Smoodock's Blog

An intellectual oddity that has surfaced around the time of the Enlightenment claims that one simply cannot accept friendly documentation to prove something in history, at least not as it pertains to Jesus. The only authentic documentation (according to the Enlightenment) comes to us through unfriendly sources. Thus, with the sleight of hand any magician would be proud to possess all accepted reality is dismissed to favor the skeptic. Nevertheless, according to modern historian and critic of Christianity, Bart Ehrman, of the thousands of scholars, whom Bart knows, no serious historian among them doubts the existence of Jesus.

There may be those who wish to write sensational books in order to enlarge their bank accounts, but they are not seriously representing a scholarly perspective. Nor is there any validity in the “multiple Jesus, the Messiah” point of view. There are, instead, different portraits of Jesus, but all of the same person. The so-called “hard core” evidence that is deemed necessary for a correct portrait of Jesus is not a valid one to question Jesus’ historical position, in just the same way that there isn’t any “hard-core” evidence for Julius Caesar! The fact is, we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for anyone else who lived during his time period.

Many folks seem to believe that, because of the miracles associated with the life of Jesus in the Gospel narratives, we simply cannot receive the accounts as credible historical documentation. Nevertheless, if we eliminated all historical records that contain such incredible phenomena about great gentile kings, statesmen, famous philosophical figures and rhetoricians before and after Jesus’ lifetime, our libraries would be virtually vacant of any ancient works.[1] Whether we believe in miracles or not, it doesn’t change basic reality. Although most folks can’t explain what a magician does, what he does doesn’t change the fact that the magician in question does or did exist. Moreover, many ancient historical figures were said to have had miraculous births and did miracles to some degree, yet we wouldn’t eliminate testimony about them or question that they were valid historical figures.

That said, we do have unfriendly documentation from ancient sources that, if taken at face value, proves the historical existence of Jesus. For example, around AD 50, the Greek historian, Thallus, in his third history questioned an event that all three Synoptic Gospels said occurred at the time Jesus hung on the cross (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). Apparently, the three hours of darkness affected much of the known world, or was at least more widespread than Jerusalem, because Thallus, according to third century church father, Julius Africanus (c. 160 AD to 240 AD),[2] claimed the darkness was due to a solar eclipse. Africanus disputes his reasoning, because the Passover occurs during a full moon, and a solar eclipse cannot occur at a time other than a new moon. So, whatever one may believe about Jesus, or about the content of the Gospels, according to the Greek historian, Thallus, Jesus was, indeed, a historical figure.[3]

Cornelius Tacitus (c. AD 56 to c. AD 120) was a Roman statesman and historian. His Annals, written about AD 116, mention the fire that destroyed much of Rome during the reign of Nero. Tacitus says:

“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 Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.”

Thus, according to both Thallus and Tacitus we can conclude that Jesus was an historical figure, who lived in Judea, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and certain events that were reported to have occurred at the time of his death are true. Finally, those who followed Jesus were persecuted for their faith. Other accounts of ancient authors could be added to these two: Mara Bar Serapion (c. AD 70), Phlegon (AD 80-140), Pliny the Younger (AD 61-113), Suetonius (AD 69-140), Lucian of Samosata (AD 115-200), Celsus (AD 175), but these two will suffice for this study.          

_________________________________________

[1] For example, would the skeptic conclude that Vespasian didn’t exist? He was the Roman general who first responded to the Jewish uprising in Judea and shortly thereafter became Emperor of Rome. Later, it would be written of him by both Tacitus (AD 56 to AD 120) in The Histories, Book IV, Section 81, and Suetonius (AD 69 to AD 122) in The Lives of the Twelve Caesars that Vespasian performed miricles in the temple of Serapis in Alexandria Egypt. In one case he healed a blind man by anointing his eyes with his spit, and in another he healed a paralyzed man (withered hand or leg) by touching the hand or leg. If the skeptic concludes, due to other histories that Vespasian did exist, are these miricles also Christian interpolations? If so, for what purpose? How would these accounts be interpreted?

[2] The works of Thallus are not extant, apart from quotations from other ancient writings.

[3] The argument that Julius Africanus lied about Thallus’ history is ridiculous on at least two counts. First, Thallus’ Histories were probably still available to anyone who wished to find them in the libraries in the third century AD. Secondly, why would Julius want to use Thallus as an unfriendly source to prove Jesus’ existence, since using unfriendly sources for this reason wasn’t important until after the Enlightenment (intellectual and philosophical movement of the 17^th and 18^th centuries), and that only for Jesus and the Bible.