“Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements,” writes Dr. Michael Gleghorn.
Here Dr. Gleghorn examines evidence from ancient non-Christian sources for the life of Jesus (see original article for bibliographical notes) — sources largely complied in F.F. Bruce’s 1974 book Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament — which help confirm the historical reliability of the Gospels:
Evidence from Tacitus
….In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that “apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like,” there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible. [1] This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him “great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life.” [2] He concludes his letter by asking, “Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?”[3] The answer to this question is, “Yes, such collateral proof is available,” and we will be looking at some of it in this article.
Let’s begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls “probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament.” [4] Reporting on Emperor Nero’s decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
“Nero fastened the guilt….on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of….Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome….” [5]
What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have “suffered the extreme penalty,” obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus’ rather enigmatic statement that Christ’s death briefly checked “a most mischievous superstition,” which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here “bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.” [6] While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. [7] How else might one explain that?
Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan’s advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians. [8] Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.[9]
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
“They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food — but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” [10]
This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny’s statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, “unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth.” [11] If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny’s letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus’ person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny’s reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the “love feast.” [12] This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing “ritual cannibalism.” [13] The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus’ teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.
Evidence from Josephus
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century [Judean] historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one “James” by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.” [14] F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul’s description of James in Galatians 1:19 as “the Lord’s brother.” [15] And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that “few scholars have questioned” that Josephus actually penned this passage. [16]
[Editor’s Note: In Book 20, Chapter 9 of Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews,” there is a reference to “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,” and that this James was put to death by stoning. Many Christians cite this reference as more historical proof of Jesus Christ, but the problem is that clearly this passage is referring to a different Jesus — “the son of Damneus, high priest,” according to Josephus. Of course, Josephus could have misidentified the father of Jesus here as Damneus, but we can only conjecture about it.]
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the “Testimonium Flavianum,” the relevant portion declares:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he….wrought surprising feats….He was the Christ. When Pilate….condemned him to be crucified, those who had….come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared….restored to life….And the tribe of Christians….has….no disappeared.” [17]
Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D. [18] But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.[19]
For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, “if indeed one ought to call him a man,” is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that. It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as “the so-called” Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus’ resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian.
But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus’ later reference to Jesus as “the so-called Christ,” a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the “biblical Jesus” and the “historical Jesus” are one and the same.
Evidence from Lucian
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
“The Christians . . . worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.” [27]
Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, “who introduced their novel rites.” And though this man’s followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He “was crucified on that account.”
Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That’s harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It’s not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn’t say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer.
I do not think Josephus was a follower of the Pharisees or of Herod, the whole point of removing the restrictions on food and circumcision is so that Yehudi and the Lost Israelites could become one whole again.
He said the Essenes were the “Yehudi by birth.”
This is good to know, though for today’s JudeoChristians it doesn’t seem like it will mean much as they don’t even acknowledge the Bible itself.
For example, Relatives today were telling me about their new female pastor. How on earth do they square that with the Bible? I know (((Shlomo))) is scheming to excise Paul’s writings from the Bible, but it looks like he has succeeded, because 1 Timothy 2:12 is blatant on this issue.
Female pastors, in my experience, always say they had a “calling” to become a pastor. Is there any chance that it was someone besides Satan who was doing the calling?
A man or woman’s own vanity i think.
Timothy’s mother was a Jew, and his father Greek. He does not speak for God or the Son; especially with such pathetic words. Jesus taught Mary Magdalena much that he did not teach his male disciples, and they became very jealous because of this. Jesus taught her how to read and write, and after she and the mother Mary fled to the South of France, she continued to read and write, including her own gospel. The council of Nicea dictated what was allowed in the bible, and these were Roman/Greeks who did their best to burn every copy of the book of Mary. Southern European culture in general disregards females as having any intellectual abilities compared to men. This is not the way of Jesus, or any “northern” European tribes. This is the way of evil and cowardice. Jesus did not think women were lesser than men in any way. The doctrine of no female priests dates back to Roman law, which held it is illegal for women to even be teachers. I wish half the priests were female. Jesus had 2 laws which he held above all. Know these, and you will be a true Christian. Do you really think Jesus would prefer all males as priests with the rampant sexual abuse by men and low numbers by women? Women are superior to men in many ways mentally, and men to women physically.
