Extrabiblical Evidence about Jesus in the First 2 Centuries

[Mystic]

I would ask clergy to hold back for a few days. I want to see what the laity have googled or otherwise ead or been told in their churches about this topic.

 

[Mendalla]

I know that there's not a hell of a lot of it. Having read many of the classical Roman sources that mention him, a lot of what gets cited as extrabiblical sources is pretty iffy as evidence for Jesus himself or any specific facts about him. E.g. the oft-cited passage in Tacitus really only proves that he knew of the existence of the Christian community and knew they followed someone called Christ who was executed by Pilate. Ditto Suetonius, who isn't that reliable a source for anything though he makes for entertaining reading. Neither really gives any information "about" Jesus, in other words, only about the existence of his followers.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures 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 one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

As you can see, Tacitus could be cited as evidence for Christ's existence but it's dubious since the idea that he was executed by Pilate could have been hearsay that he picked up, not from an official source.

The other commonly cited one is Josephus but I haven't read much of him. I do know that some consider some of the passages in Josephus to be an interpolation but I don't have a cite for that and am not that invested in its truth anyhow.

Not sure what other sources you have in mind but I'll be interested in seeing. Personally, I don't need any more evidence for Jesus' existence. That someone by that name existed and was revered by the early Christians seems pretty clear to me. The problem is how much of what is written, both canonical and non-canonical, really reflects his teaching rather than that of the early Christian community.

Was he really God Incarnate?

Did he really teach what people think about salvation?

Did he die for our sins?

Was he really resurrected?

Those questions aren't going to be answered by extra-biblical sources because they are inherently biblical questions. Given the wide range of interpretations and understandings that Christians have taken away from the Gospels and other Biblical sources, the answers will remain a matter of faith, IMHO.

 

[Mendalla]

Oh, do you consider the non-canonical gospels and related works to be extra-biblical? I tend to think of "extra-biblical" as meaning historical sources like the ones I discuss but, really, the non-canonical books could be considered "extra-biblical" as well.

 

[Seeler]

What Mendalla said. Plus Josephus - his name came up again at our discussion group last evening - some arguing that his writings are forgeries, and some arguing that while they were tampered with there is not general agreement about their value.

 

[Mystic]

Well, good for your church discussion group for knowing enough to mention Josephus in this connection. I never heard this topic addressed at all, growing up in Winnipeg and its churches. I'm particularly interested to hear whether this evidence ever gets cited in your sermons, Bible studies, or small group discussions.

 

[chansen]

Once again, you want to treat this like your classroom. We are not your students. It shouldn't be up to the forum to do your homework.

But since we're here, the most confident-sounding evidence of Jesus as a historical person is known as Testimonium Flavianum, by Josephus:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Pretty cool, eh? Right there in black and white.

Here's the problem I have with it. Josephus was a Jew. And we are to believe that he wrote what looks like over-hyped marketing copy about Jesus being "the Christ".

I will reiterate: Josephus was a Jew. Remained a Jew. Didn't become a Christian by any reputable sources. Writing about "the Christ" like he was a groupie.

Right.

At this time, it's probably relevant to note that there is no copy of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews remaining that does not derive from an earlier copy held by Christians. They held all the copies. They made all the newer copies from which the surviving copies were made.

Do the math.

 

[Mendalla]

Well, good for your church discussion group for knowing enough to mention Josephus in this connection. I never heard this topic addressed at all, growing up in Winnipeg and its churches. I'm particularly interested to hear whether this evidence ever gets cited in your sermons, Bible studies, or small group discussions.

It was not discussed much in my UCCan congregation growing up. Fortunately, I had a grandfather in the ministry who was of a scholarly bent (his Bachelor of Divinity was supplemented with an MA in philosophy and an earned Th.D.) and did my own undergrad studies in classics with lots of electives in philosophy and religion.

That said, I don't think the extra-biblical sources need much citation in a Christian church. Most people in the pews are there because they already believe in Jesus and the basic story and people like Tacitus and Josephus don't add much to that. Much more important to explore the Biblical sources with a view to understanding the message and its meaning for Christians today. They certainly add to Bible studies and the like and give some insight to the historical context, but I don't think they need to be hammered home like some of the actual teachings of Jesus.

 

[Luce NDs]

Did Jesus burn in the first centuries due to the Romans burning all the old myths ... it is natural reaction to the aboriginal burning sensation!

And then the light went out in GEO Ghia as people didn't believe in soul ... and thus it was difficult to know anything without the organ of intelligence that is out of here as the extra biblical suggestion of the last verse of the truth of John ... who was mislaid by mole ... Molly? And thus the Mary psyche danced right off the page ...

 

[Seeler]

I just Googled Josephus. This is pretty much how I understood the authenticity of his Testimonium.

Origen's statement in his Commentary on Matthew (Book X, Chapter 17) that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ", is usually seen as a confirmation of the generally accepted fact that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah.[74][115] This forms a key external argument against the total authenticity of the Testimonium in that Josephus, as a Jew, would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and the reference to "he was Christ" in the Testimonium must be a Christian interpolation.[5] Based on this observation alone, Paul L. Maier calls the case for the total authenticity of the Testimonium "hopeless".[5] Almost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the Testimonium, while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel.[5][116]

 

[Mystic]

Good research, Seeler. Yes, "a kernel" is clearly authentic, but what kernel? That is one question I'll address after a few days. The other issue with Josephus has nothing to do with the Testimonium; it is the frequent claim that Josephus contains no allusions to the historical Jesus.
Let me give 3 hints in case it jogs memories or prompts research.

