus was a commander in Galilee but soon surrendered and became a prisoner of war. He then prophesied that his conqueror, the Roman commander Vespasian, would become emperor, and when this actually happened, Vespasian freed him. “From then on Josephus lived in Rome under the protection of the Flavians and there composed his historical and apologetic writings” (Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz). 9 He even took the name Flavius, after the family name of his patron, the emperor Vespasian, and set it before his birth name, becoming, in true Roman style, Flavius Josephus. Most Jews viewed him as a despicable traitor. It was by command of Vespasian’s son Titus that a Roman army in 70 C.E. destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple, stealing its contents as spoils of war, which are partly portrayed in the imagery of their gloating triumph on the Arch of Titus in Rome. 10 After Titus succeeded his father as emperor, Josephus accepted the son’s imperial patronage, as he did of Titus’s brother and successor, Domitian .

Yet in his own mind, Josephus remained a Jew both in his outlook and in his writings that extol Judaism. At the same time, by aligning himself with Roman emperors who were at that time the worst enemies of the Jewish people, he chose to ignore Jewish popular opinion.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Explore the world’s most intriguing biblical scholarship.

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR , watch videos, attend talks, and more

Josephus stood in a unique position as a Jew who was secure in Roman imperial patronage and protection, eager to express pride in his Jewish heritage and yet personally independent of the Jewish community at large. Thus, in introducing Romans to Judaism, he felt free to write historical views for Roman consumption that were strongly at variance with rabbinic views.

Jewish historian Josephus is pictured in the ninth-century medieval manuscript Burgerbibliothek Bern Codex under the Greek caption “Josippos Historiographer.” Photo: Burgerbibliothek Bern Cod. 50, f.2r.

In his two great works, The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities , both written in Greek for educated people, Josephus tried to appeal to aristocrats in the Roman world, presenting Judaism as a religion to be admired for its moral and philosophical depth. The Jewish War doesn’t mention Jesus except in some versions in likely later additions by others, but Jewish Antiquities does mention Jesus—twice.

The shorter of these two references to Jesus (in Book 20) 11 is incidental to identifying Jesus’ brother James, 12 the leader of the church in Jerusalem. In the temporary absence of a Roman governor between Festus’s death and governor Albinus’s arrival in 62 C.E., the high priest Ananus instigated James’s execution. Josephus described it:

Being therefore this kind of person [i.e., a heartless Sadducee], Ananus, thinking that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus had died and Albinus was still on his way, called a meeting [literally, “sanhedrin”] of judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah … James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned. 13

James is otherwise a barely noticed, minor figure in Josephus’s lengthy tome. The sole reason for referring to James at all was that his death resulted in Ananus losing his position as high priest. James (Jacob) was a common Jewish name at this time. Many men named James are mentioned in Josephus’s works, so Josephus needed to specify which one he meant. The common custom of simply giving the father’s name (James, son of Joseph) would not work here, because James’s father’s name was also very common. Therefore Josephus identified this James by reference to his famous brother Jesus. But James’s brother Jesus (Yehoshua) also had a very common name. Josephus mentions at least 12 other men named Jesus. 14 Therefore Josephus specified which Jesus he was referring to by adding the phrase “who is called Messiah,” or, since he was writing in Greek, Christos . 15 This phrase was necessary to identify clearly first Jesus and, via Jesus, James, the subject of the discussion. This extraneous reference to Jesus would have made no sense if Jesus had not been a real person.

Visit the historical Jesus study page in Bible History Daily to read more free articles on Jesus.

JAMES, BROTHER OF JESUS. In Jewish Antiquities , parts of which are included in this mid-17th-century book of translations, Josephus refers to a James, who is described as “the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” Josephus’s mention of Jesus to specify which James was being executed by the high priest Ananus in 62 C.E. affirms the existence of the historical Jesus. Photo: Josephus, Famovs and Memorable Works of Josephvs , trans. by Thomas Lodge (London: J. L. for Andrew Hebb, 1640).

Few scholars have ever doubted the authenticity of this short account. On the contrary, the huge majority accepts it as genuine. 16 The phrase intended to specify which Jesus, translated “who is called Christ,” signifies either that he was mentioned earlier in the book or that readers knew him well enough to grasp the reference to him in identifying James. The latter is unlikely. First-century Romans generally had little or no idea who Christus was. It is much more likely that he was mentioned earlier in Jewish Antiquities . Also, the fact that the term “Messiah”/“Christ” is not defined here suggests that an earlier passage in Jewish Antiquities has already mentioned something of its significance. 17 This phrase is also appropriate for a Jewish historian like Josephus because the reference to Jesus is a noncommittal, neutral statement about what some people called Jesus and not a confession of faith that actually asserts that he was Christ.

This phrase—“who is called Christ”—is very unlikely to have been added by a Christian for two reasons. First, in the New Testament and in the early Church Fathers of the first two centuries C.E., Christians consistently refer to James as “the brother of the Lord” or “of the Savior” and similar terms, not “the brother of Jesus,” presumably because the name Jesus was very common and did not necessarily refer to their Lord. Second, Josephus’s description in Jewish Antiquities of how and when James was executed disagrees with Christian tradition, likewise implying a non-Christian author. 18

This short identification of James by the title that some people used in order to specify his brother gains credibility as an affirmation of Jesus’ existence because the passage is not about Jesus. Rather, his name appears in a functional phrase that is called for by the sense of the passage. It can only be useful for the identification of James if it is a reference to a real person, namely, “Jesus who is called Christ.”

This clear reference to Jesus is sometimes overlooked in debates about Josephus’s other, longer reference to Jesus (to be treated next). Quite a few people are aware of the questions and doubts regarding the longer mention of Jesus, but often this other clear, simple reference and its strength as evidence for Jesus’ existence does not receive due attention.

The longer passage in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities (Book 18) 19 that refers to Jesus is known as the Testimonium Flavianum .

If it has any value in relation to the question of Jesus’ existence, it counts as additional evidence for Jesus’ existence. The Testimonium Flavianum reads as follows; the parts that are especially suspicious because they sound Christian are in italics : 20

Around this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man . 21 For he was one who did surprising deeds, and a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place came to love him did not give up their affection for him, for on the third day, he appeared to them restored to life. The prophets of God had prophesied this and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, have still to this day not died out. 22

All surviving manuscripts of the Testimonium Flavianum that are in Greek, like the original, contain the same version of this passage, with no significant differences.

The main question is: Did Flavius Josephus write this entire report about Jesus and his followers, or did a forger or forgers alter it or possibly insert the whole report? 23 There are three ways to answer this question: 24

Alternative 1: The whole passage is authentic, written by Josephus.

Alternative 2: The whole passage is a forgery, inserted into Jewish Antiquities.

Alternative 3: It is only partly authentic, containing some material from Josephus, but also some later additions by another hand(s).

Regarding Alternative 1, today almost no scholar accepts the authenticity of the entire standard Greek Testimonium Flavianum . In contrast to the obviously Christian statement “He was the Messiah” in the Testimonium , Josephus elsewhere “writes as a passionate advocate of Judaism,” says Josephus expert Steve Mason. “Everywhere Josephus praises the excellent constitution of the Jews, codified by Moses, and declares its peerless, comprehensive qualities … Josephus rejoices over converts to Judaism. In all this, there is not the slightest hint of any belief in Jesus” 25 as seems to be reflected in the Testimonium .

The bold affirmation of Jesus as Messiah reads as a resounding Christian confession that echoes St. Peter himself! 26 It cannot be Josephus. Alternative 1 is clearly out.

Regarding Alternative 2—the whole Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery—this is very unlikely. What is said, and the expressions in Greek that are used to say it, despite a few words that don’t seem characteristic of Josephus, generally fit much better with Josephus’s writings than with Christian writings. 27 It is hypothetically possible that a forger could have learned to imitate Josephus’s style or that a reviser adjusted the passage to that style, but such a deep level of attention, based on an extensive, detailed reading of Josephus’s works and such a meticulous adoption of his vocabulary and style, goes far beyond what a forger or a reviser would need to do.

Even more important, the short passage (treated above) that mentions Jesus in order to identify James appears in a later section of the book (Book 20) and implies that Jesus was mentioned previously.

THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS. This 15th-century manuscript, now in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, contains the portion of Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum that refers to Jesus (highlighted in blue). The first sentence of the manuscript, highlighted in green, reads, from the Greek, “Around this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.” The majority of scholars believe this passage of the Testimonium is based on the original writings of Josephus but contains later additions, likely made by Christian scribes. Photo: Codex Parisinus gr. 2075, 45v. Courtesy Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

The best-informed among the Romans understood Christus to be nothing more than a man’s personal name, on the level of Publius and Marcus. First-century Romans generally had no idea that calling someone “Christus” was an exalted reference, implying belief that he was the chosen one, God’s anointed. The Testimonium , in Book 18, appropriately found in the section that deals with Pilate’s time as governor of Judea, 28 is apparently one of Josephus’s characteristic digressions, this time occasioned by mention of Pilate. It provides background for Josephus’s only other written mention of Jesus (in Book 20), and it connects the name Jesus with his Christian followers. The short reference to Jesus in the later book depends on the longer one in the earlier (Book 18). If the longer one is not genuine, this passage lacks its essential background. Alternative 2 should be rejected.

Alternative 3—that the Testimonium Flavianum is based on an original report by Josephus 29 that has been modified by others, probably Christian scribes, seems most likely. After extracting what appear to be Christian additions, the remaining text appears to be pure Josephus. As a Romanized Jew, Josephus would not have presented these beliefs as his own. Interestingly, in three openly Christian, non-Greek versions of the Testimonium Flavianum analyzed by Steve Mason, variations indicate changes were made by others besides Josephus. 30 The Latin version says Jesus “was believed to be the Messiah.” The Syriac version is best translated, “He was thought to be the Messiah.” And the Arabic version with open coyness suggests, “He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” Alternative 3 has the support of the overwhelming majority of scholars.

We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels: 31

• He existed as a man. The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ known associates, such as Jesus’ brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus. “If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point,” Robert Van Voorst observes. 32 And Tacitus was careful enough not to report real executions of nonexistent people.
• His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us.
• He was called Christos in Greek, which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah , both of which mean “anointed” or “(the) anointed one,” as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus .
• He had a brother named James (Jacob), as Josephus reports.
• He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many” at the end of his life. Large growth in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.
• Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him, at least according to some versions of the Testimonium Flavianum .
• Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed, as both Tacitus and Josephus state.
• His execution was specifically by crucifixion, according to Josephus.
• He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius’s reign.

Some of Jesus’ followers did not abandon their personal loyalty to him even after his crucifixion but submitted to his teaching. They believed that Jesus later appeared to them alive in accordance with prophecies, most likely those found in the Hebrew Bible. A well-attested link between Jesus and Christians is that Christ, as a term used to identify Jesus, became the basis of the term used to identify his followers: Christians. The Christian movement began in Judea, according to Tacitus. Josephus observes that it continued during the first century. Tacitus deplores the fact that during the second century it had spread as far as Rome.

As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist. 33 Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.” 34

Nondenial of Jesus’ existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries C.E.: “… [I]f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity … [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person … [T]he rabbis … used the real events of Jesus’ life against him” (Van Voorst). 35

Thus his birth, ministry and death occasioned claims that his birth was illegitimate and that he performed miracles by evil magic, encouraged apostasy and was justly executed for his own sins. But they do not deny his existence. 36

Want more on Biblical figures? Read “ 53 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically ,” “ New Testament Political Figures: The Evidence “ and “ Herod the Great and the Herodian Family Tree “ by Lawrence Mykytiuk.

Lucian of Samosata (c. 115–200 C.E.) was a Greek satirist who wrote The Passing of Peregrinus , about a former Christian who later became a famous Cynic and revolutionary and died in 165 C.E. In two sections of Peregrinus —here translated by Craig A. Evans—Lucian, while discussing Peregrinus’s career, without naming Jesus, clearly refers to him, albeit with contempt in the midst of satire:

It was then that he learned the marvelous wisdom of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—what else?—in short order he made them look like children, for he was a prophet, cult leader, head of the congregation and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books, and wrote many himself. They revered him as a god, used him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector—to be sure, after that other whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world. 37 For having convinced themselves that they are going to be immortal and live forever, the poor wretches despise death and most even willingly give themselves up. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws. 38

Although Lucian was aware of the Christians’ “books” (some of which might have been parts of the New Testament), his many bits of misinformation make it seem very likely that he did not read them. The compound term “priests and scribes,” for example, seems to have been borrowed from Judaism, and indeed, Christianity and Judaism were sometimes confused among classical authors.

Lucian seems to have gathered all of his information from sources independent of the New Testament and other Christian writings. For this reason, this writing of his is usually valued as independent evidence for the existence of Jesus.

This is true despite his ridicule and contempt for Christians and their “crucified sophist.” “Sophist” was a derisive term used for cheats or for teachers who only taught for money. Lucian despised Christians for worshiping someone thought to be a criminal worthy of death and especially despised “the man who was crucified.”

• Celsus, the Platonist philosopher, considered Jesus to be a magician who made exorbitant claims. 39
• Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor and friend of Tacitus, wrote about early Christian worship of Christ “as to a god.” 40
• Suetonius, a Roman writer, lawyer and historian, wrote of riots in 49 C.E. among Jews in Rome which might have been about Christus but which he thought were incited by “the instigator Chrestus,” whose identification with Jesus is not completely certain. 41
• Mara bar Serapion, a prisoner of war held by the Romans, wrote a letter to his son that described “the wise Jewish king” in a way that seems to indicate Jesus but does not specify his identity. 42

Other documentary sources are doubtful or irrelevant. 43

One can label the evidence treated above as documentary (sometimes called literary ) or as archaeological. Almost all sources covered above exist in the form of documents that have been copied and preserved over the course of many centuries, rather than excavated in archaeological digs. Therefore, although some writers call them archaeological evidence, I prefer to say that these truly ancient texts are ancient documentary sources, rather than archaeological discoveries.

Some ossuaries (bone boxes) have come to light that are inscribed simply with the name Jesus ( Yeshu or Yeshua‘ in Hebrew), but no one suggests that this was Jesus of Nazareth. The name Jesus was very common at this time, as was Joseph. So as far as we know, these ordinary ossuaries have nothing to do with the New Testament Jesus. Even the ossuary from the East Talpiot district of Jerusalem, whose inscription is translated “Yeshua‘, son of Joseph,” does not refer to him. 44

As for the famous James ossuary first published in 2002, d whose inscription is translated “Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Yeshua‘,” more smoothly rendered, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” it is unprovenanced, and it will likely take decades to settle the matter of whether it is authentic. Following well established, sound methodology, I do not base conclusions on materials whose authenticity is uncertain, because they might be forged. 45 Therefore the James ossuary, which is treated in many other publications, is not included here. 46

As a final observation: In New Testament scholarship generally, a number of specialists consider the question of whether Jesus existed to have been finally and conclusively settled in the affirmative. A few vocal scholars, however, still deny that he ever lived. 47

“ Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible ” by Lawrence Mykytiuk originally appeared in the January/February 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review . The article was first republished in Bible History Daily on December 8, 2014.

a. Lawrence Mykytiuk, “ Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible ,” BAR , March/April 2014 .

b. See biblicalarchaeology.org/50

c. John P. Meier, “ The Testimonium ,” Bible Review , June 1991 .

d. See André Lemaire, “ Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus ,” BAR , November/December 2002 ; Hershel Shanks, “ ‘Brother of Jesus’ Inscription Is Authentic! ” BAR , July/August 2012 .

1. I gratefully dedicate this article to my brother, Thomas S. Mykytiuk, to the memory of his wife, Nancy E. Mykytiuk, and to their growing tribe of descendants. I wish to thank Dr. Stuart D. Robertson of Purdue University, a Josephus scholar who studied under the great Louis H. Feldman, for kindly offering his comments on an early draft of this article. As the sole author, I alone am responsible for all of this article’s errors and shortcomings.

The previous BAR article is supplemented by two more persons, officials of Nebuchadnezzar II, mentioned in the “Queries and Comments” section , BAR , July/August 2014 , bringing the actual total to 52. That previous article is based on my own research, because few other researchers had worked toward the twin goals I sought: first, developing the necessary methodology, and second, applying that methodology comprehensively to archaeological materials that relate to the Hebrew Bible. In contrast, this article treats an area that has already been thoroughly researched, so I have gleaned material from the best results previously obtained (may the reader pardon the many quotations).

Another contrast is that the challenge in the research that led to the previous article was to determine whether the inscriptions (down to 400 B.C.E.) actually referred to the Biblical figure. In the present article, most of the documents very clearly refer to the Jesus of the New Testament. Only in relatively few instances, such as some rabbinic texts, is the reference very unclear. The challenge in this article has been to evaluate the relative strength of the documents about Jesus as evidence, while keeping in mind whether they are independent of the New Testament.

2. Of course, the New Testament is actually a small library of texts, as is the Hebrew Bible.

3. Because Meier only covered writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, his article stays within the first century. This article covers writings that originated in the first several centuries C.E. These non-Christian sources deserve to be welcomed and examined by anyone interested in the historical aspect of Scripture. At the same time, Christian sources found in the New Testament and outside of it have great value as historical evidence and are not to be discounted or dismissed.

The Gospels, for example, are loosely parallel to writings by members of a Prime Minister’s or President’s cabinet, in that they are valuable for the firsthand information they provide from inner circles (F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament , Knowing Christianity [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1974], pp. 14–15). While allowance must be made for human limitations (at least lack of omniscience) and bias (such as loyalty to a particular person or deity), no good historian would completely discard them.

An example that is more to the point is Bart D. Ehrman’s strong affirmation of Jesus’ existence in his Did Jesus Exist? (New York: HarperOne, 2012), pp. 142–174. It is based on New Testament data and is noteworthy for its down-to-earth perception. Ehrman bases his conclusion that Jesus existed on two facts: first, that the apostle Paul was personally acquainted with Jesus’ brother James and with the apostle Peter; and second, that, contrary to Jewish messianic expectation of the day, Jesus was crucified ( Did Jesus Exist? , p. 173).

In the last analysis, all evidence from all sources must be considered. Both Biblical and non-Biblical sources “are in principle of equal value in the study of Jesus” (Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], p. 23). An excellent, up-to-date resource on both Christian and non-Christian sources is Craig A. Evans, ed., Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (New York: Routledge, 2008).

4. “As Norma Miller delightfully remarks, ‘The well-intentioned pagan glossers of ancient texts do not normally express themselves in Tacitean Latin,’ and the same could be said of Christian interpolators” (Norma P. Miller, Tacitus: Annals XV [London: Macmillan, 1971], p. xxviii, quoted in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000], p. 43).

5. Annals XV.44, as translated in Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , pp. 42–43. Instead of the better-documented reading, “Chrestians,” the word “Christians” appears in a more traditional translation by Alfred J. Church and William J. Brodribb, Annals of Tacitus (London: Macmillan, 1882), pp. 304–305.

6. Along with these corroborations, Tacitus’s statement also contains difficulties that might cause concern. Three that I consider the most important are treated in this note. Although debates will continue, proper use of historical background offers reasonable, tenable solutions that we may hold with confidence while remaining open to new evidence and new interpretations if they are better. Every approach has difficulties to explain. I prefer those that come with this article’s approach, because I consider them smaller and more easily resolved than the problems of other approaches.

First, it is common for scholars to observe that Pontius Pilate’s official title when he governed Judaea (26/27–36 C.E.) was not procurator , as in the quotation from Tacitus above, but praefectus (in Latin, literally, “placed in charge”; in English, prefect ), as stated on the “Pilate stone” discovered in 1961. This stone was lying in the ruins of the theater in the ancient city of Caesarea Maritima, on Israel’s northern seacoast. The stone had been trimmed down to be re-used twice, so the first part of the title is broken off, but the title is not in doubt. With square brackets marking missing letters that scholars have filled in, two of its four lines read “[Po]ntius Pilate . . . [Pref]ect of Juda[ea]”:

line 2 […PO]NTIUS PILATUS line 3 […PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E

The inscription could potentially be dated to any time in Pilate’s career, but a date between 31 and 36 C.E. seems most likely. See Clayton Miles Lehmann and Kenneth G. Holum, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima , Joint Expedition to Caesarea Excavation Reports V (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2000), pp. 67–70, no. 43, p. 249 Pl. XXVI.

The family name Pontius was common in some parts of Italy during that era, but the name Pilatus was “extremely rare” (A. N. Sherwin-White, “Pilate, Pontius,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , vol. 3 [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986], p. 867). Because of the rarity of the name Pilatus and because only one Pontius Pilatus was ever the Roman governor of Judea, this identification should be regarded as completely certain.

It is possible that “procurator” in the quotation above is a simple error, but the historical background reveals that it is not so much an error as it is an anachronism—something placed out of its proper time, whether intentionally or by accident. As emperor until 14 C.E., Augustus gave governors of western and southern Judea the title praefectus . But later, Claudius (r. 41–54 C.E.) began conferring the title procurator pro legato , “procurator acting as legate” on new provincial governors. A procurator , literally, “caretaker,” was a steward who managed financial affairs on behalf of the owner. Roman governmental procurators managed taxes and estates on behalf of the emperor and had administrative duties. The English verb to procure is derived from the same root.

From then on, the title procurator replaced praefectus in many Roman provinces, including Judea. “So the early governors of western and southern Judea, after it became a Roman province in A.D. 6, were officially entitled praefecti . Later writers, however, usually referred to them anachronistically as procurators or the Greek equivalent …” (A. N. Sherwin-White, “Procurator,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , p. 979.)

Writing in 116 or 117 C.E., Tacitus, who was above all a careful writer, might have intentionally chosen to use the then-current title procurator in keeping with the anachronistic way of speaking that was common in his day. Even today, we accept titles used anachronistically. One might read comparable statements about “U.S. Secretaries of Defense from Henry Stimson during World War II to Chuck Hagel,” even though Stimson’s actual title was Secretary of War, and the current title is Secretary of Defense. Readers who are unfamiliar with Stimson’s title would nevertheless understand which position he held in the government.

Whether procurator was used intentionally or not, in effect this anachronistic term helped readers quickly understand Pilate’s official position and avoided confusing people who were not familiar with the older title.

The second difficulty is that Tacitus’s word for “Christians” is spelled two different ways in existing Latin manuscripts of Annals : both Christianoi and Chrestianoi . The name Chrestus , meaning “good, kind, useful, beneficent,” was commonly given to slaves who served Roman masters. In spoken conversation, people in Rome could easily have mistakenly heard the Latinized foreign word Christus as the familiar name Chrestus . Chrestianoi , “good, kind, useful ones,” is found in the oldest surviving manuscript of this passage in Tacitus.

[T]he original hand of the oldest surviving manuscript, the Second Medicean (eleventh century), which is almost certainly the source of all other surviving manuscripts, reads Chrestianoi , “Chrestians.” A marginal gloss “corrects” it to Christianoi . Chrestianoi is to be preferred as the earliest and most difficult reading and is adopted by the three current critical editions and the recent scholarship utilizing them. It also makes better sense in context. Tacitus is correcting, in a way typical of his style of economy, the misunderstanding of the “crowd” ( vulgus ) by stating that the founder of this name ( auctor nominis eius ) is Christus , not the name implicitly given by the crowd, Chrestus . Tacitus could have written auctor superstitionis , “the founder of this superstition,” or something similar, but he calls attention by his somewhat unusual phrase to the nomen [name] of the movement in order to link it directly—and correctly—to the name of Christ (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , pp. 43–44. See also John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus , vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person , Anchor Bible Reference Library [New York: Doubleday, 1991], p. 100, note 7.).

It is very common for ancient classical writings to be represented by manuscripts that were copied many centuries later. For example, the earliest manuscript of the Odyssey is from the 900s C.E., yet it is traditionally ascribed to the blind Greek poet Homer, who is dated variously from about the 800s to the 500s B.C.E., roughly 1,400 to 1,700 years earlier. Similarly, it is not unusual for the earliest surviving manuscripts of various works of the Greek philosopher Plato to date from over 1,000 years after he wrote.

For a technical, critical discussion of Christus and Chrestus in English, see Robert Renahan, “Christus or Chrestus in Tacitus?” Past and Present 23 (1968), pp. 368–370.

The third difficulty is more apparent than real: Why did it take about 85 years for a classical author such as Tacitus to write about Jesus, whose crucifixion occurred c. 29 C.E.? (The A.D. system, devised by the Christian Scythian monk Dionysius Exiguus [“Dennis the Small”] in the 525 C.E. and used in our present-day calendar, was not perfectly set on the exact year of Jesus’ birth, though it was close. As a result, Jesus was born within the years we now refer to as 6 to 4 B.C.E. That would put the beginning of his ministry, around age 30 (Luke 3:23), at c. 25 C.E. In the widely held view that Jesus’ ministry lasted 3.5 years before his death, a reasonable date for the crucifixion is c. 29 C.E.)

The following two observations made by F. F. Bruce are relevant to works by Tacitus and by several other classical writers who mention Jesus:

7. Asia was the name of a Roman province in what is now western Turkey (Asia Minor).

8. Perhaps he compared it to Roman records, whether in general governmental archives or in records concerning various religions. I have read one analysis by an author who arbitrarily assumes that Tacitus got his information only from Christians—no other source. Then, on the sole basis of the author’s own assumption, the analysis completely dismisses Tacitus’s clear historical statement about “ Christus .” This evaluation is based on opinion, not evidence. It also undervalues Tacitus’s very careful writing and his discernment as a historian. He likely had access to some archives through his status, either as Proconsul of Asia, as a senator—or, as is often overlooked, from his connections as a high-ranking priest of Roman religion. In 88 C.E., he became “a member of the Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis [“The Board of Fifteen for Performing Sacrifices”], the priestly organization charged, among other things, with … supervising the practice of officially tolerated foreign cults in the city … [and facing] the growing necessity to distinguish illicit Christianity from licit Judaism” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , p. 52), or, given Jewish resistance to oppressive measures taken by Rome, at least to keep a close watch on developments within Judaism. Indeed, “a Roman archive … is particularly suggested by the note of the temporary suppression of the superstition, which indicates an official perspective” (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus , p. 83). Membership in this priestly regulatory group very likely gave Tacitus access to at least some of the accurate knowledge he possessed about Christus . With characteristic brevity, he reported the facts as he understood them, quickly dismissing the despised, executed Christus from the Annals (see Meier, Marginal Jew , vol. 1, p. 90).

Tacitus himself tells us … that in 88 [C.E.] both in his capacity as priest of the college of quindecimviri sacris faciundis and as a praetor he had been present at and had paid close attention to the ludi saeculares [“secular games”] celebrated by Domitian in that year… [ Annals , XI.11, 3–4]. It rather sounds as if he took his religious office seriously … Tacitus presents himself as a man concerned to preserve traditional Roman religious practice, convinced that when religious matters are allowed to slide or are completely disregarded, the gods will vent their anger on the Roman people to correct their error. What on his view angers the gods is not so much failure to observe the niceties of ritual practice, as disdain for the moral order that the gods uphold” (Matthew W. Dickie, “Magic in the Roman Historians,” in Richard Lindsay Gordon and Francisco Marco Simón, eds., Magical Practice in the Latin West: Papers from the International Conference Held at the University of Zaragoza, 30 Sept. – 1st Oct. 2005 , Religions in the Greco-Roman World, vol. 168 [Leiden: Brill, 2010], pp. 82, 83).

Tacitus was in his twenties in 79 C.E., when an eruption of Mt. Vesuvius annihilated the city of Pompeii. One can reasonably suppose how he might have interpreted this disaster in relation to the Roman gods.

9. Quoted from Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus , p. 64.

10. Titus’s troops captured and treated as war booty the sacred menorah that had stood in the holy place inside the Temple. See articles on the menorah as depicted on the Arch of Titus, in Yeshiva University’s Arch of Titus Digital Restoration Project, etc., at yeshiva.academia.edu/StevenFine/Menorah-Arch-of-Titus-Digital-Restoration-Project .

11. Jewish Antiquities , XX.200 (or, in Whiston’s translation of Jewish Antiquities , XX.9.1).

12. James’s name was actually Jacob. Odd as it may seem, the English name James is ultimately derived from the Hebrew name Jacob .

13. Jewish Antiquities , XX.9.1 in Whiston’s translation (§200 in scholarly editions), as translated by Meier, Marginal Jew , vol. 1, p. 57. Meier’s original passage includes the phrases in square brackets [ ]. The omitted words indicated by the ellipsis (…) are in Greek, to let scholars know what words are translated into English.

14. Winter asserts that Josephus mentions about twelve others named Jesus. Feldman puts that number at 21. See Paul Winter, “Excursus II: Josephus on Jesus and James: Ant . xviii 3, 3 (63–64) and xx 9,1 (200–203),” in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ , 3 vols., rev. and ed. by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black and Martin Goodman (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973–1987), vol. 1, p. 431; Louis H. Feldman, “Introduction,” in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1987), p. 56.

15. See Meier, Marginal Jew , vol. 1, pp. 57–58. Messiah , the Hebrew term for “anointed (one),” came through Greek translation ( Christos ) into English as Christ .

16. See Meier, Marginal Jew , vol. 1, p. 59, note 12; pp. 72–73, note 12.

17. Richard T. France, The Evidence for Jesus , The Jesus Library (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1986), p. 26.

18. Josephus says James was executed by stoning before the Jewish War began, but Christian tradition says he was executed during the Jewish War by being thrown from a height of the Temple, then, after an attempt to stone him was prevented, finally being clubbed to death. See Meier, Marginal Jew , vol. 1, p. 58.

19. XVIII.63–64 (in Whiston’s translation: XVIII.3.3).

20. It was modern scholar John P. Meier who put these passages in italics.

21. Christians believe that Jesus was fully human, but also fully Divine, having two natures in one person. To refer to him as “a wise man,” as the earlier part of the sentence does, would seem incomplete to a Christian. This clause seems intended to lead toward the two boldly Christian statements that come later.

22. This straightforward translation from Greek, in which I have italicized three phrases, is by Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus , pp. 65–66.

In his Bible Review article (Meier, “ The Testimonium ,” Bible Review , June 1991 , p. 23), John P. Meier subtracts these three apparently Christian portions from the Testimonium . What remains is a very plausible suggestion, possibly the authentic, smoothly flowing report written by Flavius Josephus—or very close to it. Here is the remainder:

Around this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who did surprising deeds, and a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place came to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, have still to this day not died out (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus , pp. 65–66, after deleting the apparent Christian additions as Meier would).

23. Regarding differing religious convictions of readers that have generated disagreements about this passage at least since medieval times, see Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times , Studies in Biblical Literature, vol. 36 (New York: Peter Lang, 2003). Whealey’s observations in her conclusion, pp. 203–207, may be summarized as follows:

In the High Middle Ages (c. 1050–1350), Jewish scholars claimed it was a Christian forgery that was inserted into Josephus’s text, and Christians simply claimed it was entirely authentic. The problem was that with few exceptions, both sides argued from a priori assumptions with no critical examination of evidence. In the late 1500s and the 1600s, some Protestant scholars made the public charge of forgery. By the mid-1700s, based on textual evidence, scholarly opinion had rejected the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum and the controversy largely ended for over two centuries.

Twentieth-century scholars, however, revived the controversy on the basis of “new” variations of the text and whole works from ancient times that had been overlooked. Instead of the generally Protestant character of the earlier controversy, the controversy that began in the twentieth century is “more academic and less sectarian … marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question, and in general the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together” (p. 206).

24. Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus , p. 65–69. Meier, “ The Testimonium ,” Bible Review , June 1991 , gives the third answer.

25. Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament , 2nd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), p. 229.

26. Matthew 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20.

27. According to Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus , pp. 66–67, unless otherwise noted, these phrases that are characteristic of Josephus include: 1) Calling Jesus “a wise man” and calling his miracles “surprising deeds”; 2) Use of one of Josephus’s favorite phrases, “accept the truth gladly,” that in the “gladly” part includes the Greek word for “pleasure” which for Christian writers of this era, as a rule, had a bad connotation; 3) The reference to attracting “many of the Greeks” (meaning Hellenistic Gentiles), which fits better with Rome in Josephus’s time than with the references to Gentiles in the Gospels, which are few (such as John 12:20–22). On the style being that of Josephus, see also Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , pp. 89–91; 4) “The execution of Jesus by Pilate on the denunciation of the Jewish authorities shows acquaintance with legal conditions in Judaea and contradicts the tendency of the Christian reports of the trial of Jesus, which incriminate the Jews but play down Pilate’s responsibility” (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus , p. 67); 5) Calling Christians a “tribe” tends to show a Jewish perspective.

28. On whether the Testimonium Flavianum interrupts the structure of its literary context, see Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus , pp. 67–68, under “The interpolation hypothesis.” They describe E. Norden’s analysis (in German) of the context in Jewish Antiquities . Also see France, Evidence for Jesus , pp. 27–28, which mentions that Josephus’s typical sequencing includes digressions. Josephus’s key vocabulary regarding revolts is absent from the section on Jesus, perhaps removed by a Christian copyist who refused to perpetuate Josephus’s portrayal of Jesus as a real or potential rebel political leader.

29. Various scholars have suggested that Josephus’s original text took a hostile view of Jesus, but others, that it took a neutral to slightly positive view of him. See Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus , pp. 68–71 (hostile views) and pp. 71–74 (neutral to slightly positive views).

30. Josephus scholar Steve Mason observes, “Long after Eusebius, in fact, the text of the testimonium remained fluid. Jerome (342–420), the great scholar who translated the Bible and some of Eusebius into Latin, gives a version that agrees closely with standard text, except that the crucial phrase says of Jesus, ‘He was believed to be the Messiah’” (Mason, Josephus and the New Testament , p. 230, italics his. A decades-long, simmering debate continues about whether Jerome’s translation accurately represents what Josephus wrote.).

Besides Jerome’s Latin version, other examples of variation in manuscripts that are mentioned by Mason include an Arabic rendering and a version in Syriac. The Syriac language developed from Aramaic and is the (or an) official language of some branches of Orthodox Christianity.

A passage in a tenth-century Arabic Christian manuscript written by a man named Agapius appears to be a version of the Testimonium Flavianum . Shlomo Pines gives the following translation from the Arabic:

Similarly Josephus [Yūsīfūs] the Hebrew. For he says that in the treatises that he has written on the governance [?] of the Jews: ‘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. This is what is said by Josephus and his companions of our Lord the Messiah, may he be glorified (Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications [Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971), pp. 8–10).

Feldman thinks that Agapius mixed in source material from writers besides Josephus and provided “a paraphrase, rather than a translation” (Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937–1980 [New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984], p. 701). John P. Meier tends not to attribute much significance to Agapius’s description of the Testimonium Flavianum ; see Meier, Marginal Jew , vol. 1, pp. 78–79, note 37.

Of the three apparently Christian portions that are italicized in the translation of the Greek text above, the first is missing, and the other two are phrased as neutral statements (“they reported” he was alive, “he was perhaps” the Messiah), rather than as affirmations of Christian faith, such as, “He was” the Messiah, “He appeared” alive again.

Mason also refers to Pines’s translation of a version in Syriac found in the writings of Michael, the Patriarch of Antioch:

The writer Josephus also says in his work on the institutions of the Jews: In these times there was a wise man named Jesus, if it is fitting for us to call him a man. For he was a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of truth. Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples. He was thought to be the Messiah. But not according to the testimony of the principal [men] of [our] nation. Because of this, Pilate condemned him to the cross, and he died. For those who had loved him did not cease to love him. He appeared to them alive after three days. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvelous [as these]. And the people of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared till [this] day” (Pines, Arabic Version , pp. 26–27).

Pines adds a note about the Syriac text of the sentence “He was thought to be the Messiah”: “This sentence may also be translated Perhaps he was the Messiah .”

These Latin, Arabic and Syriac versions most likely represent genuine, alternative textual traditions. “The Christian dignitaries who innocently report these versions as if they came from Josephus had no motive, it seems, to weaken their testimony to Jesus” (Mason, Josephus and the New Testament , p. 231). Actually, Christians tended to make references to Jesus more glorious. Nor is there any indication that anti-Christian scribes reduced the references to Jesus from glorious to mundane, which would likely have been accompanied by disparagement. “It seems probable, therefore, that the versions of Josephus’s statement given by Jerome, Agapius and Michael reflect alternative textual traditions of Josephus which did not contain” the bold Christian confessions that appear in the standard Greek version (Mason, Josephus and the New Testament , p. 231). They contain variations that exhibit a degree of the fluidity that Mason emphasizes (Mason, Josephus and the New Testament , pp. 230–231). But these versions are not so different that they are unrecognizable as different versions of the Testimonium Flavianum . They use several similar phrases and refer to the same events, presenting phrases and events in a closely similar order, with few exceptions. Thus, along with enough agreement among the standard Greek text and the non-Greek versions to reveal a noteworthy degree of stability, their differences clearly exhibit the work of other hands after Josephus. (It is by this stability that we may recognize many lengthy additions and disagreements with the manuscript texts of the Testimonium Flavianum that are found in a passage sometimes called the Testimonium Slavianum that was apparently inserted into the Old Russian translation, called the Slavonic version, of Josephus’s other major work, The Jewish War .)

In the process of finding the similarities of phrases and references in extant manuscripts, one can come to recognize that the standard Greek form of the Testimonium Flavianum is simply one textual tradition among several. On balance, the Greek version is not necessarily supreme over all other textual traditions (Mason, Josephus and the New Testament , pp. 234–236). Despite a degree of stability in the text, the fluidity that is evident in various textual traditions is plain evidence that what Josephus wrote was later altered. When viewed from the standpoint of the Latin, Arabic and Syriac versions, the Greek text looks deliberately altered to make Josephus seem to claim that Jesus was the Messiah, possibly by omitting words that indicated that people called him Christos or thought, said, reported or believed that he was. Also, although of course the evidence is the crucial factor, alternative 3 also happens to have the support of the overwhelming majority of scholars, far more than any other view.

31. Almost all of the following points are listed and elaborated in Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , pp. 99–102.

32. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , p. 99.

33. “The non-Christian testimonies to Jesus … show that contemporaries in the first and second century saw no reason to doubt Jesus’ existence” (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus , p. 63).

34. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , p. 15. His footnote attached to this sentence states, with reference to Justin Martyr:

The only possible attempt at this argument known to me is in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho , written in the middle of the second century. At the end of chapter 8, Trypho, Justin’s Jewish interlocutor, states, “But [the] Christ—if indeed he has been born and exists anywhere—is unknown, and does not even know himself, and has no power until Elijah comes to anoint him and make him known to all. Accepting a groundless report, you have invented a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake you are unknowingly perishing.” This may be a faint statement of a nonexistence hypothesis, but it is not developed or even mentioned again in the rest of the Dialogue , in which Trypho assumes the existence of Jesus (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , p. 15, note 35).

Even in this statement, in which Trypho tries to imply that an existing report of Jesus as the Christ is erroneous, his reason is not necessarily that Jesus did not exist. Rather, he might well have wanted to plant the doubt that—although Jesus existed, as Trypho consistently assumes throughout the rest of the dialogue— the “report” that Jesus was the Christ was “groundless,” and that later on, someone else might arise who would prove to be the true Christ. Trypho was attempting to raise hypothetical doubt without here stating any actual grounds for doubt. These suggestions, more likely taunts, from Trypho, which he immediately abandons, cannot be regarded as an argument, let alone a serious argument. They are simply an unsupported doubt, apparently regarding Jesus’ being the Messiah.

35. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , pp. 133–134.

36. The chief difficulty in working with rabbinic writings that might be about Jesus is that

it is not always clear if Jesus (variously called Yeshua or Yeshu, with or without the further designation ha-Noṣri [meaning “the Nazarene”]) is in fact the person to whom reference is being made, especially when certain epithets are employed (e.g. Balaam, Ben Pandira, Ben Stada, etc. … Another serious problem in making use of these traditions is that it is likely that none of it is independent of Christian sources (Craig A. Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” in Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, eds., Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research , 2nd impression, New Testament Tools and Studies, vol. 6 (Boston: Brill, 1998, 1994), pp. 443–444).

Thus Van Voorst finds that “most passages alleged to speak about him in code do not in fact do so, or are so late as to have no value” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , p. 129).

From among the numerous rabbinic traditions, many of which seem puzzling in their potential references to Jesus, a fairly clear example is as follows:

And it is tradition: On the eve of the Passover they hanged Yeshu ha-Noṣri. And the herald went forth before him for forty days, “Yeshu ha-Noṣri is to be stoned, because he has practiced magic and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and speak concerning him.” And they found nothing in his favor. And they hanged him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla says, “Would it be supposed that Yeshu ha-Noṣri was one for whom anything in his favor might be said? Was he not a deceiver? And the Merciful has said, ‘Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him’ [Deuteronomy 13:8]. But it was different with Yeshu ha-Noṣri, for he was near to the kingdom’” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a; compare Sanhedrin 67a).

The following paragraph summarizes Craig A. Evans’s comments on the above quotation from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a:

According to John 18:28 and 19:14, Jesus’ execution occurred during Passover. The phrase “near to the kingdom” might refer to the Christian tradition that Jesus was a descendant of King David (Matthew 1:1; Mark 10:47, 48), or it could refer to Jesus’ proclamation that the kingdom of God was at hand (Mark 1:15). Deuteronomy 13:1–11 prescribes death by stoning for leading other Israelites astray to serve other gods, giving a sign or wonder, and Deuteronomy 21:21–22 requires that “when a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, you shall hang him on a tree” (compare the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 6:4, “All who have been stoned must be hanged”). When Judea came under Roman rule, which instituted crucifixion as a legal punishment, apart from the question of whether it was just or unjust, Jews roughly equated it with hanging on a tree. (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 448)

The passage above simultaneously implies the rabbis’ view that Jesus really existed and encapsulates the rabbis’ uniformly negative view of his miracles as magic and his teachings as deceit (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , p. 120).

37. Passing of Peregrinus , §11, as translated in Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 462.

38. This paragraph is a separate quotation from Passing of Peregrinus , §11, again as translated in Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 462.

39. On Celsus: in c. 176 C.E., Celsus, a Platonist philosopher in Alexandria, wrote The True Word (this title is also translated as The True Doctrine , or The True Discourse , or The True Account , etc.) to lodge his severe criticisms of Judaism and Christianity. Although that work has not survived, it is quoted and paraphrased in Origen’s reply in defense of Christianity, Against Celsus (c. 248 C.E.). Prominent among his many accusations to which Origen replies is as follows:

Next he makes the charge of the savior that it was by magic that he was able to do the miracles which he appeared to have done, and foreseeing that others also, having learned the same lessons and being haughty to act with the power of God, are about to do the same thing, such persons Jesus would drive away from his own society. For he says, “He was brought up in secret and hired himself out as a workman in Egypt, and having tried his hand at certain magical powers he returned from there, and on account of those powers gave himself the title of God” (Origen, Against Celsus , 1.6, 38, as translated in Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 460).

It is unknown whether Celsus became aware of information about Jesus, including reports of his miracles, from the Gospel tradition(s) or independently of them. Thus it cannot be said that Celsus adds any new historical material about Jesus, though it is clear that in accusing Jesus of using magic for personal gain, Celsus assumed his existence.

Charges that Jesus was a magician are common in ancient writings, and Christian replies have been published even very recently. Evans refers readers to “an assessment of the polemic that charges Jesus with sorcery”: Graham N. Stanton, “Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet Who Deceived God’s People?” in Joel B. Green and Max Turner, eds., Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology , I. Howard Marshall Festschrift (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 166–182 (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 460, note 45).

40. On Pliny the Younger: A friend of Tacitus, and like him the governor of a Roman province (in 110 C.E.), Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (c. 61–113 C.E.), known as Pliny, seems to have been excessively dependent on the Emperor Trajan for directions on how to govern. In his lengthy correspondence with Trajan, titled Epistles , X.96, along with his inquiries about how to treat people accused of being Christians, Pliny wrote:

They [the Christians] assured me that the sum total of their error consisted in the fact that that they regularly assembled on a certain day before daybreak. They recited a hymn antiphonally to Christus as to a god and bound themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery, breach of faith, and embezzlement of property entrusted to them. After this, it was their custom to separate, and then to come together again to partake of a meal, but an ordinary and innocent one (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 459)

The things that Pliny wrote about Christians can be found in or deduced from the New Testament. He reveals nothing new about Jesus himself, nor can his letters be considered evidence for Jesus’ existence, only for Christian belief in his existence. One may note what seems to have been early second century Christian belief in Jesus as deity, as well as the sizable population of Christians worshiping him in Pliny’s province, Bithynia, in Asia Minor, despite Roman prohibition and punishments.

41. On Suetonius: In c. 120 C.E., the Roman writer, lawyer and historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 70–140 C.E.), a friend of Pliny, wrote the following in his history, On the Lives of the Caesars , speaking of an event in 49 C.E.: “He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, because they were always making disturbances because of the instigator Chrestus” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , p. 30).

In the first place, the term “the Jews” could refer to Christians, whom Romans viewed as members of a Jewish sect. So the “disturbances” could be understood as riots among Jews, among Christians viewed as Jews, or, most likely, between those whom we would call Jews and Christians.

The use of the name “Chrestus” creates more ambiguity in this passage than the term “Chrestians” did in the passage in Tacitus treated above. Tacitus implicitly corrected the crowd. Here, with Suetonius speaking of events in 49 C.E., we have two options to choose from. The first option is that it’s a spelling of a mispronunciation of Christus, which Romans thought was Jesus’ name. If so, then Suetonius misunderstood Christus, whom he called “Chrestus,” to be an instigator. Suetonius’s key appositive phrase, “ impulsore Chresto ,” is much more accurately translated “the instigator Chrestus” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , p. 31) than the usual “at the instigation of Chrestus” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , p. 29). Another logical result would be that the uproarious disputes in 49 C.E. were actually disturbances sparked by disagreement about who Jesus was and/or what he said and did. Considering the two sides, namely, the rabbinic view that he was a magician and deceitful teacher, versus early Christians whose worship was directed to him “as to a god” (as described from the Roman perspective of Pliny the Younger), one can see how synagogues could become deeply divided.

The second option is that it refers to an otherwise unknown “instigator” of disturbances who bore the common name of slaves and freedmen, Chrestus. Actually, among hundreds of Jewish names in the catacombs of Rome, there is not one instance of Chrestus being the name of a Jew (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , p. 33). For this and other reasons, it seems more likely that Suetonius, who often uncritically repeated errors in his sources, was referring to Christus, that is, Jesus, but misunderstood him to be an agitator who lived in Rome in 49 C.E. (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside , pp. 29–39).

42. On Mara bar Serapion: In the last quarter of the first century C.E., a prisoner of war following the Roman conquest of Samosata (see under Lucian), Mara bar Serapion wrote a letter to his son, Serapion. In Stoic fashion, he wanted his son to seek wisdom in order to handle life’s misfortunes with virtue and composure.

For what advantage did the Athenians gain by the murder of Socrates, the recompense of which they received in famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because in one hour their country was entirely covered in sand? Or the Jews by the death of their wise king, because from that same time their kingdom was taken away? God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” pp. 455–456)

All we know of the author comes from this letter. Mara does not seem to have been a Christian, because he does not refer to a resurrection of Jesus and because his terminology, such as “wise king,” is not the usual Christian way of referring to Jesus. It is entirely possible that Mara received some knowledge of Jesus from Christians but did not name him for fear of displeasing his own Roman captors. His nameless reference makes the identification of “the wise king” as Jesus, though reasonable, still somewhat uncertain.

43. Doubtful sources contain “second- and third-hand traditions that reflect for the most part vague acquaintance with the Gospel story and controversies with Christians. These sources offer nothing independent” (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 443). Doubtful sources include the following:

Many rabbinic sources, including the Sepher Toledot Yeshu , “The Book of the Generations of Jesus” (meaning his ancestry or history; compare Matthew 1:1). It might be generally datable to as early as the eighth century C.E. but “may well contain a few oral traditions that go back to the third century.” It is “nothing more than a late collection of traditions, from Christian as well as from Jewish sources … full of fictions assembled for the primary purpose of anti-Christian polemic and propaganda,” and has no historical value regarding the question of Jesus’ existence (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 450).