Paul asked that a woman shouldn’t teach. Nor were there any female priests throughout the bible.
You are actually propagating ideas that harm women and children. A woman’s fulfillment is in her family and offspring, not in chasing after men and trying to compete with them. Children need a mother, and fathers need wives, and women need guidance from fathers and husbands.
it all depends on the man, the father,the husband. some are downright evil and can’t guide themselves let alone a child or wife. Many a wife or daughter far outshines their father or husband due to intellect or moral character. So, in that you are over generalizing. As if the jails aren’t full of MEN , much mor so than women. Becaue men do far more crime and far more violaent crime and murder. Men usually kill women, and women usually don’t kill men. It’s statistical. think about it. we don’t live in a hereditary priest society of male priests only. Early christians had prophetesses and we also exist today. That’s pretty high on Christ’s totem pole. It even superceded leaders in authority on a rather regular basis. I think Paul, ( who never walked with Christ), was talking about the usual low caste sort of chatty gossippy housewives who were probably brainless and could do nothing but the usual mundane chores.
One should ask Christ Himself about this, if one is a real actual Christian- and not rely on some dude who kind of interjected himself rather late in t he game, and never knew Christ as the Apostles did.
I understand your points, and I agree with them for the most part… but… it has been in my experience that most males, (and I mean real men, not soy-boys, or namby-pambys, or timid types, etc) really dislike being told what to do by women. A woman telling a man, that’s not her husband or a relative, that they’ve done wrong is a recipe for resentment and annoyance. Female bosses drive men bonkers. Especially micromanagement type women.
So Paul is wise with his words: a woman can teach other women and boys and girls… but men, proper men that is, will be unpleased with the situation. Some would say it upsets the natural order of things, but we have God thru Paul to tell us 🙂
And no, that doesn’t make me or any other bloke a “woman hater”, it makes me a woman lover, as I’m trying to follow what God told us is best. 🙂
And the man is the protector of his family , country and fellow man as well as the provider.
Erick, Paul wrote the epistle to Timothy. The council of Nicea didn’t dictate all that was allowed in the Bible. Rather, it relied on a lot of what was already considered canon. Yes, the early church started to keep record of canonical documents long before the council of Nicea.
Are you denying the epistles to Timothy should be in the Bible? I assure you that there are far more witnesses to the canonicity of the epistles to Timothy than your “gospel of Mary”. Any argument you can muster for the canonicity of the “gospel of Mary” is an argument from silence, because the witnesses aren’t there.
Paul also said the same thing in 1 Corinthians 14:34, Ephesians 5:22 and Titus 2:5. Peter said the same thing in 1 Peter 3:1.
No one who accepts Paul’s words for women to be silent and subject to husbands does so because they believe women are less intelligent. That is your own mischaracterization. They do it because the Bible says so. Eve was created as a help meet for Adam (Genesis 2:18). Therefore, the husband is over the wife just as Christ is head of the church (Ephesians 5:23, 1 Corinthians 11:3)
You say you wish half the priests were female and that it dates back to Roman law, but the law of Moses states explicitly that there are only male priests. The sad realities of the Catholic church don’t change that. Your personal preferences don’t change that. By trying to elevate women to the place of men, you are not helping them. You are severely hurting them and robbing the glory of God’s will in them and their heavenly reward.
Erik said, “….Timothy’s mother was a Jew..”
Erik’s problems are much, much more deeper than his understanding of women! 🙂
But your “teaching” Grass is welcomed and needful for others who may read this thread.
I wish CFT had a “READ BEFORE YOU ENTER” function.
🙂
Thanks Grass for your edification to this forum.
westwins, we’ve considered such an idea, but based on our experience over the years, few would read it — in the same way no one reads the “terms of service” agreements for their phones, apps, and credit cards.
CFT…
Understood. I probably said that more in “jest”.
