Was Jesus a Real Person?

"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historican as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theorties."
F.F Bruce (Rylands professor of biblical criticism adn exegesis at the University of Manchester)

"in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries." (Encyclopedia Britannica 1980)

The first issue which needs to be dealt with is the historical authenticity of Jesus. Most know of Him from the Bible, and the Bible alone. Won’t many don’t know are the secular, that is, non-biblical sources that also confirm the existence of Jesus.

If you were to learn Greek and Arabic, and read the oldest complete manuscripts of the Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) you wouldn’t find the name ‘Jesus’ anywhere. The oldest, complete compilation we have is dated to around the end of the second century C.E. (Academia now requires that dates be cited as B.C.E –Before Common Era, formally know as B.C., and C.E.-Common Era), when Jesus was still called by His birth name, Yesua (spelling varies slightly due to the Hebrew language.) Jesus is merely the Latinized version of Yeshua. Some of the Jewish Talmuds refer to Him as “Ben Pandera . . . a play on words, a travesty on the Greek word for virgin, calling him a ‘son of a virgin’” (Joesph Klausner, ETDV, 85) and in “older Jewish records, Jesus’ name is represented by ‘so and so, bastard son of an adulteress.’” (R. Shimeon ETDV, 116). There are many Talmuds which mention Jesus even in passing, those this mention is evidence that He existed as a historical person. The Babylonian Talmud, Baraila, Amoa ‘Ulla’, and Sanhedrin, as well as records that can be found in the compilation of The Archiko Volume.

What is so significant about Jewish records of Jesus? He was a Jew after all. But don’t forget that is was also the Jews who were His greatest opponents. The Roman Government didn’t really care, viewing Him as merely another religious fanatic of the Jews. Annoying perhaps, but harmless. If the Jews were the ones who wanted Him died, why would they invent the character? For how much trouble He caused the Pharasee’s, why would the Jews invent that? It’s not as though Jesus sought to bring about rebellion against the Romans and free the Jews from oppression. So why come up with this story of a man who was God, fulfillment of the Old Prophecies which they then kill? Doesn’t make sense no matter what way you slice it.

What about the Romans and other sources?

Cornelius Tacitus (born C.E 52-54), Roman historian and Governor of Asia 112 C.E., in writing of the reign of Nero says: “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.” (ETDV, 82)
Lucian of Samosata (dates unknown), a second century satirist referred to Jesus as “The man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.” (Ibid, 82).
Flavius Josephus (born C.E. 37), a Jewish historian, regarded as the most reliable historian of the time has a paragraph devoted to Jesus in Antiquities. Xviii.33:
“At this time there was a wise man who was called Yeshua. And his conduct was good, and was known to be virtuous. And many people from amoung the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die. And 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.” (Ibid. 82). We also find in Antiquities XX9:1 that Josephus refers to James, brother of Jesus/Yesua.
Suetonius (C.E 120), was a Roman historian, a court official under Emperor Hadrian, refers to “the constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” (Ibid, 83).
Plinius Secundus/Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor C.E. 112 wrote to Emperor Trajan about the Christians and their devotion to “Christ as god” (Ibid, 83)
Tertullian, jurist-theologian of Carthage C.E. 197 before the Roman authorities in Africa speaks of how Christians got their name from following the Christ, Yeshua.
Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian and one of the first Gentile (none-Jewish) writers who mention Christ, writing in C.E. 52. Although only fragments remain from his original works, many historians after site him, and the observances made about this “Man Yeshua, the Messiah”, also describing the such events as the earthquake and the eclipse at the time of Jesus death.
Philegon, another first-century historian of who’s works we have only fragments of but lives on through the works of other earlier historians, sites the darkness that fell at the crucifixion.
Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian wrote a letter to his son from prison around C.E. 73. The letter was to encourage his son, wherein he sites the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras and Christ.
“What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? . . . What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? . . . What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? . . . . But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teachings 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 teachings which He had given.” (Ibid, 85)
Justin Martyr, in C.E. 150 refers Emperor Antoninus Pilus to Pilate’s report about Jesus’ crucifixion, which was in the imperial archives.

Imperial records found in the library at Constantinoble confirm the census to be taken in Bethlehem, as well the report from Pilate about the trial and crucifixion of Yesua. Roman records also show Herod’s letter to the Roman Emperor, explaining his conduct on the Massacre at Bethlehem, which has been made public in The Archiko Volume.

These sources, in combination with other fragmented sources, provided academics with more than enough evidence to accept the existence of Jesus the man. But what about Jesus the Son of God? First, we have to look at The Life and Works of Jesus to see where such an idea even came from.

---

Back to The Proof in History
Back to The Proof