The Slavonic (or Old Russian) Version of Josephus’s Jewish War “contains numerous passages … [which] tell of Jesus’ amazing deeds, of the jealousy of the Jewish leaders, of bribing Pilate,” etc. (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 451). These additions have no demonstrated historical value. The Yosippon (or Josippon) is a medieval source which appears in many versions, often with many additions. Its core is a Hebrew version of portions of Josephus’s writings that offers nothing from before the fourth century C.E. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain no contemporary references to Jesus or his followers. Islamic traditions either depend on the New Testament or are not clearly traceable to the early centuries C.E.

44. Regarding archaeological discoveries, along with many other scholars, I do not find that the group of ossuaries (bone boxes) discovered in the East Talpiot district of Jerusalem can be used as a basis for any conclusions about Jesus of Nazareth or his family. See the variety of views presented in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Tomb of Jesus and His Family? Exploring Ancient Jewish Tombs Near Jerusalem’s Walls (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), especially the essay by Rachel Hachlili, “What’s in a Name?” pp. 125–149. She concludes, “In light of all the above the East Talpiot tomb is a Jewish family tomb with no connection to the historical Jesus family; it is not the family tomb of Jesus and most of the presented facts for the identification are speculation and guesswork” (p. 143).

45. See Nili S. Fox, In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah , Monographs of the Hebrew Union College (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 2000), pp. 23–32; Christopher A. Rollston, “Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests,” Maarav 10 (2003), pp. 135–193, and his “Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II: The Status of Non-Provenanced Epigraphs within the Broader Corpus of Northwest Semitic,” Maarav 11 (2004), pp. 57–79.

46. See Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Ossuaries (Waco, TX: Baylor Univ. Press, Markham Press Fund, 2003), pp. 112–115. Regarding identification of the people named in the James ossuary inscription, even if it is authentic, the question as to whether it refers to Jesus of Nazareth has not been clearly settled. It is worth observing that its last phrase, “the brother of Jesus,” whose authenticity is disputed, is not the characteristic Christian way of referring to Jesus, which would be “the brother of the Lord,” but this observation hardly settles the question.

47. On G. A. Wells and Michael Martin, see Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), pp. 27–46. On others who deny Jesus’ existence, see Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? , especially pp. 61–64, 177–264.

Related Posts

Mark and John: A Wedding at Cana—Whose and Where?

By: James Tabor

Has the Childhood Home of Jesus Been Found?

By: Ellen White

The Gospel of Thomas’s 114 Sayings of Jesus

By: BAS Staff

Jesus Holding a Magic Wand?

By: Marek Dospěl

613 Responses

Did you not read the above?

Why did no historian write about Jesus during his lifetime? Certainly bringing people back from the dead and turning water into wine is no small feat and would have reached the ears of several historians of the time! All the vague evidence listed are by 3 main sources after Jesus had died and non reference his story just his title. One of those 3 is even a forgery…

To add… The writer here is unaware or forgets to mention (at the point where he is saying the name James was common, and the name Jesus was common) that the title Christ was also not unique. Multiple people claimed or where referred to as the Christ.

They had NOT SEEN with their OWN EYES, plus, HE was from a poor, Jewish family–therefore the thinking was HE could NOT POSSIBLY be the SON of GOD…

Jesus was from Nazareth in Galilee. It was here, some 5 days from Judea and especially Jerusalem, that he apparently spent most of his time. He was not the well known figure that he is generally depicted to be. The whole “Palm Sunday” story seem to pit a small group of Galilean followers, including the 12, against a larger Judean population who know little of him so find it rather easy to rally against him. In short, for most he was an unknow, a nobody. The Petetcost story in Acts seems to lend some support here as those gathered in the upper room of the home are seen as all being Galileans. They are not locals.

Much of this argument — and the accompanying historical citations for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a real person — has been said before. All good. I am glad, though, for the author’s perspective, the many footnotes and additional observations. Great job. I think it is beyond difficult to suggest that Jesus did not exist — or that he did not claim deity. But the latter is another subject for another time. Thanks again for the article!!

As far as a know the shroud has been proven a fake and does not come from jesus time!

NOT so…the shroud was “rewoven” (the WORN areas degraded by holding it on its’ edges during centuries of showing it at special times) rewoven by “French” re-weaving,..there are numerous art pieces depicting its exhibition through the ages. This “edge rewoven area” was from what the church allowed the samples to be taken. for testing. However, in earlier times, nuns had taken materials of their own times and worked the modern fibers into the aged. As for testing, the Catholic Church did NOT allow fibers to be taken from the center of the piece. (This is WHY the separate 3 testing carbon 14 sites came up with 3, separate dates). They (Catholic Church) also have the snippets of the BURNED areas in their possession, removed AFTER the piece was damaged in a fire. These portions could also be studied, but have NOT been offered up by the church. This would be solved if the Catholic Church would allow 1 fiber to be pulled from the center of the piece and tested…

The best evidence for the existence of Jesus is not even mentioned in this article: His miraculous image on His burial Shroud. This cloth has now been proven to be 2000 years old, and the British Museum’s interpretation of its 1988 C-14 evidence has been debunked. See: THE SHROUD OF TURIN, FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST, Malfi, 2015 TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015

Michael please don’t just go into the dark, these two people have pointed out that the evidence suggests all of tacitus writing about jesus is believed by the vast majority of scholars to be real historic documentation, and josephus’ second section on jesus also. Please respond 🙂

Tacitus mentioning “christians” in Rome is not proof that Jesus existed as a real historical figure no more than if he described an Isis cult doing this or that was proof that Isis existed as a real historical figure. And the whole Josephus claim has been shown time and time again to be a christian fraudulent addition to the original Josephus writings. And there have been many many fake roman documents – like the letter from Pilate to the Emperor going on in detail about Jesus – that were created by christians over the centuries for the single purpose of trying to create a contemporary 3rd party historical record of Jesus – why? because they knew there was NO such 3rd party record. There were many historians working in the general area of when Jesus was said to have lived and not one recorded a word about him – odd that since there were suppose to have been massive earthquakes, a global solar eclipse (which is impossible), and 1000s of dead rising from their graves when he died – extraordinary events that surely would have been recorded! Anyone who believes Jesus was a real historical figure should offer themselves up for a debate with Ken Humphreys who started the great youtube channel “Jesus Never Existed”, and which this link is an outline of his views on this question – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh6wgcgZjWM

im making peas im making pounds

The thing is, Tacitus was not a Christian, so why would he even have one of the gospels to cite? There is nothing in his text showing any familiarity with the gospels at all. And there are 2 passages referring to Jesus in Josephus… the second of which is undisputed by all scholars and for which a strong case is made here that it refers back to the disputed passage; the logic stands on its own.

Grasping at straws! Funny thing is that 99% of the Christians these days think there that are “Roman Scriptures” that convincingly establishes Jesus’s existence. These people have never heard of Tacitus or Josephus. On Tacitus. Any possibility that the bible copied the Annals? Perhaps the Romans, in writing or re-writing the bible decided to borrow historical accounts from Tacitus and other historians? “Christus” can refer to pretty much any Jew-rebel leader during those times. On Josephus. Isn’t it that out of 8000 passages, only a few words concern Jesus? Overly subtle cross references between Jesus, John the Baptist and James (plus the possibility to a later Christian interpolation)… I don’t know if this thing is authentic. Anyway, okay fine. Jesus the man existed. Now go fetch evidence on the miracles!

I stopped reading after the second section. Here’s why:

The author states that Tacitus’ Annals “corroborates” the New Testament. Given that Annals was written 50 years AFTER the manuscripts that would eventually become the canonical Gospels, it is clear that he is “citing” them…not corroborating them.

And then he talks about Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, and makes the ridiculous assertion that the vast majority of scholars accept the Jesus passage in Antiquities as legit. In fact, exactly the opposite is true, and it takes very little effort to discover this fact.

I believe that Jesus existed and that the bible is true!

Jesus most certainly walked the Earth as reported by various writers. I believe He is the Son of God. Amen!

I have read the works of Josephus, one paragraph about Jesus probably put in by someone not Josephus. And James the Great, probably the same reason. Allot of Christianity is based on Paul, where is he? Josephus doesn’t say anything. There were Messiahs before Jesus, Rome hated the Jews, they were always rebelling. How true is the Gospels, when they wrote after the descontrution of Judith, the temple. Why would anyone have a good word for anybody destroying your people? But theNT has blame of Rome. If you read Josephus there’s no Christian view. Like the Dead Sea Trolls, it all about the Jew. And who wrote the NT? In these times very few educated people. At the most only 3% could read allot less could write. Far As I know there were no New Testament until Constantine commission fifty around the middle of the 4th century. I think after the destruction of Judith it was just something to hold the Jew together. I hate to say this, but the Bible is like a fairy tale. Tartius he told Nero burning Christians, this doesn’t mean that Jesus was real, just certain people believing in a God like the Roman Gods

The graven images of Jesus as a white man continue to be used by Christians when Jesus is black as were Adam and Eve. All colors originate in black and white is the absence of color. Two white people can not produce a black child but two black people can produce every color of child. Israel and Egypt were all black at the time of Jesus. Did Jesus exist? Yes and no. Yes in the world of Satan and no in the world of God. In a world of Satan all is duality and in a world of God, only righteousness is found. Thus Satanists can argue either way in duality and people of God can say Jesus existed in the light and as son of God. The argument is moot due to whether one lives in the world of Satan or that of God. The Tree of Good and Evil and the Tree of Knowledge are both in Satan’s World which is the current Earth.

Very ironic that you claim the answer to be both Yes and No, then immediately claim that in “a world of Satan” all is duality… No. You sir have given a dual answer. There is also not duality in our world. There is our world. Not a world of Satan or a world of God. Just our world. Jesus the man might’ve existed; Jesus, son of God never did. Also, why start off your comment trying to show black as superior to white, they are inverse of each other. Inverse, and equal. Jesus was just one shade of countless others, but he was not black. He had olive skin. He was middle eastern. Why do Christians think they are the most righteous while simultaneously being the most egregious and ignorant?

Relevance? Also, Jesus & most Egyptians were brown, just look at how they depict themselves in their own art. FYI, Alexander spread white Greeks all over the ancient world. Brown people can make colored folks, too.

Please get the Eden tree correct. It’s not as you’ve stated. The single tree referred to in the Bible text is the “Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil” – and only this one was denied to Adam and Eve for nourishment. They were given only ONE command to follow, and they messed up (at Satan’s prodding).

Can some one tell me what this means because I don’t want to read it

Knowledge does not come by osmosis… You have to be engaged in the reading/conversation.

The book is God’s word and teach that the earth Is flat? “four angels standing upon the four corners of the earth”, and only the flat earth have four corners. “Jesus went to a mountain so high he could see all the kingdoms of the earth”, and only the flat earth can see all the kingdoms of the earth. I dont believe that book that write from the mankind.

Where does the bible say that the earth is flat? The angels… it means that they stand in the north, east, south and west. Its symbolic language. Yes the devil went on a mountain with Jesus, where he could see the kingdoms of the earth. It doesnt have a a literal meaning. The devil more likely showed him the kingdoms in a vision

That’s PIDOOMA, Simon, or, in other words, just your interpretation.

I have never read a more fair, comprehensive and meticulously researched work which should satisfy even the harshest skeptic that Jesus in fact walked this earth. Thank you Dr Mykytuik.

Enjoyed the read, but please stop using the term “CE.” It has been A.D. (Ano Domini) since the 6th century, and shouldn’t be replaced because of political correctness. Thank you.

CE means Common Era or Current Era. It has first been used in 1708. It’s a secular abbreviation and shouldn’t be replaced because of Christians’ superiority complex. The majority of the human world population (around 67 %) is non-Christian.

lol it aint real

And please, do not even begin to claim the bible tells us the earth is flat. That theory relies on the incorrect translations made by Romans applying Roman belief of the cosmos of the time. The reference to being able to see all the kingdoms of the earth likely refers to the kingdoms of that area which could be looked upon at the highest mountain point (use the context of the culture at the time to understand from their point of view). In order to understand what was written down you must first know the beliefs and cultural constructs of the people doing the writing. Without that background information, we apply our own beliefs/knowledge and constructs of the current time which knows considerably more than our ancestors from 2k years ago. Also, Hebrew words often had several different meanings based on the context of the sentence. Without extensive and personal knowledge of the ancient Hebrew language one would essentially be guessing at the true meaning of such words based on the knowledge at that time, and Romans at the time of translation believed the earth to be flat as well as a solid shield covering the earth. They literally believed the stars to be fixed into this globe-like shield and the earth to be the center of the solar system. Therefore, using their translation to mean the authors of the biblical text were referring to an actual flat Earth or an earth with a solid ‘firmament’ would result in error. Use your brain and research before spreading these ridiculous false claims.

I agree with jiko and Ral. The claimant needs to provide the evidence that their claim is indeed true and correct. We don’t just start believing things until it’s proven false. That’s not the nature of a rational mind or how science works. You actually need to demonstrate that your god exists. It’s not my duty to prove that he doesn’t exist. This is kindergarten theology. Prove it or shut up.

How about this, first… Scientists (who use logic principles based upon Plato/Aristotle for deductive reasoning) should admit that they are ignoring 7/8 of the problem, because they examine only the remaining 1/8 which holds only positively-measured positional values (i.e., astronomy, physics, & related studies). Instead of declaring “there is no God” (when their five senses operate only in this 4-dimensional universe, and only a “projection of God” will appear here), they should admit that “with our available tools, we cannot rule out God”.

There isn’t really any proof of a ‘God’. So yes, there is no God unless proven otherwise

“The studio and filmmakers behind the “Conjuring” franchise are being sued by an author seeking $900 million. Warner Bros. might have to pay $900 million if it can’t prove ghosts are real.” How about if religions can’t prove god are real?

How about if atheists can’t prove G_D does NOT exist?

Religious people make the claim. It is up to them to prove their claims. That’s all any god is, a claim. You say your god exists, I say prove it. Why should I try to prove what hasn’t been proven to exist in the first place? The author of the article above says most scholars think Josephus’ references to Jesus are real? Maybe Christian scholars. Objective scholars think they are interpolations. And the second reference to Jesus, and James, is also a forgery and s not even talking about the James of Christian Jesus fame.

If God did not create the heavens and the earth and it it is apparent by your comments, all I ask of you is to explain how life on earth got started.- assuming of course that it was always here.

God create our earth but think our earth is flat. “Jesus went to a mountain so high he could see all the kingdoms of the earth, four angels standing at the four corners of the earth”. According to Christian mythology the earth must be flat.

I am a sceptical Christian. Meaning, I seek to find proof behind claims of the bible. The information listed above is not proving God exists, merely that Jesus (Yeshua) was a man who existed and some called Christus (or Christ/holy one/messiah). It does not in any way attempt to prove the existence of God. That proof, to me, comes from the existence of life itself. Even if all theories surrounding the beginning of time prove to be true: where did that first molecule/proton/electron/atom come from? Did it suddenly appear? What science is there to show the possibility of something appearing from absolute nothing? To me, that is the proof there must be an outside source. Let that be your idea of God. You can then apply the text of the bible to literally mean ‘God’ is everywhere and always was there and is everything and created (made possible) everything. Whether that God-source gives a damn about us in any capacity remains up for debate ????

exactly! If you make extraordinary claims about a guy named Jesus going around walking on water, raising the dead, commanding the wind, and rising from the dead -and claim he is a divine God like individual then the onus is on you to produce the extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims, not the onus on the skeptic to prove those extraordinary claims wrong.

Even with all of the evidence that Jesus is real. You still ask for more evidence! Your lack of choosing to be believed the evidence no mater what is produced you will still deny. It is really up to you to prove with evidence that he does not exist.

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. It provides evidence that many at the time of Jeremiah believed in His future birth. It also provides evidence that after Christ’s resurrection, He visited people in the Americas, thus fulfilling John 10:16 – “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”

The crowning event recorded in the Book of Mormon is the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ among the indigenous American people soon after His resurrection. It puts forth the doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ, bears witness of His divinity, outlines the plan of salvation, and tells men what they must do to gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to come.

The Book of Mormon is a complete fraudulent document. And what is said about indigenous americans are among the most racist writings of the 19th century. Smith’s fraudulent activities were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt when the egyptian papyrus scrolls that he allegedly “translated” a part of the Book of Mormon from – the whole story about Joseph in Egypt – and which were assumed to have been destroyed in a fire were actually found in the 1980s and were examined by modern linguistic experts & egyptologists and were found to be common spells, nothing at all related to a Joseph in Egypt. Joseph Smith was a fraud artist his entire life and had even been charged with that during his witching for “treasure” phase.

This was great, I enjoyed reading the article.

I’m personally Christian myself and it was a pleasent documentation to read.

This was great, I enjoyed reading the article. I’m personally Christian myself and it was a pleasent documentation to read.

It’s impossible that the author of the Bible know they great great great great great great grandfather name and records few thousand years ago. There’s no history proof Jesus exist from outside the Bible.

You obviously have no clue as to any knowledge of the Bible, you’ve obviously never read one word of it, and you’ve obviously never researched the Bible, it’s history, of Jesus and all the proof there is out there that He existed as a man. I’ll give you one fact that is there were multiple authors (plural) that wrote the Bible, it was written by many authors over many years and not one author as you thought. Nice try, go do your homework and learn something!

Although men were used to pen the words of the Bible, the author of it is God, and you obviously do not read very much and obviously do not believe in other historical figures, e.g. Julius Caesar, Constantine the Great, the historian Josephus, or maybe Hitler or Winston Churchill, etc.

Good scholarly work. Dr. Mytytiuk seems to be well informed as it pertains to his subject.

However, Al, the Bible is far more reliable than imperfect man. It is always wise to opt for the Bible if there is any disagreement between ‘scholars’ and God’s Word.

BAS says: “That would put the beginning of his ministry, around age 30 (Luke 3:23), at c. 25 C.E. In the widely held view that Jesus’ ministry lasted 3.5 years before his death, a reasonable date for the crucifixion is c. 29 C.E.)” Yes the Bible clearly states that Jesus was about 30 years of age when he started his 3,5 year ministry. However Luke 2:1, 2 says: 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, (He began his reign in 14 CE) Pontius Pilate was governor in Judea, Herod Antipas was the ruler in Galilee Philip, Herod’s brother was district ruler of the country of Ituraea and Trachonitis, Lysanias was district ruler of Abilene Chief priests Annas and Caiaphas This is a year when secular historians and the Bible agree This was the same year Jesus was baptised………which was 29 CE

I enjoyed reading this article. It as well written and well documented. Thank you for your work.

A bit like asking the question, “Is Buddha, or Gilgamesh, or Hercules, or Perseus a real person ?” In a sense, it really doesn’t matter if there was an actual, concrete human body, the story is the important thing. The stories are meant to teach and give a common point of reference.

For the record, although a high school text book of my daughter’s says that Gilgamesh was a real person, he was a version of Hercules, and was the constellation Hercules. Gilgamesh walks through the signs of the zodiac, just like Hercules does, slaying the Bull of Heaven, slaying the Lion, meeting the Scorpion-man, and meeting with Utnapashtim who was called Deucalion by the Greeks. The Greeks tell us Deucalion was constellation Aquarius.

St. Martin’s Press “Field Guide to Astronomy” is a very good source for ancient names of constellations, and names Gilgamesh as one of the ancient names of constellation Hercules.

You will notice that Hercules performs his Twelve Labours as he walks through the twelve signs of the zodiac. Gilgamesh also walks through the twelve signs of the zodiac, although the Akkadian story does not explicitly number them.

Jupiter, the planet, marks out the sky into twelve parts, and the twelve divisions of the zodiac are derived from the motion of Jupiter. Jupiter was called the ruler of the gods in many theological systems. Jupiter, called Zeus by the Greeks, ruled the twelve great gods in Roman and Greek religion and appointed their place in the heavens. There were twelve great gods in the Norse religion each with a great house, although the Norse chose Odin, a version of Mercury, as the later king of the gods, and Thor, a version of Jupiter, became his son. Marduke, a version of Jupiter, was king of the gods in Babylon. Indra, a version of Jupiter, is king of the gods according to the Vedas.

In a lot of religions, since religion is based on visions of heaven, there is a god who is very important or even the ruler of the gods, who divides things into twelve parts, who lays out twelve ‘houses’, or assigns twelve gods to their territories, or assigns twelve tribes to their territories, or walks through twelve territories, or performs twelve tasks, or has twelve followers.

Were Buddha or Perseus real ? Buddha was originally a version of planet Mercury, and still is a version of planet Mercury in Hinduism, which was the origin of Buddhism. Perseus is constellation Perseus. Where they based on real people ? The ideas they represented were based on human ideas, just like the ideas behind any character ultimately derive from human thought. Buddha represents the idea of a good, human, wise teacher interested in our well being, as does Jesus. The words attributed to them are words derived from centuries of thought and emotion. In that respect, they are real.

So interesting. You should write articles, that is if youdon’t Already. I really think this is interesting. So life repeats itself perhaps to remind humanity of our origins.

A bit like asking the question, “Is Buddha, or Gilgamesh, or Hercules, or Perseus a real person ?” In a sense, it really doesn’t matter if there was an actual, concrete human body, the story is the important thing. The stories are meant to teach and give a common point of reference. For the record, although a high school text book of my daughter’s says that Gilgamesh was a real person, he was a version of Hercules, and was the constellation Hercules. Gilgamesh walks through the signs of the zodiac, just like Hercules does, slaying the Bull of Heaven, slaying the Lion, meeting the Scorpion-man, and meeting with Utnapashtim who was called Deucalion by the Greeks. The Greeks tell us Deucalion was constellation Aquarius. St. Martin’s Press “Field Guide to Astronomy” is a very good source for ancient names of constellations, and names Gilgamesh as one of the ancient names of constellation Hercules. You will notice that Hercules performs his Twelve Labours as he walks through the twelve signs of the zodiac. Gilgamesh also walks through the twelve signs of the zodiac, although the Akkadian story does not explicitly number them. Jupiter, the planet, marks out the sky into twelve parts, and the twelve divisions of the zodiac are derived from the motion of Jupiter. Jupiter was called the ruler of the gods in many theological systems. Jupiter, called Zeus by the Greeks, ruled the twelve great gods in Roman and Greek religion and appointed their place in the heavens. There were twelve great gods in the Norse religion each with a great house, although the Norse chose Odin, a version of Mercury, as the later king of the gods, and Thor, a version of Jupiter, became his son. Marduke, a version of Jupiter, was king of the gods in Babylon. Indra, a version of Jupiter, is king of the gods according to the Vedas. In a lot of religions, since religion is based on visions of heaven, there is a god who is very important or even the ruler of the gods, who divides things into twelve parts, who lays out twelve ‘houses’, or assigns twelve gods to their territories, or assigns twelve tribes to their territories, or walks through twelve territories, or performs twelve tasks, or has twelve followers. Were Buddha or Perseus real ? Buddha was originally a version of planet Mercury, and still is a version of planet Mercury in Hinduism, which was the origin of Buddhism. Perseus is constellation Perseus. Where they based on real people ? The ideas they represented were based on human ideas, just like the ideas behind any character ultimately derive from human thought. Buddha represents the idea of a good, human, wise teacher interested in our well being, as does Jesus. The words attributed to them are words derived from centuries of thought and emotion. In that respect, they are real.

I believe Gilgamesh preceded Hercules did he not?

As the Bible clearly states Adam and Eve were the the progenitors of the human race. However, after the global flood of Noah’s day, the human race descended from Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Genesis 9:18, 19)

Ham’ sons – Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan and the darker races of today could have descended from Put and Cush

Shem’s children – Arpachshad, Elam, Asshur, Lud, and Aram – Semitic nations

Japheth’s sons – Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras – Historically, Japheth was the progenitor of the Aryan or Indo-European (Indo-Germanic) branch of the human family, and probably Asian families of mankind.

This was supposed to be in answer to a question raised by Wa on 2/5/2017 concerning the origins of the human family – my apologies for messing it up.

As the Bible clearly states Adam and Eve were the the progenitors of the human race. However, after the global flood of Noah’s day, the human race descended from Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Genesis 9:18, 19) Ham’ sons – Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan and the darker races of today could have descended from Put and Cush Shem’s children – Arpachshad, Elam, Asshur, Lud, and Aram – Semitic nations Japheth’s sons – Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras – Historically, Japheth was the progenitor of the Aryan or Indo-European (Indo-Germanic) branch of the human family, and probably Asian families of mankind.

Google “GARY PARKER MIDNIGHT in the DESERT” and u will see and hear the TRUTH about GOD and everything in between. Please take a look. Thank u.

JESUS IS REAL AND I WILL DIE AT ANYTIME AT ALL FOR HIM I LOVE HIM DEARLY HE IS THE ONE THAT MADE THIS WORLD A BETTER PLACE SO SHUT UP NON BELIEVERS!

And Jesus’ method… ” a bent reed He will not break”. Your enthusiasm being laudable, the delivery needs to match the audience (tenor, content, research). He I after all say, “…love your neighbor a yourself”.

Why the Bible claim God created earth 6000 years ago but history records human life existed on earth few hundred thousand years ago?

Where does it say 6000 years ago? I never read that.

I can see the contradiction you’re thinking about, but consider that it would not have been impossible to create the earth to appear as if it had already lived for some time. Hell, he made Adam that way as no indication is given that he wasn’t fully functional right off the bat.

Genesis 1:1 states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. We certainly do not know when that was; it may well be that the earth is billions of years old, as some scientist claim. The creative days were NOT 24 hours as “creationists” would have one believe, each creative day would have been thousands of years in length. Genesis 2:2, 3 says that on the seventh day God rested, and Hebrews 3:7-11 and Hebrews 4:3-9 points out that we are still in that day of rest…………..some 6 000 years after the creation of Adam and Eve.

Being a self educated tradesman my command of the English language will not allow me to properly express my gratitude towards you for this well thought out and argued paper. You have changed my mind regarding the existence of Jesus and in doing so proved to me that I’m capable of changing core beliefs when presented a case stronger than mine. Thank you for challenging my ideas and changing my mind.

Jesus is real. Jesus is risen. Israel isreal.

This is wonderful, clear, measured scholarship. It is refreshing to read such careful and nuanced writing, in which the author places the facts in order with impartiality and careful judgement.

Thank you, Thomas B. Higgins, for your comment that brings encouragement as I continue this work.

Reply to Mike (comment 238):

As I understand your comment, you are interpreting Genesis chapters 1 through 12 as literal history and finding problems with the result.

The good news is that the words of Genesis are not necessarily to be taken literally. For example, regarding 6 days of creation, Genesis 2:4 refers to “the day that the Lord made the heaven and the earth.” That “day” cannot be just one day, because chapter 1 describes the six-day process. So a day can actually mean a period of time, something like the figurative meaning of “back in the day,” which refers to an unspecified period of time.

There are at least several theories of creation that try to bring together the biblical account and scientific knowledge. I suggest consulting the Wikipedia article, “Genesis creation narrative” to identify other options besides literal history. Another suggestion would be to compare several commentaries that have different interpretations of the early chapters of the book of Genesis.

Best wishes,

Lawrence Mykytiuk Purdue University

Reply to Mike (comment 238): As I understand your comment, you are interpreting Genesis chapters 1 through 12 as literal history and finding problems with the result. The good news is that the words of Genesis are not necessarily to be taken literally. For example, regarding 6 days of creation, Genesis 2:4 refers to “the day that the Lord made the heaven and the earth.” That “day” cannot be just one day, because chapter 1 describes the six-day process. So a day can actually mean a period of time, something like the figurative meaning of “back in the day,” which refers to an unspecified period of time. There are at least several theories of creation that try to bring together the biblical account and scientific knowledge. I suggest consulting the Wikipedia article, “Genesis creation narrative” to identify other options besides literal history. Another suggestion would be to compare several commentaries that have different interpretations of the early chapters of the book of Genesis. Best wishes, Lawrence Mykytiuk Purdue University

Reply to Paolo (comment 235):

Actually, Paolo, I am the author, not the publisher, so I cannot fill that request. The Biblical Archaeology Society has already made most or practically all of the factual content of the article available above on this page, and it is freely accessible by anyone who has Internet access. In fact, this page includes the end-notes which, for lack of space, do not appear in the magazine.

BAR subscriptions to paper or electronic copies are available for very reasonable prices. See https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/SP/BAR/BAR_Product_Form_US.jsp?cds_page_id=210431&cds_mag_code=BAR&id=1505280630406&lsid=72560030303045543&vid=1&cds_misc_3=E3907952&cds_response_key=ZE7A9GZ00 .

As an academic librarian, I can tell you that some of the authors who write BAR articles also write articles in scholarly journals that cost several hundred dollars for a one year subscription. Not only is BAR far less expensive, but its articles contain high-quality content made easily comprehensible for non-specialists.

Reply to Paolo (comment 235): Actually, Paolo, I am the author, not the publisher, so I cannot fill that request. The Biblical Archaeology Society has already made most or practically all of the factual content of the article available above on this page, and it is freely accessible by anyone who has Internet access. In fact, this page includes the end-notes which, for lack of space, do not appear in the magazine. BAR subscriptions to paper or electronic copies are available for very reasonable prices. See https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/SP/BAR/BAR_Product_Form_US.jsp?cds_page_id=210431&cds_mag_code=BAR&id=1505280630406&lsid=72560030303045543&vid=1&cds_misc_3=E3907952&cds_response_key=ZE7A9GZ00 . As an academic librarian, I can tell you that some of the authors who write BAR articles also write articles in scholarly journals that cost several hundred dollars for a one year subscription. Not only is BAR far less expensive, but its articles contain high-quality content made easily comprehensible for non-specialists. Best wishes, Lawrence Mykytiuk Purdue University

How to know if God in the Bible is the creator of the universe? I’m confused. The Bible say lord created earth 6000 years ago but the dinosaur was existed on earth millions years ago. How to say that? The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today. Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago). Historians date Abraham’s biblical story around 2000 B.C., based on clues in Genesis Chapters 11 through 25. So a simple calculation is: 5 days 2000 years 4000 years = 6000 years.

Genesis 1:1 states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. We certainly do not know when that was; it may well be that the earth is billions of years old, as some scientist claim. The creative days were NOT 24 hours as “creationists” would have one believe, each creative day would have been thousands of years in length. Genesis 2:2, 3 says that on the seventh day God rested, and Hebrews 3:7-11 and Hebrews 4:3-9 points out that we are still in that day of rest…………..some 6 000 years after the creation of Adam and Eve.

That’s a powerful article… May I have the article in PDF? Please

Pliny the younger was army historian at time and place. He says a man called Jesus Barabus was tried today by Pilot in the prefects palace rooms. I have stood on the self same platform in the outer wall of Pilots room. It faces Herods palace and is part of the Western wall or wailing wall. It would be hard for two men never mind Pauls 3 men so I think Paul was really something like Billy Graham. No place other in works of those born later than the said date wrote anything.Even the so called apostles are those of pauls own department not those who as fishermen in the story. Paul was a liar and as I believe God exists Paul sinned by putting a token image before him as a God

The Pliny record has been shown conclusively to be yet another fake document created by christian “scholars” to have a 3rd party contemporary secular record of Jesus – because they knew there was none!

Reply to dand (comment 49): Yes, to be be honest, dand, there is some historical evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus. To call this evidence _proof_ can be slippery. It may seem like proof to those who accept it, but of course, people who don’t accept it don’t consider it proof—so let’s just call it evidence.

Please keep in mind that not everyone will accept every kind of evidence. Although Christians who accept the resurrection are not a neutral source, they can be gentle and respectful, personally honest, and considerate.

o The most dramatic evidence is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, who abandoned the gentle wisdom and impressive example of his Jewish teacher, Gamaliel, and of Gamaliel’s grandfather, the great Hillel the elder—and instead breathed out continual threats and slaughter against Jesus’ followers. But later, on the road to Damascus, he had a vision and a conversation—described in Acts chapter 22—that completely reversed his attitudes and actions. Afterwards, Christians said, ““The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Galatians 1:23). In 2 Corinthians 11, Paul listed some of the things he went through in order to spread faith in Jesus, including: imprisonments: frequent, described as more than the usual, severe floggings: 5, beatings with rods: 3, stoning: one, after which he was left for dead, shipwrecks: 3, time in the open sea: a day and a night, exposure to death: repeated, in many places, grave danger: many kinds, including betrayal, plus sleep deprivation, hunger and thirst, and exposure to cold without adequate clothing, plus: the pressure he felt to care for “all the churches.” Go figure.

o The very earliest piece of evidence is the fact that the women who went to Jesus’ tomb returned with news of his resurrection. The apostles didn’t believe them, seeming to look down on them as women. But still, they persisted.

o Another piece of evidence is that after apostles initially rejected the news about Jesus being risen, they ended up believing in him as their risen Lord. They also testified boldly when on trial and preached openly despite the prospect of painful punishment, which in fact they received, reportedly without regret.

These three pieces of evidence are a start, but other evidence is available on various web sites. Yours was a good question.

Lawrence Mykytiuk

Well if Jesus “rose from the dead” – then he was never really dead then was he and that entails Jesus never dying for our sins since he never really died. And btw if the resurrected Jesus could appear and disappear at will why would he need to have to move the stone door of his tomb to get out? The laws of nature are the same now as they were 2000 yrs ago and if a person is truly dead then they remain dead and people now cannot walk on water, heal the blind by putting mud into their eyes, command the wind, raise the dead, cause global solar eclipses (which is impossible to have to whole earth in darkness via a solar eclipse) and nor could people 2000 yrs ago either. One really has to leave ones brain behind at the door to believe this stuff.

Reply to dand (comment 49): Yes, to be be honest, dand, there is some historical evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus. To call this evidence _proof_ can be slippery. It may seem like proof to those who accept it, but of course, people who don’t accept it don’t consider it proof—so let’s just call it evidence. Please keep in mind that not everyone will accept every kind of evidence. Although Christians who accept the resurrection are not a neutral source, they can be gentle and respectful, personally honest, and considerate. o The most dramatic evidence is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, who abandoned the gentle wisdom and impressive example of his Jewish teacher, Gamaliel, and of Gamaliel’s grandfather, the great Hillel the elder—and instead breathed out continual threats and slaughter against Jesus’ followers. But later, on the road to Damascus, he had a vision and a conversation—described in Acts chapter 22—that completely reversed his attitudes and actions. Afterwards, Christians said, ““The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Galatians 1:23). In 2 Corinthians 11, Paul listed some of the things he went through in order to spread faith in Jesus, including: imprisonments: frequent, described as more than the usual, severe floggings: 5, beatings with rods: 3, stoning: one, after which he was left for dead, shipwrecks: 3, time in the open sea: a day and a night, exposure to death: repeated, in many places, grave danger: many kinds, including betrayal, plus sleep deprivation, hunger and thirst, and exposure to cold without adequate clothing, plus: the pressure he felt to care for “all the churches.” Go figure. o The very earliest piece of evidence is the fact that the women who went to Jesus’ tomb returned with news of his resurrection. The apostles didn’t believe them, seeming to look down on them as women. But still, they persisted. o Another piece of evidence is that after apostles initially rejected the news about Jesus being risen, they ended up believing in him as their risen Lord. They also testified boldly when on trial and preached openly despite the prospect of painful punishment, which in fact they received, reportedly without regret. These three pieces of evidence are a start, but other evidence is available on various web sites. Yours was a good question. Best wishes, Lawrence Mykytiuk

Great article, thank you for all your hard work. Is there any proof for the resurrection of jesus.

Reply to Wa (comment 46 above): Your two questions are not relevant to the article, nor do they pass the test of ordinary observation. On the streets of many cities in the world, it is easy to see that children born to the very same parents do not always have the same hair color, the same skin color, etc.

On the web site of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, you can read for yourself what it says about the percent of genetic variation in humans: “A wide-ranging study published in 2004 found that 87.6% percent of the total modern human genetic diversity isaccounted for by the differences between individuals, and only 9.2% between continents” ( http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/human-skin-color-variation/modern-human-diversity-genetics ).

Reply to Wa (comment 46 above): Your two questions are not relevant to the article, nor do they pass the test of ordinary observation. On the streets of many cities in the world, it is easy to see that children born to the very same parents do not always have the same hair color, the same skin color, etc. On the web site of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, you can read for yourself what it says about the percent of genetic variation in humans: “A wide-ranging study published in 2004 found that 87.6% percent of the total modern human genetic diversity isaccounted for by the differences between individuals, and only 9.2% between continents” ( http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/human-skin-color-variation/modern-human-diversity-genetics ). Lawrence Mykytiuk Purdue University

Reply to Silver (comment 45): Your comment implies that Jesus existed, therefore it does not disagree with the article and implicitly affirms the main point that is supported by ancient writings, even from non-Christian writers.

As for the miracles of Jesus, in particular the resurrection, because these things are not treated in the article, I suggest you consult the many, many web sites that discuss this topic, gather whatever evidence you may find, and decide for yourself.

Reply to Silver (comment 45): Your comment implies that Jesus existed, therefore it does not disagree with the article and implicitly affirms the main point that is supported by ancient writings, even from non-Christian writers. As for the miracles of Jesus, in particular the resurrection, because these things are not treated in the article, I suggest you consult the many, many web sites that discuss this topic, gather whatever evidence you may find, and decide for yourself. Best wishes, Lawrence Mykytiuk Purdue University

Did We All Come from Adam and Eve? Why do people of India, China or black people in america look so different of skin and hair?

God created “types”, the fundamental versions of land & sea creatures which can procreate… Exposure to different conditions (temperature, solar radiation, etc.) will bring out different characteristics buried in your DNA. Those who live in hotter, sunny climates will survive better with darker skin pigmentation (an enhancement, not an evolutionary step). Those in the same conditions will foster darker-colored iris in the eye (protection from brighter solar light). Those in more wintery climates will experience severe glint from snow/ice (enhancement takes the form of differently shaped eye-lids). The differences which we see, now, are reflective of Noah’s children (more than Adam & Eve themselves, because they hadn’t begun enhancing climactic characteristics).

If he is famous people. Is there any HISTORY PROOF the miracles that jesus performed including him coming back from the dead?

Reply at Juju Actually, there are people who honestly believe that the global Flood of Noah’s day happened. There is also more evidence for it than against in actuality. You bring out that Noah was not a shipwrights of sorts and that would be something to be noted but reading the Genesis account of the Flood shows Noah received instructions on how to build the ark, seeing as he may have never have built a seaworthy vessel before. Also, if you carefully pay attention to the dimensions of the ark as laid out in the Bible (which are specific), they are “box-shaped” and there are no instructions for a rudder or a keel. Which makes since, seeing how all the ark was meant for was to float and the dimensions for the ark were perfect to maintain buoyancy and prevent capsizing. Besides, in a global Flood with no dry land for nearly a year, what use would a rudder and a keel have been? Where would they have gone? The answer seems obvious. As has been brought out, many civilizations that span years apart and thousands of miles apart all have their Flood legends. Interestingly, if you do some research and comparisons, while the details of each Flood tale may be different they all have a common thread with the Bible… Flood Legends

Samples from six continents and the islands of the sea; hundreds of such legends are known:

Australia – Kurnai Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Babylon – Berossus’ account Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Babylon – Gilgamesh epic Destruction by Water Divine Cause Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Bolivia – Chiriguano Destruction by Water Divine Cause Warning Given Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Borneo – Sea Dayak Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Burma – Singpho Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Canada – Cree Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Canada – Montagnais Destruction by Water Divine Cause Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

China – Lolo Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Cuba – original natives Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

East Africa – Masai Destruction by Water Divine Cause Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Egypt – Book of the Dead Destruction by Water Divine Clause Warning Given Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Fiji – Walavu-levu tradition Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel

French Polynesia – Raïatéa Destruction by Water Divine Cause Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared

Greece – Lucian’s account Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Guyana – Macushi Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Iceland – Eddas Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel

India – Andaman Islands Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel

India – Bhil Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

India – Kamar Destruction by Water Divine Cause Warning Given Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Iran – Zend-Avesta Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared

Italy – Ovid’s poetry Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Malay Peninsula – Jakun Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Mexico – Codex Chimalpopoca Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Mexico – Huichol Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

New Zealand – Maori Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Peru – Indians of Huarochirí Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared

Russia – Vogul Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel

U.S.A. (Alaska) – Kolusches Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

U.S.A. (Alaska) – Tlingit Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

U.S.A. (Arizona) – Papago Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

U.S.A. (Hawaii) – legend of Nu-u Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Vanuatu – Melanesians Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Vietnam – Bahnar Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Wales – Dwyfan/Dwyfach legend Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel

Something that may also be of note is that out of all the known Flood legends around the world, the Bible presents the Flood in a much more practical and realistic way when compared to the other legends. It’s certainly not as embellished or fanciful as some other Flood legends in other cultures. It’s presented with a much more realistic history feel to it. Seeing how this is an article of Jesus’ existence it should be noted that Jesus himself believed the Flood of Noah’s day was a real event in earth’s past. He referred to the event in his teachings and used it as a warning such as that found in Luke 17:26, 27 and Matthew 24:37-39. Also, it’s widely known and acknowledged that there have been ancient seabeds containing seashells and the like discovered way up in mountain ranges indicating they were once covered in water. It is also widely known and acknowledged that there was a drastic change in the earth’s climate at some point that caused animals to be found frozen with food still in there mouths – another indication that some devastating large-scale event took place in earth’s past. Such a catastrophic event as a global flood would definitely change the earth’s climate and topography in drastic ways. But of course, the only way to get an answer to your question is to look at the evidence and make up you own mind based upon that evidence.

Reply at Juju Actually, there are people who honestly believe that the global Flood of Noah’s day happened. There is also more evidence for it than against in actuality. You bring out that Noah was not a shipwrights of sorts and that would be something to be noted but reading the Genesis account of the Flood shows Noah received instructions on how to build the ark, seeing as he may have never have built a seaworthy vessel before. Also, if you carefully pay attention to the dimensions of the ark as laid out in the Bible (which are specific), they are “box-shaped” and there are no instructions for a rudder or a keel. Which makes since, seeing how all the ark was meant for was to float and the dimensions for the ark were perfect to maintain buoyancy and prevent capsizing. Besides, in a global Flood with no dry land for nearly a year, what use would a rudder and a keel have been? Where would they have gone? The answer seems obvious. As has been brought out, many civilizations that span years apart and thousands of miles apart all have their Flood legends. Interestingly, if you do some research and comparisons, while the details of each Flood tale may be different they all have a common thread with the Bible… Flood Legends Samples from six continents and the islands of the sea; hundreds of such legends are known: Australia – Kurnai Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Babylon – Berossus’ account Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Babylon – Gilgamesh epic Destruction by Water Divine Cause Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Bolivia – Chiriguano Destruction by Water Divine Cause Warning Given Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel Borneo – Sea Dayak Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Burma – Singpho Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Canada – Cree Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Canada – Montagnais Destruction by Water Divine Cause Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel China – Lolo Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Cuba – original natives Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel East Africa – Masai Destruction by Water Divine Cause Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Egypt – Book of the Dead Destruction by Water Divine Clause Warning Given Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel Fiji – Walavu-levu tradition Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel French Polynesia – Raïatéa Destruction by Water Divine Cause Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Greece – Lucian’s account Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Guyana – Macushi Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Iceland – Eddas Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel India – Andaman Islands Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel India – Bhil Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel India – Kamar Destruction by Water Divine Cause Warning Given Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel Iran – Zend-Avesta Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Italy – Ovid’s poetry Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel Malay Peninsula – Jakun Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel Mexico – Codex Chimalpopoca Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel Mexico – Huichol Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel New Zealand – Maori Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel Peru – Indians of Huarochirí Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Russia – Vogul Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Preserved in a Vessel U.S.A. (Alaska) – Kolusches Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel U.S.A. (Alaska) – Tlingit Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel U.S.A. (Arizona) – Papago Destruction by Water Warning Given Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel U.S.A. (Hawaii) – legend of Nu-u Destruction by Water Divine Cause Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Vanuatu – Melanesians Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Vietnam – Bahnar Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Wales – Dwyfan/Dwyfach legend Destruction by Water Humans Spared Animals Spared Preserved in a Vessel Something that may also be of note is that out of all the known Flood legends around the world, the Bible presents the Flood in a much more practical and realistic way when compared to the other legends. It’s certainly not as embellished or fanciful as some other Flood legends in other cultures. It’s presented with a much more realistic history feel to it. Seeing how this is an article of Jesus’ existence it should be noted that Jesus himself believed the Flood of Noah’s day was a real event in earth’s past. He referred to the event in his teachings and used it as a warning such as that found in Luke 17:26, 27 and Matthew 24:37-39. Also, it’s widely known and acknowledged that there have been ancient seabeds containing seashells and the like discovered way up in mountain ranges indicating they were once covered in water. It is also widely known and acknowledged that there was a drastic change in the earth’s climate at some point that caused animals to be found frozen with food still in there mouths – another indication that some devastating large-scale event took place in earth’s past. Such a catastrophic event as a global flood would definitely change the earth’s climate and topography in drastic ways. But of course, the only way to get an answer to your question is to look at the evidence and make up you own mind based upon that evidence.

Thank you, Lawrence, for such a well-written article. I much like the objectivity and the abcense of any religious partisanship or other bias that tends to color the presuppositions of some. The facts are presented and are clearly seen and logically reasoned upon. I’ve never doubted the existence or historicity of Jesus as the Bible presents him and having such supplemental materials to show that what the Bible says about Jesus being a real person isn’t myth is faith strengthening. I find it especially interesting that these classical historians and the like did not question his existence or promote the idea he didn’t exist and what’s more is that these confirmations came from non-Christians and those who were by no means fans of Jesus themselves – when there are those that profess to be Christian today that doubt his existence or even promote the idea that he was fable. The other interesting thing that I find in some of these extra-Biblical sources is the mention of his performance of “magic” or “sorcery.” It seems obvious to me this is how some characterized Jesus’ miracles. Which, to me, seems to lend credence that Jesus actually did perform feats of some sort as the Bible brings out even though these are not specified in these secular sources as to what they were and are also attributed to “magic” or “sorcery.” They always tried to undermine his miracles as sorcery, magic, trickery or even going so far as to say that Jesus himself was demon-possessed such as in Matthew 12:22-27 or in John 10:20. Either way, it’s beyond doubt that the Jesus in the Bible was a real person and was significant.

Reply to Juju (comment 44):

On the contrary, a large percentage of the world’s population—many Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and others—accept that there is some historical basis for the biblical narrative of the flood.

Further, there are folk stories—with considerable similarities to each other—in many societies around the world of a great flood that killed all but a few people. How did those stories come into existence in so many societies in places so distant from each other during ancient times, if there is nothing historical about the great flood?

The rest of comment 44 is pure speculation.

Reply to Juju (comment 44): On the contrary, a large percentage of the world’s population—many Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and others—accept that there is some historical basis for the biblical narrative of the flood. Further, there are folk stories—with considerable similarities to each other—in many societies around the world of a great flood that killed all but a few people. How did those stories come into existence in so many societies in places so distant from each other during ancient times, if there is nothing historical about the great flood? The rest of comment 44 is pure speculation. Lawrence Mykytiuk Purdue University

Reply to Wa (comment 39 above): The first sentence of your comment is simply an empty accusation, because it does not present any basis.

Your second sentence is not related to the article, but a reply is possible. It is a principle of historical research that it is not valid history to judge earlier societies according to ethical standards that did not exist during earlier periods of time. The laws of Moses regarding incest did not exist until the second millennium B.C.E., and thus cannot be applied to the period immediately following creation.

The Bible does not say or suggest anything that even remotely hints that God created any other humans besides Adam and Eve. Speculation about this does not establish any fact.

Reply to Wa (comment 39 above): The first sentence of your comment is simply an empty accusation, because it does not present any basis. Your second sentence is not related to the article, but a reply is possible. It is a principle of historical research that it is not valid history to judge earlier societies according to ethical standards that did not exist during earlier periods of time. The laws of Moses regarding incest did not exist until the second millennium B.C.E., and thus cannot be applied to the period immediately following creation. The Bible does not say or suggest anything that even remotely hints that God created any other humans besides Adam and Eve. Speculation about this does not establish any fact. Lawrence Mykytiuk Purdue University

I wonder how anyone can honestly believe god had a farmer build a boat …..then killed a whole planet except just 7 people? and 20,000 or so animals?…didn’t noah wonder if it was actualy satan..im mean did his own daughter have incest with him in the end while he got stupid drunk?….yeah that makes sense.

The bible is simply written by men some in the bible are false and not logical. Was the world populated through incest or did God create others besides Adam and Eve?