(1) There are various alleged archaeological allusions to Jesus, but one is very important.
(2) Have any of you heard of the early version of Jesus' life from His detractors?
(3) There are a huge number of alleged sayings of Jesus in late first and early second century literature, I thought you might interested in the issue of the criteria for sorting out the genuine from the inauthentic.

 

[Jaebius]

Good research, Seeler...

for @Seeler - go to the head of the class

 

[Seeler]

I simply looked for something that would jog my memory of something I had read years ago. I found it interesting at the time and obviously it lodged in a corner of my mind, but it is not anywhere near the top of my agenda at the present time. Sure I will enter into a conversation if it comes up, but I am not interested in a lecture.

 

[Luce NDs]

Good research, Seeler. Yes, "a kernel" is clearly authentic, but what kernel? That is one question I'll address after a few days. The other issue with Josephus has nothing to do with the Testimonium; it is the frequent claim that Josephus contains no allusions to the historical Jesus.
Let me give 3 hints in case it jogs memories or prompts research.

(1) There are various alleged archaeological allusions to Jesus, but one is very important.
(2) Have any of you heard of the early version of Jesus' life from His detractors?
(3) There are a huge number of alleged sayings of Jesus in late first and early second century literature, I thought you might interested in the issue of the criteria for sorting out the genuine from the inauthentic.

Would one have to look at this from 3 angles ... or distinct perspectives that are difficult for the orthodox stuck on mono Y's ... the ego's elf? That be a small dark character sometimes known as alien conscience ... if institutionalized you may not have one with lust for wandering ... thus the rush in "theos" as runner! From some perspectives just a drip or X-spurt as inky Smoor on the page buoyed ... flying across as a flattened eagle (3 under par)?

 

[Mystic]

Seeler and her discussion group were aware of Josephus's witness to Jesus and Mendalla was aware of what ancient Roman historians said. I encouraged clergy to hold back until the laity shared what they know, but now I'd love to hear any clergy thoughts on this topic if it interests them.

 

[Mendalla]

Seeler and her discussion group were aware of Josephus's witness to Jesus and Mendalla was aware of what ancient Roman historians said. I encouraged clergy to hold back until the laity shared what they know, but now I'd love to hear any clergy thoughts on this topic if it interests them.

I'm not clergy but perhaps I should have held back anyhow. My undergrad is in Classics. Not sure if that's cheating or not.

 

[Mystic]

Mendalla, I was a teaching fellow in Classics under Zeph Stewart for a year during my doctoral training; so I'm interested in what you studied vis-à-vis early Christians and what you make of it. Much of what I'll share in this thread I included in sermons at one time or other. I've always been struck by the gap between what biblical doctoral students and pastors find interesting and significant. But though I have UCCan pastor friends, they are not typical and so, despite the acrimony here, I'm interested in UCan members take, interest, and yes disinterest in what is most important to me. So far I can honestly say that Graeme's presence here has made my sojourn on this site worthwhile because my education in Canadian politics was quite limited.

 

[Luce NDs]

Mendalla, I was a teaching fellow in Classics under Zeph Stewart for a year during my doctoral training; so I'm interested in what you studied vis-à-vis early Christians and what you make of it. Much of what I'll share in this thread I included in sermons at one time or other. I've always been struck by the gap between what biblical doctoral students and pastors find interesting and significant. But though I have UCCan pastor friends, they are not typical and so, despite the acrimony here, I'm interested in UCan members take, interest, and yes disinterest in what is most important to me. So far I can honestly say that Graeme's presence here has made my sojourn on this site worthwhile because my education in Canadian politics was quite limited.

A manifestation of fringe belief in classic religion that involves leaving well ... enough alone to cause it some dissonant times? Thus the pit rises as caldron ... the hommoe land of Zues ... Zoe-Luce in the shades?

 

[revjohn]

Well apart from the historians mentioned and the controversy surrounding Josephus.

Extra-Biblical would include the Early Church Fathers wouldn't it?

Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias of Heirapolis and Polycarp of Smyrna are all early Christian authors.

The Diadache is early Christian writing with possibly some catachesis component. Certainly it speaks to some liturgical preferences.

 

[Mendalla]

Mendalla, I was a teaching fellow in Classics under Zeph Stewart for a year during my doctoral training; so I'm interested in what you studied vis-à-vis early Christians and what you make of it.

I did not study much specific to early Christianity (eg. I didn't take any courses specifically on early Christianity) but it inevitably came up as I studied Roman history. I translated Pliny's letter to Vespasian (and the emperor's response) about how to deal with Christianity (a much more nuanced approach than is sometimes assumed by modern Christians). I read, as noted, Tacitus and other historians.

I think what was most important was setting the stage, seeing Roman empire as more than just the two-dimensional villain some Christians seem to see.

The context of the holy land (e.g. recognizing that other Jewish opponents of Rome claimed, or were claimed, to be the Messiah) was especially important but given how quickly the faith spread, the big picture was also important.

Seeing other contemporary faiths like Isis and Mithra and where there might have been cross-pollination of traditions and ideas.

Then there's classical philosophy. It doesn't take much study of that to start seeing the influence it had on educated early Christians like Paul.

 

[Mystic]

With respect to archaeological discoveries, the ossuaries (bone boxes) of Joseph Caiaphas and, more importantly, James , Jesus' brother are hot topics of academic discussion. Caiaphas is a high priest who interrogated Jesus and then sent him to Pontius Pilate. The James ossuary reads "James, the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" (in Aramaic). Is this the Jesus of the Gospels? That is a controversial claim, but it would be unusual to mention the brother in this way on ossuaries. For a brief analysis of the issues, see Paul Maier's discussion:

http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar95.htm

But in my view, neither archaeological find is as important or fascinating as 2 others that are seldom discussed. I will discuss these in a future post.