If we can know anything about the distant past, we know that a man named Jesus lived in the Middle East in the first century, that he claimed to be the Christ, that he gathered together a group of devoted followers, that he was arrested and crucified by the Roman official Pontius Pilate, and that it was widely reported that he rose from the dead. These claims are the best attested facts we have from all of antiquity. What do I mean? Well, how do historians know anything about the distant past? We need sources. Sometimes these sources are found through archaeology, as in ancient artifacts, pottery, weapons, etc. Other times they come to us in written form–documents. Concerning the historicity of Jesus, we have thousands of documents that testify to these core claims. That kind of documentary verification is an embarrassment of riches. No person or event in antiquity even comes close to having such voluminous attestation.
Documentary support is often classified as sympathetic, unsympathetic, or hostile in nature. Historians rightly observe, the winners write history. That tends to be the case. The winners (sympathetic witnesses) may put their own spin on things as in making a particular enemy more evil or barbaric or a military victory more glorious and one-sided than was actually the case. Bias needs to be considered in one’s interpretation. But if one finds all the witnesses–the sympathetic, unsympathetic, and hostile witnesses all saying precisely the same thing about a past event, well that would be as close to historical certitude as one could ever get. In such a case, it would be historically and intellectually irresponsible to deny the claim. That is exactly what we have when it comes to the historicity of Jesus.
In this case, the sympathetic witnesses refer to the thousands of Greek manuscripts we have of the New Testament (according to the Greek scholar Bruce Metzger of Princeton, we have around 6,000 existing Greek manuscripts of various portions of the New Testament). This treasure trove of documents is the most comprehensive array of validation for the authenticity of Jesus, his ministry, arrest, execution, and reported resurrection. They date from the late first century forward and are littered throughout the ancient world. Obviously, they do not all specifically address the claims mentioned above, but many do and all are at least in ancillary support. Additionally, none of them stand in contradiction in any way. Some critics question their validity because they are sympathetic–in other words they were written by believers and thus may be lacking objectivity. However, there is nothing inherently wrong about a sympathetic witness. After all, historians make use of diaries, journals, personal letters, and other correspondence, all of which could be considered sympathetic. Slave journals are considered a rich and rewarding source of information into the colonial period for instance. Often historians are faced with a paucity of evidence. In such a case even one witness–sympathetic or otherwise–is considered a monumental find. Thus, these documents provide unimpeachable evidence to the historicity of Jesus the Christ. But there is still more.
The Jewish historian, Josephus, provides astonishing support for his historicity. In his Antiquities of the Jews (AD 93-94), Josephus discusses him on two occasions. The most critical excerpt is from Book 18 chapter 3 in which he identifies Jesus as the Christ, a wise teacher with a devout following. He further states that Jesus was arrested and crucified by Pontius Pilate and that it was commonly reported that he rose from the dead. The Testimonium Flavianum, as this passage is often called, represents the earliest non-partisan writings about Jesus of Nazareth. Josephus also mentions him in Book 20 Chapter 9 wherein he discussed the execution of James the brother of Jesus the Christ. Keep in mind that Josephus had no personal interest in Jesus or Christianity. He was a professional historian charged with recounting the history of the Jews from the beginning. His concern was in reconstructing the past with integrity and precision not proselytizing for Christians. He was an unsympathetic witness. And that fact makes his work extremely persuasive. Furthermore, the Testimonium Flavianum appears in every extant copy of his Antiquities.
However, he was not the only secular historian to discuss Jesus. The Roman historian, Tacitus, presents one of the most riveting and compelling passages about him. Tacitus was a Roman Senator and lawyer, writing his last work in AD 116. In his Annals he explained how Nero sought to divert blame for the Great Fire in Rome as something other than a political order. Thus, the Emperor used Christians as a scapegoat to account for the conflagration. Nero identified them as the source of the disturbance and executed great violence against them. Many suffered torture and execution in the most hideous forms. In Book 15 Chapter 44 of the Annals, Tacitus stated all the aforementioned claims about Jesus: he was a teacher and leader of a sect called Christians (named after Christus), he was arrested by the Roman official Pontius Pilate, suffered the extreme penalty (which in that day was surely a reference to crucifixion), and a “mischievous superstition” erupted following his crucifixion, which I suspect refers to the resurrection. After all, what but a risen hero could explain the persistent devotion of his followers and their refusal to recant even in the face of horrific consequences. Tacitus was a devoted Roman citizen and Senator, who showed no kindness or leniency to Christians or their leader Christus. His account of them is coarse and crude. Clearly, he was even less sympathetic to their plight than Josephus, making him a hostile witness.
The historicity of Jesus is the best attested fact we have from antiquity. It is endorsed by thousands of Greek manuscripts. His authenticity is further supported by both unsympathetic and hostile witnesses. Josephus and Tacitus were professional historians concerned with their own reputations and legitimacy. They had no bias in favor of Christianity. They were tasked with reconstructing the past as factually and accurately as possible. When one has documentary evidence from sympathetic, unsympathetic, and hostile witnesses all testifying to the very same facts, well that truly is as close to historical certitude as possible. To deny the historicity of Jesus is both intellectually dishonest and contrary to the evidence. Without question, Jesus walked upon the earth. Of course, everyone has to decide. However, if one is prone to disbelieve in light of the facts, perhaps it is something other than the evidence to which they object.
Questions or comments: [email protected]