The Bible states that the only humans created were Adam and Eve; three of their sons were Cain, Abel and Seth, but, note in Genesis 5:4 is says that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters………so yes brothers and sisters did marry one another in the beginning. However, when Adam and Eve were created, they were perfect, but, were disobedient and lost that perfection……….to illustrate this if we look at the ages of men before the flood of Noah’s day they were living 700-900 years. After the the flood mans lifetime gradually reduced in years to average three score and ten (70) or as Psalm 90:10 says to 70 or 80 years. Being close to perfection Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters could have married without any problems, that would occur nowadays, in an incestuous relationship.

Reply to Paul (comment 34 above):

Paul, you can relax. The Gospels uniformly use Christos (in Greek letters: chi, ‘ro, ‘iota, sigma, tau, ‘omicron, sigma) with no alternative such as Chrestos.

Chrestos, a common name given to slaves by their Roman masters, appears in early manuscripts of the Annals, by the Roman historian Tacitus—not in the New Testament. Tacitus presents the mispronunciation, “Chrestians” that the crowd (vulgus) mistakenly called Christians, but he immediately corrects that by pointing that “the founder of this name” was not Chrestus but Christus. This is not spelled out, because Tacitus repeatedly makes his point by implication; classicists point out that implication is the essence of his writing style. He is implying that the crowd got the name wrong when he supplies the correct name of the one whom Christians followed. (Actually, Christus is a title, but neither Tacitus nor the crowd knew that. They assumed it was his name.)

Reply to Paul (comment 34 above): Paul, you can relax. The Gospels uniformly use Christos (in Greek letters: chi, ‘ro, ‘iota, sigma, tau, ‘omicron, sigma) with no alternative such as Chrestos. Chrestos, a common name given to slaves by their Roman masters, appears in early manuscripts of the Annals, by the Roman historian Tacitus—not in the New Testament. Tacitus presents the mispronunciation, “Chrestians” that the crowd (vulgus) mistakenly called Christians, but he immediately corrects that by pointing that “the founder of this name” was not Chrestus but Christus. This is not spelled out, because Tacitus repeatedly makes his point by implication; classicists point out that implication is the essence of his writing style. He is implying that the crowd got the name wrong when he supplies the correct name of the one whom Christians followed. (Actually, Christus is a title, but neither Tacitus nor the crowd knew that. They assumed it was his name.) Lawrence Mykytiuk Purdue University

Repy to Luxorion (comment 33 above): The sensationalist claims of James D. Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici regarding the Talpiot tombs (tomb A supposedly of Jesus’s family and tomb B supposedly a related Christian tomb ) have been thoroughly discredited by Christopher A. Rollston, an internationally acknowledged expert in ancient inscriptions (see his blog post at http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=497 ), as well as senior archaeologist Eric M. Meyers, New Testament scholar Mark Goodacre, and others.

It is entirely possible to identify people mentioned in the Bible in ancient inscriptions that give information about them, as shown in the 2014 article, “50 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically” which is also found here in Bible History Daily ( http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/50-people-in-the-bible-confirmed-archaeologically/ ). To claim that DNA evidence is necessary might sound sophisticated but is unnecessary and, as your comment seems to acknowledge, unrealistic.

Repy to Luxorion (comment 33 above): The sensationalist claims of James D. Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici regarding the Talpiot tombs (tomb A supposedly of Jesus’s family and tomb B supposedly a related Christian tomb ) have been thoroughly discredited by Christopher A. Rollston, an internationally acknowledged expert in ancient inscriptions (see his blog post at http://www.rollstonepigraphy.com/?p=497 ), as well as senior archaeologist Eric M. Meyers, New Testament scholar Mark Goodacre, and others. It is entirely possible to identify people mentioned in the Bible in ancient inscriptions that give information about them, as shown in the 2014 article, “50 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically” which is also found here in Bible History Daily ( http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/50-people-in-the-bible-confirmed-archaeologically/ ). To claim that DNA evidence is necessary might sound sophisticated but is unnecessary and, as your comment seems to acknowledge, unrealistic. Lawrence Mykytiuk Purdue University

Reply to Moody (comment 31 above):

To assert, as you do, that some sort of “chasm” exists between early manuscripts of the Gospels and the King James Version is a strange way to characterize the strong tradition of continuous transmission of the Gospels from then until now. Not only is the Bible we have today a reliable rendering of the ancient writings; it is by far the best documented collection of ancient texts in existence! I suggest you go to a good Bible dictionary or Bible dictionary and look up such topics as “Text of the Old Testament,” “Text of the New Testament” or “English Bible” versions.

By the way, there are many excellent modern versions of the Bible out there. The newer versions that the Gideons distribute are well grounded in the ancient texts of Scripture.

Reply to Moody (comment 31 above): To assert, as you do, that some sort of “chasm” exists between early manuscripts of the Gospels and the King James Version is a strange way to characterize the strong tradition of continuous transmission of the Gospels from then until now. Not only is the Bible we have today a reliable rendering of the ancient writings; it is by far the best documented collection of ancient texts in existence! I suggest you go to a good Bible dictionary or Bible dictionary and look up such topics as “Text of the Old Testament,” “Text of the New Testament” or “English Bible” versions. By the way, there are many excellent modern versions of the Bible out there. The newer versions that the Gideons distribute are well grounded in the ancient texts of Scripture.

Reply to Moody (comment 30 above):

The relevant point about my personal beliefs is that whether they happen to rule out or to affirm the existence of “the man Christ Jesus” before any inquiry begins, personal bias for or against the conclusion does not result in distorted or unfair handling of the evidence. The article goes to considerable lengths to approach the question of the real existence of people in the Bible as objectively as possible. It is a detailed, reasonable treatment of ancient texts by three ancient writers whose backgrounds are very different from each other: Tacitus the historian who believed in the gods of Rome, Josephus the Jewish historian, and Lucian of Samosata, the Greek satirist. All three agree that Jesus existed.

I am open to differing interpretations of the evidence, provided they are well grounded. To say, however, that the background of any author “somehow” taints her or his best efforts to handle evidence fairly is nothing more than an easy smear. In making this smear, you offer no basis in the article, and, indeed, no rationale at all. This treatment of the evidence in the article deserves a better response than the facile implication that all efforts at fair handling of the evidence it treats are useless.

Reply to Moody (comment 30 above): The relevant point about my personal beliefs is that whether they happen to rule out or to affirm the existence of “the man Christ Jesus” before any inquiry begins, personal bias for or against the conclusion does not result in distorted or unfair handling of the evidence. The article goes to considerable lengths to approach the question of the real existence of people in the Bible as objectively as possible. It is a detailed, reasonable treatment of ancient texts by three ancient writers whose backgrounds are very different from each other: Tacitus the historian who believed in the gods of Rome, Josephus the Jewish historian, and Lucian of Samosata, the Greek satirist. All three agree that Jesus existed. I am open to differing interpretations of the evidence, provided they are well grounded. To say, however, that the background of any author “somehow” taints her or his best efforts to handle evidence fairly is nothing more than an easy smear. In making this smear, you offer no basis in the article, and, indeed, no rationale at all. This treatment of the evidence in the article deserves a better response than the facile implication that all efforts at fair handling of the evidence it treats are useless. Lawrence Mykytiuk Purdue University

I’m trying to get my arms around the whole discussion of “Christus” and “Chrestus.” As I understand from reading, the older manuscripts all say “Chrestian” and not “Christian”, and that doesn’t change until around the 5th century. Does that also apply to references in the Gospel accounts – when Jesus is asked if he is the “Christ,” which word is used?

Very nice review. What a job you did. Thanks for sharing it. Globally we have enough evidence in Tacite, the function of Pilatus, Flavious Josephus papers and Mara’s letter to confirm with a good level of confidence that a man named Jesus, “king of Judes” existed well and was crucified. We can even complete their comments with additional evidence, like Golgotha named in scriptures and the discovery of Talpiot tomb by Tabor’s team that add sufficient indices to support the hypothesis that Jesus oif Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary existed. However, without DNA traces of all his family, we will never be able to confirm it at 100%.

Awwww, somebody’s feelings were just hurt so they left a disclaimer over my previous comment. Apparently they’re confused over whether it’s ethical to steal my comments and chop it into pieces to repackage them as sub-prime mortage shares to be traded on the stock market. They obviously feel they can get away with it because I’m just a nobody who crawled out of the woodwork, even though I know that this is magazine is supposed to be a non-profit organization.

It wasn’t lost on me, David, that the author of this article, who not only offered for free two of the largest databases in BAR’s collection of Daily Articles while consistently moderating both of them for years now, has exhibited a rare quality that seems to be lacking in contemporary academia; faith.

Wouldn’t it have saved a lot of writing to say “”I got nothing.”?

Reply to Moody (comment 30 above): Thank you for your well articulated questions. Having been raised in a mainline Protestant denomination, I knew what I was supposed to believe and simply assumed the historical existence of “the man Christ Jesus,” but for a long time I had no personal trust in him. When that trust / confidence / reliance on him came, accepting his existence simply continued. I happen to be a Christian. On the basis of evidences and experiences besides those in the article—not simply my own opinion—I happen to accept the historical reliability of the New Testament and its explanation of the reason for Jesus’ death. I think the evidences are worth examining. At the same time, my dear friends of many faiths are entirely free to believe otherwise. Not surprisingly, the basic conceptual content of _what_ I believe is spelled out in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of the year 381 C.E. (it’s usually called the Nicene Creed, but is actually a further development of the Nicene Creed of 325 C.E.). But that’s just the conceptual content. It’s even called “the symbol” of faith, because it is not the living, human reliance on a Divine person. So how did my subjective experience come to engage with it? My comment 45 on page 2 of these comments and replies (you are now looking at page 4) might reveal what you would like to know. Moody, in the next paragraph, I partly quote and partly paraphrase what I said to Rene in that comment. Some years ago I was intensely doubting my doubts and searching a bit, when I stumbled on some evidence that I found to be very convincing: Psalm 22, which was definitely written in Hebrew and translated into Greek in the centuries before Jesus lived, when compared with Matthew chapter 27, seemed to me (and still seems, after considerable study) to present not an airtight case, but one that I find very persuasive. I realized that there is “something about this book” that certainly seems to go beyond human explanation. I realize that not everyone will see things the way I do, and that’s okay. I just wish people would not dismiss it out of hand. On to the crucial question: Does revealing my beliefs taint the objectivity of the article? I’ll let you decide. Is everything written by Christians about Christian subjects automatically not valid? Or everything written by Jews about Jewish subjects? Or by Muslims about Islamic subjects? Your call. Please keep in mind that many or most people who write articles in any field of study that purport to be objective have some kind of belief–even if it is that God does not exist, or, indeed, really thinking that a particular scientific hunch (hypothesis) is correct. If we were to throw out all publications written by people of faith–any faith, or hope, or hunch, we would lose a vast amount of knowledge. To me, having a particular belief, even if it’s just starting to form as a possibility or a live option, creates _openness_ to the possibility of particular conclusions that might otherwise be ignored or even ruled out. Because it’s a big world, I think we need to be open to many possibilities, locate evidence, examine it, and draw reasonable conclusions.

I also understand there is probably a historical chasm between the New Testament King James transcript and the person named Jesus to whom Josephus and Tacitus refer. This article seems like a logical starting point for bridging that chasm. I would substitute my question above with this: What is the next step in linking the Josephus’ and Tacitus’ Jesus you have confirmed with the one in a Gideon’s Bible at the Motel 6? Or do you stop here?

Great read Dr. Mykytiuk. I appreciate your professional, academic objectivity. As with most subject matter experts whose findings I’ve had the pleasure to hear or read, I am always left intensely curious as to how their findings or domain expertise influence their personal beliefs. As much as we would love to hear yours, the catch-22 is that as soon as you reveal your personal take on Christianity (namely the extent to which Jesus’ proven existence informs your personal belief in his teachings) the objectivity of your article is perceived as somehow tainted. That said, I assume those people who like me are searching for answers to the faith question (as opposed to those looking for confirmation of what they already believe) are left stumped.

Without asking for your personal beliefs, what conclusions can one can draw from this information regarding the objective truth in Christian teaching? I already know the answer is “none”, but hopefully you understand the question. What do you do now? Fingers crossed that you’ll ignore the catch-22 and let us know your beliefs.

Great read Dr. Mykytiuk. I appreciate your professional, academic objectivity. As with most subject matter experts whose findings I’ve had the pleasure to hear or read, I am always left intensely curious as to how their findings or domain expertise influence their personal beliefs. As much as we would love to hear yours, the catch-22 is that as soon as you reveal your personal take on Christianity (namely the extent to which Jesus’ proven existence informs your personal belief in his teachings) the objectivity of your article is perceived as somehow tainted. That said, I assume those people who like me are searching for answers to the faith question (as opposed to those looking for confirmation of what they already believe) are left stumped. Without asking for your personal beliefs, what conclusions can one can draw from this information regarding the objective truth in Christian teaching? I already know the answer is “none”, but hopefully you understand the question. What do you do now? Fingers crossed that you’ll ignore the catch-22 and let us know your beliefs.

Second reply to Kit (comment 27 above):

The notion that anyone could survive crucifixion does not stand up to common-sense scrutiny. Could wounded, stripped victims, nailed and/or tied to a heavy cross—some having previously been flogged within an inch of their life by a cat-o-nine-tails with bits of glass or metal on the ends of the whips—and weakened by severe pain and exposure to the elements, not to mention the effects of public mockery, ever escape from the standard team of four armed Roman soldiers surrounding them?

Second reply to Kit (comment 27 above): The notion that anyone could survive crucifixion does not stand up to common-sense scrutiny. Could wounded, stripped victims, nailed and/or tied to a heavy cross—some having previously been flogged within an inch of their life by a cat-o-nine-tails with bits of glass or metal on the ends of the whips—and weakened by severe pain and exposure to the elements, not to mention the effects of public mockery, ever escape from the standard team of four armed Roman soldiers surrounding them? Lawrence Mykytiuk

Reply to Kit (comment 27 above):

In this comment, I hear claims but no evidence. The four Gospels in the New Testament are from the first century, show clear evidence of eyewitness accounts (see Richard Bauckhams book, _Jesus and the Eyewitnesses : the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006). They show that during Jesus’s ministry, his disciples rejected his predictions about his coming crucifixion and resurrection. Both came as shocking surprises to them, and although some of Jesus’ disciples (John and several women at the foot of the cross) actually saw him being crucified, none eof the apostles initially accepted the testimony of the women about the resurrection. These facts do not sound like church propaganda, as some may imagine, but are in fact a bit embarrasing for his apostles.

Reply to Kit (comment 27 above): In this comment, I hear claims but no evidence. The four Gospels in the New Testament are from the first century, show clear evidence of eyewitness accounts (see Richard Bauckhams book, _Jesus and the Eyewitnesses : the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006). They show that during Jesus’s ministry, his disciples rejected his predictions about his coming crucifixion and resurrection. Both came as shocking surprises to them, and although some of Jesus’ disciples (John and several women at the foot of the cross) actually saw him being crucified, none eof the apostles initially accepted the testimony of the women about the resurrection. These facts do not sound like church propaganda, as some may imagine, but are in fact a bit embarrasing for his apostles.

Of course he did exist. He was a great teacher. He however didn’t die the way the church propaganda machine would have us believe. He survived the crucifixion and lived out his days as preacher in Kashmir. There is a belief that His real tomb is in Rozabal.

Correction: That’s “The Da Vinci Code.” The document featured in the film, “National Treasure,” is the Declaration of Independance, which any patriotic American knows, was approved on July 4, 1776 (and celebrated with barbeques and fireworks displays). Another founding document was of a religious nature known as the Damascus Document, fragments of which were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, though the bulk of this text was already discovered in the Cairo Geniza and published in 1910. It offers insight into the possible thinking of the zealot movements in the time of Jesus. The interpretation of the verse from Isaiah 24:17 is given; “Fear and pit and snare are upon you, dweller in the land.” This, according to the document, refers to three traps set by Belial, or Satan: “The first is fornication; the second is wealth; the third is defiling the sanctuary. ‘Who escapes from one is caught in the next; and whoever escapes from that is caught in the other’ (Isaiah 24:18).”

That’s a good point, Lawrence, that we don’t know what the beliefs of the penitent “thief” that was crucified with Jesus were. In his book, “The Historical Jesus; The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasan,” John Crossan suggests that the two “thieves” in Luke 23:33-43 were bandits (p. 171), possibly of the type exemplified when David was persecuted by King Saul and was forced to retreat into the wilderness as a leader-in-exile (1 Samuel 22:1-2), not unlike the mythical Robin Hood figure. “So David, the ideal King, was nondynastic, was popularly acclaimed, and had used a base in bandrity from which to achieve the kingship. Bandit and king were closely aligned in the Davidic model” (“The Historical Jesus” p. 198). Perhaps these men assisted Jesus in the “cleansing” of the temple by driving out the merchants. As for my own conviction in the belief in Gnosticism, or at least some aspects of it, it’s the way that the verses of scripture become highlighted like the pages of the Bible shown on the television show,”Day of Discovery.” This is live streaming of revelation that like “rivers in the desert” in Isaiah 43:19 and mentioned as “radiant waters in ” The Trimorpgic Protennoia” from the Nag Hammadi Library. I would even go as far to say that it’s also like the film, “National Treasure,” in the way that the U. S. Constitution is shown with certain sentences highlighted (and since we’re the subject, how ’bout those powers of separation between church and state that enables us to have this debate?). It’s fascinating how the founding fathers of the Constitution are portrayed as Masons in the film, like something out of Dan Brown’s “The Davinchi Code.” In describing the Gnostic movement in France, Stephan Hoeller writes in his book, “Gnosticism; A New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowledge,” p. 176: “From the eighteenth century on, the Masonic and other initiatic fraternities, many of which were devoted to esoteric and even Gnostic teachings, played an important role in the country.”

Reply to Paul (comment 23 above): Thank you, Paul, for your comment. It is interesting to see such articles as the Washington Post ran, which bring certain tenets of faith into doubt. I suppose that casting doubt on basic religious teachings pays off in getting people on both sides of a given question to read the publication and perhaps respond to it. Hats off to BAR for willingness to present the historical evidence, or lack of evidence, provided by archaeology. Of course, there is no lack of controversy in archaeology, and that makes it interesting!

You bring up a good point from the Gospel of Thomas. It is my understanding that the Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic writing, and that the gnostics believed that attaining hidden knowledge would bring salvation to the one who came to know it.

(Gnostic presentations of Jesus tend to make him a “talking head,” spouting gnostic beliefs, rather than giving the much fuller narratives about Jesus’ actions as well as his words, as found the four Gospels. Those four are the only ones we have from the first century, and they are the ones in the New Testament).

The gnostic view is different from mainstream Christian faith as found in many denominations and confessions of faith. As I understand it, not knowledge by itself, but personal trust in Jesus as Lord brings salvation from sin and death. For example, in the account of the thief on the cross in Luke 23:40-43, we have little idea how much the thief crucified next to Jesus knew about him or his teachings, but it seems clear that he had some degree of personal reliance on him. Luke presents that reliance as saving faith.

Thanks again.

Reply to Paul (comment 23 above): Thank you, Paul, for your comment. It is interesting to see such articles as the Washington Post ran, which bring certain tenets of faith into doubt. I suppose that casting doubt on basic religious teachings pays off in getting people on both sides of a given question to read the publication and perhaps respond to it. Hats off to BAR for willingness to present the historical evidence, or lack of evidence, provided by archaeology. Of course, there is no lack of controversy in archaeology, and that makes it interesting! You bring up a good point from the Gospel of Thomas. It is my understanding that the Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic writing, and that the gnostics believed that attaining hidden knowledge would bring salvation to the one who came to know it. (Gnostic presentations of Jesus tend to make him a “talking head,” spouting gnostic beliefs, rather than giving the much fuller narratives about Jesus’ actions as well as his words, as found the four Gospels. Those four are the only ones we have from the first century, and they are the ones in the New Testament). The gnostic view is different from mainstream Christian faith as found in many denominations and confessions of faith. As I understand it, not knowledge by itself, but personal trust in Jesus as Lord brings salvation from sin and death. For example, in the account of the thief on the cross in Luke 23:40-43, we have little idea how much the thief crucified next to Jesus knew about him or his teachings, but it seems clear that he had some degree of personal reliance on him. Luke presents that reliance as saving faith. Thanks again. Lawrence Mykytiuk

Interesting indeed, how a comment was snuck in with the intent to promote literature that easily dismisses the faith and it reminded me of that Washington Post article entitled “Did Historical Jesus Exist? The Evidence Just Doesn’t Add Up” that reappeared around Christmas, in an apparent attempt to snuff out the lamp of faith. The gloomy pessimistic view of death portrayed in ancient Mesopotamian literature still thrives, but there are still some who believe this fate is reserved for the wicked (Jude 1:6) and still there are some who are not content unless they understand the transcendental meditations of the Gospel of Thomas which opens with the statement, “Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death.” http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/the-gospel-of-thomas-114-sayings-of-jesus/

Reply to Mark (comment 21 above):

Thank you, Mark, for your kind remarks. Actually, my intent was simply to make the case for Jesus’ existence on the basis of ancient non-Christian writings. I’m pleased to hear that this case ended up somehow refuting Carrier’s opposing claims.

On the previous page (above, see “Previous 1 2 3 4” at the end of comments section), that is, page 3, comment 22 by “Markus” appears to be actually from Richard Carrier. The comment raises 4 objections and seems to slip into Carrier’s own voice: “(2) I mention and rebut your attempt . . . .” My comments 23 and 27 on page 3 reply to his objections. Objections (3) and (4) sound as if they wish to extol the supremacy of the writings of Richard Carrier, so there is little point in going beyond my reply in comment 23.

His objection (1) contends that Tacitus did not fact-check what he said about Jesus. My reply in comment 27 mentions that, as classicists point out, when Tacitus felt unsure of his sources for what he wrote, he indicated that, but there is no such indication in his comments on Jesus. Although this is not proof, it is an ancient indication, which deserves more weight than modern preferences.

“Markus” (probably Carrier) in objection (2) claims that Tacitus did not use any sources except what Christians said. As I point out in comment 27, since no one knows what sources he used, there is no evidence for this claim. Further, his official positions, particularly as a member of the Council of Fifteen who regulated foreign religions in Rome, likely gave him access to oral communications and/or written records about Jesus, as his official tone suggests when he remarks that the superstition was suppressed for a time. “Markus”/Carrier appears to have not attempted to reply to this response.

Thanks again for your encouragement.

Reply to Mark (comment 21 above): Thank you, Mark, for your kind remarks. Actually, my intent was simply to make the case for Jesus’ existence on the basis of ancient non-Christian writings. I’m pleased to hear that this case ended up somehow refuting Carrier’s opposing claims. On the previous page (above, see “Previous 1 2 3 4” at the end of comments section), that is, page 3, comment 22 by “Markus” appears to be actually from Richard Carrier. The comment raises 4 objections and seems to slip into Carrier’s own voice: “(2) I mention and rebut your attempt . . . .” My comments 23 and 27 on page 3 reply to his objections. Objections (3) and (4) sound as if they wish to extol the supremacy of the writings of Richard Carrier, so there is little point in going beyond my reply in comment 23. His objection (1) contends that Tacitus did not fact-check what he said about Jesus. My reply in comment 27 mentions that, as classicists point out, when Tacitus felt unsure of his sources for what he wrote, he indicated that, but there is no such indication in his comments on Jesus. Although this is not proof, it is an ancient indication, which deserves more weight than modern preferences. “Markus” (probably Carrier) in objection (2) claims that Tacitus did not use any sources except what Christians said. As I point out in comment 27, since no one knows what sources he used, there is no evidence for this claim. Further, his official positions, particularly as a member of the Council of Fifteen who regulated foreign religions in Rome, likely gave him access to oral communications and/or written records about Jesus, as his official tone suggests when he remarks that the superstition was suppressed for a time. “Markus”/Carrier appears to have not attempted to reply to this response. Thanks again for your encouragement. Lawrence Mykytiuk

Thank you for such a well written and scholarly article. I have read a number of attacks on the historicity of Jesus and especially those by Mr. Richard Carrier. It is refreshing to see an apologetical article to refute many of his arguments and support a real Jesus. Mr. Carrier is very convincing and I suspect that many folks not searching for the truth fall prey to his arguments. I sincerely appreciate your work.

Correction to the article as it affects my reply to Johnny (comment 6 above on this page:

A confusing typographical error in the article (just below the sketch of Josephus) refers to “James’s brother Jesus (Yehoshua).” That should be corrected to “James’s brother Jesus (Yeshua).” Yehoshua would be the Hebrew name for Joshua, not Jesus.

Fortunately, in third paragraph before the end of the article, the correct Hebrew form of the name appears twice: Yeshua‘.

Correction to the article as it affects my reply to Johnny (comment 6 above on this page: A confusing typographical error in the article (just below the sketch of Josephus) refers to “James’s brother Jesus (Yehoshua).” That should be corrected to “James’s brother Jesus (Yeshua).” Yehoshua would be the Hebrew name for Joshua, not Jesus. Fortunately, in third paragraph before the end of the article, the correct Hebrew form of the name appears twice: Yeshua‘.

Reply to Johnny (comment 6 above on this page): Thank you for your concern for getting personal names right. You are quite correct that Jesus’ name in Hebrew is Yeshu‘ah, accented on the second syllable. (As commonly spoken in modern Israeli Hebrew, it is Yeshu‘, accented on the first syllable.) You are also correct that the English version of Jesus’ name originates from the Greek name Iesous (accented on the second syllable and pronounced yey-SOUS), though I would add that the English version is a transliteration of the Latin version (of the name in Greek). The Latin is Iēsūs (or Iēsus or Jēsūs, in which the J, a lengthened form of the Latin letter I, carries the same sound as the English letter y). This Latin form would be pronounced YEY-sūs, just as German speakers pronounce it today.

Whether it is correct to translate Jesus’ name, Yeshua, into English as Joshua, however, is a very different matter. In fact, I am convinced it is incorrect to do so.

The Hebrew common noun yeshu’ah means “salvation,” “deliverance,” or “victory.” By the time of Jesus of Nazareth, it had become a frequently used Hebrew personal name. (According to the Gospels, he was to receive this name by divine command, to Mary in Luke 1:31, then to Joseph in Matthew 1:21).

The Hebrew name translated into English as Joshua, however, is not Yeshu’ah, a noun meaning “salvation, deliverance, victory,” but rather Yehoshu’ah, which is not a noun but a sentence. The first part, Yeho-, represents God’s name. This name can mean either “the LORD (or Yahweh) is salvation” or “the LORD (or Yahweh) has saved.” If it is the latter, a sentence with the action verb for “save” (or rescue or give victory), then the subject, which normally comes after an action verb, is in emphatic first position to stress that _God_ is the one who saved, delivered, or gave victory. Occasionally, translators have confused the two names, supposing that Yeshu’ah is a shortened form of Jehoshu’ah, but that would be, in theory, Yoshu’ah, or, as in Nehemiah 8:17, Yēshua’, pronounced yeyshua’. It seems clear to me that the two names Yeshua’ (Jesus) and Yehoshua’ (Joshua) are actually are quite distinct from each other.

Regarding your statement, “Jesus’ real name would have been Aramaic,” this is not the case, because of the multilingual environment in Roman-era Palestine. Jesus’ real name is thoroughly Hebrew, having come from the Hebrew common noun meaning “salvation, deliverance, victory.” Yes, to be sure, when Jesus changed Simon’s name to Kepha’, meaning “(a) rock,” (which appears as Cephas in the New Testament), he gave him an Aramaic name which we know in its English form derived from the Greek translation: Peter. Of course, many Jews in Roman-era Palestine had Aramaic names, but many certainly had Hebrew names, such as Mary (Mariam), Elizabeth, Zechariah, and Joseph, and some, for example Andrew, had Greek names, which began appearing sometime after Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Levant in 332 B.C.E.

Reply to Johnny (comment 6 above on this page): Thank you for your concern for getting personal names right. You are quite correct that Jesus’ name in Hebrew is Yeshu‘ah, accented on the second syllable. (As commonly spoken in modern Israeli Hebrew, it is Yeshu‘, accented on the first syllable.) You are also correct that the English version of Jesus’ name originates from the Greek name Iesous (accented on the second syllable and pronounced yey-SOUS), though I would add that the English version is a transliteration of the Latin version (of the name in Greek). The Latin is Iēsūs (or Iēsus or Jēsūs, in which the J, a lengthened form of the Latin letter I, carries the same sound as the English letter y). This Latin form would be pronounced YEY-sūs, just as German speakers pronounce it today. Whether it is correct to translate Jesus’ name, Yeshua, into English as Joshua, however, is a very different matter. In fact, I am convinced it is incorrect to do so. The Hebrew common noun yeshu’ah means “salvation,” “deliverance,” or “victory.” By the time of Jesus of Nazareth, it had become a frequently used Hebrew personal name. (According to the Gospels, he was to receive this name by divine command, to Mary in Luke 1:31, then to Joseph in Matthew 1:21). The Hebrew name translated into English as Joshua, however, is not Yeshu’ah, a noun meaning “salvation, deliverance, victory,” but rather Yehoshu’ah, which is not a noun but a sentence. The first part, Yeho-, represents God’s name. This name can mean either “the LORD (or Yahweh) is salvation” or “the LORD (or Yahweh) has saved.” If it is the latter, a sentence with the action verb for “save” (or rescue or give victory), then the subject, which normally comes after an action verb, is in emphatic first position to stress that _God_ is the one who saved, delivered, or gave victory. Occasionally, translators have confused the two names, supposing that Yeshu’ah is a shortened form of Jehoshu’ah, but that would be, in theory, Yoshu’ah, or, as in Nehemiah 8:17, Yēshua’, pronounced yeyshua’. It seems clear to me that the two names Yeshua’ (Jesus) and Yehoshua’ (Joshua) are actually are quite distinct from each other. Regarding your statement, “Jesus’ real name would have been Aramaic,” this is not the case, because of the multilingual environment in Roman-era Palestine. Jesus’ real name is thoroughly Hebrew, having come from the Hebrew common noun meaning “salvation, deliverance, victory.” Yes, to be sure, when Jesus changed Simon’s name to Kepha’, meaning “(a) rock,” (which appears as Cephas in the New Testament), he gave him an Aramaic name which we know in its English form derived from the Greek translation: Peter. Of course, many Jews in Roman-era Palestine had Aramaic names, but many certainly had Hebrew names, such as Mary (Mariam), Elizabeth, Zechariah, and Joseph, and some, for example Andrew, had Greek names, which began appearing sometime after Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Levant in 332 B.C.E. Lawrence Mykytiuk

Jesus is shit and the lord is mother fucker. Wa Phui!

Reply to Robin (comment 5 above on this page): Thank you so much for mentioning Durant’s point, of which I was not aware, that Christianity grew up too quickly for there not to have been a real Person behind it somewhere. (I assume you mean Will Durant or Will and Ariel Durant, the married couple who wrote the eleven-volume work, _The Story of Civilization_.)

Reply to A (comment 1 above on this page): Of course, basing one’s faith on Scripture has been the practice of countless people for millennia. The article simply sets forth the evidence outside of Scripture for those who wish to read it. If, however, you meet someone who challenges the historical references and assertions of Scripture, then inscriptions and ancient writings besides the Bible can in some instances be useful evidence.

Reply to Robin (comment 45 on page 3, the previous page):

Thank you, Robin, for your kind remarks.

Reply to Robin (comment 45 on page 3, the previous page): Thank you, Robin, for your kind remarks.

Reply to Pierre (comment 44 on page 3, the previous page): 44 Pierre says “Jesus was not crucified. Thousands of Jesus or man who called themselves ‘Christ son of God’, died on a “torture stake. It was very comon during that time. As you point out, it’s a MYTH ? According to Paul Diel, the last ‘real’ one created by humans.”

My reply to Pierre regarding his statement, “Jesus was not crucified” is: On the contrary, Joseph clearly states that Jesus was crucified, and Tacitus’ phrase stating that Jesus “suffered the extreme penalty” is understood by classicists to imply crucifixion. You are entirely free to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Your claim is made without any evidence at all to support it, let alone ancient evidence that is relatively close in time to Jesus of Nazareth.

Also, I agree that many Jews were crucified under Roman rule, and since Jesus was a common name in Palestine during that period, it is plausible that other men named Jesus were crucified. Your claim that “thousands . . . called themselves ‘Christ son of God’” is made without evidence.

And the article points out the ancient historical evidence that the life and death of Jesus were real events.

Reply to Pierre (comment 44 on page 3, the previous page): 44 Pierre says “Jesus was not crucified. Thousands of Jesus or man who called themselves ‘Christ son of God’, died on a “torture stake. It was very comon during that time. As you point out, it’s a MYTH ? According to Paul Diel, the last ‘real’ one created by humans.” My reply to Pierre regarding his statement, “Jesus was not crucified” is: On the contrary, Joseph clearly states that Jesus was crucified, and Tacitus’ phrase stating that Jesus “suffered the extreme penalty” is understood by classicists to imply crucifixion. You are entirely free to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Your claim is made without any evidence at all to support it, let alone ancient evidence that is relatively close in time to Jesus of Nazareth. Also, I agree that many Jews were crucified under Roman rule, and since Jesus was a common name in Palestine during that period, it is plausible that other men named Jesus were crucified. Your claim that “thousands . . . called themselves ‘Christ son of God’” is made without evidence. And the article points out the ancient historical evidence that the life and death of Jesus were real events.

Reply to Dennis (comment 42 on page 3, the previous page):

42 DENNIS says ‘Regarding your example of using “Secretary of Defense” anachronistically for the previous cabinet position of “Secretary of War”, it is in error. The latter position was ONLY in charge of the US ARMY (which then included the US Air Force) and was an equal to the Secretary of the Navy cabinet position. With the reorganization in 1947, the Air Force became independent and put under a non-cabinet Secretary of the Air Force, while the Secretary of War position was renamed Secretary of the Army and along with the Navy Secretary, demoted to non-cabinet status. All three service secretaries were made subservient to a NEW cabinet position of Secretary of Defense and the services were placed in what is now called the Department of Defense (originally named “National Military Establishment”). So Secretary Stimson in World War II was equivalent to today’s Army Secretary, albeit at a cabinet-level position.’

Dennis I take your point and accept your correction with sincere thanks. I will have to find a better analogy.

Reply to Dennis (comment 42 on page 3, the previous page): 42 DENNIS says ‘Regarding your example of using “Secretary of Defense” anachronistically for the previous cabinet position of “Secretary of War”, it is in error. The latter position was ONLY in charge of the US ARMY (which then included the US Air Force) and was an equal to the Secretary of the Navy cabinet position. With the reorganization in 1947, the Air Force became independent and put under a non-cabinet Secretary of the Air Force, while the Secretary of War position was renamed Secretary of the Army and along with the Navy Secretary, demoted to non-cabinet status. All three service secretaries were made subservient to a NEW cabinet position of Secretary of Defense and the services were placed in what is now called the Department of Defense (originally named “National Military Establishment”). So Secretary Stimson in World War II was equivalent to today’s Army Secretary, albeit at a cabinet-level position.’ Dennis I take your point and accept your correction with sincere thanks. I will have to find a better analogy. Best wishes, Lawrence Mykytiuk

Reply to Gregory’ s post 39 (on the previous page, page 3):

39 Gregory says [beginning with a quotation from the article:] “This phrase is also appropriate for a Jewish historian like Josephus because the reference to Jesus is a noncommittal, neutral statement about what some people called Jesus and not a confession of faith that actually asserts that he was Christ.” – That’s not really true. If Josephus had become a Christian, then we might expect him to use an appellation like Chrestus, Christ, etc., or a title like Messiah. But Josephus was a non-Christian Jew. It’s barely conceivable he would have used these terms in reference to a man that he, himself, did not believe was A) Christ (A Greek term, anyway, and not a Hebrew one), or Messiah (from the Hebrew, but a term traditionally meant to connote one who would deliver the Jewish nation from the Romans. Arguably, Jesus did not do.

The phrase to which Gregory is referring appears in the article as Josephus’ description of Jesus: “who is called Christ.” The verb “is called” is passive, and Josephus, who wrote in Greek, does not tell us who called him Christ (the Greek word for “messiah”). Therefore, the argument–that Josephus would not have called him that—does not apply to this phrase, which clearly makes no reference to Josephus himself calling him Messiah or Christ. The meaning of this phrase in this context is no different from saying “whom some people called Christ.”

Reply to Gregory’ s post 39 (on the previous page, page 3): 39 Gregory says [beginning with a quotation from the article:] “This phrase is also appropriate for a Jewish historian like Josephus because the reference to Jesus is a noncommittal, neutral statement about what some people called Jesus and not a confession of faith that actually asserts that he was Christ.” – That’s not really true. If Josephus had become a Christian, then we might expect him to use an appellation like Chrestus, Christ, etc., or a title like Messiah. But Josephus was a non-Christian Jew. It’s barely conceivable he would have used these terms in reference to a man that he, himself, did not believe was A) Christ (A Greek term, anyway, and not a Hebrew one), or Messiah (from the Hebrew, but a term traditionally meant to connote one who would deliver the Jewish nation from the Romans. Arguably, Jesus did not do. The phrase to which Gregory is referring appears in the article as Josephus’ description of Jesus: “who is called Christ.” The verb “is called” is passive, and Josephus, who wrote in Greek, does not tell us who called him Christ (the Greek word for “messiah”). Therefore, the argument–that Josephus would not have called him that—does not apply to this phrase, which clearly makes no reference to Josephus himself calling him Messiah or Christ. The meaning of this phrase in this context is no different from saying “whom some people called Christ.” Lawrence Mykytiuk

“Stoned Soul Picnic” by The Fifth Dimension.

http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/9th/papers/LichtenbergerAbstract.html

http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/9th/papers/LitchenbergerAbstract.html

“What an excellent day for an exorcism.” A good reference reader for exorcism texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls can be found here: http://orion.mscc.hujl.ac.il/symposiums/9th/papers/LitchenbergerAbstract.html One text in particular is an incantation exorcism (4Q560) in which the reciter says, “You are forbidden to disturb by night using dreams or by day during sleep. O male Shrine-spirit and female Shrine-spirit, O you demons who breach [walls…w[icked […]” (“Dead Sea Scrolls” by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, J R., & Edward Cook, p.443). It’s interesting that the text mentions “Shrine-spirit” in connection with dreams and since this type of incantation exorcism originates from Mesopotamia, it’s a possibility that there was a tradition that dates back to the founding of the Davidic monarchy since it was at that time the updated version of the Epic of Gilgamesh was composed in Babylon. A fragment of a cuneiform tablet was found at the site of Megiddo testifying to the presence of an Akkadian language scribal network existing in the land of Cannan that comprised the international diplomatic correspondence of the mid-14th century B.C.E. The latter half of the 7th tablet of Gilgamesh was deciphered describing Enkidu’s dream foretelling his imminent death in which he is dragged down into the realm of the dead by the demon Anzu who resembled a man with the face and hands of a lion and eagle’s wings, not unlike the first beast described in Daniel 7:4. In the updated version of Gilgamesh, composed between the 12th and 10th century B.C.E., an elaborate description of the underworld is provided that describes the fate of kings not unlike the send off directed at the Assyrian emporer in Isaiah 14:9-11: “In the house of ashes, where I entered, I saw [the mighty], their crowns fallen to the dirt.” After portraying the former rulers waiting on tables like servants, the text mentions five classes of priests: “In the house of ashes, where I entered, there lives the ‘enu’-priest (high priest) who brings together gods and men, the ‘lagaru’-priest (funeral wailing priest); there lives the ‘issipu’-priest (purification priest) and the ‘lumahhu’-priest (ecstatic shaman priest); there live the ‘pashishu,’ priests of the great gods…” (“Gilgamesh” by John Gardner and John Maier, p.178). For years I had wondered why this description of the netherworld did not include the traditional mention of the bolted door that bars the way to the land of the living as we find in the book of Jonah 2:6. Surely, I thought, because this version of Gilgamesh was written by the Babylonian scribe Sin Leqi Unninni who was himself a ‘mashmashshu,’ or an incantion/exorcist priest, the case could be made that there existed no such barrier between the living and the dead. BAS recently posted a daily article entitled “Rejected; Qeiyafa’s Unlikely Second Gate” that confirms the site of Khirbet Qeiyafa as being the Biblical Sha’arayim, Hebrew for “Two Gates,” (Joshua 15:36, 1 Samuel 17:52, 1 Chronicles 4:31). But the real prize is the model of a shrine that appeared in the July/August 2015 issue of BAR, which features a doorway with recessed frames that were erroneously interpreted as doorposts in 1 Kings 6:31. They are five layers like the five orders of priests that separate the temple’s Holy Place from the Holy of Holies where the Ark of the Covenant resides.

Siau, have you considered trying an excorcist?

I was a christian before but I’m different than other christian, my eyes can see the jesus come talking to me when I closing my eyes, why I can see him that is maybe because I really was the angel that throw from the heaven as he said to me, somethimes I can feel pain on my back and my cat always see my back just look like he can see something on my back. For all christian jesus well punish who don’t follow her words by give him a bad luck, disease or accident and this is true. Jesus is really existed and I know him, he is not as good as you thought. If you want to believe in him than think twice, I was try to run away from him beacuse of what he did to me. Not all christian well go to heaven after die, if you not go to heaven than your soul just see the darkness and there is no hell, what the bible say is not one hundred per cent true.

Hello. Great article. Much appreciated read. However, i noted the corrections to some of the names, e.g., James is Jacob, etc., and you mentioned Yeshua as the Jewish name for Jesus, but failed to point out the English translation of Yeshua would be Joshua. (Jesus is a transliteration of a Greek name Iseous), which is not applicable bc Jesus’ real name would have been Aramaic. Please explain why no correction is made to his name…

Hello. Great article. Much appreciated read. However, i noted the corrections to some of the names, e.g., James is Jacob, etc., and you mentioned Yeshua as the Jewish name for Jesus, but failed to point out the English translation of Yeshua would be Joshua. (Jesus is a transliteration of a Greek name Iseous), which is not applicable bc Jesus’ real name would have been Aramaic. Please explain why no correction is made to his name… Thank you, Johnny

I have read much of this sort of argument elsewhere. It is good that many are putting it out there for public consumption. It may be more than some need — who get their faith from the biblical text. But it is not going to be enough for the determined skeptic. I think, however, that the skeptic who denies the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is going too far in their thinking. As Durant said, Christianity grew up too quickly for there not to have been a real Person behind it somewhere.

I erred, it was June 11, 1965, when a gathering of poets ay the Royal Albert Hall led by the Beatnik Alan Ginsberg gave birth to the psychedelic movement. But I’m not too far off the mark, just as my post on the first comment page (#28) was not accurate when I stated that author Gershom Scholem knew about the Essenes and their mystical chariot beliefs before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls when in actuality the book that I cited was a later edition that appeared when the first Scrolls to be interpreted were published in 1952. He did state in another book prior to the Dead Sea Scroll publication that Jewish mystical beliefs centered on the ritual immersion baths in Palestine during the 1st century C.E., which was also a practice observed by the Essene movement according to Josephus. Along with the account of the baptism of Jesus in the 1st chapter of John is the mention of light along with the water and the same combination of light and water is mentioned in the lost Gnostic Christian writings.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/epilepsy-tutankhamun-and-monotheism/

In response to commentor Robert (#46) who’s suggestion that the Sumerians may have had a monotheistic belief which was spurned by the academics: it makes total sense to me. The description of the Sumerian term ‘me’ (pronounced ‘may’), “expresses a very basic concept,” according to “God’s, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamians,” by Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, p.130. “The ‘me’ are properties or powers of the gods which enable a whole host of activities central to civilized human life, especially religion, to take place.” Robert mentions rabbinical sources that employ the Hebrew word ‘mi,’ meaning who. The Book of Zohar comments on Genesis 1:1 by referring to Isaiah 40:26; “Lift your eyes on high and see: Who created these?” The word ‘me’ is explained as “the one called End of Heaven above, whose domain extends over everything” (The Zohar, vol. 1, by Daniel Matt, p. 5). The footnote to the term “end of heaven” makes the connection to Deuteronomy 4:32; “For ask now of primal days, which were before you; from the day that God created humankind on earth, and from one end of heaven to the other.” Robert also notes the only time Jesus is described reading from a scroll and it is noteworthy that Jesus reference to “Jehovah’s acceptable year” (Luke 4:19) is an allusion to the 50th cyclic year known as the Jubilee (Leviticus 25:10) when debts are annulled and slaves set free. Naturally the people then start scrutinizing the lowly status of a carpenter’s son, questioning the validity of his claim that he was sent by God (Luke 4:22). I can only give a logical explanation as to how someone could accomplish this; with assistance from God. There was one instance in particular when I make reference to an event that occurred on June 12, 1965, not realizing that the day this comment was posted occured on the same date, June 12, 2014, exactly 49 years later. It’s like that Moody Blues song,”In the Beginning,” when the first human was told to “keep on thinking free.” http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/epilepsy-tutankamun-and-monotheism/

Much to read and digest. My own faith does not depend on such “proof”. It’s interesting to read of Josephus, Tacitus and many others confirming our Lords existence, but my faith isn’t dependent on archeological evidence. Our Lord chooses those whom He wishes. Historical “proof” is interesting…..but that’s all… Interesting.

To say the least, a thorough thesis. The points are well delineated and well taken. An excellent representation of the historical argument for the existence of Jesus, without the religious hype so common in such representations. Thank-you.

Reply to Gregory (comment 38 above; I will also reply to comment 39): You are certainly correct in stating that Josephus was a non-Christian Jew who “would not have called Jesus “Meshiach” or Messiah.” Further, I agree that, as you have stated, “This is a key criticism of the reliability and validity of the Testimonium Flavianum.” You have given precisely the reason why the overwhelming majority of scholars regard the Testimonium Flavianum, as it is best known, namely, in Greek, as having been altered by a Christian. But that is not the only alternative.

The article above spells out the three alternatives as follows:

Alternative 1 is that the whole passage is authentic, written by Josephus. Today almost no scholar accepts the authenticity of the entire standard Greek Testimonium Flavianum, because of obviously Christian statements, such as: “He was the Messiah.” Your objection clearly applies against Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 is that the whole passage is a forgery, inserted into Jewish Antiquities. Translations of what Josephus wrote include some early versions that were apparently made from a Greek version that did not contain the Christian alteration. These translations all actually include quite a bit of the Testimonium Flavianum, but not Christian statements, such as, “He was the Messiah.” The fact that translations into at least three languages don’t sound particularly Christian, but sound much more like the non-Christian Josephus, is evidence in support of the view that what Josephus actually wrote is much like what is available in these translations: The Latin translation says Jesus “was believed to be the Messiah.” The Syriac translation is best translated, “He was thought to be the Messiah.” (Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, that developed from earlier Aramaic and came to be used extensively by the early church in the East.) And the Arabic translation, which appears in the writings of an Arab Christian bishop, suggests with open coyness, “He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Alternative 3: It is only partly authentic, containing some material from Josephus, but also some later additions by another hand(s). Alternative 3, which is based largely on the evidence of the three translations mentioned under Alternative 2, has the support of the overwhelming majority of scholars. The translations clearly reveal that some Christian(s) altered the Testimonium Flavianum as it is most widely known, in Greek.

Reply to Gregory (comment 38 above; I will also reply to comment 39): You are certainly correct in stating that Josephus was a non-Christian Jew who “would not have called Jesus “Meshiach” or Messiah.” Further, I agree that, as you have stated, “This is a key criticism of the reliability and validity of the Testimonium Flavianum.” You have given precisely the reason why the overwhelming majority of scholars regard the Testimonium Flavianum, as it is best known, namely, in Greek, as having been altered by a Christian. But that is not the only alternative. The article above spells out the three alternatives as follows: Alternative 1 is that the whole passage is authentic, written by Josephus. Today almost no scholar accepts the authenticity of the entire standard Greek Testimonium Flavianum, because of obviously Christian statements, such as: “He was the Messiah.” Your objection clearly applies against Alternative 1. Alternative 2 is that the whole passage is a forgery, inserted into Jewish Antiquities. Translations of what Josephus wrote include some early versions that were apparently made from a Greek version that did not contain the Christian alteration. These translations all actually include quite a bit of the Testimonium Flavianum, but not Christian statements, such as, “He was the Messiah.” The fact that translations into at least three languages don’t sound particularly Christian, but sound much more like the non-Christian Josephus, is evidence in support of the view that what Josephus actually wrote is much like what is available in these translations: The Latin translation says Jesus “was believed to be the Messiah.” The Syriac translation is best translated, “He was thought to be the Messiah.” (Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, that developed from earlier Aramaic and came to be used extensively by the early church in the East.) And the Arabic translation, which appears in the writings of an Arab Christian bishop, suggests with open coyness, “He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” Alternative 3: It is only partly authentic, containing some material from Josephus, but also some later additions by another hand(s). Alternative 3, which is based largely on the evidence of the three translations mentioned under Alternative 2, has the support of the overwhelming majority of scholars. The translations clearly reveal that some Christian(s) altered the Testimonium Flavianum as it is most widely known, in Greek.