However ………… you have my endorsement to “filter” out any worthless comments in the future. 🙂
I actually don’t mind worthless comments if ONLY the people who left them, were forced to come back and defend our objections.
This is my biggest frustration. Say what you want to say — no problem. But when someone has an argument against your belief, you better come back and defend it.
People just come in here and drop their propaganda and never come back. This is my frustration.
My Vote would be that if such a person is ‘challenged’ and doesn’t return — simply delete their post.
Thanks CFT!
well, don’t forget that the scripture only says that women aren’t to teach men. but they definitely can teach women. And what if thre aren’t enough decent or qualified males? then you have to use the auxiliary, the females. Especially if there are a lot more females in attendance. Better a female pastor or shepherdess, than NONE. In order to meet the needs of the local people who attend that church.
Obviously women can teach women, but they are to teach them to be in subjection to their husbands:
Titus 2,
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
The rhetoric you’re presenting is similar to that of Hollywood movies. The plot sets up a ruling entity which stands for law, order and morality… But they beat and torture people to further their goals. Then comes some morally debased, rag-tag rebellion who overthrows the moral order… much to the glee of the watching audience. It doesn’t represent reality and it is contrived all to subvert one’s view of morality. You’re doing the exact same thing.
I worry about your desire to contrive situations in which you may contradict the commands given in the Scripture. It sounds like you want to slander and discredit males as “unqualified” in order that women may rule over them. This is all too common, and you should carefully reflect on your own intentions. Why are you so desirous to prove this point, especially considering it’s found nowhere in the Scripture?
In answering, just know that there is no moral high-ground you can take. Man is head of the woman as Christ is head of the church. What you propose is moral low-ground contrived into “benefit”.
Oh no, it is better that a church closes its doors for good than it receives a female pastor.
A female pastor inherently must omit certain parts of the Bible. When people go into the faith by picking and choosing which commands they obey, it puts them down the slippery slope to be pro-gay and then the church is on the road to ruin.
Better to get a competent man to serve as a lay pastor than to go against the Bible.
Thanks for the comedy!
Hatonn “udeo-Christian: There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian they are diametrically the opposite. So many fall for the NEW term, “Judeo-Christian” as if it means the whole foundation of your SPIRITUAL truth. The facts are that it cannot even be utilized properly in conjunction one with another—and THAT is easy to understand. The ones who NOW call themselves Jews (but are not) pronounce that they
believe not in Christ (of “Christian”). So, HOW, pray tell, can you have the terms linked as if they mean conjunction when they represent total opposition in FACT? That is an “OXYMORON” which means contradictory terms (that frankly only a moron would accept). That, is exactly how the Elite plan on you reacting—AS TOTAL MORONS. Believing in or using the term Judeo-Christian is doublemindedness. Doublemindedness is the belief of two opposing thoughts at the same time, i.e., that Judaeo-Christian is actually a meaningful term instead of directly in opposition one to the other. Christians are practicing a form of Pharaseeism and they see it not. Judeo-Christian is the belief in THE JEWISH EARTHLY KINGDOM, and Judaism “means” a political Messiah ruling over the earth from Jerusalem. Why Judaism? Judaism is being used by the One Worlders because it is the perfect vehicle for spiritual and political control. If men can be brought into Judaism through whatever means, they become perfect slaves.”
All of those “ancient” sources cited in the article were fake! Manufactured out of thin air by medieval Christian monks… who were desperate to prop up their crucifiction codswallop; for no other purpose than to incite goyisch mobs to rob and persecute my people. Oy gevalt!
For the TRUE story behind this vile vendetta read my famous study: “The Crucifiction – 2000 Years of Baseless Hate” 2008, Chabad Press
The Tacitus source is real via his final work published in 109AD titled “annals” in book 15, chapter 44. He was THE official Roman historian during his time.
http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.html
I would go on, but you’re not worthy of my time or anyone else’s. Which is why you’re advertising some BS book.
Erick, “Rabbi Glickman” is a satirical character created by one of our regular readers to make fun of Jewish supremacists. It’s meant to be funny.