Reply to Joe (comment 37 above): Thank you for your very helpful observations. Yes, Jesus certainly disappointed the first-century messianic expectations of Jews in Palestine who were cruelly oppressed by Roman conquerors. He did not crush Rome, but rather, in his crucifixion, he was crushed _by_ Rome. This is the scandal of the crucifixion. Oddly enough, the fact that Jesus not only died, but suffered such an extremely disgraceful death, stands verified not only by the writings of Tacitus and Josephus—but even in the writings of his own followers.

The extreme irony is that, from the very different point of view held by Jesus’ followers, his death provided precisely the way to a life-giving relationship with God. Even they, however, did not understand or accept this right away. When the fact of the crucifixion is given serious consideration, it is most remarkable that any Jews at all, let alone thousands (according to the book of Acts, chapters 2, 3, and 4), came to believe in him not long afterward.

Reply to Joe (comment 37 above): Thank you for your very helpful observations. Yes, Jesus certainly disappointed the first-century messianic expectations of Jews in Palestine who were cruelly oppressed by Roman conquerors. He did not crush Rome, but rather, in his crucifixion, he was crushed _by_ Rome. This is the scandal of the crucifixion. Oddly enough, the fact that Jesus not only died, but suffered such an extremely disgraceful death, stands verified not only by the writings of Tacitus and Josephus—but even in the writings of his own followers. The extreme irony is that, from the very different point of view held by Jesus’ followers, his death provided precisely the way to a life-giving relationship with God. Even they, however, did not understand or accept this right away. When the fact of the crucifixion is given serious consideration, it is most remarkable that any Jews at all, let alone thousands (according to the book of Acts, chapters 2, 3, and 4), came to believe in him not long afterward.

Reply to Warren (comment 36 above): Thank you for the link. Though I differ from Jehovah’s Witnesses on the question of Jesus in relation to God, we can heartily agree on the human existence of “the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5)! Yes!

I appreciate your patient defense of your work; of course there are always different approaches to any endeavor. It seems odd that folk choose to ‘attack’ rather than just discuss. Also, I have noticed for a long time that moderns – including many scholars – make the mistake of ‘projecting’ current systems of thought and practice backwards into ancient times; not only were thinking patterns different anon, but social circumstances could differ to extremes.

Some long time back I got into a bit of a dust-up with the Univ. Pa. Museum Sumerian section about Samuel Noah Kramer’s book, ‘History Begins at Sumer’. Overlooking Kramer’s statement that the ancients could not think ‘linearly’ because they lacked knowledge of the obvious modern scientific priniciple of EVOLUTION [yikes!], he outlined a broad understanding of the Sumerian pantheon, but admitted that they had not been able to translate one cosmological term – Mi, or Me – which seemed central to their cosmological theology… but given the total picture as analysed, it seemed irrelevant. I disagreed vehemently, and pointed out that anyone who thought that a concept of ‘evolution’ was essential to understanding the milieu in which the Sumerians lived would be unlikely to ever understand ‘Mi’.

Jewish Rabbinical writings [admittedly from a later period] reveal the term adequately, which translates as ‘Who?’ Their essential text was Isaiah, 40:26 – Who hath created these? – mi bara eleh? They took Mi – Who? – as the Most High God and eleh as the material world; the material world being a refection of the Divine world, they reversed the words to ‘eleh-im’ or Elohim – the God of Genesis 1. Mi, WHO?, the vast unknowable Divine being, was the MOST HIGH GOD of creation.

Projecting backwards [more logical in ancient times], what that -could- imply is that, at the root of the Sumerian pantheon, there was a belief in an overall Supreme Being – and THAT is what the untranslatable term ‘Mi’ might indicate. Not surprisingly, my suggestion made not the least impact on their thinking.

The tragedy, to me, is that their thinking is so rooted in modern thought that I don’t think they could even consider such an idea as any other than radical nonsense. I suppose ‘Mi’ will remain a mystery to Sumerian scholars, because they cannot consider a belief in monotheism prior to the accepted norms. —– I point out to Christian friends that there was a reason that the Synagog was amazed when Jesus read from Isaiah; the Scriptures were not divided into words and verses; the lines could run on, and there were no ‘pointings’ to indicate vowel pronunications. For the ‘son of a carpenter’ – who did not have all those years of study on how to read Scripture – to pick up a scroll and start reading was astounding. Today, we can pick up a book and start reading, even if it is about nuclear physics. If that book had no separated words or sentences, no vowels, who could just pick it up and start reading?

Today we presume universal education, but that is a very modern concept. It is catastrophic to interpret ancient thought in a modern context… and it is not easy to shed that bias.

I appreciate your patient defense of your work; of course there are always different approaches to any endeavor. It seems odd that folk choose to ‘attack’ rather than just discuss. Also, I have noticed for a long time that moderns – including many scholars – make the mistake of ‘projecting’ current systems of thought and practice backwards into ancient times; not only were thinking patterns different anon, but social circumstances could differ to extremes. Some long time back I got into a bit of a dust-up with the Univ. Pa. Museum Sumerian section about Samuel Noah Kramer’s book, ‘History Begins at Sumer’. Overlooking Kramer’s statement that the ancients could not think ‘linearly’ because they lacked knowledge of the obvious modern scientific priniciple of EVOLUTION [yikes!], he outlined a broad understanding of the Sumerian pantheon, but admitted that they had not been able to translate one cosmological term – Mi, or Me – which seemed central to their cosmological theology… but given the total picture as analysed, it seemed irrelevant. I disagreed vehemently, and pointed out that anyone who thought that a concept of ‘evolution’ was essential to understanding the milieu in which the Sumerians lived would be unlikely to ever understand ‘Mi’. Jewish Rabbinical writings [admittedly from a later period] reveal the term adequately, which translates as ‘Who?’ Their essential text was Isaiah, 40:26 – Who hath created these? – mi bara eleh? They took Mi – Who? – as the Most High God and eleh as the material world; the material world being a refection of the Divine world, they reversed the words to ‘eleh-im’ or Elohim – the God of Genesis 1. Mi, WHO?, the vast unknowable Divine being, was the MOST HIGH GOD of creation. Projecting backwards [more logical in ancient times], what that -could- imply is that, at the root of the Sumerian pantheon, there was a belief in an overall Supreme Being – and THAT is what the untranslatable term ‘Mi’ might indicate. Not surprisingly, my suggestion made not the least impact on their thinking. The tragedy, to me, is that their thinking is so rooted in modern thought that I don’t think they could even consider such an idea as any other than radical nonsense. I suppose ‘Mi’ will remain a mystery to Sumerian scholars, because they cannot consider a belief in monotheism prior to the accepted norms. —– I point out to Christian friends that there was a reason that the Synagog was amazed when Jesus read from Isaiah; the Scriptures were not divided into words and verses; the lines could run on, and there were no ‘pointings’ to indicate vowel pronunications. For the ‘son of a carpenter’ – who did not have all those years of study on how to read Scripture – to pick up a scroll and start reading was astounding. Today, we can pick up a book and start reading, even if it is about nuclear physics. If that book had no separated words or sentences, no vowels, who could just pick it up and start reading? Today we presume universal education, but that is a very modern concept. It is catastrophic to interpret ancient thought in a modern context… and it is not easy to shed that bias.

This was a very well-composed and thorough article. I am familiar with the names cited in the process of unpacking the subject. However, I still learned something in his discussion of the Testimonium Flavianum (sp). I appreciated also his footnotes and additionally the author’s response to Paul’s question above. Never really thought about the passage in 1 Samuel. Live and learn!!!.

Jesus was not crucified. Thousands of Jesus or man who called themselves ‘Christ son of God’, died on a “torture stake. It was very comon during that time. As you point out, it’s a MYTH ? According to Paul Diel, the last ‘real’ one created by humans.

Excellent article. I have mentioned some to these men to others but have been by certain people that is not proof. And they consider them selves intelligent. Humph!!

Regarding your example of using “Secretary of Defense” anachronistically for the previous cabinet position of “Secretary of War”, it is in error. The latter position was ONLY in charge of the US ARMY (which then included the US Air Force) and was an equal to the Secretary of the Navy cabinet position. With the reorganization in 1947, the Air Force became independent and put under a non-cabinet Secretary of the Air Force, while the Secretary of War position was renamed Secretary of the Army and along with the Navy Secretary, demoted to non-cabinet status. All three service secretaries were made subservient to a NEW cabinet position of Secretary of Defense and the services were placed in what is now called the Department of Defense (originally named “National Military Establishment”). So Secretary Stimson in World War II was equivalent to today’s Army Secretary, albeit at a cabinet-level position.

People seem to denigrate the Bible, or the Hebrew and Christian writings, as not a book of SCIENCE. But SCIENCE is an Anglicized Latin word for KNOWLEDGE, or the GNOSIS in Greek. Paul talks of something called EPIGNOSIS in its various forms or KNOWLEDGE UPON KNOWLEDGE, which can also be used as acknowledge or recognize…and don’t seem to recognize a great clue that magnifies the fact that this set of writings is based upon a rigorous principle akin to what we call the scientific method today. It is called for lack of any theological term I am aware of, THE TORAH LAW OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES THAT ESTABLISHES A MATTER. It is a generic name introduced by MOSES in the Torah, of establishing a truth, a judgment (in the three forms Moses uses) and Doctrine as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 concerning two or three tongues with one translator or two or three prophets with one or the assembly judging. This reference is given an amen by Peter who appears to be giving commentary on Paul’s writings in his three books in emphasizing a point found in what I call the first corollary of two corollaries that depicts this Law of multiple witnesses in 2 Peter 1:20 where a more proper translation not effected by the Latin Vulgate in the Greek would be, “this first knowing that EVERY (one) prophecy of scripture is NOT OF ITS OWN INTERPRETATION,” answering Moses’ “in the mouth of ONE WITNESS shall no man be put to death,” or where Jesus says, “If I bear witness of myself my witness is not true.” In fact if you look at verse 21 of 2 Peter 1 you might even be able to see the entire Torah law of multiple witnesses where the first phrase emphasizes Corollary one, indicating a single witness (MAN) and a negative outlook, and the next phrase indicating Corollary two where a plural witness (men) gives a positive outlook with Peter identifying who the author of that would be in the God Head. That the Bible as an archive of eyewitness testimony governed by a schema of interpretation that seems to carry from the first to the last lawgiver where it is recorded internally at least that witnesses were intensely scrutinized before being allowed to present their positive testimony seems to put the Bible way above many of the ancient writings as concerning confidence in acceptation of these testimonies. The DIFFICULT part is in the wisdom of the judges to bring out the intended doctrine, judgment, truth or matter, and I believe the still extant (I’m a believer) gift of interpretation is called the discernment of spirits by Paul where spirits are the words produced by the prophets and witnesses that John says would have Holy Spirit enhanced memories, and where Peter says such “holy men” were carried along by in 2 Peter 1:21. As far as any other credibility, Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 clears away the path for only one to be extant today by predicting the stopping of the marvelous sign gifts to the Jews (Micah 7:15 compared to John 5:19-20) in a generation of 40 years (of 360 day years used at the time of the Exodus) and the gift of prophecy being done away with (consider 1Cor. 13:8-13) at the death of or the penning of the last archivable testimony (1 Cor. 13:10 where the ellipsis is given in 1 Cor. 1:6 and 2:1 as TO MARTURION and TO EK MEROUS identifies according to the law of two or three witnesses the single WITNESS giving testimony among the two or three or more recognized by the Schema of interpretation as being a Holy spirit enhanced member of the assembly as seen in 1 Cor.12:27 EK MEROUS and 1 Cor. 14:27 ANA MEROS) by the last eyewitness having this enhanced gift of Holy Spirit remembrance as promised by Jesus in John, who no doubt WAS John the apostle concerning his EYEWITNESS (or gospel of John) or his last PROPHECY (Revelation), perhaps sometime near or after 90-95 AD. What exists NOW as a credibility giving gift is the AGAPE or unconditional love that Paul says is to remain, which John the last eyewitness bubbles over in his epistles concerning as evidence for salvation, and John has Jesus saying in his John 13 chapter where Jesus says, “in THIS shall ALL KNOW that YE ARE MY DISCIPLES in that YE HAVE LOVE (agape) ONE TO ANOTHER.” Look closely at 1 Cor. 13:13 and when you consider looking into a mirror at the enigma of one’s self plastered in the background compared to looking into a mirror with TWO EYES seeing the stereoscopic image swimming normally between a background and possible foreground, which others see as well and which Paul coins a term EPIGNOSIS which form used in other places indicate in Paul’s and Luke’s and even Peter’s writings as KNOWLEDGE UPON KNOWLEDGE or established truth of eyewitness for which Paul is using as an analogy of how to consider the incomplete testimony and then that of the complete testimony when the scriptures are completed and doctrine established. Of course this is only a viewpoint of this geologist who uses the stereoscopic microscope that compares pairs of overlapping aerial photos that isolates each eye to focus on a common point and allows the brain to interpret from differing details of each point of focus even to the point of contradiction that gives us this stereoscopic or three dimensional perspective. It is amusing to see how what could be interpreted as a valley when comparing single photos actually a mountain peak when the two or laid side by side and observed by the geological (or forestry) instrument.

Thank you Lawrence. Your statements are concise and understandable. I find it interesting that so many commented that there are no Hellenistic writings that confirm the historical Jesus (Christ) yet they refuse to admit any Christian writings, most of which were Hellenistic. Most of our modern history has been written by people of faith (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindi, etc – including the Pilgrims, The Spanish Catholics, Anglican Priests even Atheists and Agnostics who believe with great faith in their position). Do we reject their ability to report history on the basis of their faith, politics, bias, or lack of tolerance? We would have no history at all.

“This phrase is also appropriate for a Jewish historian like Josephus because the reference to Jesus is a noncommittal, neutral statement about what some people called Jesus and not a confession of faith that actually asserts that he was Christ.” – That’s not really true. If Josephus had become a Christian, then we might expect him to use an appellation like Chrestus, Christ, etc., or a title like Messiah. But Josephus was a non-Christian Jew. It’s barely conceivable he would have used these terms in reference to a man that he, himself, did not believe was A) Christ (A Greek term, anyway, and not a Hebrew one), or Messiah (from the Hebrew, but a term traditionally meant to connote one who would deliver the Jewish nation from the Romans. Arguably, Jesus did not do that).

Josephus, a Jew, would not have called Jesus “Meshiach” or Messiah. This is a key criticism of the reliability and validity of the Testimonium Flavianum.

How do we know that anyone existed–by the impact we have on the lives of others (remember that was the ‘message’ of the movie It’s A Wonderful Life). Since Jesus did not ‘fit’ the Messianic expectations of first century Jews (a conquering Messiah who would lead Israel to overthrow Rome)–we have to assume that He was a real person that existed in history. Whether you accept Him as Savior of the world is a matter of faith but it is unlikely that a group would ‘follow’ Him and die for some myth that never existed.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/

Reply to Dawson (comment 34 above): The ancient writings from outside the New Testament treated in this article, mainly those of Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata, are evidence that the man Jesus, who was called Messiah (Christos in Greek) existed as a real man. In addition, these three all refer to his having been crucified. This is plainly stated by Josephus and Lucian, and classicists explain that Tacitus’ phrase, which is normally translated “suffered the extreme penalty,” also refers to crucifixion,

Whether Jesus was in a unique sense the “son of God, born of a virgin who died for our sins” are articles of religious faith that are affirmed in the New Testament (unique, “only begotten” sonship in John 1:14 and 3:16, the virgin birth in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38, crucifixion for our sins in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). These beliefs are thus beyond the scope of the non-Christian writings treated in the article.

Of course, not everyone believes the New Testament, but on the basis of evidences besides what is presented in the article—not simply my own opinion—I happen to accept the historical reliability of the New Testament and its explanation of the reason for Jesus’ death. I think the evidences are worth examining. At the same time, my dear Unitarian friends are entirely free to believe otherwise.

Reply to Dawson (comment 34 above): The ancient writings from outside the New Testament treated in this article, mainly those of Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata, are evidence that the man Jesus, who was called Messiah (Christos in Greek) existed as a real man. In addition, these three all refer to his having been crucified. This is plainly stated by Josephus and Lucian, and classicists explain that Tacitus’ phrase, which is normally translated “suffered the extreme penalty,” also refers to crucifixion, Whether Jesus was in a unique sense the “son of God, born of a virgin who died for our sins” are articles of religious faith that are affirmed in the New Testament (unique, “only begotten” sonship in John 1:14 and 3:16, the virgin birth in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38, crucifixion for our sins in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). These beliefs are thus beyond the scope of the non-Christian writings treated in the article. Of course, not everyone believes the New Testament, but on the basis of evidences besides what is presented in the article—not simply my own opinion—I happen to accept the historical reliability of the New Testament and its explanation of the reason for Jesus’ death. I think the evidences are worth examining. At the same time, my dear Unitarian friends are entirely free to believe otherwise.

It is my understanding that Unitarian Christians have examined the evidence and concluded there was no Jesus, son of God, born of a virgin who died for our sins at the hands of the Romans to appease the Jews. Is it reasonable of me to conclude that you would opine there is no strength in their case? May I have your opinion in your own words please?

Reply to Wayne (comment 31 above): I agree with quite a bit of what you wrote, I would like to just mention two ways in which discussions of the historical aspect of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament arise. For whatever reason, sometimes a person just wants to argue against sacred writings, and the discussion becomes a field of battle, not a mine in which one can search for reliable history.

In other instances, a person is sincerely facing difficult issues regarding the facts of history and wants to hear, learn, and test what is said in order to arrive at their own view. In the latter instances, historical discussions can be extremely useful. And, if you will, God can use just about anything to accomplish what he wants, for our good.

In a few instances, a person can shift in either direction. There may also be other alternatives that I have not thought of, but I wanted to mention these two. I started out in the opposite direction from the one I now take, and I am grateful to God and to certain people along the way whom he used.

Reply to Wayne (comment 31 above): I agree with quite a bit of what you wrote, I would like to just mention two ways in which discussions of the historical aspect of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament arise. For whatever reason, sometimes a person just wants to argue against sacred writings, and the discussion becomes a field of battle, not a mine in which one can search for reliable history. In other instances, a person is sincerely facing difficult issues regarding the facts of history and wants to hear, learn, and test what is said in order to arrive at their own view. In the latter instances, historical discussions can be extremely useful. And, if you will, God can use just about anything to accomplish what he wants, for our good. In a few instances, a person can shift in either direction. There may also be other alternatives that I have not thought of, but I wanted to mention these two. I started out in the opposite direction from the one I now take, and I am grateful to God and to certain people along the way whom he used. Lawrence Mykytiuk

Reply to Dennis (comment 30 above): Your basic problem seems to be more with ancient history than with Jesus. And if I may suggest it, perhaps you might read (or re-read?) some of the Gospels in the New Testament.

I will admit that there were no newspaper accounts, but there were no newspapers about 14 centuries before Gutenberg and the invention of moveable type, let alone modern paper instead of papyrus. Word of mouth was supreme, and that is precisely how belief in Jesus spread.

Romans were not eager to learn about foreign religions, unless they posed a threat to their Roman culture, just as most Americans cared little about central Asia before 9/11/01. It is to be expected that Roman historians like Tacitus and the Romanized Jewish historian Josephus had little to say about Jesus, and even then, they wrote about him only in passing. Tacitus wanted to revive the Roman civic spirit with his acerbic condemnation of unworthy leaders, and Josephus wanted to tell of the glories of Judaism. Jesus, as they understood him, did not suit their agendas. Perhaps you should give him credit for having his own agenda (generated by his profound love for others), and for following through personally, in the costliest way possible.

True, you will not find busts and carvings made by Jews in Israel during the earliest days of the Christian church, because of the way they observed the prohibition against graven images—and it appears that the earliest believers from among the Gentiles followed the lead of the Jewish majority of believers in Jesus. Even pagan Roman governors over Jewish populations refrained from depicting human beings on the coins they issued in Palestine, because of the people’s sensitivity on this issue. You seem to suggest that there were lots of Jewish-made images of their first-century human heroes, and somehow Jesus got left out. Well, in that culture, everyone got left out.

You also assert that we know more about Tacitus than we do about Jesus. Really? We have four first-century Gospels which recount a large store of information about the things you mention regarding Jesus, including much written by eyewitnesses—or Luke, who interviewed eyewitnesses—or, in the case of Peter, by his secretary Mark who wrote what Peter preached. Have you found four biographies of Tacitus? I know some classicists who would love to read them–if they exist, as you imply. I await your reply giving publication information.

Josephus wrote an autobiography (did you know?) whose English translation appears in 26 pages, so we have one account of his life, compared with four about Jesus (which, by the way, _were_ written on papyrus). I will let you find and read Josephus’ autobiography, if you are willing, and compare it with the Gospels, if you are willing to read them. I know of no biographies of Josephus, as you seem to suggest. Again, if you can find a few, there are lots of classicists who would love to read them.

Do you actually know that no one wrote poems about Jesus during his lifetime? I suggest you read Luke chapter 1 for its songs about Jesus, chanted by Elizabeth, Mary, and my personal favorite, Simeon. They are poems in the Hebrew style, without rhyme, but with truly beautiful—even thrilling—content. But you “know” that no such poems ever existed. In this way, you deprive yourself of their beauty.

Best wishes, Dennis.

Lawrence Mykytiuk History Librarian, Associate Professor of Library Science Associate Professor of History (courtesy appointment) Purdue University

Reply to Dennis (comment 30 above): Your basic problem seems to be more with ancient history than with Jesus. And if I may suggest it, perhaps you might read (or re-read?) some of the Gospels in the New Testament. I will admit that there were no newspaper accounts, but there were no newspapers about 14 centuries before Gutenberg and the invention of moveable type, let alone modern paper instead of papyrus. Word of mouth was supreme, and that is precisely how belief in Jesus spread. Romans were not eager to learn about foreign religions, unless they posed a threat to their Roman culture, just as most Americans cared little about central Asia before 9/11/01. It is to be expected that Roman historians like Tacitus and the Romanized Jewish historian Josephus had little to say about Jesus, and even then, they wrote about him only in passing. Tacitus wanted to revive the Roman civic spirit with his acerbic condemnation of unworthy leaders, and Josephus wanted to tell of the glories of Judaism. Jesus, as they understood him, did not suit their agendas. Perhaps you should give him credit for having his own agenda (generated by his profound love for others), and for following through personally, in the costliest way possible. True, you will not find busts and carvings made by Jews in Israel during the earliest days of the Christian church, because of the way they observed the prohibition against graven images—and it appears that the earliest believers from among the Gentiles followed the lead of the Jewish majority of believers in Jesus. Even pagan Roman governors over Jewish populations refrained from depicting human beings on the coins they issued in Palestine, because of the people’s sensitivity on this issue. You seem to suggest that there were lots of Jewish-made images of their first-century human heroes, and somehow Jesus got left out. Well, in that culture, everyone got left out. You also assert that we know more about Tacitus than we do about Jesus. Really? We have four first-century Gospels which recount a large store of information about the things you mention regarding Jesus, including much written by eyewitnesses—or Luke, who interviewed eyewitnesses—or, in the case of Peter, by his secretary Mark who wrote what Peter preached. Have you found four biographies of Tacitus? I know some classicists who would love to read them–if they exist, as you imply. I await your reply giving publication information. Josephus wrote an autobiography (did you know?) whose English translation appears in 26 pages, so we have one account of his life, compared with four about Jesus (which, by the way, _were_ written on papyrus). I will let you find and read Josephus’ autobiography, if you are willing, and compare it with the Gospels, if you are willing to read them. I know of no biographies of Josephus, as you seem to suggest. Again, if you can find a few, there are lots of classicists who would love to read them. Do you actually know that no one wrote poems about Jesus during his lifetime? I suggest you read Luke chapter 1 for its songs about Jesus, chanted by Elizabeth, Mary, and my personal favorite, Simeon. They are poems in the Hebrew style, without rhyme, but with truly beautiful—even thrilling—content. But you “know” that no such poems ever existed. In this way, you deprive yourself of their beauty. Best wishes, Dennis. Lawrence Mykytiuk History Librarian, Associate Professor of Library Science Associate Professor of History (courtesy appointment) Purdue University

While with great care it is true that some reference to Christ can be found. But the references are much less than are found for Jim Jones or some other historical character. From the vast amount of information on historical events, the references to Jesus are almost inconsequential. I think this is good because people would have Jesus proven to them. The followers of Jesus were followers because of the Spirit. Jesus becomes huge because of the Spirit and the historical Jesus is proven because of the Spirit. Otherwise Jesus is meaningless. This is because if one does not have his life, the life he brought, one might as well have never heard of him.

funny we know so much about Tacitus and Josephus’s lives, birth, families, who they worked for, what they did their whole lives, so many mentions and people so firm in their convictions about them, just two historians of little consequence. There are busts and statues of both of them, but?

yet nothing from the time of jesus about the new savior and messiah who did miracles so fantastic everyone would be talking about them. nothing about Jesus outside the NT rising from the dead in view of all those people, silence, nothing. Maybe because real people knew Josephus and Tacitus, just silence about Jesus. No newspaper accounts, no poems about him during his life, nothing written on walls or papyrus? No busts, no carvings?

I can’t get past both josephus and tacitus were not yet born when Jesus died, and after they were born waited most of their lives to write anything at all about that time and those people. were they pressured to write something, anything, about jesus?

Whether jesus lived or not is of no consequence, it’s not the jesus people pray through. The jesus the NT writers crafted the stories around to make him the messiah from the past, the redeemer is the one that is the legend, the myth. The text above says jesus was crucified for his own sins (not ours) or for preaching an unapproved message from an illegal religion. There were many preachers of unapproved religions who got crucified at the time, and we know more about them than Jesus.

funny we know so much about Tacitus and Josephus’s lives, birth, families, who they worked for, what they did their whole lives, so many mentions and people so firm in their convictions about them, just two historians of little consequence. There are busts and statues of both of them, but? yet nothing from the time of jesus about the new savior and messiah who did miracles so fantastic everyone would be talking about them. nothing about Jesus outside the NT rising from the dead in view of all those people, silence, nothing. Maybe because real people knew Josephus and Tacitus, just silence about Jesus. No newspaper accounts, no poems about him during his life, nothing written on walls or papyrus? No busts, no carvings? I can’t get past both josephus and tacitus were not yet born when Jesus died, and after they were born waited most of their lives to write anything at all about that time and those people. were they pressured to write something, anything, about jesus? Whether jesus lived or not is of no consequence, it’s not the jesus people pray through. The jesus the NT writers crafted the stories around to make him the messiah from the past, the redeemer is the one that is the legend, the myth. The text above says jesus was crucified for his own sins (not ours) or for preaching an unapproved message from an illegal religion. There were many preachers of unapproved religions who got crucified at the time, and we know more about them than Jesus.

Also, Bar definition means son in Arbica

“Yes,” Jesus Christ exists, right along with John the Baptist who is Prophet Muhammad. What have you Christians been doing all these generations? No wonder why Jesus informed me to search the Qur’an. Check out Egyptian in the Grand Canyon you fools. Also get on the ball because Christians will be defeated from your poor research What in the world is wrong with you people, here in America with little teaching’s toward Christians to enter the upper universe. Jesus Christ is buried in America, and as you know Jesus Christ is a title name not the real name of our savior. Same with Prophet Muhammad is a title name, not the real name of the prophet. “No” wonder why scholars never found Prophet Muhammad! The Book of Revelation happen even before Christ and John was born.

on a web site I came across the man says there is no Jesus outside of the bible …..I know in my heart this is incorrect but can you explain to him and to his site that that is not true?……sincerely glenn jedlicka https://thechurchoftruth.org/

The question is not “did Jesus live” ? but does Jesus live? This is what Lord Jesus (God Logos) told St. Symeon upon making himself worthy to Gods presence. “It is me, God, Who became man for you; and behold that I have made you, as you see, and shall make you god”.

St. Symeon the New Theologian Greek Orthodox Church The vision of Divine Light http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/studies-fathers/67

The question is not “did Jesus live” ? but does Jesus live? This is what Lord Jesus (God Logos) told St. Symeon upon making himself worthy to Gods presence. “It is me, God, Who became man for you; and behold that I have made you, as you see, and shall make you god”. St. Symeon the New Theologian Greek Orthodox Church The vision of Divine Light http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/studies-fathers/67 lets talk!

A second reply to Shumaila (comment 25 above): Ms. Shumaila, I beg your pardon for not understanding that your name is a woman’s name, and I am sorry that I misspelled it. Please accept this correction. As I just now learned from a Google search on your name, it is a lovely name of a woman, meaning “beautiful face.”

This is the second of two replies to Markus (comment 22 above): I also wish to respond to your first two points: !) Classicists are familiar with the fact that most ancient Roman historians, including Tacitus, did not reveal their sources. More to the point, elsewhere in his writings, as some classicists have observed, Tacitus notes when a particular historical assertion is in doubt. In reference to “Christus,” however, he does not do that. The absence of such a note does not prove, but does suggest, that he has verified what he wrote about “Christus” from sources that he considered reliable This suggestion, based on the ancient text, is stronger than present-day theorizing, whether yours or mine. 2) Despite your assertion, I did not “attempt to invent as a fact that Tacitus used other sources,” since, as I have plainly acknowledged, his sources remain unknown to modern researchers. I did, however, make a case for his having had access to what the Romans might have recorded, or knew and spoke to each other, about “Christus,” as follows:

As stated in note 8 above, Tacitus “likely had access to some archives through his status, either as Proconsul of Asia, as a senator—or, as is often overlooked, from his connections as a high-ranking priest of Roman religion. In 88 C.E., [as Tacitus himself informs us,] he became ‘a member of the Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis [“The Board of Fifteen for Performing Sacrifices”], the priestly organization charged, among other things, with … supervising the practice of officially tolerated foreign cults in the city … [and facing] the growing necessity to distinguish illicit Christianity from licit Judaism’ (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 52), or, given Jewish resistance to oppressive measures taken by Rome, at least to keep a close watch on developments within Judaism. Indeed, ‘a Roman archive … is particularly suggested by the note of the temporary suppression of the superstition, which indicates an official perspective’ (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, p. 83). Membership in this priestly regulatory group very likely gave Tacitus access to at least some of the accurate knowledge he possessed about Christus. With characteristic brevity, he reported the facts as he understood them, quickly dismissing the despised, executed Christus from the Annals (see Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p. 90). Tacitus was in his early twenties when the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum. Because he believed in the Roman gods, it would have been logical for him to think this mass annihilation occurred because the gods were angry. He would then have been very careful to keep a close watch on foreign religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, Mithraism, etc., which might irritate the gods. Tacitus might easily have learned about “Christus” while serving on the Board of Fifteen that oversaw foreign religions.

This is the second of two replies to Markus (comment 22 above): I also wish to respond to your first two points: !) Classicists are familiar with the fact that most ancient Roman historians, including Tacitus, did not reveal their sources. More to the point, elsewhere in his writings, as some classicists have observed, Tacitus notes when a particular historical assertion is in doubt. In reference to “Christus,” however, he does not do that. The absence of such a note does not prove, but does suggest, that he has verified what he wrote about “Christus” from sources that he considered reliable This suggestion, based on the ancient text, is stronger than present-day theorizing, whether yours or mine. 2) Despite your assertion, I did not “attempt to invent as a fact that Tacitus used other sources,” since, as I have plainly acknowledged, his sources remain unknown to modern researchers. I did, however, make a case for his having had access to what the Romans might have recorded, or knew and spoke to each other, about “Christus,” as follows: As stated in note 8 above, Tacitus “likely had access to some archives through his status, either as Proconsul of Asia, as a senator—or, as is often overlooked, from his connections as a high-ranking priest of Roman religion. In 88 C.E., [as Tacitus himself informs us,] he became ‘a member of the Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis [“The Board of Fifteen for Performing Sacrifices”], the priestly organization charged, among other things, with … supervising the practice of officially tolerated foreign cults in the city … [and facing] the growing necessity to distinguish illicit Christianity from licit Judaism’ (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 52), or, given Jewish resistance to oppressive measures taken by Rome, at least to keep a close watch on developments within Judaism. Indeed, ‘a Roman archive … is particularly suggested by the note of the temporary suppression of the superstition, which indicates an official perspective’ (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, p. 83). Membership in this priestly regulatory group very likely gave Tacitus access to at least some of the accurate knowledge he possessed about Christus. With characteristic brevity, he reported the facts as he understood them, quickly dismissing the despised, executed Christus from the Annals (see Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p. 90). Tacitus was in his early twenties when the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum. Because he believed in the Roman gods, it would have been logical for him to think this mass annihilation occurred because the gods were angry. He would then have been very careful to keep a close watch on foreign religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, Mithraism, etc., which might irritate the gods. Tacitus might easily have learned about “Christus” while serving on the Board of Fifteen that oversaw foreign religions.

Reply to Shumila (comment 25 above): Thank you sir, for your sincere comment. The article asks and answers only one question: “Did Jesus Exist?” I am pleased that we agree on the answer, that he did exist as a man who was born on earth and lived well into his adulthood on earth. The fact that he was a real man on earth is shown to be true by the Roman, Jewish, and Greek sources treated in this article, as well as by the New Testament, which is sacred to Christians, and finally by the Qur’an, which is sacred to Muslims.

I am pleased to stand together with you, sir, in opposition to those who deny that he was a real man and that he lived on earth. Despite their denials, the historical evidence for his human life on earth, in all the writings that I have mentioned, has never been refuted, and is, I believe, irrefutable.

Reply to Shumila (comment 25 above): Thank you sir, for your sincere comment. The article asks and answers only one question: “Did Jesus Exist?” I am pleased that we agree on the answer, that he did exist as a man who was born on earth and lived well into his adulthood on earth. The fact that he was a real man on earth is shown to be true by the Roman, Jewish, and Greek sources treated in this article, as well as by the New Testament, which is sacred to Christians, and finally by the Qur’an, which is sacred to Muslims. I am pleased to stand together with you, sir, in opposition to those who deny that he was a real man and that he lived on earth. Despite their denials, the historical evidence for his human life on earth, in all the writings that I have mentioned, has never been refuted, and is, I believe, irrefutable.

Sir,you went in to that detail regarding Jesus(peace be upon him) exist or not.But its not fair that You forgot to mention Holy Book of Muslims which proves the existence of Jesus Christ(peace be upon him) too.We all Muslims believe him to be Messiah and we believe he is coming back.Glorious Quran says this about Jesus(peace be upon him):

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs

The Messiah son of Mary was not but a Messenger, many Messengers passed away before him. And his mother is a truthful woman. Both used to take food. See how clear signs We explain for them, then see how they are turned away

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain

Undoubtedly, those are infidels, who say, “Masih son of Maryam is the very Allah’. And whereas Masih had said ‘O children of lsrail worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord Undoubtedly, whoso. Associates anyone with Allah,then Allah has forbidden paradise to him and his abode is Hell. And there is no helper of unjust.

Sir the name of Jesus(peace be upon him) came 25 times in Holy Quran.The name of Mary(peace be upon her) came 32 times in Quran.There is a full chapter with the name ‘Mary’ and it was revealed in Quran in the honor of Mary(peace be upon her).

Sir,for Muslims this prove is enough that Jesus(peace be upon him) existed and he is the Messiah and he is coming back.

Sir,you went in to that detail regarding Jesus(peace be upon him) exist or not.But its not fair that You forgot to mention Holy Book of Muslims which proves the existence of Jesus Christ(peace be upon him) too.We all Muslims believe him to be Messiah and we believe he is coming back.Glorious Quran says this about Jesus(peace be upon him): O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs The Messiah son of Mary was not but a Messenger, many Messengers passed away before him. And his mother is a truthful woman. Both used to take food. See how clear signs We explain for them, then see how they are turned away And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain Undoubtedly, those are infidels, who say, “Masih son of Maryam is the very Allah’. And whereas Masih had said ‘O children of lsrail worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord Undoubtedly, whoso. Associates anyone with Allah,then Allah has forbidden paradise to him and his abode is Hell. And there is no helper of unjust. Sir the name of Jesus(peace be upon him) came 25 times in Holy Quran.The name of Mary(peace be upon her) came 32 times in Quran.There is a full chapter with the name ‘Mary’ and it was revealed in Quran in the honor of Mary(peace be upon her). Sir,for Muslims this prove is enough that Jesus(peace be upon him) existed and he is the Messiah and he is coming back.

Obviously that Jesus Christ exist for me in my heart

I don’t get It

A first reply (of two) to Markus (comment 22 above):

Regarding your points 3 and 4, no doubt you would like to have me produce a list of recommended atheist writers and herald the glories of their writings which deny the human existence of Jesus. I simply find other writers to be more important than Carrier, and of course you are free to disagree. The fact that his books are more recent than others by his fellow deniers has nothing to do with their quality.

This site, however, despite your apparent wishes, is not about the comparative virtues of atheist writers, but about evidence for the existence of Jesus. Later this week, I plan to reply to your points 1 and 2, which are germane to the topic.

A first reply (of two) to Markus (comment 22 above): Regarding your points 3 and 4, no doubt you would like to have me produce a list of recommended atheist writers and herald the glories of their writings which deny the human existence of Jesus. I simply find other writers to be more important than Carrier, and of course you are free to disagree. The fact that his books are more recent than others by his fellow deniers has nothing to do with their quality. This site, however, despite your apparent wishes, is not about the comparative virtues of atheist writers, but about evidence for the existence of Jesus. Later this week, I plan to reply to your points 1 and 2, which are germane to the topic. Lawrence Mykytiuk

What do you have to say about Carriers response to your criticism, “(1) “Tacitus so despised Christians that he would have instinctively distrusted practically anything they said.” This is not how Tacitus operated. What he reports he considers so embarrassing, he wouldn’t need to fact-check it. It is precisely because he finds this story so ridiculous yet the Christians were admitting to it (if they were his source) that he would report it just as they relayed it. Meanwhile, there is no evidence Tacitus did any fact checking of it, or that he even could have done so, much less would have wasted the countless hours needed to do so, to verify an embarrassing story that was already being conceded as true by the Christians themselves. (2) I mention and already rebut your attempt to invent as a fact that Tacitus used other sources. I explained why there is no evidence for that nor any reason to believe it likely or even possible. Whereas I referenced the considerable evidence supporting Pliny as his source, which means, Christians Pliny interrogated—and didn’t fact check. You haven’t provided any counter to any of this. You just repeated the same claims my argument refuted. (3) Claiming you were writing a popular article does not excuse you from ignoring and failing to cite or include in your article the results of the most recent scholarship. You had plenty of space for a lot of citations and even lengthy comments in notes. Yet you didn’t have space to mention the latest research and keep the text of your article up to date with it? There is no excuse for that. Popular articles should get the audience up to date on the latest research. Not decades old research that has been superseded or even overthrown since. (4) You “find other works that deny the existence of Jesus to be more important” — Like what? Name a single book written by an expert in ancient history under peer review at an academic press that presents a case that Jesus didn’t exist.”?

Reply to Kirk (comment 20 above): Thanks, Kirk, I’m glad you find the article useful. As you note, it’s important to distinguish the real state of affairs, which is that scholars across the board accept the historicity of Jesus with extremely few exceptions, as opposed to false claims that “many experts” question the historical existence of Jesus. If your path to faith was not via the Bible, no problem! I myself came to faith by the more conventional route of Scripture (Psalm 22, “of David,” written centuries before the crucifixion, compared with the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion).

@Lawrence Thank you for a clearly informative article about the extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. This information is very useful for Christian Apologetics. It was only a week or two ago, that I noticed a national publication claiming that “many experts” were again questioning the historicity of the existence of a real Jesus Christ. ( What rubbish ) I don’t believe in Him because of the Bible; I believe the Bible because I have heard His voice. He is real; He is Risen; He is LORD. Hallelujah !!

I was saw Jesus come to me, talking to me and helping me. I saw it from my own eyes. The Jesus is really exist.

Reply to Basil (comment 17 above):

Basil, in your comment, is there a desire to contend that overpowers a desire to learn the facts of the case? Only you really know.

I would be very interested to learn what makes you say that “comprehensive records were kept” by Greek and Roman historians of the time. Classics scholars are very much aware of the limits of the writings they have studied, and I have not heard or read any of them make any such claim of “comprehensive records.”

Further, scholars of the classics are painfully aware that only a portion of the Greek and Roman classical writings that once existed have survived the ravages of time, partly because some ancient writings that we have mention other writings that we don’t have. Of course, if not all classical writings survived, and if they were not comprehensive in the first place, one cannot use any lack of mention in the extant writings to make a case for a supposed non-existence of _anyone_.

Experienced historians of the ancient world are normally delighted when they find any records, even if they were written centuries after the events—on the possibility or perhaps the likelihood that intervening writings which were later destroyed or lost carried the information to the centuries-later writings. Perhaps you have heard of scribes and monks copying old manuscripts to create new ones,and then throwing away the old ones? It is not unusual for a leather scroll to be legible and useful one or even two centuries after it was created. The fact that we have writings that originated only decades after the death of Jesus makes these writings actually very, very close to the events they mention—the historian’s equivalent of the next day’s morning news!

I for one would be excited to read the memoires of an old Civil War soldier, even if it were written decades after the events recorded. Why should the writings of the New Testament authors who endured so much for the sake of Jesus—or the writings of Josephus (who really _was_ an old soldier) be any different?

The apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians was written in about 55 C.E., only about 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. In chapter 15 he presents the facts of the gospel. Verses 3 and 4 report:

“I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.”

Interestingly, Paul wrote this letter from Ephesus on his _third_ missionary journey. During those 25 years, he had been transformed from a persecutor of Christians to a Christian evangelist, and he had already made two previous missionary journeys. That puts his adoption of faith in Jesus quite a few years earlier, very close indeed to the crucifixion. Perhaps this very early, years-long series of events might make you reconsider.

But about how many followers Jesus had when he died, I am willing to entertain other views, because the definition of “follower” can be different. It is not surprising that actual disciples (in Greek, “learners”) were fewer than the people who followed him in order to be healed or to take their chances on getting a free lunch.

Best wishes, Basil,

Reply to Basil (comment 17 above): Basil, in your comment, is there a desire to contend that overpowers a desire to learn the facts of the case? Only you really know. I would be very interested to learn what makes you say that “comprehensive records were kept” by Greek and Roman historians of the time. Classics scholars are very much aware of the limits of the writings they have studied, and I have not heard or read any of them make any such claim of “comprehensive records.” Further, scholars of the classics are painfully aware that only a portion of the Greek and Roman classical writings that once existed have survived the ravages of time, partly because some ancient writings that we have mention other writings that we don’t have. Of course, if not all classical writings survived, and if they were not comprehensive in the first place, one cannot use any lack of mention in the extant writings to make a case for a supposed non-existence of _anyone_. Experienced historians of the ancient world are normally delighted when they find any records, even if they were written centuries after the events—on the possibility or perhaps the likelihood that intervening writings which were later destroyed or lost carried the information to the centuries-later writings. Perhaps you have heard of scribes and monks copying old manuscripts to create new ones,and then throwing away the old ones? It is not unusual for a leather scroll to be legible and useful one or even two centuries after it was created. The fact that we have writings that originated only decades after the death of Jesus makes these writings actually very, very close to the events they mention—the historian’s equivalent of the next day’s morning news! I for one would be excited to read the memoires of an old Civil War soldier, even if it were written decades after the events recorded. Why should the writings of the New Testament authors who endured so much for the sake of Jesus—or the writings of Josephus (who really _was_ an old soldier) be any different? The apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians was written in about 55 C.E., only about 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. In chapter 15 he presents the facts of the gospel. Verses 3 and 4 report: “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” Interestingly, Paul wrote this letter from Ephesus on his _third_ missionary journey. During those 25 years, he had been transformed from a persecutor of Christians to a Christian evangelist, and he had already made two previous missionary journeys. That puts his adoption of faith in Jesus quite a few years earlier, very close indeed to the crucifixion. Perhaps this very early, years-long series of events might make you reconsider. But about how many followers Jesus had when he died, I am willing to entertain other views, because the definition of “follower” can be different. It is not surprising that actual disciples (in Greek, “learners”) were fewer than the people who followed him in order to be healed or to take their chances on getting a free lunch. Best wishes, Basil, Lawrence Mykytiuk

as always in these cases, any “evidence” of a historical jesus comes from examples from writings completed decades after the supposed execution of jesus. no contemporary writings exist, even though comprehensive records were kept by greek and roman historians of the time. the observation in this article that jesus didn’t have many followers during his life is not supported in the bible. luke 24 states that everyone mourned the death of jesus, and expressed surprise that someone did not know of it. jesus supposedly had multitudes of followers, but there are no contemporary writings about him in historical texts. even the first new testament writings were written well after the supposed time of jesus.

Deez nutz exist

I believe Jesus was a great teacher, who came to help humanity and lift their minds, but he was also murdered by the reptilian evil. What we know now, is that absolute evil has been ruling this planet for thousands of years, keeping the souls of humanity trapped and recycled, in this dimension, the leaders of this world do not serve humanity, they serve the beast, the Devil and how this is done is through, the evil power elite who want everything, not only own all the land, all the food, all the water and everything they desire total power. God gave us everything for free, they want it for themselves. Over the decades we have seen how most of the worlds wealth has been sucked out by these evil people. That is why the 1% have more than 55% of the worlds wealth in their greedy claws. I and most of humanity hope Jesus will come soon, and help git ride of this evil. If Jesus was set up like most religions by a powerful elite, who wanted to keep us under control, then what hope does humanity have, It means this evil will continue, it means they will get their wicked way, Have their Leader the Devil as head of the New World Order as this is what this is, it means many people will be killed for not receiving the mark of the beast 666 which is the electronic microchip, and people r already being chipped, because they are silly enough to think it is cool technology. Any technology that is used against humanity must be destroyed. If there is no one to save us, then we need to wake up and take back our planet from these evil parasites. Humanity has been so trapped that is why it has been so hard to unravel this mystery. But what we know now and increasing numbers of people around the world are waking up to the fact that this planet is really in control of an evil sickening war mongering race of aliens known as the reptilians and history reveals, that they altered our DNA shortened our lives, from hundreds of years to what we are now, shut down most of our DNA so that we are no longer in touch with the creator, and for thousands of years, we have been trapped, in an never ending recycled to this planet life after life and we do not remember our past lives because they have set up a system where our souls are trapped and all our memories are erased, The need us to suck the energy. Now when one does real research we can understand what has really happened. So how do we get free? Yes, we can have faith but we are going to have to fight for our freedom. I ask this question? Why would a loving God whose wishes is that humanity evolve on a spiritual level, allow us to have our minds shut down, and we never knowing the truth for thousands of years, it is only because of a higher energy coming to this world, and that amazing people are risking their lives to find the real truth, that we are able to uncover the true history. I believe God and the gardeners of this world have taken leave and have done for a very long time, so the evil beings re the ones who have had control, we are now in the end times, which mean there are only a few years left if we are lucky, before everything is wiped out.

Second reply to Franck (comment 13 above): Josephus, who grew up in first-century Palestine (and went to Rome as a grown man and a former army general) identifies James as the brother of “Jesus-who-is-called-Christ,” He presents Jesus’ brother James as a leader of the earliest church in Jerusalem and gives a description of how James was martyred. (Josephus’ description of the way in which James was murdered is different from the Christian version, so it is evidently independent of Christian sources).

Of course, there might have been other men named Jesus who—in a way different from Jesus’s redemption of his people (see Matthew 1:21)—tried to be messiahs and deliver the Jewish nation from Roman rule. But any other Jesuses who might have existed did not have a brother named James who was a leader of the early church in Jerusalem and was martyred. Only the one whom Josephus referred to as Jesus-who-is-called-Christ had this brother.

Josephus also wrote about other people mentioned in the New Testament, including John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate. These were some of the historical figures, including Jesus, whom he identifies very specifically. It is clear that Josephus grew up in the same culture in which Jesus and the apostles lived. If anyone was qualified to deny the existence of the Jesus whom the Christians followed, it was Josephus. But instead, he mentions this Jesus as a historical person. Best wishes, Lawrence Mykytiuk

Second reply to Franck (comment 13 above): Josephus, who grew up in first-century Palestine (and went to Rome as a grown man and a former army general) identifies James as the brother of “Jesus-who-is-called-Christ,” He presents Jesus’ brother James as a leader of the earliest church in Jerusalem and gives a description of how James was martyred. (Josephus’ description of the way in which James was murdered is different from the Christian version, so it is evidently independent of Christian sources). Of course, there might have been other men named Jesus who—in a way different from Jesus’s redemption of his people (see Matthew 1:21)—tried to be messiahs and deliver the Jewish nation from Roman rule. But any other Jesuses who might have existed did not have a brother named James who was a leader of the early church in Jerusalem and was martyred. Only the one whom Josephus referred to as Jesus-who-is-called-Christ had this brother. Josephus also wrote about other people mentioned in the New Testament, including John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate. These were some of the historical figures, including Jesus, whom he identifies very specifically. It is clear that Josephus grew up in the same culture in which Jesus and the apostles lived. If anyone was qualified to deny the existence of the Jesus whom the Christians followed, it was Josephus. But instead, he mentions this Jesus as a historical person. Best wishes, Lawrence Mykytiuk

Reply to Franck (comment 13 above): I would like to respond to your last question first. You have said:

“And if he won so many Greeks over (even stating that the conversions were after his death, why don t we see any greek comment on jesus life?)”

There is no lack of “Greeks” (a first-century term used to describe people of Hellenistic culture) writing about Jesus within the first century or so after his crucifixion. Consider the writings of the apostolic fathers of the church, who of course were believers in Jesus, but also leaders of many other Christians to whom they wrote and whom they pastored. The main apostolic fathers include Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna (who was follower of the apostle John and was later martyred for his faith), and Justin Martyr. Of course, as the church grew, many more “Greeks” who were Christians wrote about Jesus. For the major leaders, besides many pastors and others whom they led, see the timeline at: https://www.preceden.com/timelines/10328-church-fathers-50—750-a-d- . “We” can see them there. I hope you take a look. The writings of these and other “Greek” Christians form a whole field of study, called patristics. Their writings provide fascinating views of the early and developing church. I plan to reply to your other remarks separately. Best wishes, Lawrence Mykytiuk

Reply to Franck (comment 13 above): I would like to respond to your last question first. You have said: “And if he won so many Greeks over (even stating that the conversions were after his death, why don t we see any greek comment on jesus life?)” There is no lack of “Greeks” (a first-century term used to describe people of Hellenistic culture) writing about Jesus within the first century or so after his crucifixion. Consider the writings of the apostolic fathers of the church, who of course were believers in Jesus, but also leaders of many other Christians to whom they wrote and whom they pastored. The main apostolic fathers include Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna (who was follower of the apostle John and was later martyred for his faith), and Justin Martyr. Of course, as the church grew, many more “Greeks” who were Christians wrote about Jesus. For the major leaders, besides many pastors and others whom they led, see the timeline at: https://www.preceden.com/timelines/10328-church-fathers-50—750-a-d- . “We” can see them there. I hope you take a look. The writings of these and other “Greek” Christians form a whole field of study, called patristics. Their writings provide fascinating views of the early and developing church. I plan to reply to your other remarks separately. Best wishes, Lawrence Mykytiuk

Let me understand that…So jesus existed because: He was a “Jhon Smith”, knowing that “Smith”, in this case, is a religious honorific title that had been given before to others jews that would represent a leadership or would be leadership in some way.

Well thats pretty slim isn t it, it is a clear base upon myth are created. Isn t there anything more convincing ? I mean, if jesus was a common name, wouldn t we have many Jesus (real or invented) doing diferent things and not being the same person? Especially as the jewish were seeking new leadership that would free them of the domination of Rome.

It wouldn t be the first or last case in history.

And if he won so many Greeks over (even stating that the conversions were after his death, why don t we see any greek comment on jesus life?)

Let me understand that…So jesus existed because: He was a “Jhon Smith”, knowing that “Smith”, in this case, is a religious honorific title that had been given before to others jews that would represent a leadership or would be leadership in some way. Well thats pretty slim isn t it, it is a clear base upon myth are created. Isn t there anything more convincing ? I mean, if jesus was a common name, wouldn t we have many Jesus (real or invented) doing diferent things and not being the same person? Especially as the jewish were seeking new leadership that would free them of the domination of Rome. It wouldn t be the first or last case in history. And if he won so many Greeks over (even stating that the conversions were after his death, why don t we see any greek comment on jesus life?)

so he didn’t exist? why does it matter about stupid private schools then

Reply to Sidney (comment 11 above): I hear your claims of inconclusiveness, but not a refutation of the evidence, particularly in Josephus, which the article presents.

The non-Christian witness is inconclusive. It neither proves that Jesus existed nor that he did not. The earliest account of the life of Jesus is contained in the Gospel of Mark. As I demonstrate in my book Secret of the Savior: The Myth of the Messiah in Mark, the life of Jesus recapitulates the history of salvation. Jesus is a symbol of salvation, which is what the name Jesus means. He stands for whomever or whatever Mark sees as the instrument or embodiment of salvation at any given point in time. He is Joshua, or David, or the Teacher of Righteousness, or later figures in the history of Israel. Mark does not appear to know of a particular person he lived at the time and place the Gospel is set. There is not one historical Jesus, there are many.

Did the arabs live in Land of The Jews (Roman Palestine)? Michael Lerman, PhD, MD.

Gaius Plautius (see: Frontinius 5, Tac.Hist. 1:37, Annals 15: 47) etc

Gaius Plautius!

I am a 19 years old ex-muslim Computer Science student from Turkey who have found Christ 1 years before. This just made me even more sure of the existance of our Lord. God bless you. This also debunks muslim claims of Jesus not being called “christ” and God or him never getting crucified and that Bible was corrupted in a way to make people believe in such things. Here is the proof. Even Roman historians recorded it.

Yes Jesus is on the right hand side of God his father and the hour is near when all creation will see him. God bless

Reply to Nadav (comment 6 above):

Nadav, your perceptive comment really made me think. I completely accept your view that a person can be Jewish and a believer in Jesus. In fact, every last one of the twelve whom Jesus chose and called to follow him was Jewish. The earliest church, at the moment when it began in Acts chapter 2, was initially composed entirely of Jewish men and Jewish women. The Jewishness of the early church was so predominant that a major question that had to be settled in the early church—at the council of Jerusalem (Acts chapter 15)— was whether Gentiles should be required to convert to Judaism before they could become Christians. That was expressed as being “circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). The Jerusalem Council affirmed that only faith in Jesus was necessary for salvation. This Council did tell them to avoid certain things, but in a way that makes their message seem more like advice.

In the article above, Alternative 1 is rejected primarily because Josephus shows not the slightest sign of being a believer in Jesus anywhere else in his voluminous writings (see Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd ed. [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003], p. 229). In fact, Josephus mentions Jesus only twice—in his work titled Jewish Antiquities, books 18 and 20. The above article and its notes take pains to describe several translations which reflect other versions of exactly what Josephus said in book 18. In these, it seems very likely that Josephus was not confessing any personal faith of his own that Jesus was the Messiah, but rather that _others_ thought or believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Also, the Christian scholar Origen, who was well acquainted with Josephus’ writings, lamented that Josephus “did not believe in Jesus as Christ” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew, book 10, section 17, available online at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101610.htm ).

Thank you, Nadav, for making me clarify this important question.

Reply to Nadav (comment 6 above): Nadav, your perceptive comment really made me think. I completely accept your view that a person can be Jewish and a believer in Jesus. In fact, every last one of the twelve whom Jesus chose and called to follow him was Jewish. The earliest church, at the moment when it began in Acts chapter 2, was initially composed entirely of Jewish men and Jewish women. The Jewishness of the early church was so predominant that a major question that had to be settled in the early church—at the council of Jerusalem (Acts chapter 15)— was whether Gentiles should be required to convert to Judaism before they could become Christians. That was expressed as being “circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). The Jerusalem Council affirmed that only faith in Jesus was necessary for salvation. This Council did tell them to avoid certain things, but in a way that makes their message seem more like advice. In the article above, Alternative 1 is rejected primarily because Josephus shows not the slightest sign of being a believer in Jesus anywhere else in his voluminous writings (see Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd ed. [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003], p. 229). In fact, Josephus mentions Jesus only twice—in his work titled Jewish Antiquities, books 18 and 20. The above article and its notes take pains to describe several translations which reflect other versions of exactly what Josephus said in book 18. In these, it seems very likely that Josephus was not confessing any personal faith of his own that Jesus was the Messiah, but rather that _others_ thought or believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Also, the Christian scholar Origen, who was well acquainted with Josephus’ writings, lamented that Josephus “did not believe in Jesus as Christ” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew, book 10, section 17, available online at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101610.htm ). Thank you, Nadav, for making me clarify this important question. Lawrence Mykytiuk

Throwing out option 1 and saying that his entire testimony is not true is based on a very wrong assumption that you can’t be Jewish and Christian. Allow me to demonstrate : Jesus is the messiah, he was crucified and rose on the third day. If I truly believe this with all my heart – what does that make me? A believer in Jesus! I am also Jewish. I will not forsake the rich jewish heritage and testimony of the old testament (although I strongly reject modern day rabbinical Judaism). And I will not reject the rich jewish heritage and testimony of the new testament!

What more does someone have to believe to be saved. Should Josephus throw out Passover and celebrate Easter and call Sunday his holy day as well? Where in the new testament does it tell us to do these things to be saved

This argument is swallowed by most Christians because of their own flawed theology and because of the leven that has crept in.

Throwing out option 1 and saying that his entire testimony is not true is based on a very wrong assumption that you can’t be Jewish and Christian. Allow me to demonstrate : Jesus is the messiah, he was crucified and rose on the third day. If I truly believe this with all my heart – what does that make me? A believer in Jesus! I am also Jewish. I will not forsake the rich jewish heritage and testimony of the old testament (although I strongly reject modern day rabbinical Judaism). And I will not reject the rich jewish heritage and testimony of the new testament! What more does someone have to believe to be saved. Should Josephus throw out Passover and celebrate Easter and call Sunday his holy day as well? Where in the new testament does it tell us to do these things to be saved This argument is swallowed by most Christians because of their own flawed theology and because of the leven that has crept in.

Reply to Paul (comment 2 above):

You are correct that Christ (in English), Christus (in Latin), and Messiah (an English rendering of the Hebrew) all mean “anointed.” (Chrestus, a common Roman name for slaves, means neither “anointed” nor “chosen,” but rather “good, kind, useful/”)

Your own views regarding anointing, however, which you are certainly free to hold in your own context, are entirely different from the view presented in 1 Samuel chapter 16, where divine choice of the person to be anointed is explicit.

In the first verse of that chapter, God tells the prophet Samuel:

“Fill your horn with oil and be on your way. I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”

Samuel’s oil was to be used to anoint a future king of Israel, precisely because, as the text says, God had chosen him. In the ancient Hebrew practice of anointing, the choice of the anointed person to be anointed in order to assume office was always implicit and sometimes explicit.

According to verse 10 of 1 Samuel chapter 16, “Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, ‘The Lord has not chosen these.” So he asked Jesse, ‘Are these all the sons you have?’ ”

In the following verses, Jesse sent for the youngest, who was named David. When David arrived, “then the LORD said, ‘Rise and anoint him; he is the one.’ So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers” (chapter 16, verse 12).

It is explicit and clear in this passage in the Hebrew Bible that those whom God had not chosen to be king were not to be anointed, but the one son whom God had chosen to be king was to be anointed.

Of course, there were quite a few ancient Hebrew kings and priests, and these were anointed as an initiation rite, to assume office. So yes, there was a plurality of messiahs, or anointed ones, who preceded Jesus.

In Jesus’ day, the Jewish people were fervently awaiting the descendant of David to deliver them from subjugation to Rome (several of Jesus’ parables were intended to change this expectation of what he would accomplish). The Jewish people referred to this coming descendant of David as the Messiah. Thus the pre-eminent Messiah came to be viewed as one and only one person, and the Scriptural implication, taken directly from the Hebrew Bible, was that God has chosen the coming Messiah. Jews believe that he is yet to come, whereas Christians believe that he has come and will come again.

Reply to Paul (comment 2 above): You are correct that Christ (in English), Christus (in Latin), and Messiah (an English rendering of the Hebrew) all mean “anointed.” (Chrestus, a common Roman name for slaves, means neither “anointed” nor “chosen,” but rather “good, kind, useful/”) Your own views regarding anointing, however, which you are certainly free to hold in your own context, are entirely different from the view presented in 1 Samuel chapter 16, where divine choice of the person to be anointed is explicit. In the first verse of that chapter, God tells the prophet Samuel: “Fill your horn with oil and be on your way. I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.” Samuel’s oil was to be used to anoint a future king of Israel, precisely because, as the text says, God had chosen him. In the ancient Hebrew practice of anointing, the choice of the anointed person to be anointed in order to assume office was always implicit and sometimes explicit. According to verse 10 of 1 Samuel chapter 16, “Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, ‘The Lord has not chosen these.” So he asked Jesse, ‘Are these all the sons you have?’ ” In the following verses, Jesse sent for the youngest, who was named David. When David arrived, “then the LORD said, ‘Rise and anoint him; he is the one.’ So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers” (chapter 16, verse 12). It is explicit and clear in this passage in the Hebrew Bible that those whom God had not chosen to be king were not to be anointed, but the one son whom God had chosen to be king was to be anointed. Of course, there were quite a few ancient Hebrew kings and priests, and these were anointed as an initiation rite, to assume office. So yes, there was a plurality of messiahs, or anointed ones, who preceded Jesus. In Jesus’ day, the Jewish people were fervently awaiting the descendant of David to deliver them from subjugation to Rome (several of Jesus’ parables were intended to change this expectation of what he would accomplish). The Jewish people referred to this coming descendant of David as the Messiah. Thus the pre-eminent Messiah came to be viewed as one and only one person, and the Scriptural implication, taken directly from the Hebrew Bible, was that God has chosen the coming Messiah. Jews believe that he is yet to come, whereas Christians believe that he has come and will come again. Lawrence Mykytiuk

A second reply to Daniel (comment 1 above):

The information in my first reply came from endnotes 4 and 5 above. For other books on particular subtopics or sources, see the other endnotes.

Among the best of these specialized books mentioned in the endnotes is:

Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). Mason’s book is a thorough, scholarly examination of his topic. Some parts are fairly easy reading, and other parts require the reader’s close concentration, but it is an excellent way to get acquainted with several important sources outside of the New Testament.

A second reply to Daniel (comment 1 above): The information in my first reply came from endnotes 4 and 5 above. For other books on particular subtopics or sources, see the other endnotes. Among the best of these specialized books mentioned in the endnotes is: Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). Mason’s book is a thorough, scholarly examination of his topic. Some parts are fairly easy reading, and other parts require the reader’s close concentration, but it is an excellent way to get acquainted with several important sources outside of the New Testament.

Reply to Daniel (comment 1 above): Thank you for asking, Daniel. Almost all of the following books are available new or used (less expensive) from Internet booksellers. Your local public or academic library might also have some or all of these, and typically libraries appreciate suggestions for what books to add to their collections.

a. On the specific topic of evidence outside of the Bible regarding Jesus’s existence, in my view, the best book is: Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000).

b. For more general coverage of both Christian and non-Christian sources, both of the following books are excellent and up to date: Craig A. Evans, ed., Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (New York: Routledge, 2008) Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998). Note: Thiessen and Merz make the important point that all evidence from all sources must be considered. Both Biblical and non-Biblical sources “are in principle of equal value in the study of Jesus” (p. 23).

(My article above is intended to cover the non-Christian sources, so it actually presents only a relatively small part of the whole picture. But it is the part that seems to attract more interest these days, especially from people who read Biblical Archaeology Review or visit the Biblical Archaeology Society’s web site.)

c. A somewhat older book that is still excellent—and on certain points actually providing a better perspective—is F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1974], pp. 14–15).

Another important book is Bart D. Ehrman’s strong affirmation of Jesus’ existence in his Did Jesus Exist? (New York: HarperOne, 2012). It is largely based on New Testament data. Ehrman bases his conclusion that Jesus existed on two facts: first, that the apostle Paul was personally acquainted with Jesus’ brother James and with the apostle Peter; and second, that, contrary to Jewish messianic expectation of the day, Jesus was crucified (p. 173). Ehrman presents his case as a scholar of the New Testament. His book is interesting, because he considers himself an agnostic, but he finds the historical case for Jesus’ existence to be solid.

Best wishes, Daniel, as you explore this fascinating subject.

Reply to Daniel (comment 1 above): Thank you for asking, Daniel. Almost all of the following books are available new or used (less expensive) from Internet booksellers. Your local public or academic library might also have some or all of these, and typically libraries appreciate suggestions for what books to add to their collections. a. On the specific topic of evidence outside of the Bible regarding Jesus’s existence, in my view, the best book is: Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000). b. For more general coverage of both Christian and non-Christian sources, both of the following books are excellent and up to date: Craig A. Evans, ed., Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (New York: Routledge, 2008) Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998). Note: Thiessen and Merz make the important point that all evidence from all sources must be considered. Both Biblical and non-Biblical sources “are in principle of equal value in the study of Jesus” (p. 23). (My article above is intended to cover the non-Christian sources, so it actually presents only a relatively small part of the whole picture. But it is the part that seems to attract more interest these days, especially from people who read Biblical Archaeology Review or visit the Biblical Archaeology Society’s web site.) c. A somewhat older book that is still excellent—and on certain points actually providing a better perspective—is F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1974], pp. 14–15). Another important book is Bart D. Ehrman’s strong affirmation of Jesus’ existence in his Did Jesus Exist? (New York: HarperOne, 2012). It is largely based on New Testament data. Ehrman bases his conclusion that Jesus existed on two facts: first, that the apostle Paul was personally acquainted with Jesus’ brother James and with the apostle Peter; and second, that, contrary to Jewish messianic expectation of the day, Jesus was crucified (p. 173). Ehrman presents his case as a scholar of the New Testament. His book is interesting, because he considers himself an agnostic, but he finds the historical case for Jesus’ existence to be solid. Best wishes, Daniel, as you explore this fascinating subject. Lawrence Mykytiuk

The entire argument is based on the completely false assumption that Christ, Christus, Chrestus and Messiah mean “chosen one”. This terrible, wrong assumption has led to thousands of years of political incorrectness, in as much as we have completely misunderstood the correct way to govern the planet! It does NOT mean “chosen one” it means “anointed one”. And if you check your facts, that means someone who has been anointed with an oil primarily consisting of “ancient myrrh” (Exodus 30:23) described by Dioscordes as the “Egyptian Thorn” which is NOT the myrrh of today. This anointing is a purely physical and mental process intended to remove greed from the human psyche, nothing to do with being chosen by God, or elected by men. As such, there were many, many historical Christs and we governed this planet a lot better than the Romans or our present governments.

Is there a book that contains all the info, explained above And there is such book where can I get one

If you can read Russian – check out this book – “Jesus Christ in the Documents of History” (Iisus Hristos v dokumentah istorii). There collected vast corpus of information about Jesus in different sources of the Ancient world (including Jewish sources), but author of this book comes to the conclusion that the main and nearly the only source of this information were early Christians http://www.lib.ru/HRISTIAN/DEREWENSKIJ/derewenskij.pdf

This is a great article and is easy to follow. I’ve tried reading other writings on the subject and they are just too heady. I appreciate that you left out pieces of evidence that, although would support your point, you could not be certain were authentic. Thank you for your work on this subject.

I believe there are a multitude of reasons to doubt Jesus Christ …. However if you have ever had a personal relationship with Him and watched Him change your DNA from the inside out then you cannot doubt …. Jesus changed the DNA of all the dinosaurs on Earth so they crawl upon their bellies Just as He said they would in Geneses ….. He can and does change the DNA of all those who seek Him into new Creations in Christ ! You read it but then you can not believe the Truth in what you read !! HOHOHO ! MERRY CHRISTMAS !

Reply to 46, Ms. or Mr. not: This is a strange reply to an article that explains documentation of Jesus’ existence outside of the Bible.

I stopped reading when the first answer quoted a sentence out of the bible… some people are looking for REAL answers. Physical evidence. If all every Christian can do is to provide an answer out of the bible. Then there is no REAL answer to me. An answer outside of the bible would have a more interest to me.

Reply to Rene (44 above): Thank you, Rene, for your kind message. It’s fine to doubt your doubts, but only if you also do a good job of finding, understanding, and evaluating the most important evidence—otherwise, mere scepticism amounts to needlessly depriving oneself of the benefit of good answers.

Good guides, perhaps librarians or fair-minded scholars, can help in locating evidence. Without such a guide, it can take quite a while to find out what that most important evidence is. But even then, to experience long-term hunger for the evidence and for solid conclusions can ultimately be good for the mind and spirit.

Some years ago I was intensely doubting my doubts and searching a bit, when by apparently dumb luck I stumbled on some evidence that I found to be very convincing: Psalm 22, which was definitely written in Hebrew and translated into Greek well before Jesus lived, when compared with Matthew chapter 27, seemed to me (and still seems, after considerable study) to present not an airtight case, but a very persuasive one. I recognize that not everyone will agree, and that is simply the way it is. In the last analysis, you choose what to believe or reject, hopefully in a reasonable, fair process of investigation.

The evidence for the real existence of Jesus who was called Messiah/Christ is well presented in several scholarly books, most conveniently in those cited in the article above.

My sincere best wishes to you, Rene.

Reply to Rene (44 above): Thank you, Rene, for your kind message. It’s fine to doubt your doubts, but only if you also do a good job of finding, understanding, and evaluating the most important evidence—otherwise, mere scepticism amounts to needlessly depriving oneself of the benefit of good answers. Good guides, perhaps librarians or fair-minded scholars, can help in locating evidence. Without such a guide, it can take quite a while to find out what that most important evidence is. But even then, to experience long-term hunger for the evidence and for solid conclusions can ultimately be good for the mind and spirit. Some years ago I was intensely doubting my doubts and searching a bit, when by apparently dumb luck I stumbled on some evidence that I found to be very convincing: Psalm 22, which was definitely written in Hebrew and translated into Greek well before Jesus lived, when compared with Matthew chapter 27, seemed to me (and still seems, after considerable study) to present not an airtight case, but a very persuasive one. I recognize that not everyone will agree, and that is simply the way it is. In the last analysis, you choose what to believe or reject, hopefully in a reasonable, fair process of investigation. The evidence for the real existence of Jesus who was called Messiah/Christ is well presented in several scholarly books, most conveniently in those cited in the article above. My sincere best wishes to you, Rene. Lawrence Mykytiuk

Thank you. This article is very timely. I am on the road to Non believing in God anymore, but it is articles like this one that keeps me away from crossing that bridge.

You are a deliberate liar. Christianity is a fraud and it is now in the rubbish heap of history, Good riddance to mankinds most revolting episode.

Reply to Aldemir from Brazil (comment 42 above): In very bad Portuguese from Google Translator (forgive me!): Sim, de fato, Aldemir Eu acredito que Jesus viveu e agora vive novamente! Quando ele foi crucificado, Jesus deu a sua vida como o sacrifício perfeito para todos os nossos pecados, sofrendo morte em nosso lugar. Depois de ser enterrado, ele fisicamente ressuscitou dentre os mortos. O fato de que Deus o ressuscitou dentre os mortos mostrou claramente que Deus aprovava tudo o que ele fez e disse. Na sua ascensão, ele foi levado para o céu, onde agora está sentado à direita de Deus Pai, orando por nós! Para este dom de misericórdia imerecida Estou impressionado e eternamente grato. Mas uma vez que nem todo mundo acredita, como você e eu, quando se trata de mostrar que Jesus era um homem na história, temos de confiar em apenas uma evidência histórica antiga. Devemos tratar a questão da existência de Jesus o mais objetivamente possível, na qualidade de críticos do que poderíamos dizer antes de dizer qualquer coisa. Nossas demonstrações de fé em Jesus são subjetivos e são feitas no presente, para que eles não podem contar como evidência da existência de Jesus quando ele viveu na terra. Grandes Abraços volta para você. . Lawrence Mykytiuk

In English: Yes indeed, Aldemir I believe that Jesus lived and now lives again! When he was crucified, Jesus gave up his life as the perfect sacrifice for all our sins, suffering death in our place. After being buried, he physically rose from the dead. The fact that God raised him from the dead clearly showed that God approved of everything he did and said. At his ascension, he was taken up into heaven, where he now sits at the right hand of God the Father, praying for us! For this gift of undeserved mercy I am amazed and forever grateful. But since not everyone believes as you and I do, when it comes to showing that Jesus was a man in history, we must rely on ancient historical evidence only. We must treat the question of Jesus’ existence as objectively as possible, acting as critics of what we might say before we say anything. Our statements of faith in Jesus are subjective and are made in the present, so they cannot count as evidence of existence of Jesus when he lived on earth. Big Hugs back to you. . Lawrence Mykytiuk

Reply to Aldemir from Brazil (comment 42 above): In very bad Portuguese from Google Translator (forgive me!): Sim, de fato, Aldemir Eu acredito que Jesus viveu e agora vive novamente! Quando ele foi crucificado, Jesus deu a sua vida como o sacrifício perfeito para todos os nossos pecados, sofrendo morte em nosso lugar. Depois de ser enterrado, ele fisicamente ressuscitou dentre os mortos. O fato de que Deus o ressuscitou dentre os mortos mostrou claramente que Deus aprovava tudo o que ele fez e disse. Na sua ascensão, ele foi levado para o céu, onde agora está sentado à direita de Deus Pai, orando por nós! Para este dom de misericórdia imerecida Estou impressionado e eternamente grato. Mas uma vez que nem todo mundo acredita, como você e eu, quando se trata de mostrar que Jesus era um homem na história, temos de confiar em apenas uma evidência histórica antiga. Devemos tratar a questão da existência de Jesus o mais objetivamente possível, na qualidade de críticos do que poderíamos dizer antes de dizer qualquer coisa. Nossas demonstrações de fé em Jesus são subjetivos e são feitas no presente, para que eles não podem contar como evidência da existência de Jesus quando ele viveu na terra. Grandes Abraços volta para você. . Lawrence Mykytiuk In English: Yes indeed, Aldemir I believe that Jesus lived and now lives again! When he was crucified, Jesus gave up his life as the perfect sacrifice for all our sins, suffering death in our place. After being buried, he physically rose from the dead. The fact that God raised him from the dead clearly showed that God approved of everything he did and said. At his ascension, he was taken up into heaven, where he now sits at the right hand of God the Father, praying for us! For this gift of undeserved mercy I am amazed and forever grateful. But since not everyone believes as you and I do, when it comes to showing that Jesus was a man in history, we must rely on ancient historical evidence only. We must treat the question of Jesus’ existence as objectively as possible, acting as critics of what we might say before we say anything. Our statements of faith in Jesus are subjective and are made in the present, so they cannot count as evidence of existence of Jesus when he lived on earth. Big Hugs back to you. . Lawrence Mykytiuk

So, In summary sir , Which your opinion about Jesus, do you believes that Jesus lived and lives too, ? I apologize my poor english, i`m brazilian man. A Big hug

So, In summary sir , Which your opinion about Jesus, do you believes that Jesus lived, and lives too ? I apologize my poor english, i`m brazilian man..

[…] 2 describes a miracle: During the festival of Pentecost, Jesus’ disciples are given the Holy Spirit, and they begin speaking in tongues (other languages). Are […]

[…] parts of the historical account of his life. There is a good overview of those sources here: Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible – Biblical Archaeology Society Here is a man who was a cold case homicide detective who decided to tackle the Resurrection as […]

[…] http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jes&#8230 ; […]

[…] Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible […]

A fourth reply (if I may) to Luke (37 above) and to interested readers: Luke’s last question is less guarded that the previous three: “Better yet give me one example of something written by anyone who was even alive when Jesus Lived.”

The author of the letter of James was very much alive during Jesus’ lifetime on earth. Commentaries on this letter sometimes observe that it has several of the same wise insights also found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5 through 7). John R. W. Stott observed that the James who wrote the letter might well have been physically present when Jesus first preached that sermon.

Matthew, also called Levi, who earlier collected taxes for the Roman rulers, was alive during Jesus’ lifetime, eventually became a follower of Jesus, and wrote one of only four first-century Gospels, which are the ones in the New Testament.

Simon, the big fisherman whom Jesus re-named Peter, became his follower. His junior companion Mark heard Peter’s preaching and apparently rendered it, some would say as recognizably Peter’s message, in the Gospel of Mark.

John, the beloved disciple, is arguably the author of the Gospel like no other. And as mentioned in the P.S. of comment 38, the first-century Luke, who apparently did not know Jesus in person, conducted painstaking historical research, very likely including interviews, for example, of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Because Jesus won the hearts of the Gospel writers, today some amateurs, not realizing that all sources carry bias, completely dismiss them as “biased sources,” as if bias always made it impossible to tease out facts. At the same time, however, regardless of how one might feel about Jesus—teacher and healer versus deceiver and magician—they all ended up as his followers. Their discipleship is an indication that they came into contact with a strong personality who elicited their voluntary loyalty. This fact in turn points with considerable force to his existence.

A fourth reply (if I may) to Luke (37 above) and to interested readers: Luke’s last question is less guarded that the previous three: “Better yet give me one example of something written by anyone who was even alive when Jesus Lived.” The author of the letter of James was very much alive during Jesus’ lifetime on earth. Commentaries on this letter sometimes observe that it has several of the same wise insights also found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5 through 7). John R. W. Stott observed that the James who wrote the letter might well have been physically present when Jesus first preached that sermon. Matthew, also called Levi, who earlier collected taxes for the Roman rulers, was alive during Jesus’ lifetime, eventually became a follower of Jesus, and wrote one of only four first-century Gospels, which are the ones in the New Testament. Simon, the big fisherman whom Jesus re-named Peter, became his follower. His junior companion Mark heard Peter’s preaching and apparently rendered it, some would say as recognizably Peter’s message, in the Gospel of Mark. John, the beloved disciple, is arguably the author of the Gospel like no other. And as mentioned in the P.S. of comment 38, the first-century Luke, who apparently did not know Jesus in person, conducted painstaking historical research, very likely including interviews, for example, of Mary the mother of Jesus. Because Jesus won the hearts of the Gospel writers, today some amateurs, not realizing that all sources carry bias, completely dismiss them as “biased sources,” as if bias always made it impossible to tease out facts. At the same time, however, regardless of how one might feel about Jesus—teacher and healer versus deceiver and magician—they all ended up as his followers. Their discipleship is an indication that they came into contact with a strong personality who elicited their voluntary loyalty. This fact in turn points with considerable force to his existence.

A third reply to Luke (37 above) and to interested readers: Luke’s next three questions all carefully—and artificially—limit the evidence to what was written _during_ Jesus’ earthly lifetime: “written anytime whatsoever during the life of Jesus,” “one writing by Jesus, or anyone at all from the time he lived,” and “anyone at all that wrote about him during his life.” Luke seems to want very much to avoid all written evidence that appeared _after_ the crucifixion. Of course, the mere fact that something was written after a person’s death does not at all, by itself, invalidate its content. Moreover, the best histories are often written long after the event, and the best biographies are often written long after the person died. For example, even with time-travel, could James M. McPherson have written his great book, _Battle Cry of Freedom: the Civil War Era_ (1988), before General Robert E. Lee of the Confederate States of America surrendered at Appomattox courthouse in 1865? Impossible. It takes time and sustained effort to gather evidence, analyze it, and develop a good historical perspective. The same could be said for many excellent biographies of presidents and of first ladies.

The cutoff point that Luke wants to impose is not neutral. It represents an attempt to eliminate consideration of all surviving Christian, Jewish, and pagan evidence for the existence of Jesus. Of course, once one shuts one’s eyes to all the evidence, it is easy to deny any historically supported fact.

A third reply to Luke (37 above) and to interested readers: Luke’s next three questions all carefully—and artificially—limit the evidence to what was written _during_ Jesus’ earthly lifetime: “written anytime whatsoever during the life of Jesus,” “one writing by Jesus, or anyone at all from the time he lived,” and “anyone at all that wrote about him during his life.” Luke seems to want very much to avoid all written evidence that appeared _after_ the crucifixion. Of course, the mere fact that something was written after a person’s death does not at all, by itself, invalidate its content. Moreover, the best histories are often written long after the event, and the best biographies are often written long after the person died. For example, even with time-travel, could James M. McPherson have written his great book, _Battle Cry of Freedom: the Civil War Era_ (1988), before General Robert E. Lee of the Confederate States of America surrendered at Appomattox courthouse in 1865? Impossible. It takes time and sustained effort to gather evidence, analyze it, and develop a good historical perspective. The same could be said for many excellent biographies of presidents and of first ladies. The cutoff point that Luke wants to impose is not neutral. It represents an attempt to eliminate consideration of all surviving Christian, Jewish, and pagan evidence for the existence of Jesus. Of course, once one shuts one’s eyes to all the evidence, it is easy to deny any historically supported fact.

A second reply to Luke (37 above): Oh yes indeed, Luke, I think the Bible is evidence of many things, because the Bible itself consists of ancient books. The Dead Sea Scrolls, copied between 225 B.C.E. and 68 C.E., include every book of the Hebrew Bible except Esther. For instance, they bring us back more than 2/3 of the chronological distance back to David, and about 3/4 of the way back to Jeremiah.

Before the Dead Sea Scrolls began to be discovered in 1947 (scroll discoveries continued for two decades), the oldest known copies of the complete Hebrew Bible were from the tenth century C.E. (that is, the 900s). Suddenly, the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a great leap back to copies of the Bible that were about 1,000 years earlier. And when the two were compared, along with interesting differences, they showed that in general, the text had been copied with remarkable faithfulness. The same depth of history, the same great promises, and the same inspiring vision of future healing and joy were found in texts from both time periods.

And the Hebrew Bible is certainly not lacking in external verification, as archaeology has shown. See, for example, two books by Mordechai Cogan, _The Raging Torrent: Historical Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia Relating to Ancient Israel_ (Carta, 2008) and _Bound for Exile: Israelites and Judeans under Imperial Yoke: Documents from Assyria and Babylonia_ (Carta: 2013).

A second reply to Luke (37 above): Oh yes indeed, Luke, I think the Bible is evidence of many things, because the Bible itself consists of ancient books. The Dead Sea Scrolls, copied between 225 B.C.E. and 68 C.E., include every book of the Hebrew Bible except Esther. For instance, they bring us back more than 2/3 of the chronological distance back to David, and about 3/4 of the way back to Jeremiah. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls began to be discovered in 1947 (scroll discoveries continued for two decades), the oldest known copies of the complete Hebrew Bible were from the tenth century C.E. (that is, the 900s). Suddenly, the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a great leap back to copies of the Bible that were about 1,000 years earlier. And when the two were compared, along with interesting differences, they showed that in general, the text had been copied with remarkable faithfulness. The same depth of history, the same great promises, and the same inspiring vision of future healing and joy were found in texts from both time periods. And the Hebrew Bible is certainly not lacking in external verification, as archaeology has shown. See, for example, two books by Mordechai Cogan, _The Raging Torrent: Historical Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia Relating to Ancient Israel_ (Carta, 2008) and _Bound for Exile: Israelites and Judeans under Imperial Yoke: Documents from Assyria and Babylonia_ (Carta: 2013).

Reply to Luke (37 above): Your comment involves hard-driving rhetoric: “I’d like to know one . . . source . . .. Please tell me one writing . . . . Give me one single source from anyone at all . . . . Better yet give me one example of something written by anyone . . . .” These are simply rhetorical questions, which create the impression that you assume that in every single case, no such sources exist. Rhetorical questions do not expect an answer. They do not express any interest in listening. They only attempt to convey an implicit opinion.

As I understand this barrage, it amounts to: 1) an implicit claim that there is no such evidence, coupled with 2) a demand that the person you are talking to must surrender, or you will heap scorn on him or her.

This kind of comment certainly seems to be long on confrontation and short on homework.

I hope that the impression I have received is mistaken. I would love to carry on an honest discussion. If you are willing to drop the bluster and indignant facade and actually give a reasonably open, somewhat unbiased hearing to the evidence, please let me know.

P.S. It is ironic that you give your name as Luke, whose writings provide what amounts to the historical backbone of much of the New Testament. The first few verses of his Gospel include his statement, “. . . I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning . . . . to write an orderly account for you . . . , so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

Reply to Luke (37 above): Your comment involves hard-driving rhetoric: “I’d like to know one . . . source . . .. Please tell me one writing . . . . Give me one single source from anyone at all . . . . Better yet give me one example of something written by anyone . . . .” These are simply rhetorical questions, which create the impression that you assume that in every single case, no such sources exist. Rhetorical questions do not expect an answer. They do not express any interest in listening. They only attempt to convey an implicit opinion. As I understand this barrage, it amounts to: 1) an implicit claim that there is no such evidence, coupled with 2) a demand that the person you are talking to must surrender, or you will heap scorn on him or her. This kind of comment certainly seems to be long on confrontation and short on homework. I hope that the impression I have received is mistaken. I would love to carry on an honest discussion. If you are willing to drop the bluster and indignant facade and actually give a reasonably open, somewhat unbiased hearing to the evidence, please let me know. P.S. It is ironic that you give your name as Luke, whose writings provide what amounts to the historical backbone of much of the New Testament. The first few verses of his Gospel include his statement, “. . . I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning . . . . to write an orderly account for you . . . , so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

you really think the bible is evidence of anything? I’d like to know one non biblical source written anytime whatsoever during the life of Jesus. Please give me one writing by Jesus, or anyone at all from the time he lived. Give me one single source from anyone at all that wrote about him during his life. Better yet give me one example of something written by anyone who was even alive when Jesus Lived.

[…] “Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible” by Dr. Lawrence Mykytiuk of Purdue University […]

[…] BAR article used an image of Codex Parisinus gr. 2075, 45v (one of the very many such manuscripts described […]

Jesus exists! I saw him in the flesh in 2007. I love you Jesus

Reply to Billy (30 above) and to correct my post 34 above:

I apologize to Dr. Richard Carrier for my error in post 34 above when I mistakenly said he had deleted my comment of March 8. I simply could not see it and thought it was gone forever. On about April 19, I learned that, following his latest trip(s), Richard Carrier has a huge backlog of comments to review and reply to,

I certainly understand what it is to go through many comments coming from different directions and do one’s best to provide a good reply to each one, so I am actually grateful for Richard’s current efforts.

Today, April 26, I learned from his blog that, if I understand correctly, on April 9 he did not delete my March 8 comment on his blog. Rather, he reports that he is diligently working through the comments he has received. I am content to wait my turn. As of April 9, I was unaware that he had received so many comments on his blog that he needed to set new rules and “dig out” of the backlog of comments. I did not mean to give any impression that I expect to receive preferential treatment.

Reply to Billy (30 above) and to correct my post 34 above: I apologize to Dr. Richard Carrier for my error in post 34 above when I mistakenly said he had deleted my comment of March 8. I simply could not see it and thought it was gone forever. On about April 19, I learned that, following his latest trip(s), Richard Carrier has a huge backlog of comments to review and reply to, I certainly understand what it is to go through many comments coming from different directions and do one’s best to provide a good reply to each one, so I am actually grateful for Richard’s current efforts. Today, April 26, I learned from his blog that, if I understand correctly, on April 9 he did not delete my March 8 comment on his blog. Rather, he reports that he is diligently working through the comments he has received. I am content to wait my turn. As of April 9, I was unaware that he had received so many comments on his blog that he needed to set new rules and “dig out” of the backlog of comments. I did not mean to give any impression that I expect to receive preferential treatment.

[…] Article:  “Did Jesus Exist” –  Biblical Archaeology Review […]

Reply to Billy (30 above): Unfortunately for the progress of scholarly dialogue, today Dr. Carrier has “moderated” my brief comment on his blog by deleting it.

Reply to James (comment 32 above): Thank you for commenting, Could you please clarify who is the David you are responding to and where his remarks about the Jesus Seminar appear?

@1 David: You say “liberal” as if it were a bad thing! The Jesus Seminar is in fact Bible scholars; check out their credentials. How silly, to say, because you don’t care for their thoughtfully developed conclusions, that they are not what they so obviously are.

[…] people assume that Jesus’ Last Supper was a Seder, a ritual meal held in celebration of the Jewish holiday of Passover. And […]

[…] Josephus and Tacitus and some other outside sources speak of the death of Jesus. […]

Jesus Christ is alive as I have heard His voice, there is no other voice like it It was during the time when Pope John Paul instituted the ecumenical movement and my church fell in with it, I was distressed about this as it seemed that the pope was trying to gather all the people under his wing. That night I had a dream Where the Lord appeared and spoke these Words “Truly, truly, I say unto thee, one of you shal betray me” I asked “is it I Lord” and the answer came “The hand that feeds my bread” I woke up in the morning still very much in dazed manner, and I asked another question “Does the church believe it is the saviour of the world?” and the answer came again.”So Eve believed and ate the apple” We are not to put our trust in churches but in the Living God, creator of heaven and earth whom send Christ to reconcile us to Him and make Him known to us. God bless

[…] or the Christ (Christos in Greek). I found both fascinating and accessible an article written by Lawrence Mykytiuk in Biblical Archaeology Review1 dealing with extra-Biblical historical evidence for the existence of this remarkable […]

[…] (cork-shaped) stone? While both kinds of blocking stones are attested in Jerusalem tombs from the time of Jesus, square (cork-shaped) stones are much, much more common than round (disk-shaped) […]

I see. Thanks Dr. Mykytiuk. I believe Dr. Carrier has his blog in moderation since he is on a speaking trip. I assume he will address it there in the comments section at some point. I’ll be on the lookout. This is such a fascinating issue. Cheers.

Reply to Billy (comment 27 above): Richard Carrier attempts to use Michael Grant’s book, Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation, to invalidate Tacitus’ reference to Christus. Although Grant makes the point that Greek and Roman historians, including Tacitus, are sometimes unreliable, this general point cannot be used to simply throw away everything they wrote, as Grant points out. Further, Grant’s general observation does not specifically nullify what Tacitus said about Jesus, about whom he possessed particular information that coincides with Josephus and the Gospels.

[…] […]

[…] Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible: […]

Reply to Billy (27 above): I just posted a brief comment on Dr. Carrier’s blog, with a link to this page. I, too, will be interested to see how he responds.

Lawrence… in the interest of hashing out these differences would you submit the above criticism to Carrier for a reply on his blog post? I make no pretenses to expertise in these matters, yet I would love to see how he would respond to your points. Thanks

Reply to Billy (25 above): In the blog post you refer to, Dr. Carrier states that “Notably, Mykytiuk even concedes Tacitus’s source was Gospel-using Christians.” The article, however, merely observes that Tacitus likely encountered Christians, whom he questioned and judged. It does not at all state that he used Christians as a “source,” as Dr Carrier claims, let alone “Tacitus’s source.” Carrier’s use of the singular amounts to a claim that Tacitus used only one source, a claim for which no conclusive evidence currently exists. In fact, Tacitus so despised Christians that he would have instinctively distrusted practically anything they said. For instance, it is remarkable that Tacitus never refers to the man he calls Christus by his actual name, Jesus, which Christians would certainly have known and mentioned. As Dr Carrier himself would be acutely aware, because of his disagreements with many scholars, there is a world of difference between becoming aware of the statements, references, and claims of others and actually giving credence to them. I am aware of statements made by followers of other religions and scholars of “no religion,” but I certainly do not concede accuracy to the data they affirm unless I verify it using reliable sources that I trust.

To make myself entirely clear—Dr. Carrier misreads the following paragraph in the article, which makes no such claim as he imagines:

“Earlier in his career, when Tacitus was Proconsul of Asia,7 he likely supervised trials, questioned people accused of being Christians and judged and punished those whom he found guilty, as his friend Pliny the Younger had done when he too was a provincial governor. Thus Tacitus stood a very good chance of becoming aware of information that he characteristically would have wanted to verify before accepting it as true.8”

The above paragraph is clarified by the attached footnote 8, quoted below, which Dr. Carrier seems not to have read. The second through fifth sentences: “I have read . . . . ” through “. . . his discernment as a historian” take away his claim regarding the article’s view of Tacitus’ sources.

“8 Perhaps he compared it to Roman records, whether in general governmental archives or in records concerning various religions. I have read one analysis by an author who arbitrarily assumes that Tacitus got his information only from Christians—no other source. Then, on the sole basis of the author’s own assumption, the analysis completely dismisses Tacitus’s clear historical statement about “Christus.” This evaluation is based on opinion, not evidence. It also undervalues Tacitus’s very careful writing and his discernment as a historian. He likely had access to some archives through his status, either as Proconsul of Asia, as a senator—or, as is often overlooked, from his connections as a high-ranking priest of Roman religion. In 88 C.E., he became “a member of the Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis [“The Board of Fifteen for Performing Sacrifices”], the priestly organization charged, among other things, with … supervising the practice of officially tolerated foreign cults in the city … [and facing] the growing necessity to distinguish illicit Christianity from licit Judaism” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 52), or, given Jewish resistance to oppressive measures taken by Rome, at least to keep a close watch on developments within Judaism. Indeed, “a Roman archive … is particularly suggested by the note of the temporary suppression of the superstition, which indicates an official perspective” (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, p. 83). Membership in this priestly regulatory group very likely gave Tacitus access to at least some of the accurate knowledge he possessed about Christus. With characteristic brevity, he reported the facts as he understood them, quickly dismissing the despised, executed Christus from the Annals (see Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p. 90).”

It is a pity that Dr. Carrier, who presents himself on his blog as a “renowned author,” has not bothered to read fully and carefully what he criticizes (and attempts to vilify) so freely.

One other observation about Dr. Carrier’s blog post is that he does not distinguish between scholarly publications—written for experts who have gone far beyond the basics and are familiar with the details of controversies discussed in books that are hundreds of pages long—and popular-level publications, such as BAR, which are written for the general public, and whose articles are of limited length. To go into the details of scholarly controversies in a popular-level article would be to lose or confuse one’s audience. Dr. Carrier must surely be aware of the difference, but he makes no attempt to be scrupulously fair by taking into account the difference in writing for two widely varying audiences. This intentional overlooking of a glaring difference gives him a pseudo-justification for underscoring a cardinal sin of the article: “Most notably, this article takes no notice of, nor responds in any way, to my book . . . .” that was published a year ago. In point of fact, while not attempting to denigrate or belittle his work in any way, I—and the specialists who are quoted in the article—simply find other works that deny the existence of Jesus to be more important.

Lawrence Mykytiuk Ph.D., Hebrew and Semitic Studies, M.A., Library and Information Studies, M.T.S. Theological Studies, Associate Professor of Library and Information Studies, Purdue University Courtesy appointment as Associate Professor of History, Purdue University

Reply to Billy (25 above): In the blog post you refer to, Dr. Carrier states that “Notably, Mykytiuk even concedes Tacitus’s source was Gospel-using Christians.” The article, however, merely observes that Tacitus likely encountered Christians, whom he questioned and judged. It does not at all state that he used Christians as a “source,” as Dr Carrier claims, let alone “Tacitus’s source.” Carrier’s use of the singular amounts to a claim that Tacitus used only one source, a claim for which no conclusive evidence currently exists. In fact, Tacitus so despised Christians that he would have instinctively distrusted practically anything they said. For instance, it is remarkable that Tacitus never refers to the man he calls Christus by his actual name, Jesus, which Christians would certainly have known and mentioned. As Dr Carrier himself would be acutely aware, because of his disagreements with many scholars, there is a world of difference between becoming aware of the statements, references, and claims of others and actually giving credence to them. I am aware of statements made by followers of other religions and scholars of “no religion,” but I certainly do not concede accuracy to the data they affirm unless I verify it using reliable sources that I trust. To make myself entirely clear—Dr. Carrier misreads the following paragraph in the article, which makes no such claim as he imagines: “Earlier in his career, when Tacitus was Proconsul of Asia,7 he likely supervised trials, questioned people accused of being Christians and judged and punished those whom he found guilty, as his friend Pliny the Younger had done when he too was a provincial governor. Thus Tacitus stood a very good chance of becoming aware of information that he characteristically would have wanted to verify before accepting it as true.8” The above paragraph is clarified by the attached footnote 8, quoted below, which Dr. Carrier seems not to have read. The second through fifth sentences: “I have read . . . . ” through “. . . his discernment as a historian” take away his claim regarding the article’s view of Tacitus’ sources. “8 Perhaps he compared it to Roman records, whether in general governmental archives or in records concerning various religions. I have read one analysis by an author who arbitrarily assumes that Tacitus got his information only from Christians—no other source. Then, on the sole basis of the author’s own assumption, the analysis completely dismisses Tacitus’s clear historical statement about “Christus.” This evaluation is based on opinion, not evidence. It also undervalues Tacitus’s very careful writing and his discernment as a historian. He likely had access to some archives through his status, either as Proconsul of Asia, as a senator—or, as is often overlooked, from his connections as a high-ranking priest of Roman religion. In 88 C.E., he became “a member of the Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis [“The Board of Fifteen for Performing Sacrifices”], the priestly organization charged, among other things, with … supervising the practice of officially tolerated foreign cults in the city … [and facing] the growing necessity to distinguish illicit Christianity from licit Judaism” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 52), or, given Jewish resistance to oppressive measures taken by Rome, at least to keep a close watch on developments within Judaism. Indeed, “a Roman archive … is particularly suggested by the note of the temporary suppression of the superstition, which indicates an official perspective” (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, p. 83). Membership in this priestly regulatory group very likely gave Tacitus access to at least some of the accurate knowledge he possessed about Christus. With characteristic brevity, he reported the facts as he understood them, quickly dismissing the despised, executed Christus from the Annals (see Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p. 90).” It is a pity that Dr. Carrier, who presents himself on his blog as a “renowned author,” has not bothered to read fully and carefully what he criticizes (and attempts to vilify) so freely. One other observation about Dr. Carrier’s blog post is that he does not distinguish between scholarly publications—written for experts who have gone far beyond the basics and are familiar with the details of controversies discussed in books that are hundreds of pages long—and popular-level publications, such as BAR, which are written for the general public, and whose articles are of limited length. To go into the details of scholarly controversies in a popular-level article would be to lose or confuse one’s audience. Dr. Carrier must surely be aware of the difference, but he makes no attempt to be scrupulously fair by taking into account the difference in writing for two widely varying audiences. This intentional overlooking of a glaring difference gives him a pseudo-justification for underscoring a cardinal sin of the article: “Most notably, this article takes no notice of, nor responds in any way, to my book . . . .” that was published a year ago. In point of fact, while not attempting to denigrate or belittle his work in any way, I—and the specialists who are quoted in the article—simply find other works that deny the existence of Jesus to be more important. Lawrence Mykytiuk Ph.D., Hebrew and Semitic Studies, M.A., Library and Information Studies, M.T.S. Theological Studies, Associate Professor of Library and Information Studies, Purdue University Courtesy appointment as Associate Professor of History, Purdue University

Dr. Richard Carrier has issued a substantive critical response to this piece by Mykytiuk. His blog posts are written in casual and often irreverent language, but don’t let that cloud the merits of his scholarly acumen and rigor. Carrier has a PhD in ancient history and has done extensive research on the question of Jesus’ historicity, so his opinion is highly relevant. He has also gone to the trouble of working out a sound methodology for analyzing these kinds of questions. Here is the link if anyone is interested in what he has to say: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6862

[…] article from Biblical Archaeology covers all the non-Christian historical sources that discuss […]

[…] Here is a link to an article at biblicalarchaeology.org, also known as Bible History Daily. Here Lawrence Mykytiuk lays out historical text of other writings at the time of Jesus in order to investigate to see if this type of evidence does in fact exist: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jes… […]

Even more embarrassing for the author is his dishonest approach in responding to criticisms lest he have to answer a question directly, and the constant attempts to validate the bible as a source for Jesus as factual in his roundabout replies. Ugh.

[…] childhood home of Jesus may have been found underneath the Sisters of Nazareth Convent in Nazareth, Israel, according to […]

Reply to Darrell (23 above): Thank you for your kind remarks, gentle response, and good observations. .

Excellent article.

Cooper, I do believe you are being a “dog in a manger” with your comments. The article and footnotes, not to mention the authors replies in this comments section, provide compelling answers to your queries……many of them referenced even!

There doesn’t seem to be any biblical connection to Tacitus’s remarks due to the rather obvious error he makes linking the name Chrestus with the Christians.

There was also the mention that there are surprisingly few original writings in existence of anything from that time! I wonder if this very early first century period was a time when writing materials were in a period of change……possibly papyrus was in use more than vellum, whatever!

It pays to read a little closer Cooper

Excellent article. Cooper, I do believe you are being a “dog in a manger” with your comments. The article and footnotes, not to mention the authors replies in this comments section, provide compelling answers to your queries……many of them referenced even! There doesn’t seem to be any biblical connection to Tacitus’s remarks due to the rather obvious error he makes linking the name Chrestus with the Christians. There was also the mention that there are surprisingly few original writings in existence of anything from that time! I wonder if this very early first century period was a time when writing materials were in a period of change……possibly papyrus was in use more than vellum, whatever! It pays to read a little closer Cooper

EYES HAVE NOT SEEN WHAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM !, FAITH IS THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR AND THE BELIEF FOR THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN !, AMEN !!!

How could these writings be confirmation of the existannce of Jesus if none are from the time of Christ , Tacitus most likely used the biblical story wether he heard it by word of mouth or read it ,as a source because there is no record of Pontias pilot executing a man named Jesus other then the bible . There is no reason to believe that any of these works used any source other then the story itself. Wether or not he existed ( I believe he did) is of little importance in the context of wether or not he is who the authors of the gospels claim him to be ( I do not believe them) . We don’t even know who the authors of the four gospels are and there is no artifacts , dwellings , tombs or works of carpentry that confirm that Jesus lived the life that they say he lived. If all that happend in his life the people he healed , saved , consoled and pissed off would have written about it when it happens , no one talked about him it seems . No one

[…] Permalink: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jes&#8230 ; […]

[…] this, Ehrman is right.  As Lawrence Mykytiuk points out in the current edition of the Biblical Archeaological Review, the evidence for Jesus is conclusive.  […]

[…] Given the surge in interest in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, Dr. Lawrence Mykytiuk (Purdue University) weighs in on the non-Biblical sources about Jesus for Bible History Daily, in his piece “Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible.” […]

Reply to Bruce (19. above): I stand by my article. It is based on the strongest ancient evidence and the best publications by modern scholars that I could find. The endnotes above which cite these numerous publications are almost as long as the article itself. You have not cited a single scholarly publication in support of your contentions. I am also grateful for the evidence, knowledge, insights, and references provided by readers in their helpful comments, especially the following: On the previous page (which is linked below, through the words “Previous 1″ on the line before “Continuing the Discussion” that introduce the linked web pages): Bob (comments 3, 9, and 11), Kurt (comment 31), and Gene R. (comments 33 and 34). Above on this page: Gene R. again (comment 5 above), Brian (comment 8 above), and John (comment 16 above). Thank you, one and all. My comments 39, 40, 44, and 45 on the previous page, as well as comment 11 above, were intended to provide helpful light on the subject in response to your comments. To descend to _ad_hominem_ argument by impugning the motives of any author, as your comment 19 does, cannot establish your case. My major offense seems to be stating that Jesus was named Jesus. And so, Bruce, let me wish you a Happy New Year!

Lawrence, Not only were all my questions very unsatisfactorily answered in typical believer-fashion and other questions or issues simply ignored or brushed aside, but I find it clear as day that you are really not interested in the truth first, as a true scientist or archaeologist would be, but that your religious beliefs comes first and all else is only there to confirm these beliefs.

You suspected I had an agenda here. That would be correct and my agenda would be the true truth above all else and not religious-belief first and truth second.

Lawrence, Not only were all my questions very unsatisfactorily answered in typical believer-fashion and other questions or issues simply ignored or brushed aside, but I find it clear as day that you are really not interested in the truth first, as a true scientist or archaeologist would be, but that your religious beliefs comes first and all else is only there to confirm these beliefs. You suspected I had an agenda here. That would be correct and my agenda would be the true truth above all else and not religious-belief first and truth second.

Reply to Bruce (17. above): I and others have already replied to your questions regarding the naming of Jesus. Regarding the data in the rest of your comment, I do not find factual material there. But you can spin a good yarn.

Lawrence, Matthew 23, which says in no uncertain terms his name shall be Emmanuel, yet this verse is surrounded by his name being Jesus as well; how do you explain away such seeming apparent contradiction and confusing inconsistency?

Also, how accurate to actual historical events do you think the New Testament could possibly be considering it was commissioned nearly 400 years after the events it was supposed to document for all time? Very few people could read or write back then and the chances for falsifications, alterations, distortions were extremely high. Even in this day and age, such is the case depending on where one gets their news and the bias of such a source.

For ex., due to a fire, the first Torah or Old Testament was destroyed. Then 400 years later, a 2nd Torah was cobbled together by 12 alleged Prophets in 40 days, which was composed of 240 books or stories that were based on ancient oral acceptances, assertions, traditions and deliberate self-serving distortions, from which arose, the Five Books of Moses or the Pentateuch of Judaism. For ex., it is said that Moses wandered the desert for 40 years after escaping Egyptian slavery with his Jewish followers, however I have also read that it was more likely 40 weeks, which makes a lot more sense considering the geography of the area, of which Moses was surely knowledgeable considering his stint as an Egyptian military leader.

My point is distortion of actualities was far more likely than a precise and accurate rendering of events thousands of years ago, made even more likely by the very few who could even read or write and then those were on the payroll of those in power who had it in their own special interest to present events and stories to their advantage, to increase & extend their own power and wealth.

Lawrence, Matthew 23, which says in no uncertain terms his name shall be Emmanuel, yet this verse is surrounded by his name being Jesus as well; how do you explain away such seeming apparent contradiction and confusing inconsistency? Also, how accurate to actual historical events do you think the New Testament could possibly be considering it was commissioned nearly 400 years after the events it was supposed to document for all time? Very few people could read or write back then and the chances for falsifications, alterations, distortions were extremely high. Even in this day and age, such is the case depending on where one gets their news and the bias of such a source. For ex., due to a fire, the first Torah or Old Testament was destroyed. Then 400 years later, a 2nd Torah was cobbled together by 12 alleged Prophets in 40 days, which was composed of 240 books or stories that were based on ancient oral acceptances, assertions, traditions and deliberate self-serving distortions, from which arose, the Five Books of Moses or the Pentateuch of Judaism. For ex., it is said that Moses wandered the desert for 40 years after escaping Egyptian slavery with his Jewish followers, however I have also read that it was more likely 40 weeks, which makes a lot more sense considering the geography of the area, of which Moses was surely knowledgeable considering his stint as an Egyptian military leader. My point is distortion of actualities was far more likely than a precise and accurate rendering of events thousands of years ago, made even more likely by the very few who could even read or write and then those were on the payroll of those in power who had it in their own special interest to present events and stories to their advantage, to increase & extend their own power and wealth.

[…] I published an article in BAR titled “Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible.”a The enormous interest this article generated was a complete surprise to me. Nearly 40 websites in […]

On the discussion on names. In Scripture name = character and not just a title. God is revealed in holy character, creative actions, and divine wisdom. God is not a spatial being with a title. Jesus revealed God. He was in character God with us.

Reply to Erik (on the previous page, post 18. The previous page is linked below, through the words “Previous 1″ on the line before “Continuing the Discussion” that introduce the web pages listed on this page.):

In response to your comment, “Josephus mentions , , , Jesus, son of Damneus who was anointed [= Chrestos], as high priest.”

This high priest was anointed with oit at the beginning of his high priestly ministry. The Greek term is not the Roman name of slaves and freedmen,Chrestos, but rather christos, meaning simply “anointed,” just as previous high priests and later ones were anointed with oil, as required by the law of Moses.

In response to your comments: “I have read, that perhaps the most important aspect re. the term “christian” is, that Josephus normally always explains his Roman readers the meanings when he introduces unfamiliar terms, also when he repeats. But here there is no explanations of what a “chrestos” are?”

Again, as the article explains, the term is not the Roman name of slaves and freedmen, which is,Chrestos (meaning “good, kind, useful, helpful”) but rather the Greek term christos, meaning “anointed,” or if referring to the coming Jewish Messiah, Christos, “(the) anointed one.” The significance of Josephus not explaining the significance of the term in book 20 of his Jewish Antiquities is that since he does explain new terms to his Roman readers, the likely implication is that he already explained something of the significance of the term Christos earlier in Jewish Antiquities. This implication tends to strengthen the case for Josephus as the author of the longer reference to Jesus in book 18 of Jewish Antiquities.

Reply to Erik (on the previous page, post 18. The previous page is linked below, through the words “Previous 1″ on the line before “Continuing the Discussion” that introduce the web pages listed on this page.): In response to your comment, “Josephus mentions , , , Jesus, son of Damneus who was anointed [= Chrestos], as high priest.” This high priest was anointed with oit at the beginning of his high priestly ministry. The Greek term is not the Roman name of slaves and freedmen,Chrestos, but rather christos, meaning simply “anointed,” just as previous high priests and later ones were anointed with oil, as required by the law of Moses. In response to your comments: “I have read, that perhaps the most important aspect re. the term “christian” is, that Josephus normally always explains his Roman readers the meanings when he introduces unfamiliar terms, also when he repeats. But here there is no explanations of what a “chrestos” are?” Again, as the article explains, the term is not the Roman name of slaves and freedmen, which is,Chrestos (meaning “good, kind, useful, helpful”) but rather the Greek term christos, meaning “anointed,” or if referring to the coming Jewish Messiah, Christos, “(the) anointed one.” The significance of Josephus not explaining the significance of the term in book 20 of his Jewish Antiquities is that since he does explain new terms to his Roman readers, the likely implication is that he already explained something of the significance of the term Christos earlier in Jewish Antiquities. This implication tends to strengthen the case for Josephus as the author of the longer reference to Jesus in book 18 of Jewish Antiquities.

Reply to Erik (on the previous page, post 18. In response to your comments, “I couldn’t find anything about the the chronology re. the term ‘christian’ ” and, “The first time the term Christian was mentioned was in Antioch””

It is impossible to date the beginning of the use of the term Christian. It might have been used originally against believers in Jesus, as a term of derision, but there is no way to assign an exact year to it, and the New Testament gives us only a general idea of when it was first used: during the first century: perhaps around the time when Barnabas brought Saul/Paul the apostle to Antioch (Acts 11:25-26). By the time Paul had been put on trial before Festus (Acts chapter 25) and appeared before King Agrippa (Acts 26), even King Agrippa used the term “Christian” as a way of referring to a follower of Jesus (Acts 26:28).

Reply to Erik (on the previous page, post 18. In response to your comments, “I couldn’t find anything about the the chronology re. the term ‘christian’ ” and, “The first time the term Christian was mentioned was in Antioch”” It is impossible to date the beginning of the use of the term Christian. It might have been used originally against believers in Jesus, as a term of derision, but there is no way to assign an exact year to it, and the New Testament gives us only a general idea of when it was first used: during the first century: perhaps around the time when Barnabas brought Saul/Paul the apostle to Antioch (Acts 11:25-26). By the time Paul had been put on trial before Festus (Acts chapter 25) and appeared before King Agrippa (Acts 26), even King Agrippa used the term “Christian” as a way of referring to a follower of Jesus (Acts 26:28).

Correction to my two posts 11. and 12. on this page: The previous page is linked not above but _below_, through the words “Previous 1″ on the line before “Continuing the Discussion” that introduce the web pages listed on this page:

Reply to Erik (on the previous page, 18. The previous page is linked above through the words “Previous 1″ on the line before “Continuing the Discussion” that introduce the web pages listed on this page): To answer your question, “Christos means anointed – At that time were kings, high priests and judges all anointed”: 1) The period of the judges ended a few decades before 1000 B.C.E. Judges were not anointed, but rather, God is said to have “raised up” various judges as military leaders from time to time, when the Hebrew people were attacked by enemies.

2) According to 1 Samuel 10:1, the last of the judges, Samuel, anointed Saul to be the first king over the Hebrew people. In Samuel chapter 16, Samuel anointed David to become king at a later time, and other Hebrew kings were also anointed, such as Solomon, according to 1 Kings 1:34. With the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 B.C.E., descendants of the Hebrew kings were no longer anointed with oil to become future kings, because the Hebrew people were ruled by other nations.

3) According to Exodus 28:41, the Hebrew high priest and other priests were to be anointed as part of their initiation ceremony. Since the priesthood continued during Jesus’ day, they were the only ones who were officially anointed with oil to begin their priestly ministry.

Right after Jesus was baptized, according to Matthew 3:16-17, Mark 1:9-11, and Luke 3:21-22, the Holy Spirit descended from above and rested upon him. Since this occurred just before Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, after which he began his ministry, many Christian theologians consider this event to be analogous to anointing with oil, but vastly more powerful.

Reply to Erik (on the previous page, 18. The previous page is linked above through the words “Previous 1″ on the line before “Continuing the Discussion” that introduce the web pages listed on this page): To answer your question, “Christos means anointed – At that time were kings, high priests and judges all anointed”: 1) The period of the judges ended a few decades before 1000 B.C.E. Judges were not anointed, but rather, God is said to have “raised up” various judges as military leaders from time to time, when the Hebrew people were attacked by enemies. 2) According to 1 Samuel 10:1, the last of the judges, Samuel, anointed Saul to be the first king over the Hebrew people. In Samuel chapter 16, Samuel anointed David to become king at a later time, and other Hebrew kings were also anointed, such as Solomon, according to 1 Kings 1:34. With the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 B.C.E., descendants of the Hebrew kings were no longer anointed with oil to become future kings, because the Hebrew people were ruled by other nations. 3) According to Exodus 28:41, the Hebrew high priest and other priests were to be anointed as part of their initiation ceremony. Since the priesthood continued during Jesus’ day, they were the only ones who were officially anointed with oil to begin their priestly ministry. Right after Jesus was baptized, according to Matthew 3:16-17, Mark 1:9-11, and Luke 3:21-22, the Holy Spirit descended from above and rested upon him. Since this occurred just before Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, after which he began his ministry, many Christian theologians consider this event to be analogous to anointing with oil, but vastly more powerful.

Reply to Bruce (4., and 10. above and, on the previous page, 38. The previous page is linked above through the words “Previous 1” on the line before “Continuing the Discussion” that introduce the web pages listed on this page): Actually, Bruce, in 10 above, you have simply repeated your words in 4 above, which was posted. Since you have argued on the basis of Matthew 1:23 in your post 38 on the previous page, let us quote the whole episode in Matthew 1:18-25. (Since have used the King James version, I will follow your preference).

“[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. [20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. [21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. [22] Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, [23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: [25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1:18-25)

Note that in verse 21, God’s message through the angel is a _command_ to Joseph to name the child _Jesus_. Also, verse 25 states that Joseph did in fact call his name Jesus. In between these two verses is a quotation from Isaiah chapter 7.

In post 38 on the previous page, you presented the following statements about the passages in Matthew chapter 1 and Isaiah chapter 7:

” I find it ridiculous that Jesus was his given name at birth. Matthew 1:23 – “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” Isaiah 7:14 – “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. I find it much more likely that his birth name was Immanuel . . . .”

Your statements are nothing more than a denial of two very plain statements found in Matthew’s Gospel that come before and after the passage from Isaiah. Faced with a choice between your denial and Matthew’s account, I find your view to be in error and Matthew’s account to be reliable. * * * Building on the statement found in Matthew, “thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins, ” it is safe to say that Matthew believed that God knew in advance that Jesus would be the savior of his people, and that is the reason for naming him Jesus. The verses you quote in Philippians chapter 2 present the _logical_ reason that God knew all along, not the _chronological_ order, as if God were waiting to see if Jesus would accomplish his mission:

“And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name.” (Philippians 2:8, 9)

Further, the passage in Hebrews chapter 1 that you quote is intended to show how much greater Jesus’ name (and character) is than that name (and character) of any angels:

” . . . having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” (Hebrews 1:4)

Jesus inherited his name not after his death, but upon his birth, as indicated in Matthew’s Gospel.

Reply to Bruce (4., and 10. above and, on the previous page, 38. The previous page is linked above through the words “Previous 1” on the line before “Continuing the Discussion” that introduce the web pages listed on this page): Actually, Bruce, in 10 above, you have simply repeated your words in 4 above, which was posted. Since you have argued on the basis of Matthew 1:23 in your post 38 on the previous page, let us quote the whole episode in Matthew 1:18-25. (Since have used the King James version, I will follow your preference). “[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. [20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. [21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. [22] Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, [23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: [25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1:18-25) Note that in verse 21, God’s message through the angel is a _command_ to Joseph to name the child _Jesus_. Also, verse 25 states that Joseph did in fact call his name Jesus. In between these two verses is a quotation from Isaiah chapter 7. In post 38 on the previous page, you presented the following statements about the passages in Matthew chapter 1 and Isaiah chapter 7: ” I find it ridiculous that Jesus was his given name at birth. Matthew 1:23 – “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” Isaiah 7:14 – “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. I find it much more likely that his birth name was Immanuel . . . .” Your statements are nothing more than a denial of two very plain statements found in Matthew’s Gospel that come before and after the passage from Isaiah. Faced with a choice between your denial and Matthew’s account, I find your view to be in error and Matthew’s account to be reliable. * * * Building on the statement found in Matthew, “thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins, ” it is safe to say that Matthew believed that God knew in advance that Jesus would be the savior of his people, and that is the reason for naming him Jesus. The verses you quote in Philippians chapter 2 present the _logical_ reason that God knew all along, not the _chronological_ order, as if God were waiting to see if Jesus would accomplish his mission: “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name.” (Philippians 2:8, 9) Further, the passage in Hebrews chapter 1 that you quote is intended to show how much greater Jesus’ name (and character) is than that name (and character) of any angels: ” . . . having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” (Hebrews 1:4) Jesus inherited his name not after his death, but upon his birth, as indicated in Matthew’s Gospel.

[…] think Tayler is somewhat overstating his case, but I welcome investigation of the existence of Christ and the reliability of the New Testament […]

[…] far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist,” Mykytiuk writes, and he cites pagan and Jewish writers of the time who did affirm Jesus’ […]

Since this did not get posted, I will repost this:

Lawrence, also regarding Jesus’s birth name and name change, only AFTER the crucifixion. From Philippians 2:8-9: “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians 2:8-9&version=KJV

And then from Hebrews 1:3-4 ” http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Heb1.3-4 3. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.”

Both of these passages suggest his name was changed after the crucifixion.

Since this did not get posted, I will repost this: Lawrence, also regarding Jesus’s birth name and name change, only AFTER the crucifixion. From Philippians 2:8-9: “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians 2:8-9&version=KJV And then from Hebrews 1:3-4 ” http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Heb1.3-4 3. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” Both of these passages suggest his name was changed after the crucifixion.

Reply to Brian (7. above): Regarding the birth date of Jesus, like many who have studied the New Testament, I place great confidence in the skill of Herod the Great as a murderer. In order to keep his power, he killed a sizable number of potential, real and imagined political opponents. According to Matthew chapter 2, when the magi arrived in Jerusalem seeking “the one who has been born king of the Jews,” Herod (who thought he himself was king of the Jews) immediately found out where and when he might kill Jesus. First he consulted the chief priests and scribes, and found out where Messiah was predicted to be born: Bethlehem. Then he “called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star has appeared.” On the assumption that the Messiah was born at Bethlehem when the star first appeared, he ordered the murder of all boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were aged two years and younger. Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.E. Two years earlier would have been 6 B.C.E. Being persuaded—for whatever reasons—that Herod the Great died not long after giving the order to murder these innocent children, many New Testament scholars think that Jesus was born between 6 and 4 B.C.E. Brian, despite your nice invitation, this is probably the closest I will come to writing the article you suggest.

Thanks again for the discussion. I agree with both of your points. Discussion of when Jesus was born is especially speculative and likely always will be, though a year between 8 and 4 BCE seems relatively secure. The year of his death is less speculative, though still not certain.

Now that you have presented the evidence of his existence in BAR, maybe you can write an article about the evidence for when he was born and died? Just a thought. 🙂

Lawrence, Thanks again for the discussion. I agree with both of your points. Discussion of when Jesus was born is especially speculative and likely always will be, though a year between 8 and 4 BCE seems relatively secure. The year of his death is less speculative, though still not certain. Now that you have presented the evidence of his existence in BAR, maybe you can write an article about the evidence for when he was born and died? Just a thought. 🙂

[…] for insurrection.[60]” (Wikipedia) According to the Biblical Archeology Review article, Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence beyond the Bible, we have solid, reliable historical texts that reference Jesus of Nazareth who lived, and died and […]

Reply to Gene R. (4. above): Many thanks, Gene, for your well-informed, well-balanced reply! I am particularly pleased that you mention both Isaiah 7 & 8’s near reference and also the more distant application of Isaiah 7:14 mentioned in Matthew 1:23. Thanks again!

Gene R. – While “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace,” etc. are clearly descriptive titles and not given names, Emmanuel is clearly a name and not a descriptive title, despite the fact that all names have meanings. .

If there seems to be a conflict between the angel’s instructions to Mary (“you are to call his name Jesus”) and Isaiah’s prophecy (” she will certainly call his name Immanuel”) let it be remembered that Messiah was also to be called by yet other names (Luke 1:31; Isa 7:14) For example, Isaiah 9:6 said concerning this one: “HIS NAME will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” yet none of these names were given to Mary’s firstborn as personal names, neither when he was a babe nor after he took up his ministry. Rather, they were all prophetic title-names by which Messiah would be identified. Jesus lived up to the meaning of these names in every respect, and that is the sense in which they were prophetically given, to show his qualities and the good offices he would perform toward all those accepting him as Messiah. So also with his title Immanuel. He measured up to and fulfilled its meaning. (Insight on The Scriptures Vol. 1, pg 1187) It might be also noted that the prophecy in Isaiah chapter 7 and 8 appears to have had an initial fulfillment( a type) in the days of King Ahaz of the nation of Judah in view of an impending attack from Israel and Syria. Any such attack would fail, “it will not stand, For God is with us (Immanuel)!” (Isa. 8:5-10). Matthew under inspiration from Jehovah made note of the anti-type or greater fulfillment in applying it to Jesus. By sending His Son to earth, God showed he had turned his attention to His people, Those accepting Messiah would benefit greatly by his coming. A final point regarding names, The Messiah was also called by the name “Shiloh” at Genesis 49:10 in a prophetic forecast that Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah.

Lawrence, also regarding Jesus’s birth name and name change, only AFTER the crucifixion. From Philippians 2:8-9: “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name.”

And then from Hebrews 1:3-4 ” http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Heb1.3-4 3. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.”

Lawrence, also regarding Jesus’s birth name and name change, only AFTER the crucifixion. From Philippians 2:8-9: “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians 2:8-9&version=KJV And then from Hebrews 1:3-4 ” http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Heb1.3-4 3. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” Both of these passages suggest his name was changed after the crucifixion.

Lawrence, I never said women were among the 12 apostles. Since I must spell it out: in essence, I said; logic dictates that women would most certainly be interested in the truth, spiritual or otherwise, as they are today. Therefore, in addition to the 12 named historical apostles, what happened to the women who were as interested as the males? Are there no women interested in such things today and therefore why would it have been any different 2000 years ago. Surely Jesus would never exclude anyone by gender or by any other divisive superficiality.

Also, please answer my query regarding just who Isaiah & Matthew were referring to as Immanuel , which translated means “God with us”.

Matthew 1:23 – “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel”

Isaiah 7:14 – “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

https://home.comcast.net/~tobiyah/Immanuel_Prophecy.html

Also, in reference to the translation of the prophecies of a “virgin” giving birth, the Hebrew word “almah” does not mean virgin but ‘young woman’ or ‘maiden’ as the word for virgin is “b’tulah”. Therefore, this translation is tweaked and falsely interpreted. Certainly, a young woman may indeed be a virgin but the word used was “almah” and not “b’tulah”.

Lawrence, I never said women were among the 12 apostles. Since I must spell it out: in essence, I said; logic dictates that women would most certainly be interested in the truth, spiritual or otherwise, as they are today. Therefore, in addition to the 12 named historical apostles, what happened to the women who were as interested as the males? Are there no women interested in such things today and therefore why would it have been any different 2000 years ago. Surely Jesus would never exclude anyone by gender or by any other divisive superficiality. Also, please answer my query regarding just who Isaiah & Matthew were referring to as Immanuel , which translated means “God with us”. Matthew 1:23 – “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” and Isaiah 7:14 – “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” https://home.comcast.net/~tobiyah/Immanuel_Prophecy.html Also, in reference to the translation of the prophecies of a “virgin” giving birth, the Hebrew word “almah” does not mean virgin but ‘young woman’ or ‘maiden’ as the word for virgin is “b’tulah”. Therefore, this translation is tweaked and falsely interpreted. Certainly, a young woman may indeed be a virgin but the word used was “almah” and not “b’tulah”.

Reply to Brian (50. above): You have provided a very interesting, well-informed chronology of Jesus’ life. I would only observe that 1) the matter of exactly what the star of Bethlehem was and precisely when it appeared can easily become a complicated subject to research, and, more importantly, 2) there are several ways to approach a chronology of Jesus’ life. Although these different approaches tend to produce slightly different results in terms of exact year numbers, the chronology of that unique life is stable, in that there are no large variations in the years assigned to various events.

I recall discovering and reading Harold W. Hoehner’s book, _Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ_ (1977) as if it were the rarest of precious treasure. But now I recognize that other approaches may also be quite persuasive.

Reply to Brian (50. above): You have provided a very interesting, well-informed chronology of Jesus’ life. I would only observe that 1) the matter of exactly what the star of Bethlehem was and precisely when it appeared can easily become a complicated subject to research, and, more importantly, 2) there are several ways to approach a chronology of Jesus’ life. Although these different approaches tend to produce slightly different results in terms of exact year numbers, the chronology of that unique life is stable, in that there are no large variations in the years assigned to various events. I recall discovering and reading Harold W. Hoehner’s book, _Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ_ (1977) as if it were the rarest of precious treasure. But now I recognize that other approaches may also be quite persuasive.

Reply to Bruce (48. above): Bruce, it’s a free country. You are entirely free to assert without evidence and in contradiction of the 4 Gospels that the 12 apostles included women. You are also free to opine that Jesus’ proper name was not Jesus at all but Immanuel, despite the clear evidence of the New Testament and even non-Christian sources, including Josephus, that give his name as Jesus.

Nevertheless, I stand by my article. I would not have imagined that stating that the 12 apostles were all men and that Jesus was named Jesus should be at all controversial.

Reply to Bruce (48. above): Bruce, it’s a free country. You are entirely free to assert without evidence and in contradiction of the 4 Gospels that the 12 apostles included women. You are also free to opine that Jesus’ proper name was not Jesus at all but Immanuel, despite the clear evidence of the New Testament and even non-Christian sources, including Josephus, that give his name as Jesus. Nevertheless, I stand by my article. I would not have imagined that stating that the 12 apostles were all men and that Jesus was named Jesus should be at all controversial.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I do enjoy chatting with knowledgeable scholars! With regard to Tacitus, I agree that it’s the quality of the sources that matters. However, without knowing his sources, we have to expect that the later the writer, the more likely it is that the sources have been influenced by or are dependent on Christian writings. I think that would reduce our confidence that Tacitus has sources independent of what Christians are saying (which would be biased in favor of existence).

With regard to the dating of Jesus’ death, the gospel of John provides multiple lines of evidence that are all consistent with each other. For example, the quote early in the gospel in which Jesus claims he can destroy the temple and rebuild it has his listeners respond with incredulity because the temple has been under construction for 46 years. The best date for the start of that construction is shortly after Passover in 18 BCE, so the conversation is dated by John to 28 CE. The two-year ministry laid out by John then brings Jesus’ death to Passover of 30 CE, which agrees with his claim of Passover being on the Sabbath. Given the traditional problems of dating events in ancient times, this agreement seems impossible unless the information is based on an historical reality.

The dating of Jesus’ birth is much more speculative, other than to say before 4 BCE. However, I would note a peculiar coincidence. The best candidate for the famous star of Bethlehem is likely a triple conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn in 7 – 6 BCE. It’s the same year in which Herod had two of his sons, future potential kings of the Jews, executed for treason (it’s discussed in detail by Josephus). This is the event that prompted Caesar Augustus to quip “I’d rather be Herod’s swine than his son.” In any case, one might see in these two events the claim that when a “star” appeared in the sky, Herod ordered the slaughter of innocents (did his sons really plot against him?) to kill a future king of the Jews. It’s not hard to see how Matthew’s account might be a garbled version of these events, dating Jesus’ birth to 7 – 6 BCE.

All in all, the dating of Jesus’ life seems to be 6 BCE – 30 BCE with fairly high confidence, making him 34 years old at the start of his ministry (“about 30,” as in not 20 or 40) and 36 at his death.

Lawrence, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I do enjoy chatting with knowledgeable scholars! With regard to Tacitus, I agree that it’s the quality of the sources that matters. However, without knowing his sources, we have to expect that the later the writer, the more likely it is that the sources have been influenced by or are dependent on Christian writings. I think that would reduce our confidence that Tacitus has sources independent of what Christians are saying (which would be biased in favor of existence). With regard to the dating of Jesus’ death, the gospel of John provides multiple lines of evidence that are all consistent with each other. For example, the quote early in the gospel in which Jesus claims he can destroy the temple and rebuild it has his listeners respond with incredulity because the temple has been under construction for 46 years. The best date for the start of that construction is shortly after Passover in 18 BCE, so the conversation is dated by John to 28 CE. The two-year ministry laid out by John then brings Jesus’ death to Passover of 30 CE, which agrees with his claim of Passover being on the Sabbath. Given the traditional problems of dating events in ancient times, this agreement seems impossible unless the information is based on an historical reality. The dating of Jesus’ birth is much more speculative, other than to say before 4 BCE. However, I would note a peculiar coincidence. The best candidate for the famous star of Bethlehem is likely a triple conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn in 7 – 6 BCE. It’s the same year in which Herod had two of his sons, future potential kings of the Jews, executed for treason (it’s discussed in detail by Josephus). This is the event that prompted Caesar Augustus to quip “I’d rather be Herod’s swine than his son.” In any case, one might see in these two events the claim that when a “star” appeared in the sky, Herod ordered the slaughter of innocents (did his sons really plot against him?) to kill a future king of the Jews. It’s not hard to see how Matthew’s account might be a garbled version of these events, dating Jesus’ birth to 7 – 6 BCE. All in all, the dating of Jesus’ life seems to be 6 BCE – 30 BCE with fairly high confidence, making him 34 years old at the start of his ministry (“about 30,” as in not 20 or 40) and 36 at his death.

[…] can read Mykytiuk’s whole article here, but based on reading and analysis of non-Christian sources, the following facts about Jesus can be […]

Reply to Brian (47. above): Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Regarding Tacitus having access to accurate information about “Christus” in contrast to Tacitus himself being chronologically distant from Jesus, while of course one is free to take a differing view, I cannot agree that his personal distance in time “significantly weakens the value of his reference.” Rather, I take the value of his reference to be entirely dependent on the quality of the information that he gathered, rather than when he gathered it. If I may make a comparison, I work with an excellent scholar who recently visited two archives in Spain to access the records of Queen Mariana of Austria, who lived in the 1600s and was also Queen consort of Spain. Although this present-day scholar is now more than 300 years removed from Queen Mariana, her references to Mariana’s statecraft and policies do not suffer any loss of value at all, because this scholar carefully bases her description and analysis on the documents from the inner circles of government during the 1600s.

Regarding your two observations that strengthen Josephus references to Jesus, on the first observation, I would say that if Josephus were not himself an eyewitness, he very likely had access to eyewitness testimony, and that would indeed strengthen the credibility of his references. Your second observation, on Origen’s comment, is also correct, and it also strengthens “the argument that the Testimonium Flavianum is original to Josephus but without the Christianizing elements.” In the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IX, see Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book X, Chapter 17. (I actually found this chapter online.) Speaking of “Flavius Josephus, who wrote the “Antiquities of the Jews” in twenty books,” Origen speaks of “the things which they dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is that, though he [meaning Josephus] did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great. . . .”

Finally, my use of c. 29 C.E. as the date of the crucifixion is entirely the result of my own arithmetic, counting from 1) Jesus’ birth being sometime during 4 to 6 B.C.E., 2) Luke’s mention that he began his ministry at about 30 years of age, and 3) adopting the customary view that his ministry lasted 3 1/2 years (some opt for 2/12 years). (Typically, people who deal with ancient dates are content with approximate years, and I am one of those people.) Nevertheless, I am pleased that you seem to have a more knowledgeable and refined way of settling on the date. Now I have a better Idea why some New Testament scholars always use 30 C.E.. Thank you.

Reply to Brian (47. above): Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Regarding Tacitus having access to accurate information about “Christus” in contrast to Tacitus himself being chronologically distant from Jesus, while of course one is free to take a differing view, I cannot agree that his personal distance in time “significantly weakens the value of his reference.” Rather, I take the value of his reference to be entirely dependent on the quality of the information that he gathered, rather than when he gathered it. If I may make a comparison, I work with an excellent scholar who recently visited two archives in Spain to access the records of Queen Mariana of Austria, who lived in the 1600s and was also Queen consort of Spain. Although this present-day scholar is now more than 300 years removed from Queen Mariana, her references to Mariana’s statecraft and policies do not suffer any loss of value at all, because this scholar carefully bases her description and analysis on the documents from the inner circles of government during the 1600s. Regarding your two observations that strengthen Josephus references to Jesus, on the first observation, I would say that if Josephus were not himself an eyewitness, he very likely had access to eyewitness testimony, and that would indeed strengthen the credibility of his references. Your second observation, on Origen’s comment, is also correct, and it also strengthens “the argument that the Testimonium Flavianum is original to Josephus but without the Christianizing elements.” In the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IX, see Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book X, Chapter 17. (I actually found this chapter online.) Speaking of “Flavius Josephus, who wrote the “Antiquities of the Jews” in twenty books,” Origen speaks of “the things which they dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is that, though he [meaning Josephus] did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great. . . .” Finally, my use of c. 29 C.E. as the date of the crucifixion is entirely the result of my own arithmetic, counting from 1) Jesus’ birth being sometime during 4 to 6 B.C.E., 2) Luke’s mention that he began his ministry at about 30 years of age, and 3) adopting the customary view that his ministry lasted 3 1/2 years (some opt for 2/12 years). (Typically, people who deal with ancient dates are content with approximate years, and I am one of those people.) Nevertheless, I am pleased that you seem to have a more knowledgeable and refined way of settling on the date. Now I have a better Idea why some New Testament scholars always use 30 C.E.. Thank you.

Lawrence, there was no contradiction in my words as you yourself wrote – “Jesus’ actions in John chapter 4 and elsewhere disregarded cultural expectations “, which is my point, that Jesus would not follow incorrect male-dominated tradition and would indeed have female apostles. Wasn’t the whole point of Jesus’s mission to bring any falsified teachings of Judaism back to its original spiritual truths and some of that falsification no doubt relegated women to a back-seat in spiritual matters and truths of the equalness of human beings regardless of gender, race, creed, nationality, etc., therefore he would certainly have attracted females to his teaching and in the role of apostles as well, yet they remain stricken from the final revision & version of the New Testament commissioned 400 years after the fact by the Roman King and Christian, King Constantine.

Also, from your words, I gather that you do not think Jesus’s real & correct birth name was Immanuel per the Isaiah prophecy and reiterated by Matthew. Therefore, just who do you think they were referring when they both wrote ” Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”?

Lawrence, there was no contradiction in my words as you yourself wrote – “Jesus’ actions in John chapter 4 and elsewhere disregarded cultural expectations “, which is my point, that Jesus would not follow incorrect male-dominated tradition and would indeed have female apostles. Wasn’t the whole point of Jesus’s mission to bring any falsified teachings of Judaism back to its original spiritual truths and some of that falsification no doubt relegated women to a back-seat in spiritual matters and truths of the equalness of human beings regardless of gender, race, creed, nationality, etc., therefore he would certainly have attracted females to his teaching and in the role of apostles as well, yet they remain stricken from the final revision & version of the New Testament commissioned 400 years after the fact by the Roman King and Christian, King Constantine. Also, from your words, I gather that you do not think Jesus’s real & correct birth name was Immanuel per the Isaiah prophecy and reiterated by Matthew. Therefore, just who do you think they were referring when they both wrote ” Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”?

Thank you for a very interesting article.You laid out well the non-Christian evidence for Jesus’ existence. I agree with you that Tacitus probably got his information from non-Christian sources and was sufficiently well-placed to get accurate information. On the other hand, he is fairly far removed from the events themselves, which significantly weakens the value of his reference.

With regard to Josephus, there are two points that could be mentioned or emphasized more strongly to back up his reference. First, as a priest active in the temple in Jerusalem in the 60’s CE, he likely was an eyewitness to the person of James, brother of Jesus with intimate personal knowledge of the events that led to James’ death. He is not simply reporting on something he has read. Therefore, we can be certain that a James existed who personally identified and was identified by everyone else as the “brother of Jesus who is called the Christ.” This is hardly possible without Jesus actually existing. Of course, Paul also provides eyewitness evidence for “James brother of the Lord,” so Christian and secular sources are equally determinative on this point. The second point is that I recall that Origen made some reference to Josephus not believing in Jesus. Do you know where he made that comment? In any case, this comment by Origen hardly makes sense unless he is referring to some statement made by Josephus in his works, strengthening the argument that the Testimonium Flavianum is original to Josephus but without the Christianizing elements.

Finally, in an unrelated note, you repeatedly refer to 29 CE as the likely year that Jesus died. What reasons do you have for this claim? I’ve always heard that 30 CE and 33 CE are the only viable candidates, since they are the two years during Pilate’s reign when the Passover occurred on the Sabbath (so I’ve read) in keeping with the claims of John’s gospel. Why do you prefer 29 CE?

Lawrence, Thank you for a very interesting article.You laid out well the non-Christian evidence for Jesus’ existence. I agree with you that Tacitus probably got his information from non-Christian sources and was sufficiently well-placed to get accurate information. On the other hand, he is fairly far removed from the events themselves, which significantly weakens the value of his reference. With regard to Josephus, there are two points that could be mentioned or emphasized more strongly to back up his reference. First, as a priest active in the temple in Jerusalem in the 60’s CE, he likely was an eyewitness to the person of James, brother of Jesus with intimate personal knowledge of the events that led to James’ death. He is not simply reporting on something he has read. Therefore, we can be certain that a James existed who personally identified and was identified by everyone else as the “brother of Jesus who is called the Christ.” This is hardly possible without Jesus actually existing. Of course, Paul also provides eyewitness evidence for “James brother of the Lord,” so Christian and secular sources are equally determinative on this point. The second point is that I recall that Origen made some reference to Josephus not believing in Jesus. Do you know where he made that comment? In any case, this comment by Origen hardly makes sense unless he is referring to some statement made by Josephus in his works, strengthening the argument that the Testimonium Flavianum is original to Josephus but without the Christianizing elements. Finally, in an unrelated note, you repeatedly refer to 29 CE as the likely year that Jesus died. What reasons do you have for this claim? I’ve always heard that 30 CE and 33 CE are the only viable candidates, since they are the two years during Pilate’s reign when the Passover occurred on the Sabbath (so I’ve read) in keeping with the claims of John’s gospel. Why do you prefer 29 CE?

One of the best articles BAR has ever published. I have sent it to several friends and it has made me renew my subscription.

Reply to Bruce (43. above): In the first paragraph, you correctly state that Jesus’ appointing 12 men as apostles was in accord with his culture, which was patriarchal In the second paragraph, you find that the appointing of 12 men and no women as apostles is “highly unlikely” and shows that the record was tampered with (“historical revisionism”). These two paragraphs appear to contradict each other. I cannot make sense of comment 43 as it is stated.

It is worth noting that Jesus’ actions in John chapter 4 and elsewhere disregarded cultural expectations (men were not supposed to speak with women in public, especially if they were not related) in order to reach out to women with the gospel.

Also, the fact that there was no female apostle among the 12 apostles does not mean that no women were ever apostles, See the book by Robin Cohn, titled Junia: The Forgotten Apostle, beautifully described and illustrated at http://robincohn.net/books/junia-the-forgotten-apostle/ .

Reply to Bruce (43. above): In the first paragraph, you correctly state that Jesus’ appointing 12 men as apostles was in accord with his culture, which was patriarchal In the second paragraph, you find that the appointing of 12 men and no women as apostles is “highly unlikely” and shows that the record was tampered with (“historical revisionism”). These two paragraphs appear to contradict each other. I cannot make sense of comment 43 as it is stated. It is worth noting that Jesus’ actions in John chapter 4 and elsewhere disregarded cultural expectations (men were not supposed to speak with women in public, especially if they were not related) in order to reach out to women with the gospel. Also, the fact that there was no female apostle among the 12 apostles does not mean that no women were ever apostles, See the book by Robin Cohn, titled Junia: The Forgotten Apostle, beautifully described and illustrated at http://robincohn.net/books/junia-the-forgotten-apostle/ .

Reply to Bruce (42. and 43. above): Regarding 42: The attempted analogy to the children’s game is not really analogous, because that process is secret (you call it a “whisper game”) until the very end, when the very different result is a surprise, a sort of “punch line.” In the case of Scripture, however, we have the written texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and other ancient languages, therefore they can be compared in a very open process—indeed, this process of comparison has been international for many centuries. We also have the benefit of the work of countless scholars who have dedicated many years of their lives to learning the ancient languages and analyzing Scripture texts to give us the best possible translations into modern languages and interpretations according to the historical, cultural, and literary contexts. (It is a pity to see these dedicated men and women rewarded by some with suspicion.) Today the process is all the more open because of Internet access, and even Wikipedia can often be quite helpful to those who consult it.

Scripture gives several names, titles, and epithets to the person whose name was Jesus–which, according to Luke 1:26-33, was given by God and communicated by the angel Gabriel. Let me assure you, by giving his correct name, as given both by Josephus and by the Gospel writers, scholars are not making any attempt to “sweep” any of these names, titles, or epithets “under the rug,” as comment 42 disparagingly phrases it. His names are to be understood as the New Testament’s open declarations of his character and achievements. To seize on them as points about which to haggle seems to indicate that some other agenda is at work.

Moving to your statements about the names of Jesus’ siblings (even it the names you have listed were correct) are irrelevant to the question of his name, about which I have already replied in comment 39 above.

Finally, you are correct that some persons in the Bible are called by only one name, but this did not come about because of any restriction. Others are indeed called by more than one name. In Genesis 32:28, the patriarch Jacob is named Israel (the origin of the name of the nation descended from him), though he is still called Jacob in later chapters. Azariah, king of Judah, whose son Jotham succeeded him as king (2 Kings 15:1-7, 17, 23, 27) is also called Uzziah in the same chapter. verses 13, 30, etc. Verses 30, 32, and 34 make that clear by mentioning that King Jotham was the son of King Uzziah. In the New Testament, Saul the persecutor of Christians becomes the apostle Paul.

Reply to Bruce (42. and 43. above): Regarding 42: The attempted analogy to the children’s game is not really analogous, because that process is secret (you call it a “whisper game”) until the very end, when the very different result is a surprise, a sort of “punch line.” In the case of Scripture, however, we have the written texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and other ancient languages, therefore they can be compared in a very open process—indeed, this process of comparison has been international for many centuries. We also have the benefit of the work of countless scholars who have dedicated many years of their lives to learning the ancient languages and analyzing Scripture texts to give us the best possible translations into modern languages and interpretations according to the historical, cultural, and literary contexts. (It is a pity to see these dedicated men and women rewarded by some with suspicion.) Today the process is all the more open because of Internet access, and even Wikipedia can often be quite helpful to those who consult it. Scripture gives several names, titles, and epithets to the person whose name was Jesus–which, according to Luke 1:26-33, was given by God and communicated by the angel Gabriel. Let me assure you, by giving his correct name, as given both by Josephus and by the Gospel writers, scholars are not making any attempt to “sweep” any of these names, titles, or epithets “under the rug,” as comment 42 disparagingly phrases it. His names are to be understood as the New Testament’s open declarations of his character and achievements. To seize on them as points about which to haggle seems to indicate that some other agenda is at work. Moving to your statements about the names of Jesus’ siblings (even it the names you have listed were correct) are irrelevant to the question of his name, about which I have already replied in comment 39 above. Finally, you are correct that some persons in the Bible are called by only one name, but this did not come about because of any restriction. Others are indeed called by more than one name. In Genesis 32:28, the patriarch Jacob is named Israel (the origin of the name of the nation descended from him), though he is still called Jacob in later chapters. Azariah, king of Judah, whose son Jotham succeeded him as king (2 Kings 15:1-7, 17, 23, 27) is also called Uzziah in the same chapter. verses 13, 30, etc. Verses 30, 32, and 34 make that clear by mentioning that King Jotham was the son of King Uzziah. In the New Testament, Saul the persecutor of Christians becomes the apostle Paul.

Lawrence, you also bring up the ’12 apostles’, all of whom were male. We know from Jewish culture as well as Islamic culture that women were given a back seat not only in literature but with regards to power and position and such even remains painfully obvious today in Islamic culture as well as the more orthodox or hasidic areas of Jewish culture.

I also find it ‘highly unlikely’ and yes, to the point of ridiculousness, that there are zero female apostles or disciples. Talk about historical revisionism. Do women not crave nor seek out the truth in spiritual as well as material matters!?

Lawrence, you also bring up the ’12 apostles’, all of whom were male. We know from Jewish culture as well as Islamic culture that women were given a back seat not only in literature but with regards to power and position and such even remains painfully obvious today in Islamic culture as well as the more orthodox or hasidic areas of Jewish culture. I also find it ‘highly unlikely’ and yes, to the point of ridiculousness, that there are zero female apostles or disciples. Talk about historical revisionism. Do women not crave nor seek out the truth in spiritual as well as material matters!?

Lawrence, you agree that the language used 2000 years ago in Palestine was Aramaic? You write that the name Jesus was an “English equivalent of the Latin version of a Greek name ..” That is already 3 language translations removed from the original Aramaic. Which reminds me of the whisper game as a child where a sentence is whispered into the ear of a child by a teacher & that child whispers it into the next child & so on, until the 20th kid repeats what he or she heard & it bears little resemblance to the initial sentence.

Let me rephrase my wrong opinionated use of the word ‘ridiculous’ to ‘highly unlikely’ and especially in light of Isaiah 7:14 from the old testament which was reiterated in the new testament in Matthew 1:23, and that being Immanuel which is conventionally translated as “God is with us” but if one digs further into scholarly writings, other translations emerge such as “one with the knowledge of God” or “one with Godly wisdom”, “one with knowledge of the gods”, etc. However, they all relate and point to the fact that his birth name was Immanuel or Emmanuel, etc. The motives for whhy this extremely important prophecy is swept under the rug begs questioning. And the name Immanuel is much more in keeping with given names in that part of the world 2000 years ago.

Consider Jesus or Immanuel’s siblings names: from what I can gather for his brothers, possibly including adopted ones – Judas, Joseph, Simeon, Jakobus, Thomas. And sisters, Maria-Susanne, Esther, Mirjam.

All these names, while English translations, seem plausible for the times, without literary translational gymnastics, which twist, torture and bend the truth to accommodate belief & assumption.

Nor can I buy the fact that human beings 2000 years ago went by many names. How many names did the previous prophets go by? I only see Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Enoch.

The fact that I raise about what other facts were altered about the man & the events at that time are hardly speculation but only reasonable, ratioinal & logical questions, particularly since the new testament was only finalized and commissioned 400 years after the fact!! That was hardly the digital age back then where recordings & videos could remain for all time. In fact very few humans were able to read or write. To the victors, not only went the spoils but the history books as well.

Lawrence, you agree that the language used 2000 years ago in Palestine was Aramaic? You write that the name Jesus was an “English equivalent of the Latin version of a Greek name ..” That is already 3 language translations removed from the original Aramaic. Which reminds me of the whisper game as a child where a sentence is whispered into the ear of a child by a teacher & that child whispers it into the next child & so on, until the 20th kid repeats what he or she heard & it bears little resemblance to the initial sentence. Let me rephrase my wrong opinionated use of the word ‘ridiculous’ to ‘highly unlikely’ and especially in light of Isaiah 7:14 from the old testament which was reiterated in the new testament in Matthew 1:23, and that being Immanuel which is conventionally translated as “God is with us” but if one digs further into scholarly writings, other translations emerge such as “one with the knowledge of God” or “one with Godly wisdom”, “one with knowledge of the gods”, etc. However, they all relate and point to the fact that his birth name was Immanuel or Emmanuel, etc. The motives for whhy this extremely important prophecy is swept under the rug begs questioning. And the name Immanuel is much more in keeping with given names in that part of the world 2000 years ago. Consider Jesus or Immanuel’s siblings names: from what I can gather for his brothers, possibly including adopted ones – Judas, Joseph, Simeon, Jakobus, Thomas. And sisters, Maria-Susanne, Esther, Mirjam. All these names, while English translations, seem plausible for the times, without literary translational gymnastics, which twist, torture and bend the truth to accommodate belief & assumption. Nor can I buy the fact that human beings 2000 years ago went by many names. How many names did the previous prophets go by? I only see Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Enoch. The fact that I raise about what other facts were altered about the man & the events at that time are hardly speculation but only reasonable, ratioinal & logical questions, particularly since the new testament was only finalized and commissioned 400 years after the fact!! That was hardly the digital age back then where recordings & videos could remain for all time. In fact very few humans were able to read or write. To the victors, not only went the spoils but the history books as well.

Reply to Peter (37. above): Thank you for your thoughtful reply, which helps me think through the evidence yet again.

Josephus, being a first-century Palestinian Jew before he took up residence in Rome, almost certainly looked for a messiah who would be a Divinely appointed and empowered military leader who would cast off the Roman yoke, set up his throne in Jerusalem, and exercise his rule over all the world. But to most Jews of the day, probably including Josephus, Jesus appeared to have succumbed to the overwhelming might of Rome when he died in disgrace on a Roman cross. To the popular mind, that was scandalous, to say the least. (As a technical detail: Josephus, being monotheistic, had no pantheon.) In the Hellenistic world, the Christian view of Jesus’ execution as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world was strictly for utter fools. “But we preach Christ crucified, a stumblingblock to Jews, and foolishness to Gentiles.” (1 Corinthians 1:23)

I can appreciate the questions you raise about the exclusiveness of the identification of “Christus” as Jesus of Nazareth in Tacitus’ reference. I myself usually try to poke holes in my own identifications, in order to test their strength. But in this instance, I find no concrete grounds for doubt that is legitimate in theory. There is no evidence of any competing Messianic movement that began in Judea, spread to Rome, and worshipped and/or obeyed a Christus who was executed by order of Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. If actual evidence of such a movement should surface, I would have to re-evaluate the reference in Tacitus. Until then, the eviednce indicates that the “Chrestians” whom we know as Christians were the only ones in town.

Reply to Peter (37. above): Thank you for your thoughtful reply, which helps me think through the evidence yet again. Josephus, being a first-century Palestinian Jew before he took up residence in Rome, almost certainly looked for a messiah who would be a Divinely appointed and empowered military leader who would cast off the Roman yoke, set up his throne in Jerusalem, and exercise his rule over all the world. But to most Jews of the day, probably including Josephus, Jesus appeared to have succumbed to the overwhelming might of Rome when he died in disgrace on a Roman cross. To the popular mind, that was scandalous, to say the least. (As a technical detail: Josephus, being monotheistic, had no pantheon.) In the Hellenistic world, the Christian view of Jesus’ execution as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world was strictly for utter fools. “But we preach Christ crucified, a stumblingblock to Jews, and foolishness to Gentiles.” (1 Corinthians 1:23) I can appreciate the questions you raise about the exclusiveness of the identification of “Christus” as Jesus of Nazareth in Tacitus’ reference. I myself usually try to poke holes in my own identifications, in order to test their strength. But in this instance, I find no concrete grounds for doubt that is legitimate in theory. There is no evidence of any competing Messianic movement that began in Judea, spread to Rome, and worshipped and/or obeyed a Christus who was executed by order of Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. If actual evidence of such a movement should surface, I would have to re-evaluate the reference in Tacitus. Until then, the eviednce indicates that the “Chrestians” whom we know as Christians were the only ones in town.

A second reply to Bruce (38. above): Of course you are right that people crave power, influence, and riches, and this craving produces evil results in many settings and vocations, whether religious or secular. The New Testament is very forthright about this, not least regarding the 12 apostles. whom Jesus very pointedly corrected In Luke 22:24-27, It is easy to understand why, according to John 13:1-17, Jesus assumed the role of the lowliest servant and washed the filth of the street off the feet of the apostles, in order to give dramatic emphasis to his demand that they were to be servants of others.

In light of Jesus’ instruction and example, it is interesting to trace the ancient traditions regarding the subsequent experiences of the apostles. In the case of the apostle Paul (who does not appear in the four Gospels) it is difficult to argue that he sought worldly power, wealth, or ease in light of 2 Corinthians 11:23-28, in which he speaks “as a fool” by mentioning how often he was in prison , severely flogged, exposed to death, subjected to 40 lashes minus one, beaten with rods, stoned, shipwrecked, without sleep, hungry, thirsty, cold, without adequate clothing, etc. According to Christian tradition, with some support from the writings of Irenaeus, Paul was ultimately beheaded c. 67 C.E. by the authority of Rome. To suggest that the New Testament was falsified through human greed in the case of Paul, who wrote many of its letters (epistles) not only fails to square with the evidence, but is to slander him.

A second reply to Bruce (38. above): Of course you are right that people crave power, influence, and riches, and this craving produces evil results in many settings and vocations, whether religious or secular. The New Testament is very forthright about this, not least regarding the 12 apostles. whom Jesus very pointedly corrected In Luke 22:24-27, It is easy to understand why, according to John 13:1-17, Jesus assumed the role of the lowliest servant and washed the filth of the street off the feet of the apostles, in order to give dramatic emphasis to his demand that they were to be servants of others. In light of Jesus’ instruction and example, it is interesting to trace the ancient traditions regarding the subsequent experiences of the apostles. In the case of the apostle Paul (who does not appear in the four Gospels) it is difficult to argue that he sought worldly power, wealth, or ease in light of 2 Corinthians 11:23-28, in which he speaks “as a fool” by mentioning how often he was in prison , severely flogged, exposed to death, subjected to 40 lashes minus one, beaten with rods, stoned, shipwrecked, without sleep, hungry, thirsty, cold, without adequate clothing, etc. According to Christian tradition, with some support from the writings of Irenaeus, Paul was ultimately beheaded c. 67 C.E. by the authority of Rome. To suggest that the New Testament was falsified through human greed in the case of Paul, who wrote many of its letters (epistles) not only fails to square with the evidence, but is to slander him.

Reply to Bruce (38, above): I have the impression that you might not have had the opportunity to study the original languages in which the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were written, so my corrections are not intended to be anything more than gentle corrections. Properly speaking, the name Jesus is neither Greek nor Hebrew, but rather the English equivalent of the Latin version of a Greek name which is actually Ἰησοῦς (‘Iesous)—in which the letter I is pronounced as if it were a consonantal English letter y and the letter e represents the Greek letter eta, which is pronounced like the ey in the English exclamation “hey!” Further,the name Ἰησοῦς (‘Iesous) is not at all a native Greek name, but a Greek rendition of a Hebrew name given to males. The Greek name Iesous is a close rendition in Greek of the Hebrew name Yeshua’ or Yeshu’. Yeshua’ is also a common noun in Hebrew, meaning “salvation” or “victory.” (There is no such common noun in Greek.) The Greek language has no sh sound, so the simple s sound is the closest one can come in Greek. Also, the final letter s is just a Greek way of ending a man’s name.

Fortunately, one does not actually have to master the Greek and Hebrew languages to get this information. All that is necessary is to look up “Jesus” in a Bible dictionary or Bible encyclopedia in almost any public or academic library. Even Wikipedia, which is not always a reliable source (and which can completely change an entry overnight), got this one right (for now):

“The name Jesus is derived from the Latin Iesus, a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iesous). The Greek form is a rendition of the Hebrew ישוע‎ (Yeshua), a variant of the earlier name יהושע‎ (Yehoshua), or Joshua. The name Yeshua appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus. The first-century works of historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote in Koine Greek, the same language as that of the New Testament, refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus (i.e. Ἰησοῦς). The etymology of Jesus’ name in the context of the New Testament is generally given as ‘Yahweh is salvation.’ ”

The reason that Josephus mentions at least 12, and up to 21 other men named Yeshua’ in his writings is precisely that it is a man’s name in Hebrew that was used very commonly in first-century Palestine. Thus it is not at all “ridiculous” that Jesus of Nazareth received this name in that place during that time.

Without establishing in the first place any linguistic basis for denying that Jesus’ name was Hebrew, the speculative question “What other facts about the man, his teaching and the events surrounding his life were changed?” remains mere speculation. It is fine to challenge accepted knowledge if one is willing to do the homework to get one’s facts right (even by simply looking in Wikipedia),

Regarding the prophesied name Immanuel, it is entirely possible for one person to receive or be known by several names, and this was true in first-century Palestine. Present-day Christians even glory in the many names and titles given to Jesus in Scripture and sing songs that list them. To set up an either-or situation does not suit the culture of Jesus’ day.

It is also important to distinguish between a truly critical approach that aims to get at the truth by gathering evidence and making careful, sometimes laborious efforts to interpret it correctly–and an approach that is merely skeptical, characterized by profound mistrust and aiming only to prove accepted knowledge to be unknowable or wrong. Easy believism and easy skepticism are both errors to be avoided.

Reply to Bruce (38, above): I have the impression that you might not have had the opportunity to study the original languages in which the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were written, so my corrections are not intended to be anything more than gentle corrections. Properly speaking, the name Jesus is neither Greek nor Hebrew, but rather the English equivalent of the Latin version of a Greek name which is actually Ἰησοῦς (‘Iesous)—in which the letter I is pronounced as if it were a consonantal English letter y and the letter e represents the Greek letter eta, which is pronounced like the ey in the English exclamation “hey!” Further,the name Ἰησοῦς (‘Iesous) is not at all a native Greek name, but a Greek rendition of a Hebrew name given to males. The Greek name Iesous is a close rendition in Greek of the Hebrew name Yeshua’ or Yeshu’. Yeshua’ is also a common noun in Hebrew, meaning “salvation” or “victory.” (There is no such common noun in Greek.) The Greek language has no sh sound, so the simple s sound is the closest one can come in Greek. Also, the final letter s is just a Greek way of ending a man’s name. Fortunately, one does not actually have to master the Greek and Hebrew languages to get this information. All that is necessary is to look up “Jesus” in a Bible dictionary or Bible encyclopedia in almost any public or academic library. Even Wikipedia, which is not always a reliable source (and which can completely change an entry overnight), got this one right (for now): “The name Jesus is derived from the Latin Iesus, a transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iesous). The Greek form is a rendition of the Hebrew ישוע‎ (Yeshua), a variant of the earlier name יהושע‎ (Yehoshua), or Joshua. The name Yeshua appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus. The first-century works of historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote in Koine Greek, the same language as that of the New Testament, refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus (i.e. Ἰησοῦς). The etymology of Jesus’ name in the context of the New Testament is generally given as ‘Yahweh is salvation.’ ” The reason that Josephus mentions at least 12, and up to 21 other men named Yeshua’ in his writings is precisely that it is a man’s name in Hebrew that was used very commonly in first-century Palestine. Thus it is not at all “ridiculous” that Jesus of Nazareth received this name in that place during that time. Without establishing in the first place any linguistic basis for denying that Jesus’ name was Hebrew, the speculative question “What other facts about the man, his teaching and the events surrounding his life were changed?” remains mere speculation. It is fine to challenge accepted knowledge if one is willing to do the homework to get one’s facts right (even by simply looking in Wikipedia), Regarding the prophesied name Immanuel, it is entirely possible for one person to receive or be known by several names, and this was true in first-century Palestine. Present-day Christians even glory in the many names and titles given to Jesus in Scripture and sing songs that list them. To set up an either-or situation does not suit the culture of Jesus’ day. It is also important to distinguish between a truly critical approach that aims to get at the truth by gathering evidence and making careful, sometimes laborious efforts to interpret it correctly–and an approach that is merely skeptical, characterized by profound mistrust and aiming only to prove accepted knowledge to be unknowable or wrong. Easy believism and easy skepticism are both errors to be avoided.

To think that Jesus was his birth-name is highly illogical if he was indeed born in a Jewish area of Palestine 2000 years ago. Jesus is clearly a Greek name, neither a Jewish name, nor a Palestinian name. Considering his brother received a typical Hebrew name of Jacob, I find it ridiculous that Jesus was his given name at birth.

Isaiah 7:14 – “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

I find it much more likely that his birth name was Immanuel and changed somewhere along the line, which begs the question: What other facts about the man, his teaching and the events surrounding his life were changed? And events, names & places are usually changed by those in power, who wish to remain in power or obtain even more power for ever & ever. Or they are changed by those who also are greedy for power, influence, riches, etc. What better was to do this than to instill belief or assumption among the masses through a new religion, as the ancient proverb states – “Knowledge moves mountains, beliefs make slaves.”

To think that Jesus was his birth-name is highly illogical if he was indeed born in a Jewish area of Palestine 2000 years ago. Jesus is clearly a Greek name, neither a Jewish name, nor a Palestinian name. Considering his brother received a typical Hebrew name of Jacob, I find it ridiculous that Jesus was his given name at birth. Matthew 1:23 – “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” Isaiah 7:14 – “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. I find it much more likely that his birth name was Immanuel and changed somewhere along the line, which begs the question: What other facts about the man, his teaching and the events surrounding his life were changed? And events, names & places are usually changed by those in power, who wish to remain in power or obtain even more power for ever & ever. Or they are changed by those who also are greedy for power, influence, riches, etc. What better was to do this than to instill belief or assumption among the masses through a new religion, as the ancient proverb states – “Knowledge moves mountains, beliefs make slaves.”

An excellent article and I think Jesus DID exist. However in regard to the evidence from Tacitus he a) does not actually name Jesus b) the term Chrestus = anointed. So other candidates could be this person – I think of Herod or another unrecorded messiah whose followers took his name for example. I find the Josephus material provides more evidence although worried a little by the fact Jesus was probably NOT the Jewish messiah in Jospehus’s pantheon.

If a man named Christ existed mainly as a marketing concept then his heirs, assigns and descendants (as defined by the late writer Laurence Gardner in Bloodlines of the Holy Grail) deserve a large stipend from the religious organizations which have profitted from using his name. Only fair.

Larry, once again, a home run. Thanks much.

Lawrence, I believe you also made note in your comments on your O.T. article about a British scholar confronting her students or associates about a challenge they made about the existence of Jesus. She commented in a similar vein as the two quotes I made above. Thank you for your very convincing article.

In a discussion earlier this year on this same subject, I commented on some simple arguments that impressed me very much. John Stuart Mill, noted 19th century English economist and philosopher observed, “Who among His followers, or among their proselytes, was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels? Certainly not the fisherman of Galilee.” American Theodore Parker: said, “Shall we be told such a man never lived, the whole story is a lie? Suppose that Plato and Newton never lived. But who did their works, and thought their thoughts. It takes a Newton to forge a Newton. What man could have fabricated a Jesus? None but a Jesus.

The sources cited do not, of course, “prove” the existence of the historical personage we call Jesus, but they do argue that it makes more sense to believe he existed than that he didn’t. One theory goes that if the world was created — and you within it — this morning when you awoke, then the Creator created all those books and archaeological artifacts just as we find them so that we would believe they represent an objective and invariable reality. Maybe the world was actually created last year, with the same caveats. Maybe it was created in 4004 B.C., with the same caveats, etc. The point is, a Creator powerful enough to create the universe at all would surely not be daunted by the prospect of planting some evidence to lead us to conclude one thing or the other, consistent with the Creator’s divine intention. Critics of the reality and factual existence of Jesus can either except certain things on faith, like Schrodinger’s famous boxed cat, or they can believe they are creating the world anew with every new instant of time, and the universe ends at the tips of their noses. The preponderance of evidence, combined with common sense and any amount of analysis you care to undertake, must lead the rational mind to believe that Jesus was at least as real as George Washington, Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, or any other great historical person you’ve ever read about, but who you never saw with your own eyes.

Do Scholars Believe That Jesus Existed? Scholars have a solid basis for believing that Jesus existed. Regarding the references made by first- and second-century historians to Jesus and the early Christians, the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

In 2006, the book Jesus and Archaeology said: “No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings.”

The Bible portrays Jesus as a real person. It provides the names of his ancestors and immediate family. (Matthew 1:1; 13:55) It also gives the names of prominent rulers who were contemporaries of Jesus. (Luke 3:1, 2) Those details allow researchers to verify the accuracy of the Bible accounts.

Jesus—What People Say About Him

“Jesus of Nazareth . . . is easily the dominant figure in history.”—H. G. Wells, English historian.

“Christ stands . . . solitary and alone among all the heroes of history.”—Philip Schaff, Swiss-born theologian and historian.

WHO qualifies to be called the greatest man who ever lived? How should a man’s greatness be measured? By his military genius? His physical strength? His mental prowess? Or should it be measured by the extent that his words and deeds affect people and by the example he sets for them? Note what historians, scientists, scholars, writers, political leaders, and others—past and present—have said about the man from Nazareth, Jesus Christ:

“It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.”—Reynolds Price, American writer and Bible scholar.

“A man who was completely innocent offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.”—Mohandas K. Gandhi, political and spiritual leader of India.

“As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”—Albert Einstein, German-born scientist.

“Jesus Christ, to me, is the outstanding personality of all time, all history, both as Son of God and as Son of Man. Everything He ever said or did has value for us today, and that is something you can say of no other man, alive or dead.”—Sholem Asch, Polish-born essayist as quoted in Christian Herald; italics theirs.

“For thirty five years of my life I was, in the proper acceptation of the word, nihilist, a man who believed in nothing. Five years ago my faith came to me. I believed in the doctrine of Jesus Christ and my whole life underwent a sudden transformation.”—Count Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist and philosopher.

“[Jesus’] life is the most influential ever lived on this planet and its effect continues to mount.”—Kenneth Scott Latourette, American historian and author.

“Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction. On the contrary, the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ.”—Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French philosopher.

Clearly, if anyone deserves to be our model in life, it is Jesus Christ. Paul, a learned man of the first century chosen by Jesus to be His follower and to speak about Him to the nations, urges us to “look intently” at Jesus. (Hebrews 12:2; Acts 9:3) http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273113

Do Scholars Believe That Jesus Existed? Scholars have a solid basis for believing that Jesus existed. Regarding the references made by first- and second-century historians to Jesus and the early Christians, the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.” In 2006, the book Jesus and Archaeology said: “No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings.” The Bible portrays Jesus as a real person. It provides the names of his ancestors and immediate family. (Matthew 1:1; 13:55) It also gives the names of prominent rulers who were contemporaries of Jesus. (Luke 3:1, 2) Those details allow researchers to verify the accuracy of the Bible accounts. Jesus—What People Say About Him “Jesus of Nazareth . . . is easily the dominant figure in history.”—H. G. Wells, English historian. “Christ stands . . . solitary and alone among all the heroes of history.”—Philip Schaff, Swiss-born theologian and historian. WHO qualifies to be called the greatest man who ever lived? How should a man’s greatness be measured? By his military genius? His physical strength? His mental prowess? Or should it be measured by the extent that his words and deeds affect people and by the example he sets for them? Note what historians, scientists, scholars, writers, political leaders, and others—past and present—have said about the man from Nazareth, Jesus Christ: “It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.”—Reynolds Price, American writer and Bible scholar. “A man who was completely innocent offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.”—Mohandas K. Gandhi, political and spiritual leader of India. “As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”—Albert Einstein, German-born scientist. “Jesus Christ, to me, is the outstanding personality of all time, all history, both as Son of God and as Son of Man. Everything He ever said or did has value for us today, and that is something you can say of no other man, alive or dead.”—Sholem Asch, Polish-born essayist as quoted in Christian Herald; italics theirs. “For thirty five years of my life I was, in the proper acceptation of the word, nihilist, a man who believed in nothing. Five years ago my faith came to me. I believed in the doctrine of Jesus Christ and my whole life underwent a sudden transformation.”—Count Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist and philosopher. “[Jesus’] life is the most influential ever lived on this planet and its effect continues to mount.”—Kenneth Scott Latourette, American historian and author. “Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction. On the contrary, the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ.”—Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French philosopher. Clearly, if anyone deserves to be our model in life, it is Jesus Christ. Paul, a learned man of the first century chosen by Jesus to be His follower and to speak about Him to the nations, urges us to “look intently” at Jesus. (Hebrews 12:2; Acts 9:3) http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273113

Reply to Helen (28. above): Todah! Todah!

Thank you, Lawrence, for a well-presented article. Your documentation points to a through process of research and reflection upon that material. Your writing style is such that both a novice and a long time student can benefit from your hard work.

Articles like this one is one of the reasons I tighten my budget elsewhere so I can keep my BAR subscription going. Todah rabah!

Thank you, Lawrence, for a well-presented article. Your documentation points to a through process of research and reflection upon that material. Your writing style is such that both a novice and a long time student can benefit from your hard work. Articles like this one is one of the reasons I tighten my budget elsewhere so I can keep my BAR subscription going. Todah rabah!

This is one of those moments when Mr. Spock is on the bridge of the Enterprise, looks into his view-finder and says, “fascinating.” Interesting that commentator Paul #14 brought up the subject of the apostle Paul being a Gnostic though I agree with Lawrence’s reliance on the historical accounts which allows me to see how far the authors of the Gospels went to conform to the written records (thanks also to commentator Ilan #4). The Old Testament also borrowed from existing texts, a classic example being the story of Moses in the ark of bulrushes like King Sargon of Agade. The Gospel of John is thought to be a work that was influenced by a type of gnosticism that existed at a particular period in the late 1st century but was not continued until the mid-2nd century when Christian-Gnostic books flourish, no doubt a reaction to Roman persecution. During this century Jewish mystical beliefs appear in writings such as Bereshith Rabba 82:6, where the Old Testament patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, constitute the divine Chariot like that of Ezekiel’s vision. This was in reference to the verse, “God ascended from him (Jacob) at the place where He had spoken with him” (Genesis 35:13). “From here we learn that he became a holy chariot” (“The Zohar” by Daniel Matt, vol.3, p.49). Jacob’s Ladder is also referred to in John 1:51, after Jesus is affiliated with John the Baptist and the Essene traditions and perhaps had access to such works as the portion of Qumran Scroll 4Q286-287 on the Chariots of Glory. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Gershom Scholem wrote in “Major Trends In Jewish Mysticism” about the tradition of the Ma’asah Merkavah, or “Workings of the Chariot,” that appear in the apocryphal writings of the 2nd century B.C.E. to the 1st century C.E., and later the Mishnah (p.43): “Although an immense literature has grown up on the subject of these apocrypha, the truth is that no one knows for certain to what extent they reflect views shared by Mishnaic authorities. Be that as it may – and even granted that it may be possible to trace the influence of Essenes in some of these writings – one fact remains certain: the main subjects of the later Merkabah mysticism already occupy a central position in the oldest esoteric literature, best represented by the Book of Enoch.” In response to commentator Bob #3,9,11; The Talmud’s reference to Yeshru ha-Nosri as being “close to the kingdom” likely does affiliate Jesus with the Roman establishment, if only a noble ambassador like the Centurion who knew his place in the chain of command; “For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me” (Matthew 8:5). It is in this context that Jesus speaks of the messianic banquet with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (8:11). “

Reply to Paul (14. above), continued: Regarding Josephus, the article frankly points out the variations in the Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Syriac texts of the Testimonium Flavianum that indicate how copyists and/or translators did change the text. But on the other hand, the article’s examination of the way each one renders the Testimonium reveals a certain stability in the various versions of it (see Alternative 3 in the article and see endnote 30). The evidence in these versions does not support a wholesale insertion of a forged passage, but rather, taken together, these versions point to an original text that did mention Jesus as a real human being. The article is an honest attempt to get at the truth and to avoid making unsubstantiated claims. It is important to realize that Josephus’ other, later reference to “Jesus who is called Christ,” in order to identify his executed brother James, is accepted by a huge majority of scholars as authentically from Josephus and as strong evidence of Jesus’ real existence as a human being.

Reply to Paul (14. above), continued: Regarding the claim that “The writings of authors like Josephus and the others that the writer refers to, have either been corrupted, interpolated or misinterpreted.”

This is a very sweeping claim. It refers to the writings of not just one or a few, but of all—Tacitus _and_ Lucian of Samosata _and_ rabbinic scholars referring to Jesus _and_ Celsus _and_ Pliny _and_ Suetonius, _and_ Mara bar Serapion. In what particular way(s) have each one, as claimed, been corrupted, or interpolated, or misinterpreted? In each case, how can the corrupted text or the interpolation be discerned? In each case, how can the correct interpretation and a misinterpretation be known? What support for this sweeping, all-inclusive claim is there in scholarly publications? The article and its endnotes present and examine evidence. This objection does not.

Regarding the claim that “The apologists keep refering to these writings (a line, a name or a few sentences) again and again though proven as forgery by historians and scholars” Again, this claim is made without naming or examining any evidence, without giving specific argumentation, and without indicating any scholarly works to support it. Has any historian or scholar not just suggested or raised doubt, but actually _proven_ that all references to Jesus as a real human being in history are forgeries? Is the majority of scholars, where referred to in the article, so badly mistaken?

Reply to Paul (14. above), continued: Regarding the claim that “The writings of authors like Josephus and the others that the writer refers to, have either been corrupted, interpolated or misinterpreted.” This is a very sweeping claim. It refers to the writings of not just one or a few, but of all—Tacitus _and_ Lucian of Samosata _and_ rabbinic scholars referring to Jesus _and_ Celsus _and_ Pliny _and_ Suetonius, _and_ Mara bar Serapion. In what particular way(s) have each one, as claimed, been corrupted, or interpolated, or misinterpreted? In each case, how can the corrupted text or the interpolation be discerned? In each case, how can the correct interpretation and a misinterpretation be known? What support for this sweeping, all-inclusive claim is there in scholarly publications? The article and its endnotes present and examine evidence. This objection does not. Regarding the claim that “The apologists keep refering to these writings (a line, a name or a few sentences) again and again though proven as forgery by historians and scholars” Again, this claim is made without naming or examining any evidence, without giving specific argumentation, and without indicating any scholarly works to support it. Has any historian or scholar not just suggested or raised doubt, but actually _proven_ that all references to Jesus as a real human being in history are forgeries? Is the majority of scholars, where referred to in the article, so badly mistaken?

Reply to Paul (14. above), continued: Again, regarding the claim that “Despite what the writer of this article claims, there were at least 40 recognized writers of the time who do not mention this particular Jesus at all.”

This argument ignores the fact that besides Tacitus and Josephus, several writers of the classical period mention Jesus. These other writers are mentioned in the latter part of the article and in endnotes 39 through 43. Tacitus and Josephus are emphasized in the article, because they are clearly independent of the New Testament and because they provide the strongest evidence. On the other hand, it would have been strange indeed if 40 of the writers of the time had mentioned Jesus. In fact, it would have aroused my suspicion. As the article’s endnote 6 points out:

“The following two observations made by F. F. Bruce are relevant to works by Tacitus and by several other classical writers who mention Jesus:

“1. Surprisingly few classical writings, comparatively speaking, survive from the period of about the first 50 years of the Christian church (c. 29 to 80 C.E.). (Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, p. 17.) “2. Roman civilization paid almost no attention to obscure religious leaders in faraway places, such as Jesus in Judea—just as today’s Western nations pay almost no attention to religious leaders in remote parts of the world, unless the national interest is involved. Rome became concerned only when Christians grew numerous. (Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, pp. 17–18. For thorough discussion, see Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, pp. 68–71.)”

Reply to Paul (14. above), continued: Again, regarding the claim that “Despite what the writer of this article claims, there were at least 40 recognized writers of the time who do not mention this particular Jesus at all.” This argument ignores the fact that besides Tacitus and Josephus, several writers of the classical period mention Jesus. These other writers are mentioned in the latter part of the article and in endnotes 39 through 43. Tacitus and Josephus are emphasized in the article, because they are clearly independent of the New Testament and because they provide the strongest evidence. On the other hand, it would have been strange indeed if 40 of the writers of the time had mentioned Jesus. In fact, it would have aroused my suspicion. As the article’s endnote 6 points out: “The following two observations made by F. F. Bruce are relevant to works by Tacitus and by several other classical writers who mention Jesus: “1. Surprisingly few classical writings, comparatively speaking, survive from the period of about the first 50 years of the Christian church (c. 29 to 80 C.E.). (Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, p. 17.) “2. Roman civilization paid almost no attention to obscure religious leaders in faraway places, such as Jesus in Judea—just as today’s Western nations pay almost no attention to religious leaders in remote parts of the world, unless the national interest is involved. Rome became concerned only when Christians grew numerous. (Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, pp. 17–18. For thorough discussion, see Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, pp. 68–71.)”

Reply to Paul (14. above): Regarding the claim that “Despite what the writer of this article claims, there were at least 40 recognized writers of the time who do not mention this particular Jesus at all. Jesus or Joshua was a common name then, and even Josephus mentions at least six or eight of them.” It is not at all necessary that other recognized writers of the time mention Jesus in order to verify what both Josephus and Tacitus wrote. They were recognized historians, too, and they did their homework. This argument has no weight.

As for the fact that Jesus’ name was very common, perhaps you missed the part of the above article in which I stated, “James’s brother Jesus (Yehoshua) also had a very common name. Josephus mentions at least 12 other men named Jesus.” And the attached endnote 14 states,”Winter asserts that Josephus mentions about twelve others named Jesus. Feldman puts that number at 21.” That endnote cites Winter’s and Feldman’s published works. As the article points out, the fact that the names James (Jacob), Jesus, and Joseph were common was precisely the reason why Josephus specified that this was “Jesus who is called Christ.”

I will reply to the rest of Paul’s comment (14. above) in another comment later today or tomorrow.

Reply to Paul (14. above): Regarding the claim that “Despite what the writer of this article claims, there were at least 40 recognized writers of the time who do not mention this particular Jesus at all. Jesus or Joshua was a common name then, and even Josephus mentions at least six or eight of them.” It is not at all necessary that other recognized writers of the time mention Jesus in order to verify what both Josephus and Tacitus wrote. They were recognized historians, too, and they did their homework. This argument has no weight. As for the fact that Jesus’ name was very common, perhaps you missed the part of the above article in which I stated, “James’s brother Jesus (Yehoshua) also had a very common name. Josephus mentions at least 12 other men named Jesus.” And the attached endnote 14 states,”Winter asserts that Josephus mentions about twelve others named Jesus. Feldman puts that number at 21.” That endnote cites Winter’s and Feldman’s published works. As the article points out, the fact that the names James (Jacob), Jesus, and Joseph were common was precisely the reason why Josephus specified that this was “Jesus who is called Christ.” I will reply to the rest of Paul’s comment (14. above) in another comment later today or tomorrow.

“One benefit for such Christians in relating to these reasonable people is that they can help Christians think more clearly, more sensitively, and in a more refined way about various faiths, including Christianity.” This is not a matter of helping “Christians think more clearly, more sensitively, and in a more refined way about various faiths….” No matter from which faith one comes, the overwhelming evidence is that thousands of people both Jew and Gentile believers died in the very early years after Jesus’ death BECAUSE they believed Jesus was a real person. THAT is a powerful witness that Jesus did live! Even if no historian wrote about Jesus* – Any thinking man would have to ask the question, “would that many people die for a lie?” And as you have said, the answer is a resounding NO. (* much like the lack of writing about King David)

[…] academe, I published an article in BAR titled“Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible.”a The enormous interest this article generated was a complete surprise to me. Nearly 40 websites in […]

Reply to David C. (20. and 21. above): (On comment 20. above): The apostles and first-century did not die for a lie. Nevertheless, not all reasonable people begin with the same assumptions, awareness of evidence, cultural lenses, socially conditioned preferences, and personal inclinations that 21st-century North American Christians begin with. As a result, these reasonable people do not reason in the same way that such Christians do, nor do they reach the same conclusions. One benefit for such Christians in relating to these reasonable people is that they can help Christians think more clearly, more sensitively, and in a more refined way about various faiths, including Christianity. (On comment 21. above): 1 Corinthians 15:6 refers to one of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, whereas the article refers to the number of followers of Jesus before his death. My intent was to observe that that number of “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), was quite small before his death, but I did not make that clear in the article.

“5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many” at the end of his life. Large growth in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.”

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:6 “After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.” The way Paul writes this seems to suggest that disbelievers should go and check it out because many of those followers were still alive. Would this 500 be considered MANY followers?

“5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many” at the end of his life. Large growth in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.” Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:6 “After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.” The way Paul writes this seems to suggest that disbelievers should go and check it out because many of those followers were still alive. Would this 500 be considered MANY followers?

So, did ALL the apostles and thousands of first century Christians die for some LIE ? I can’t imagine that any reasonable person would believe that. What is the other possibility?

Correction of the last sentence of my reply (16. above) to Eugene: There are nine points on which either Josephus and the Gospels, or Tacitus and the Gospels, or all three of these independent sources agree, as listed in the article and in my reply to Ilan in comment 12 above.

This is more a question, than anything else.

Christos means anointed – At that time were kings, high priests and judges all anointed –

I couldn’t find anything about the the chronology re. the term “christian”. – But I know following re “christian”:

The movement “Christians” were, by Christ Jesus followers, called “The Way”, Christ Jesus himself, was called the Nazarene, and his followers the Nazarites –

The first time the term Christian was mentioned was in Antioch during Paul’s visits, the term “christian” was clearly used as a epithets –

Which is to say that if Josephus’ story “shall hold the water”, should this invective “christian”, been widespread over the next 40 years, from Antioch to Rome, from mid of AD40th, and into the fifth chapt. of the “the Jews war”, which were written approx. in AD80th..

Josephus mentions two brothers named “Jesus and Jacob”. Jesus is one of the most common names of the time, because Josephus mentions about 20 Jesus’ – And we meetings one of them, in the same chapter five = Jesus, son of Damneus who was anointed [= Chrestos], as high priest.

I have read, that perhaps the most important aspect re. the term “christian” is, that Josephus normally always explains his Roman readers the meanings when he introduces unfamiliar terms, also when he repeats. But here there is no explanations of what a “chrestos” are?

This is more a question, than anything else. Christos means anointed – At that time were kings, high priests and judges all anointed – I couldn’t find anything about the the chronology re. the term “christian”. – But I know following re “christian”: The movement “Christians” were, by Christ Jesus followers, called “The Way”, Christ Jesus himself, was called the Nazarene, and his followers the Nazarites – The first time the term Christian was mentioned was in Antioch during Paul’s visits, the term “christian” was clearly used as a epithets – Which is to say that if Josephus’ story “shall hold the water”, should this invective “christian”, been widespread over the next 40 years, from Antioch to Rome, from mid of AD40th, and into the fifth chapt. of the “the Jews war”, which were written approx. in AD80th.. Josephus mentions two brothers named “Jesus and Jacob”. Jesus is one of the most common names of the time, because Josephus mentions about 20 Jesus’ – And we meetings one of them, in the same chapter five = Jesus, son of Damneus who was anointed [= Chrestos], as high priest. I have read, that perhaps the most important aspect re. the term “christian” is, that Josephus normally always explains his Roman readers the meanings when he introduces unfamiliar terms, also when he repeats. But here there is no explanations of what a “chrestos” are?

Reply to Eugene (10. above): First, it should be noted that some historians use “contemporaneous” in a broader sense of having lived at about the same time, even if the lifetimes of two people did not quite overlap. In that sense, Josephus was certainly Jesus’ contemporary and his fellow Palestinian Jew.

But strictly speaking, you are correct that Tacitus (55/56–c. 118 C.E.) was not contemporaneous with Jesus in the sense that their lifetimes overlapped, since he was born about 25 years after Jesus was crucified. Even then, they were quite close in time.

Regarding the proximity of their two lifetimes, the article makes a case, following Van Voorst’s research, that Tacitus belonged to the board of Roman priests who regulated foreign religions in Rome, therefore they needed accurate information about such religions. By his membership on this board and/or by other means, he had access to some accurate information about so-called “Chrestians,” whether it was passed along by word of mouth from older priests or written down and kept in an archive or library. Thus he knew and the proper spelling in referring to their founder as Christus, as well as the time and manner of his death, who sentenced him to be executed, and the place where this religion began. It is not as if Tacitus lived centuries after Jesus. His lifetime overlapped with the lives of several of the twelve apostles.

Secondly, Josephus (37–c. 100 C.E.), also was not, strictly speaking, contemporaneous with Jesus, since he was born about 7 or 8 years after Jesus was crucified. But certainly his own parents were contemporaries of Jesus. His father, a priest and almost certainly a Pharisee, as Josephus was, could easily have known people who had seen and heard Jesus. Growing up in first-century Palestine, Josephus could not have avoided hearing about Jesus, and by all means, he was a contemporary of the apostles.

The writings of Josephus, Tacitus, and the New Testament are strikingly close in time to the lifetime of Jesus. They were not so distant as to be isolated from accurate information about him, but rather, both Josephus and Tacitus had access to information about Jesus which is demonstrably correct. We are assured by the fact that the three independent sources, namely Josephus, Tacitus, and the New Testament overlap of nine key points about Jesus, his life, and his death, as listed in the article and in my reply to Ilan in comment 12 above.

Reply to Eugene (10. above): First, it should be noted that some historians use “contemporaneous” in a broader sense of having lived at about the same time, even if the lifetimes of two people did not quite overlap. In that sense, Josephus was certainly Jesus’ contemporary and his fellow Palestinian Jew. But strictly speaking, you are correct that Tacitus (55/56–c. 118 C.E.) was not contemporaneous with Jesus in the sense that their lifetimes overlapped, since he was born about 25 years after Jesus was crucified. Even then, they were quite close in time. Regarding the proximity of their two lifetimes, the article makes a case, following Van Voorst’s research, that Tacitus belonged to the board of Roman priests who regulated foreign religions in Rome, therefore they needed accurate information about such religions. By his membership on this board and/or by other means, he had access to some accurate information about so-called “Chrestians,” whether it was passed along by word of mouth from older priests or written down and kept in an archive or library. Thus he knew and the proper spelling in referring to their founder as Christus, as well as the time and manner of his death, who sentenced him to be executed, and the place where this religion began. It is not as if Tacitus lived centuries after Jesus. His lifetime overlapped with the lives of several of the twelve apostles. Secondly, Josephus (37–c. 100 C.E.), also was not, strictly speaking, contemporaneous with Jesus, since he was born about 7 or 8 years after Jesus was crucified. But certainly his own parents were contemporaries of Jesus. His father, a priest and almost certainly a Pharisee, as Josephus was, could easily have known people who had seen and heard Jesus. Growing up in first-century Palestine, Josephus could not have avoided hearing about Jesus, and by all means, he was a contemporary of the apostles. The writings of Josephus, Tacitus, and the New Testament are strikingly close in time to the lifetime of Jesus. They were not so distant as to be isolated from accurate information about him, but rather, both Josephus and Tacitus had access to information about Jesus which is demonstrably correct. We are assured by the fact that the three independent sources, namely Josephus, Tacitus, and the New Testament overlap of nine key points about Jesus, his life, and his death, as listed in the article and in my reply to Ilan in comment 12 above.

Another reply to Bob (11. above): Thank you for the Rashi reference and for your very kind remarks. As I mentioned in endnote 1 above, second paragraph, “this article treats an area that has already been thoroughly researched, so I have gleaned material from the best results previously obtained”—by others, from whom I borrowed, and whose works I have gratefully cited.

Reply to Bob (9. above): Yes, political power would clearly involve Roman authority in some way. I have no idea of how the Talmudic debaters and commentators might have conceived of such a connection between Jesus and Rome—or how they would have explained his crucifixion on a Roman cross. It is true that Jesus advised people to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s,” meaning to pay taxes, but I find not a whisper of any attempt by Jesus in the Gospels to gain or wield political power. In fact in the Gospel of John, chapter 6, he refused to be made a king, and on trial before Pilate, he stated that his kingdom was not of this world. But again, I am open to hear whatever evidence, either real or imagined by his enemies, might support such a political connection.

Despite what the writer of this article claims, there were at least 40 recognized writers of the time who do not mention this particular Jesus at all. Jesus or Joshua was a common name then, and even Josephus mentions at least six or eight of them.

The writings of authors like Josephus and the others that the writer refers to, have either been corrupted, interpolated or misinterpreted. The apologists keep refering to these writings (a line, a name or a few sentences) again and again though proven as forgery by historians and scholars.

Even Apostle Paul does not mention anything of Jesus’ human life, his ministry, his virgin birth, his miracles, his parables, his sermons, his trial and so on. He only realization of Christ was through his visions. And if his generally accepted chronology is to be believed, Paul must have been born and lived during Jesus’ time, and martyred in 66/68 A.D. His Epistles are the first Gnostic Christian writings.

There is a lot of misconception among the Church Fathers…. St. Irenaeus (circa 130-200) stated Jesus lived to be an old man; nowwhere it’s mentioned he was crucified except in the New Testament romances which even the Church is now reluctant to admit as not being historical, though she continues to abide by them for the sake of its followers as Acts of faith.

Despite what the writer of this article claims, there were at least 40 recognized writers of the time who do not mention this particular Jesus at all. Jesus or Joshua was a common name then, and even Josephus mentions at least six or eight of them. The writings of authors like Josephus and the others that the writer refers to, have either been corrupted, interpolated or misinterpreted. The apologists keep refering to these writings (a line, a name or a few sentences) again and again though proven as forgery by historians and scholars. Even Apostle Paul does not mention anything of Jesus’ human life, his ministry, his virgin birth, his miracles, his parables, his sermons, his trial and so on. He only realization of Christ was through his visions. And if his generally accepted chronology is to be believed, Paul must have been born and lived during Jesus’ time, and martyred in 66/68 A.D. His Epistles are the first Gnostic Christian writings. There is a lot of misconception among the Church Fathers…. St. Irenaeus (circa 130-200) stated Jesus lived to be an old man; nowwhere it’s mentioned he was crucified except in the New Testament romances which even the Church is now reluctant to admit as not being historical, though she continues to abide by them for the sake of its followers as Acts of faith.

Reply to Jerry H. (8. above): Thank you, Jerry, for your kind remarks. If I knew for certain that there were “only” 49 other figures in the New Testament that can be documented in sources that are independent of the New Testament, it would be a relief to know that there are not more.

As for such a book project, it would be a major undertaking. I would surely need to “keep looking up.” Thank you for suggesting it so warmly. I cannot say enough good about everyone at BAR. They provide excellent editing, great visuals, excellent web support, and timely communication! Thank you Hershel, thank you Robin, Bonnie, Noah, and all of you, past and present!

Reply to Jerry H. (8. above): Thank you, Jerry, for your kind remarks. If I knew for certain that there were “only” 49 other figures in the New Testament that can be documented in sources that are independent of the New Testament, it would be a relief to know that there are not more. As for such a book project, it would be a major undertaking. I would surely need to “keep looking up.” Thank you for suggesting it so warmly. I cannot say enough good about everyone at BAR. They provide excellent editing, great visuals, excellent web support, and timely communication! Thank you Hershel, thank you Robin, Bonnie, Noah, and all of you, past and present!

Reply to Ilan (4. above): I stand by the view taken in endnote 3 of my article, in agreement with New Testament scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz (who have the support of many other Biblical scholars, as well), that In the last analysis, all evidence from all sources must be considered, and that both Biblical and non-Biblical sources “are in principle of equal value in the study of Jesus” (Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], p. 23). This is a scholarly approach that attempts to honor objectivity. It does not privilege religious writings. Daniel Unterbrink, however, does not give equal value to Biblical and non-Biblical sources. He privileges non-Biblical sources over Biblical sources and employs the non-Biblical with the intent to destroy the Biblical. As I have stated in endnote 3 above, “Christian sources found in the New Testament and outside of it have great value as historical evidence and are not to be discounted or dismissed.” Unterbrink does his best to discount them, with precisely the results that he intends. These results are unfortunate in terms of historical accuracy. As a rule of thumb, when independent sources agree, that agreement strengthens the case for the historical reliability of the points on which they agree. Above, my article points out (in boldface font) nine points on which Josephus and the Gospels, Tacitus and the Gospels, or all three of these independent sources agree: 1. Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ, existed as a real man. 2. His personal name was Jesus. 3. He was called Christos (Christ) in Greek, which is a translation of Messiah in Hebrew–“(the) anointed one.” 4. He had a brother named James (Jacob). 5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture). 6. Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him. 7. Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed. 8. His execution was specifically by crucifixion. 9. He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), during Tiberius’s reign. Lawrence Mykytiuk Purdue University

[…] History Daily recently published an article entitled Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible. It’s an interesting article, citing in particular two non-Christian sources as references […]

See also Rashi (Sanhedrin 43a incipit יהרוג) who explains ‘close to the kingdom’ as referring to foreign government.

What about the argument of there being no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus’ existence? Josephus and Tacitus are not contemporaneous.

Reply to Lawrece,

The simple understanding of the Talmudic passage is that Jesus had connections to the Roman government, and was therefore treated differently.

I did enjoy both of your articles greatly, wonderful scholarship.

Reply to Lawrece, The simple understanding of the Talmudic passage is that Jesus had connections to the Roman government, and was therefore treated differently. I did enjoy both of your articles greatly, wonderful scholarship.

What an excellent article! Here’s hoping you will now write that article on the other 49 historical New Testament figures. And then hopefully BAR will give you permission to publish a book that contains all three articles, with footnotes, figures, charts, etc.

Reply to Bob (3. above): The interpretation you refer to would certainly make sense, if the writer had in mind some clear link between Jesus and political power. Given that the writer would not have recognized Davidic ancestry as pertaining to Jesus, then what would Jesus’ political connections have been? I am open to suggestions. Perhaps the meaning of “close to the kingdom” with reference to Yeshu ha-Nosri might be perennially debated.

Reply to Wardell (2. above): I stand by my article.

Reply to Paul (1. above): Thank you for your reflections, Paul. It is my understanding that first-century Jewish messianic hope looked for one who would shatter the Roman yoke by his military might, then set up his messianic kingdom over all the earth. Jesus’s parables of the kingdom presented a very different picture (God’;s rule can be resisted, spreads quietly like leaven in bread, etc.), which seems to line up with the re-thinking of the kingdom that Crossan imagines. As I understand your view, it suggests a major shift in Jewish messianic thought. I suppose such a huge shift would need to be documented in first-century Palestinian Jewish writings. Of course, this discussion is afield from the article.

[…] More seriously read this article  http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jes… […]

Sorry, I feel Daniel Unterbrink has got it right in claiming that Judas of Galilee and Jesus of Nazareth were one and the same person, the similarities too coincidental and the fact that Judas the Galilean was not a later forgery and had more lines written about him which ties into everything that Jesus did, though the so called Messiah Jesus again, got 1 line interpolated later and an overall fabricated history. Judas was a real Messianic claimant and it was his life that was the composite for the later tales of Jesus.

So far I haven’t found one person of scholastic credentials in the theological realm who can argue with Unterbrinks hypothesis. But does prove that sources that claim Paul to be the Man of Lies to have his number for sure.

He also discusses James as well on this site.

http://thethreemessiahs.wordpress.com//

also check http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26255&start=10&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight= Did Acts Misrepresent Theudas and Judas the Galilean?

Was Judas the Galilean the historical Jesus?

1. Jesus was born in 8-4 BCE (Matthew) and in 6 CE at the Census of Cyrenius (Luke). Judas was mentioned by Josephus in 4 BCE, relating to the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing (Ant. 17.149-167) and in 6 CE, regarding the Census of Cyrenius (Ant. 18.1-10) The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are both inconsistent with the reign of Pilate and the ministry of John the Baptist. For example, if Jesus were born in 4 BCE and died thirty-three years later, then he would have died around 30 CE, during the reign of Pilate but five years before John the Baptist’s death. (Ant. 18.116-119) If Jesus were born in 6 CE and died thirty-three years later, then he would have died in 39 CE, a few years after John the Baptist but two years after Pilate left Judea. Both accounts appear historically flawed. These two birth narratives were strategically placed in an era when Judas the Galilean’s ministry flourished. This deception moved the adult Jesus thirty years away from Judas the Galilean, thus hiding the Messiah’s true identity. This misdirection by the Gospel writers has worked brilliantly. Very few scholars have even considered Jesus outside of the 30 CE timeframe. This is even more disturbing considering Jesus’ brother, James, was purported to be ninety-six years old in 62 CE. Even if this slightly exaggerates his age by ten years, James’ birth date can be estimated at approximately 35-25 BCE. Jesus was the older brother and could not have been born any later than 25 BCE.

It should be asked: why would Matthew and Luke pick different dates for the Messiah’s birth? If one solid date existed, then both Gospel writers should have easily followed that lone date. However, if the writers were trying to present an alternate date, then it might have been possible for each to tie his birth date to a different event. Matthew tied his birth date to the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing while Luke used the Census of Cyrenius, the two major events in Judas the Galilean’s career.

2. This second coincidence relates to Matthew’s Star of Bethlehem story which was placed in 4 BCE (See number 1). In the Gospel of Matthew, the magi were drawn to Jerusalem by a star, near the end of Herod the Great’s reign, around 4 BCE. These Magi found the baby Jesus but did not return to Herod to report the findings. Herod was incensed and ordered the slaughter of all the baby boys in the vicinity of Bethlehem, two years old and younger.

In the Slavonic Josephus, Persian astrologers went to Herod the Great identifying the star in the sky and explaining its significance. Herod insisted they return to him after finding the infant. However, the astrologers were warned by the stars to avoid Herod on the return trip. In his rage, Herod wanted to kill all the male children throughout his kingdom. His advisors convinced him that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, hoping to confine the slaughter to only Bethlehem. This Star of Bethlehem passage was inserted in the War during the early years of Herod, between 27-22 BCE. (1)

This Slavonic Josephus passage originated from the same source which supplied the Gospel version. The Slavonic text has some interesting details which are missing from Matthew. Matthew wrote that the chief priests and teachers of the law informed Herod that the infant would be born in Bethlehem. He then sent the Magi to Bethlehem and ordered them to return when they had located the infant. (Matt. 2:3-8) This version does not give Herod much credit, for if he really knew that a king would be born in Bethlehem, he would have had every child slaughtered in Bethlehem before the Magi could even reach the place. On the other hand, the Slavonic version had Herod learning about the location after waiting for the Persian astrologers to return. This blunder on Herod’s part wasted precious time, allowing the infant’s parents to escape. Herod’s advisors also told Herod the meaning of the Star. This star was the promised Star Prophecy, which told of a leader coming from Judah. (Numbers 24:17) The same sentiment was included in Matthew 2:6, but this quote from Micah 5:2 promised that a ruler would come from Bethlehem. All in all, the two versions have much in common and vary very little, the difference being the time: 25 BCE versus 4 BCE.

If Jesus were born in 25 BCE, then he would have been 30 years old at the time of the census (6 CE). This was the exact time when John baptized in the Jordan and proclaimed the coming of the Messiah. (2) This date was also marked by the nationwide tax revolt led by Judas the Galilean, the historical Jesus. (Ant. 18.4)

3. The genealogy of Jesus can also be compared to information known about Judas the Galilean. In Matthew 1:15 and Luke 3:24, a Mattan and Matthat are listed as great grandfathers. Since the Gospels added a few generations to distance Jesus from Judas, these great grandfathers may have been Jesus’ father. Judas’s father may have been Matthias, a name closely resembling Mattan and Matthat.

On Mary’s side, a similarity exists concerning the town of Sepphoris. In Christian tradition, Mary’s family came from Sepphoris. Judas was also linked to Sepphoris by Josephus. It was written that Judas was the son of Sepphoris, or rather from Sepphoris, and he also raided the armory at Sepphoris. Certainly, Judas was well acquainted with this town.

4. Herod the Great planned to execute Judas after the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing. Luckily for Judas, Herod ordered to have his prisoners put to death after his own death, in order to create great sorrow in Israel. After Herod’s death, his advisors reneged on the insane plan. (Ant. 17.149-167) According to the Gospels, Herod the Great tried to kill the baby Jesus. (Matt. 2) Herod’s goal of eliminating Jesus ended with his own death. In both stories, an elderly paranoid Herod tried to destroy elements he perceived as being a threat to his rule. Of course, the infant narrative was not actual history but rather a replay of Moses’ infancy.

5. Joseph returned to Israel after the death of Herod the Great but was afraid to settle in Judea because of Archelaus. Having been warned in a dream, Joseph moved his family to Nazareth, in Galilee. (Matt. 2:19-23) The New Testament often moved characters by using dreams, miracles or visions. For example, Philip was whisked away after baptizing the eunuch in Acts 8:39-40. Peter’s visit to Cornelius’ house in Caesarea was preceded by a vision in Acts chapter 10. And the Magi did not return to King Herod because they were warned in a dream. (Matt. 2:12) All three of these examples have alternative explanations. Philip and the eunuch as well as Peter and Cornelius were patterned after the account of King Izates given by Josephus. (Ant. 20.34-48) And as noted in number 2, the Slavonic Josephus explained the Persian astrologers’ decision to avoid Herod differently. Either the Star of Bethlehem convinced them not to return to Herod or they had talked to the locals about the King and decided to go home by another route. The point is this: when trying to reconstruct historical events, it may be wise to discount the passages which depend upon a literary devise such as a dream or vision.

After being released by Archelaus, Judas went to Sepphoris in Galilee, where he led an uprising against the son of Herod. (War 2.56) Sepphoris was in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, not under the control of Archelaus. Since Archelaus was waging war upon the followers of Judas and Matthias, the move to Galilee was prudent in that it allowed reorganization without fear of being attacked by Archelaus. The events in Josephus and the New Testament both occurred because Herod the Great had died and the country was in unrest.

6. The Gospels do not mention the early life of Jesus, except when he taught at the Temple at the age of twelve. (Luke 2:41-52) Otherwise, no information was given from 6 CE (Census of Cyrenius) to 26 CE (supposed date of Pilate – see chapter 1). This lack of information mirrors Josephus’ War where nothing was written from 6 CE (Census) to 26 CE (Pilate). (War 2.167-169) Josephus barely expanded on this paucity of information in Antiquities, where he listed the Roman procurators during this twenty year stretch, but little else. (Ant. 18.26-35) It is possible that these missing years from Josephus could have been the result of pious editing. The actual crucifixion of Judas the Galilean may have been deleted. Note that Josephus detailed the deaths of Judas’ three sons, James, Simon, and Menahem and his grandson, Eleazar. With each of these occasions, Josephus referred back to Judas the Galilean. It is hard to believe that Josephus omitted the circumstances behind the death of Judas. So it is very possible that the writings of Josephus were edited to remove some interesting details of Judas’ life and his eventual crucifixion.

7. When he was only twelve, Jesus spent three days at the Temple. He was “sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.” (Luke 2:41-52) Judas taught young men at the same Temple. Judas was “the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws and … well beloved by the people, because of [the] education of their youth.” (Ant. 17.149 – 4 BCE) How many other men also taught at the Temple? Is it possible that Judas’ early career as teacher at the Temple was made legend by placing his wisdom and knowledge within the body of a twelve year old? Consider this: if Judas had been born around 25 BCE (see number 2), then he would have been just twenty years old at the time of the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing (4 BCE). His status as one of the finest teachers of the law, at such a young age, must have been legendary. This child prodigy legacy was woven into the Gospel fabric by Luke in his story of the twelve year old Jesus.

8. The story of John the Baptist may very well be the most important link between Judas the Galilean and Jesus. In the Gospels, John the Baptist introduced Jesus to the world in 28-29 CE, per the dating of Luke. (Luke 3:1-3) In fact, this is the reason why scholars look nowhere else for Jesus. It is just a given that Jesus’ ministry began around 30 CE.

According to the Slavonic Josephus, this same John came baptizing in the Jordan in 6 CE, right before the mention of Judas the Galilean and during the reign of Archelaus (4 BCE- 7 CE). (1) In addition, the Psuedoclementine Recognitions acknowledged John right before describing the various Jewish sects. (2) Josephus described these same sects right after his introduction of Judas the Galilean. (Ant. 18.4-22 and War 2.118-166) So the 6 CE timeframe for John the Baptist is attested to by more than one source.

Could this John the Baptist have been baptizing and proclaiming different Messiahs in both 6 CE and 29 CE? The odds of that would be millions to one. The only logical conclusion is that Jesus and Judas the Galilean were the same person. This explains why the Slavonic Josephus’ version of events has been ignored over the years. If John actually came in 6 CE, then all of New Testament scholarship is, at best, misguided. That would not only make the scholars look foolish but would also prove Pauline Christianity a sham religion.

9. Both Judas and Jesus had a second-in-command, Sadduc and John the Baptist, respectively. This organizational model was fashioned after the Maccabees. Mattathias led the movement and his son, Judas Maccabee, was his lieutenant. After Mattathias died, Simon took his place and Judas Maccabee was elevated to the leadership role. In the later Fourth Philosophy, Matthias and Judas worked together at the Temple and were responsible for the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing. After Matthias suffered martyrdom, Judas filled this position with Sadduc. (Ant. 18.4)

In the Gospel accounts, Jesus picked Simon Peter as his second-in-command. In reality, Jesus was first paired with John the Baptist (Sadduc). When Jesus was crucified, he was replaced by his brother, James the Just. At this stage, John the Baptist and James shared control of the movement. In 35-36 CE, John was beheaded by Herod Antipas. James appointed Cephas (Peter) to be John’s successor. The Gospels successfully minimized the roles of John the Baptist and James. According to these accounts, John died before Jesus, but per Josephus, John died after Jesus. Also, James the Just was barely mentioned by Acts, his leadership role unannounced until Acts chapter 15, at the Council of Jerusalem. By bypassing John the Baptist and James the Just, the Gospels were able to skip a generation, placing Peter (Cephas) as the leading apostle after the death of Jesus.

The dual leadership may have safeguarded the movement. If one of the leaders was captured or killed, then the other could take control. The movement of Judas the Galilean (Jesus) was different from that of Judas Maccabee in that the later movement believed in the resurrection of its leader. Thus, even though John the Baptist and James led the movement after the death of Jesus, many throughout the movement still awaited the return of Jesus in power and glory. So, in essence, John and James were merely caretakers. This may account for the divisions in the 40 CE church in Corinth. Paul wrote that some disciples followed himself, others followed Cephas (James the Just), others followed Apollos (John the Baptist) (see Acts 18:24-25), and others followed Christ (Judas the Galilean or Jesus). (1 Cor. 1:10-12) This split may have been inevitable since Judas the Galilean’s movement was held together by a common hatred of Rome. Teachers within the movement could have possibly come from both the Pharisees and the Essenes. Differences, in approach to religion, were inevitable.

10. Jesus and Judas were both called the Galilean. Actually, Jesus was referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, a city located near Sepphoris in Galilee. It should not be missed that Sepphoris was central to Judas the Galilean’s ministry. Placing Nazareth close to Sepphoris may have been more than just coincidence. In War 1.648, Judas was said to be the son of Sepphoris. This more likely was his place of birth as opposed to his father. And in War 2.56, Judas retreated to Sepphoris after being harassed by Archelaus. There, Judas armed his disciples with weapons from the armory. Judas’ history with Sepphoris was no doubt changed to Nazareth to hide these embarrassing revelations. After all, both of the above references to Sepphoris were in the context of armed rebellion against Herod the Great and later, Archelaus.

The name Nazareth is probably a corruption of Nazarite, as no references to Nazareth appear in the Old Testament or in Josephus. (A Nazarite was consecrated to God by a vow and included such notables as John the Baptist and Samson). In fact, John Crossan stated that in addition to Josephus’ silence concerning Nazareth, “it is never mentioned by any of the Jewish rabbis whose pronouncements are in the Mishnah or whose discussions are in the Talmud.” (3) Jesus’ disciples were called Galileans (Mark 14:70) and it may have been a sleight-of-hand which changed Jesus the Galilean to Jesus of Nazareth. In John 7:41, the crowd asked, “How can the Christ come from Galilee?” And the leaders had the same reservations about Jesus. “Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.” (John 7:52)

Judas the Galilean was mentioned in several passages by Josephus (War 2.118; War 2.433 and Ant. 20.102). Josephus did state that this Judas hailed from Gamala, across the River Jordan (Ant. 18.4), but he was known as the Galilean, as attributed to the above references. Galilee was a hotbed for revolutionaries. Both Jesus and Judas would have had a similar background, influenced by those who had struggled for years against Herod the Great.

Was Judas the Galilean the Historical Jesus?

11. The disciples of Jesus and Judas were zealous for the law. (Acts 21:20) (Ant. 17.149-154) It is true that Paul taught his Gentile followers to disregard the law. However, the Jewish Christians, led by James the Just, clearly denounced that teaching and removed Paul and his followers from fellowship. (See Galatians)

Some forty years after the death of Judas (19 CE), a splinter group of the Fourth Philosophy, known as the Zealots, appeared on the scene. Like their name suggests, these individuals were obsessed with the Law and were comparable to the fanatical followers of James the Just. (Acts 21:20)

12. Judas and Jesus were both called wise men by Josephus. (Ant. 17.152 and Ant. 18.63) As the Jesus passage was a late third or early fourth century interpolation, the use of the term wise man was taken from the description of Judas and Matthias. It must also be noted that Josephus did not freely use the term wise man. He did, however, use that term when describing himself. If Josephus called himself a wise man then this indeed was a great compliment.

13. Both teachers assigned a high value to the sharing of wealth or pure communism. (Matt. 6:19-27; Acts 2:42-45; James 5:1-6) (Ant. 18.7; War 2.427) (Essenes – War 2.122) In fact, this was the central message in “Love your Neighbor as Yourself.” How could one love his neighbor if he let that neighbor go hungry or unclothed? When Jesus confronted the rich young ruler, he did not say give ten percent to the poor, but rather, give everything to the poor and then come follow me. (Matt. 19:16-24) This was a radical message two thousand years ago. How many middle-class Americans would follow that same philosophy today?

Members of the Fourth Philosophy were known as bandits by Josephus, for they exploited the wealthy, a type of Robin Hood movement. During the war with Rome, the debt records were burned in order to free those enslaved to the wealthy by their debt. (War 2.426-427) This was truly class warfare! As for the Zealots, Josephus shared his contempt for their practices concerning wealth and private property: “The dregs, the scum of the whole country, they have squandered their own property and practiced their lunacy upon the towns and villages around, and finally have poured in a stealthy stream into the Holy City….” (War 4.241) Considering what Jesus said to the rich young ruler, Josephus would have had the same attitude towards Jesus’ lunacy!

At the beginning of the Church, disciples were urged to share everything in common. (Acts 2:42) This approach to living was in line with the Kingdom of God as preached by Jesus. Also, the feeding of the five thousand was simply the sharing of one’s food with another. It had nothing to do with hocus-pocus. In addition, the letter of James favored the poor over the rich. (James 5:1-6)

14. Both Judas and Jesus were considered fine teachers of the Law. (Matt. 5:17-20; Mark 12:28-34) (Ant. 17.149; War 1.648) Judas followed the basic teachings of the Pharisees as did Jesus. As for Judas’ abilities, Josephus wrote: “[Judas and Matthias were] the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and well beloved by the people.” (Ant. 17.149) The earlier assessment from War 1.648 stated that “there were two men of learning in the city [Jerusalem], who were thought the most skillful in the laws of their country, and were on that account held in very great esteem all over the nation.”

From the Gospels, we know that Jesus used parables in relating his message, in line with Pharisaic practices. Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were to love God and to love thy neighbor. To love God involved obeying God and the Law handed down by God to Moses. To love thy neighbor included sharing one’s possessions, so that no one was left hungry or homeless. In addition, both Judas and Jesus followed Judas Maccabee in his interpretation of the Sabbath: the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Judas Maccabee permitted his disciples to defend themselves if attacked on the Sabbath. Likewise, Jesus preached that it was proper to do good on the Sabbath. In fact, Jesus was reprimanded by some Pharisees for breaking the Sabbath laws as he fled from Herod. Jesus quoted the Old Testament story of David eating consecrated bread in order to maintain strength in his flight from the authorities. Jesus had good reason to follow David and Judas Maccabee: he was a marked man. Both Jesus and Judas Maccabee would not have flouted the Sabbath law for any old reason.

From the above passages from Josephus, Judas the Galilean was known throughout the nation for his ability in interpreting the law. We get the same feeling for Jesus when reading the Gospels. The Pharisees constantly invited him to dinner in order to discuss issues. We are privy to only the negative aspects of those meetings. In reality, most teachers in Israel considered Jesus an important figure and were constantly amazed at his teachings.

15. Judas the Galilean’s movement centered in Jerusalem and in Galilee. Judas began his public career in Jerusalem, teaching young men at the Temple. He convinced his students to take part in the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing and was arrested by Herod the Great. (Ant. 17.149-167) Judas was later released by Archelaus and fled to Sepphoris in Galilee. Until his return to Jerusalem, Judas preached in Galilee where he was crowned Messiah by his followers, and later led a tax revolt against Rome. (Ant. 17.271-272 and 18.1-10)

Jesus was also in Jerusalem at the start of his career, according to John. Coincidentally, John placed his Temple Cleansing at the start of Jesus’ career, consistent with the story of Judas the Galilean. (John 2:12-17) Jesus then returned to Galilee, where he was proclaimed Messiah. From the Gospel accounts, Jesus spent most of his ministry in Galilee. Jesus finally returned to Jerusalem, where he was captured and crucified.

Even after Judas’ death, his movement revolved around Jerusalem and Galilee. In fact, Josephus noted that Eleazar was sent by his leaders in Galilee to teach King Izates true Judaism, which included circumcision. King Izates had previously been taught by Ananias that he could become a full Jew without circumcision. The Jewish Christian model also practiced circumcision. Note that Paul and Cephas also had a similar disagreement in Antioch, caused by men sent from James. James may have been centered in either Jerusalem or in Galilee. However, since this occurred around the time of Agrippa’s assassination, James probably located himself in a safer place, no doubt, Galilee.

Sorry, I feel Daniel Unterbrink has got it right in claiming that Judas of Galilee and Jesus of Nazareth were one and the same person, the similarities too coincidental and the fact that Judas the Galilean was not a later forgery and had more lines written about him which ties into everything that Jesus did, though the so called Messiah Jesus again, got 1 line interpolated later and an overall fabricated history. Judas was a real Messianic claimant and it was his life that was the composite for the later tales of Jesus. So far I haven’t found one person of scholastic credentials in the theological realm who can argue with Unterbrinks hypothesis. But does prove that sources that claim Paul to be the Man of Lies to have his number for sure. He also discusses James as well on this site. http://thethreemessiahs.wordpress.com// also check http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26255&start=10&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight= Did Acts Misrepresent Theudas and Judas the Galilean? Was Judas the Galilean the historical Jesus? 1. Jesus was born in 8-4 BCE (Matthew) and in 6 CE at the Census of Cyrenius (Luke). Judas was mentioned by Josephus in 4 BCE, relating to the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing (Ant. 17.149-167) and in 6 CE, regarding the Census of Cyrenius (Ant. 18.1-10) The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are both inconsistent with the reign of Pilate and the ministry of John the Baptist. For example, if Jesus were born in 4 BCE and died thirty-three years later, then he would have died around 30 CE, during the reign of Pilate but five years before John the Baptist’s death. (Ant. 18.116-119) If Jesus were born in 6 CE and died thirty-three years later, then he would have died in 39 CE, a few years after John the Baptist but two years after Pilate left Judea. Both accounts appear historically flawed. These two birth narratives were strategically placed in an era when Judas the Galilean’s ministry flourished. This deception moved the adult Jesus thirty years away from Judas the Galilean, thus hiding the Messiah’s true identity. This misdirection by the Gospel writers has worked brilliantly. Very few scholars have even considered Jesus outside of the 30 CE timeframe. This is even more disturbing considering Jesus’ brother, James, was purported to be ninety-six years old in 62 CE. Even if this slightly exaggerates his age by ten years, James’ birth date can be estimated at approximately 35-25 BCE. Jesus was the older brother and could not have been born any later than 25 BCE. It should be asked: why would Matthew and Luke pick different dates for the Messiah’s birth? If one solid date existed, then both Gospel writers should have easily followed that lone date. However, if the writers were trying to present an alternate date, then it might have been possible for each to tie his birth date to a different event. Matthew tied his birth date to the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing while Luke used the Census of Cyrenius, the two major events in Judas the Galilean’s career. 2. This second coincidence relates to Matthew’s Star of Bethlehem story which was placed in 4 BCE (See number 1). In the Gospel of Matthew, the magi were drawn to Jerusalem by a star, near the end of Herod the Great’s reign, around 4 BCE. These Magi found the baby Jesus but did not return to Herod to report the findings. Herod was incensed and ordered the slaughter of all the baby boys in the vicinity of Bethlehem, two years old and younger. In the Slavonic Josephus, Persian astrologers went to Herod the Great identifying the star in the sky and explaining its significance. Herod insisted they return to him after finding the infant. However, the astrologers were warned by the stars to avoid Herod on the return trip. In his rage, Herod wanted to kill all the male children throughout his kingdom. His advisors convinced him that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, hoping to confine the slaughter to only Bethlehem. This Star of Bethlehem passage was inserted in the War during the early years of Herod, between 27-22 BCE. (1) This Slavonic Josephus passage originated from the same source which supplied the Gospel version. The Slavonic text has some interesting details which are missing from Matthew. Matthew wrote that the chief priests and teachers of the law informed Herod that the infant would be born in Bethlehem. He then sent the Magi to Bethlehem and ordered them to return when they had located the infant. (Matt. 2:3-8) This version does not give Herod much credit, for if he really knew that a king would be born in Bethlehem, he would have had every child slaughtered in Bethlehem before the Magi could even reach the place. On the other hand, the Slavonic version had Herod learning about the location after waiting for the Persian astrologers to return. This blunder on Herod’s part wasted precious time, allowing the infant’s parents to escape. Herod’s advisors also told Herod the meaning of the Star. This star was the promised Star Prophecy, which told of a leader coming from Judah. (Numbers 24:17) The same sentiment was included in Matthew 2:6, but this quote from Micah 5:2 promised that a ruler would come from Bethlehem. All in all, the two versions have much in common and vary very little, the difference being the time: 25 BCE versus 4 BCE. If Jesus were born in 25 BCE, then he would have been 30 years old at the time of the census (6 CE). This was the exact time when John baptized in the Jordan and proclaimed the coming of the Messiah. (2) This date was also marked by the nationwide tax revolt led by Judas the Galilean, the historical Jesus. (Ant. 18.4) 3. The genealogy of Jesus can also be compared to information known about Judas the Galilean. In Matthew 1:15 and Luke 3:24, a Mattan and Matthat are listed as great grandfathers. Since the Gospels added a few generations to distance Jesus from Judas, these great grandfathers may have been Jesus’ father. Judas’s father may have been Matthias, a name closely resembling Mattan and Matthat. On Mary’s side, a similarity exists concerning the town of Sepphoris. In Christian tradition, Mary’s family came from Sepphoris. Judas was also linked to Sepphoris by Josephus. It was written that Judas was the son of Sepphoris, or rather from Sepphoris, and he also raided the armory at Sepphoris. Certainly, Judas was well acquainted with this town. 4. Herod the Great planned to execute Judas after the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing. Luckily for Judas, Herod ordered to have his prisoners put to death after his own death, in order to create great sorrow in Israel. After Herod’s death, his advisors reneged on the insane plan. (Ant. 17.149-167) According to the Gospels, Herod the Great tried to kill the baby Jesus. (Matt. 2) Herod’s goal of eliminating Jesus ended with his own death. In both stories, an elderly paranoid Herod tried to destroy elements he perceived as being a threat to his rule. Of course, the infant narrative was not actual history but rather a replay of Moses’ infancy. 5. Joseph returned to Israel after the death of Herod the Great but was afraid to settle in Judea because of Archelaus. Having been warned in a dream, Joseph moved his family to Nazareth, in Galilee. (Matt. 2:19-23) The New Testament often moved characters by using dreams, miracles or visions. For example, Philip was whisked away after baptizing the eunuch in Acts 8:39-40. Peter’s visit to Cornelius’ house in Caesarea was preceded by a vision in Acts chapter 10. And the Magi did not return to King Herod because they were warned in a dream. (Matt. 2:12) All three of these examples have alternative explanations. Philip and the eunuch as well as Peter and Cornelius were patterned after the account of King Izates given by Josephus. (Ant. 20.34-48) And as noted in number 2, the Slavonic Josephus explained the Persian astrologers’ decision to avoid Herod differently. Either the Star of Bethlehem convinced them not to return to Herod or they had talked to the locals about the King and decided to go home by another route. The point is this: when trying to reconstruct historical events, it may be wise to discount the passages which depend upon a literary devise such as a dream or vision. After being released by Archelaus, Judas went to Sepphoris in Galilee, where he led an uprising against the son of Herod. (War 2.56) Sepphoris was in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, not under the control of Archelaus. Since Archelaus was waging war upon the followers of Judas and Matthias, the move to Galilee was prudent in that it allowed reorganization without fear of being attacked by Archelaus. The events in Josephus and the New Testament both occurred because Herod the Great had died and the country was in unrest. Was Judas the Galilean the historical Jesus? 6. The Gospels do not mention the early life of Jesus, except when he taught at the Temple at the age of twelve. (Luke 2:41-52) Otherwise, no information was given from 6 CE (Census of Cyrenius) to 26 CE (supposed date of Pilate – see chapter 1). This lack of information mirrors Josephus’ War where nothing was written from 6 CE (Census) to 26 CE (Pilate). (War 2.167-169) Josephus barely expanded on this paucity of information in Antiquities, where he listed the Roman procurators during this twenty year stretch, but little else. (Ant. 18.26-35) It is possible that these missing years from Josephus could have been the result of pious editing. The actual crucifixion of Judas the Galilean may have been deleted. Note that Josephus detailed the deaths of Judas’ three sons, James, Simon, and Menahem and his grandson, Eleazar. With each of these occasions, Josephus referred back to Judas the Galilean. It is hard to believe that Josephus omitted the circumstances behind the death of Judas. So it is very possible that the writings of Josephus were edited to remove some interesting details of Judas’ life and his eventual crucifixion. 7. When he was only twelve, Jesus spent three days at the Temple. He was “sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.” (Luke 2:41-52) Judas taught young men at the same Temple. Judas was “the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws and … well beloved by the people, because of [the] education of their youth.” (Ant. 17.149 – 4 BCE) How many other men also taught at the Temple? Is it possible that Judas’ early career as teacher at the Temple was made legend by placing his wisdom and knowledge within the body of a twelve year old? Consider this: if Judas had been born around 25 BCE (see number 2), then he would have been just twenty years old at the time of the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing (4 BCE). His status as one of the finest teachers of the law, at such a young age, must have been legendary. This child prodigy legacy was woven into the Gospel fabric by Luke in his story of the twelve year old Jesus. 8. The story of John the Baptist may very well be the most important link between Judas the Galilean and Jesus. In the Gospels, John the Baptist introduced Jesus to the world in 28-29 CE, per the dating of Luke. (Luke 3:1-3) In fact, this is the reason why scholars look nowhere else for Jesus. It is just a given that Jesus’ ministry began around 30 CE. According to the Slavonic Josephus, this same John came baptizing in the Jordan in 6 CE, right before the mention of Judas the Galilean and during the reign of Archelaus (4 BCE- 7 CE). (1) In addition, the Psuedoclementine Recognitions acknowledged John right before describing the various Jewish sects. (2) Josephus described these same sects right after his introduction of Judas the Galilean. (Ant. 18.4-22 and War 2.118-166) So the 6 CE timeframe for John the Baptist is attested to by more than one source. Could this John the Baptist have been baptizing and proclaiming different Messiahs in both 6 CE and 29 CE? The odds of that would be millions to one. The only logical conclusion is that Jesus and Judas the Galilean were the same person. This explains why the Slavonic Josephus’ version of events has been ignored over the years. If John actually came in 6 CE, then all of New Testament scholarship is, at best, misguided. That would not only make the scholars look foolish but would also prove Pauline Christianity a sham religion. 9. Both Judas and Jesus had a second-in-command, Sadduc and John the Baptist, respectively. This organizational model was fashioned after the Maccabees. Mattathias led the movement and his son, Judas Maccabee, was his lieutenant. After Mattathias died, Simon took his place and Judas Maccabee was elevated to the leadership role. In the later Fourth Philosophy, Matthias and Judas worked together at the Temple and were responsible for the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing. After Matthias suffered martyrdom, Judas filled this position with Sadduc. (Ant. 18.4) In the Gospel accounts, Jesus picked Simon Peter as his second-in-command. In reality, Jesus was first paired with John the Baptist (Sadduc). When Jesus was crucified, he was replaced by his brother, James the Just. At this stage, John the Baptist and James shared control of the movement. In 35-36 CE, John was beheaded by Herod Antipas. James appointed Cephas (Peter) to be John’s successor. The Gospels successfully minimized the roles of John the Baptist and James. According to these accounts, John died before Jesus, but per Josephus, John died after Jesus. Also, James the Just was barely mentioned by Acts, his leadership role unannounced until Acts chapter 15, at the Council of Jerusalem. By bypassing John the Baptist and James the Just, the Gospels were able to skip a generation, placing Peter (Cephas) as the leading apostle after the death of Jesus. The dual leadership may have safeguarded the movement. If one of the leaders was captured or killed, then the other could take control. The movement of Judas the Galilean (Jesus) was different from that of Judas Maccabee in that the later movement believed in the resurrection of its leader. Thus, even though John the Baptist and James led the movement after the death of Jesus, many throughout the movement still awaited the return of Jesus in power and glory. So, in essence, John and James were merely caretakers. This may account for the divisions in the 40 CE church in Corinth. Paul wrote that some disciples followed himself, others followed Cephas (James the Just), others followed Apollos (John the Baptist) (see Acts 18:24-25), and others followed Christ (Judas the Galilean or Jesus). (1 Cor. 1:10-12) This split may have been inevitable since Judas the Galilean’s movement was held together by a common hatred of Rome. Teachers within the movement could have possibly come from both the Pharisees and the Essenes. Differences, in approach to religion, were inevitable. 10. Jesus and Judas were both called the Galilean. Actually, Jesus was referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, a city located near Sepphoris in Galilee. It should not be missed that Sepphoris was central to Judas the Galilean’s ministry. Placing Nazareth close to Sepphoris may have been more than just coincidence. In War 1.648, Judas was said to be the son of Sepphoris. This more likely was his place of birth as opposed to his father. And in War 2.56, Judas retreated to Sepphoris after being harassed by Archelaus. There, Judas armed his disciples with weapons from the armory. Judas’ history with Sepphoris was no doubt changed to Nazareth to hide these embarrassing revelations. After all, both of the above references to Sepphoris were in the context of armed rebellion against Herod the Great and later, Archelaus. The name Nazareth is probably a corruption of Nazarite, as no references to Nazareth appear in the Old Testament or in Josephus. (A Nazarite was consecrated to God by a vow and included such notables as John the Baptist and Samson). In fact, John Crossan stated that in addition to Josephus’ silence concerning Nazareth, “it is never mentioned by any of the Jewish rabbis whose pronouncements are in the Mishnah or whose discussions are in the Talmud.” (3) Jesus’ disciples were called Galileans (Mark 14:70) and it may have been a sleight-of-hand which changed Jesus the Galilean to Jesus of Nazareth. In John 7:41, the crowd asked, “How can the Christ come from Galilee?” And the leaders had the same reservations about Jesus. “Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.” (John 7:52) Judas the Galilean was mentioned in several passages by Josephus (War 2.118; War 2.433 and Ant. 20.102). Josephus did state that this Judas hailed from Gamala, across the River Jordan (Ant. 18.4), but he was known as the Galilean, as attributed to the above references. Galilee was a hotbed for revolutionaries. Both Jesus and Judas would have had a similar background, influenced by those who had struggled for years against Herod the Great. Was Judas the Galilean the Historical Jesus? 11. The disciples of Jesus and Judas were zealous for the law. (Acts 21:20) (Ant. 17.149-154) It is true that Paul taught his Gentile followers to disregard the law. However, the Jewish Christians, led by James the Just, clearly denounced that teaching and removed Paul and his followers from fellowship. (See Galatians) Some forty years after the death of Judas (19 CE), a splinter group of the Fourth Philosophy, known as the Zealots, appeared on the scene. Like their name suggests, these individuals were obsessed with the Law and were comparable to the fanatical followers of James the Just. (Acts 21:20) 12. Judas and Jesus were both called wise men by Josephus. (Ant. 17.152 and Ant. 18.63) As the Jesus passage was a late third or early fourth century interpolation, the use of the term wise man was taken from the description of Judas and Matthias. It must also be noted that Josephus did not freely use the term wise man. He did, however, use that term when describing himself. If Josephus called himself a wise man then this indeed was a great compliment. 13. Both teachers assigned a high value to the sharing of wealth or pure communism. (Matt. 6:19-27; Acts 2:42-45; James 5:1-6) (Ant. 18.7; War 2.427) (Essenes – War 2.122) In fact, this was the central message in “Love your Neighbor as Yourself.” How could one love his neighbor if he let that neighbor go hungry or unclothed? When Jesus confronted the rich young ruler, he did not say give ten percent to the poor, but rather, give everything to the poor and then come follow me. (Matt. 19:16-24) This was a radical message two thousand years ago. How many middle-class Americans would follow that same philosophy today? Members of the Fourth Philosophy were known as bandits by Josephus, for they exploited the wealthy, a type of Robin Hood movement. During the war with Rome, the debt records were burned in order to free those enslaved to the wealthy by their debt. (War 2.426-427) This was truly class warfare! As for the Zealots, Josephus shared his contempt for their practices concerning wealth and private property: “The dregs, the scum of the whole country, they have squandered their own property and practiced their lunacy upon the towns and villages around, and finally have poured in a stealthy stream into the Holy City….” (War 4.241) Considering what Jesus said to the rich young ruler, Josephus would have had the same attitude towards Jesus’ lunacy! At the beginning of the Church, disciples were urged to share everything in common. (Acts 2:42) This approach to living was in line with the Kingdom of God as preached by Jesus. Also, the feeding of the five thousand was simply the sharing of one’s food with another. It had nothing to do with hocus-pocus. In addition, the letter of James favored the poor over the rich. (James 5:1-6) 14. Both Judas and Jesus were considered fine teachers of the Law. (Matt. 5:17-20; Mark 12:28-34) (Ant. 17.149; War 1.648) Judas followed the basic teachings of the Pharisees as did Jesus. As for Judas’ abilities, Josephus wrote: “[Judas and Matthias were] the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and well beloved by the people.” (Ant. 17.149) The earlier assessment from War 1.648 stated that “there were two men of learning in the city [Jerusalem], who were thought the most skillful in the laws of their country, and were on that account held in very great esteem all over the nation.” From the Gospels, we know that Jesus used parables in relating his message, in line with Pharisaic practices. Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were to love God and to love thy neighbor. To love God involved obeying God and the Law handed down by God to Moses. To love thy neighbor included sharing one’s possessions, so that no one was left hungry or homeless. In addition, both Judas and Jesus followed Judas Maccabee in his interpretation of the Sabbath: the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Judas Maccabee permitted his disciples to defend themselves if attacked on the Sabbath. Likewise, Jesus preached that it was proper to do good on the Sabbath. In fact, Jesus was reprimanded by some Pharisees for breaking the Sabbath laws as he fled from Herod. Jesus quoted the Old Testament story of David eating consecrated bread in order to maintain strength in his flight from the authorities. Jesus had good reason to follow David and Judas Maccabee: he was a marked man. Both Jesus and Judas Maccabee would not have flouted the Sabbath law for any old reason. From the above passages from Josephus, Judas the Galilean was known throughout the nation for his ability in interpreting the law. We get the same feeling for Jesus when reading the Gospels. The Pharisees constantly invited him to dinner in order to discuss issues. We are privy to only the negative aspects of those meetings. In reality, most teachers in Israel considered Jesus an important figure and were constantly amazed at his teachings. 15. Judas the Galilean’s movement centered in Jerusalem and in Galilee. Judas began his public career in Jerusalem, teaching young men at the Temple. He convinced his students to take part in the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing and was arrested by Herod the Great. (Ant. 17.149-167) Judas was later released by Archelaus and fled to Sepphoris in Galilee. Until his return to Jerusalem, Judas preached in Galilee where he was crowned Messiah by his followers, and later led a tax revolt against Rome. (Ant. 17.271-272 and 18.1-10) Jesus was also in Jerusalem at the start of his career, according to John. Coincidentally, John placed his Temple Cleansing at the start of Jesus’ career, consistent with the story of Judas the Galilean. (John 2:12-17) Jesus then returned to Galilee, where he was proclaimed Messiah. From the Gospel accounts, Jesus spent most of his ministry in Galilee. Jesus finally returned to Jerusalem, where he was captured and crucified. Even after Judas’ death, his movement revolved around Jerusalem and Galilee. In fact, Josephus noted that Eleazar was sent by his leaders in Galilee to teach King Izates true Judaism, which included circumcision. King Izates had previously been taught by Ananias that he could become a full Jew without circumcision. The Jewish Christian model also practiced circumcision. Note that Paul and Cephas also had a similar disagreement in Antioch, caused by men sent from James. James may have been centered in either Jerusalem or in Galilee. However, since this occurred around the time of Agrippa’s assassination, James probably located himself in a safer place, no doubt, Galilee.

I wonder have you read Josephus works ? I WONDER

׳close to the kingdom’ is generally understood to mean that he had political connections.

Jesus did exist, but this article did not find. The two reliable Jewish sources The Talmud ( Sanhedrin 43a and 107b) and the Talpiot Tomb have been discounted. These are labeled as Non-Christian ! Jesus was Jewish, Jesus was before Christianity.

Jesus was born in 100 BCE under King Alexander Yannai. He was a student of Joshua ben Perachiah, a Pharisee. in 88 BCE the teacher took Jesus into exile in Alexandria Egypt during the Pharisaic rebellion against King Alexander, until the King died in 76 BCE. Jesus returned from Alexander Egypt at age 24 years old.

Jesus realized that Pharisees had deviated from Torah Judaism and Calendar. Jesus joined the Hassidim/Essenes who had separated from the Maccabean Priesthood and Temple. This period is documented in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where Jesus aka Teacher of Righteousness aka Jesus ben Notzri aka Jesus ben Pandira.

Jesus was captured by Hyrcanus II, the Wicked Priest and killed in 67 BCE.. Jesus was buried in Talpiot. Jesus family had connections to Queen Salome. This is the Jesus Movement that evolved into Christianity under Paul. The Essenes were the proto-Christians, Jesus became their leader in 76 BCE and was killed in 67 BCE.. Jesus was contemporaneous with Caesar, Herod, Cleopatra, etc.

Jesus was a Jew, Jewish History is where one should look. The Dead sea Scrolls and the Talmud reflect the conflict between Jesus/Essene and the Pharisees.

The Talpiot Tomb is 1st Century BCE, Not CE ! Jesus Family was from Jerusalem, not Bethlehem Bible Story. Jesus could be born in the “City of David” in Jerusalem.

This article is Blinded by the Bible Mythology as a guide to HISTORY. Jewish History is the key to Jesus’ history and it starts in 100 BCE ! The Dead Sea Scrolls is Jesus’ side (Teacher of Righteousness) and The Talmud is the Pharisee side..

http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/JewishJesus/

Jesus did exist, but this article did not find. The two reliable Jewish sources The Talmud ( Sanhedrin 43a and 107b) and the Talpiot Tomb have been discounted. These are labeled as Non-Christian ! Jesus was Jewish, Jesus was before Christianity. Jesus was born in 100 BCE under King Alexander Yannai. He was a student of Joshua ben Perachiah, a Pharisee. in 88 BCE the teacher took Jesus into exile in Alexandria Egypt during the Pharisaic rebellion against King Alexander, until the King died in 76 BCE. Jesus returned from Alexander Egypt at age 24 years old. Jesus realized that Pharisees had deviated from Torah Judaism and Calendar. Jesus joined the Hassidim/Essenes who had separated from the Maccabean Priesthood and Temple. This period is documented in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where Jesus aka Teacher of Righteousness aka Jesus ben Notzri aka Jesus ben Pandira. Jesus was captured by Hyrcanus II, the Wicked Priest and killed in 67 BCE.. Jesus was buried in Talpiot. Jesus family had connections to Queen Salome. This is the Jesus Movement that evolved into Christianity under Paul. The Essenes were the proto-Christians, Jesus became their leader in 76 BCE and was killed in 67 BCE.. Jesus was contemporaneous with Caesar, Herod, Cleopatra, etc. Jesus was a Jew, Jewish History is where one should look. The Dead sea Scrolls and the Talmud reflect the conflict between Jesus/Essene and the Pharisees. The Talpiot Tomb is 1st Century BCE, Not CE ! Jesus Family was from Jerusalem, not Bethlehem Bible Story. Jesus could be born in the “City of David” in Jerusalem. This article is Blinded by the Bible Mythology as a guide to HISTORY. Jewish History is the key to Jesus’ history and it starts in 100 BCE ! The Dead Sea Scrolls is Jesus’ side (Teacher of Righteousness) and The Talmud is the Pharisee side.. http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/JewishJesus/

[…] Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible – Biblical Archaeology Society […]

It’s fascinating how this textbook article included a possible historical reference to Jesus in the B.T. Sanhedrin 43a which states; “But it was different with Yeshru ha-Nosri (Jesus of Nazareth), for he was near to the kingdom.” In the above footnote #36, Craig Evans offers possible explanations for the meaning of “near to the kingdom.” It would seem to me though, that this rabbinical reference could apply to the millennial movement that began as a response to the persecution of the Jewish people under the Seleucid king Antiochus IV during the early 2nd century B.C.E., and who converted the Jerusalem temple to paganism and was cited by Jesus on the Mount of Olives as the “desolating abomination spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (Matthew 24:15, Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 1 Maccabees 1:54, 6:7).The Talmud, it seems, is distinguishing Jesus of Nazareth from other failed movements like the “Egyptian who started a revolt some time ago and led the 4000 assassins (Sicarii) into the desert” (Acts 22:38), though it condemns Jesus as a deceiver like the Egyptian false prophet; “…for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a a prophet also, and got together 30,000 men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which is called Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place…” (Josephus, War 261-263, Antiquities 20:169-171). So unlike those who resorted to terror tactics in God’s name, Jesus was “closer to the kingdom” established by God in the apocalyptic tradition. “What happened, however, after the sixties of the second century B.C.E. was far from the towering visions of millennial consummation that had been produced in that dramatic decade. The age of the pious did not ‘approach a thousand years,’ as imagined in Jubilees 23:27. ‘The Devil’ did not ‘have an end,’ nor was ‘sorrow … led away with him,’ as promised in Testament of Moses 10:1. No ‘everlasting kingdom’ was ‘given to the people of the saints of the most high,’ nor did ‘all dominions … serve and obey them,’ as pledged in Danial 7:27, And, finally, all the sheep, all the beasts, and all the birds were not finally united so that the Lord ‘rejoiced with great joy because they had all become gentle and returned to his house,’ as climactically envisaged in the Animal Apocalypse at 1 Enoch 90:33. What actually happened was that first there were the Maccabees, and then there were the Romans. And so, apocalyptic vision, millenial dream, and transcendental hope continued to be written anew or reread again” (“The Historical Jesus; The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant” by John Dominic Crossan, p. 106).

Write a Reply or Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Blog Posts

Phoenicians Sailing to the New World

Who Were the Phoenicians?

The Amarna Revolution

Must-read free ebooks.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Past, Present, and Future

Biblical Peoples—The World of Ancient Israel

Who Was Jesus? Exploring the History of Jesus’ Life

Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus

Want more bible history.

Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.

By submitting above, you agree to our privacy policy .

All-Access Pass

Dig into the illuminating world of the Bible with a BAS All-Access Membership. Get your print subscription to BAR and your online access to the BAS Library—as well as FREE online talks and Travel/Study discounts. Start your journey into the biblical past today!

Signup for Bible History Daily to get updates!