 |
 |
WHY IS THERE NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OR PERSONAL WRITINGS TO VERIFY JESUS' HISTORICITY?
The Bible has been accused on several occasions of committing historical errors but has later been proven
accurate through archaeological finds. For instance, the Old Testament mentions a tribe of people known as the
Hittites. Skeptics pointed out there was no such civilization in history yet in the 19th century records of the
Hittites were discovered within Assyrian ruins. Today we know a lot about the Hittites such as their language,
craftsmanship, geography, and empire chronology. The New Testament mentions the pool of Bethesda as a place
where Jesus healed a paralytic. No such location was known to exist until it was discovered in Jerusalem as a
place where the sick would gather to seek healing. Just because an artifact has not yet been recovered does not
mean none exist. Lastly, though the discovery of an artifact may be interesting, it would never be enough for the
devout skeptic. Even a non-biased archaeologist would have a hard time proving a relic's authenticity.
In regards to personal writings, Socrates, for example, exists only in the writings of his students. There is not a
single document still in existence that contains his original works. If we apply the same logic with Socrates
skeptics use to determine Jesus' historicity, we must assume Socrates was a figment of the imagination of his
students. But if we are to accept Socrates as a historical figure based on four secondary accounts, we must also
accept Jesus as a historical figure whose life was documented by His disciples, historians, and those who rejected
His divine claims. When skeptics claim there is a difference between a man such as Socrates and Jesus, they
would be absolutely correct- Jesus had more accounts written about Him.
AREN'T THE WRITINGS THAT REFER TO JESUS JUST HEARSAY ACCOUNTS?
Critics claim because some accounts were recorded after Jesus' life they cannot be considered historically
reliable. But this skepticism comes from a misunderstanding of antiquity. We need to place ourselves in a time
where 95% of the population was illiterate. If I really wanted to get this research across to the typical English
speaking American, I would not post this website in Latin! Likewise, documenting the Gospels preserved the
accounts for future generations but oral evangelism was the practical method in making the Gospel available to
the current population. Whether the accounts were written the day after Jesus' ascension or 30 years later, the
fact is they were still penned by either the original witnesses or during the lives of the original witnesses who
could confront heretical accounts.
Jesus also concentrated His ministry in various provinces of Judea- not secular hubs of the ancient world like
Rome or Alexandria. Christianity spread into the surrounding areas after the life of Jesus. I would be far more
suspicious of a Roman historian writing an excerpt about Jesus in 30 A.D. rather approximately 95 A.D. when
Christianity had reached Rome. When critics argue the only first hand accounts of Jesus' life are found in the
Bible, it makes me wonder where else they think should be. Jesus' ministry only lasted three years and was
limited to Judea (considered the ghetto of the Roman Empire). There would have been no reason given the short
time frame and limited area of Jesus' ministry to have been exhaustively recorded in Roman literature without
the accusation of forgery.
WHAT ABOUT THE LACK OF EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED DURING HIS LIFE?
Critics mention two important events that appear not to be recorded in secular history: the darkness that
occurred after Jesus' crucifixion and the slaughter of the innocents by Herod the Great. As stated previously in
this discussion, the midday darkness which occurred after Jesus' death is mentioned by the secular historian
Thallus and Phlegon (though they try to dismiss the event as a solar eclipse). The event is also mentioned by
Christian apologists Origen and Philopon but I only focused on the secular accounts due to their critical origins.
The shocking nature of the slaughter of the innocents would make one think all historians would have recorded
such an event. Even Josephus records atrocities committed by Herod against those he believed had ambitions of
attaining his throne. Herod even murdered his two sons of Maccabean heritage for fear they would overthrow
him. History shows Herod was a very paranoid ruler who was willing to do what was needed to maintain his
position. If he had ordered the slaughter of all males under two years of age, it would have been well within his
character. We must also realize that Bethlehem was a small village- not a raging metropolis. If the village only
had a few hundred residents, as is ascertained, statistically this would make the number of males under the age
of two around twenty in number.
But Herod's character and the amount of victims is not proof of this event. Where is the actual evidence that this
event occurred? If we can consider the eye witness account of Matthew reliable, we can accept his version of the
events. But if we are looking for extra-Biblical sources, we can consider the following passage:
"When Augustus heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the age of two years
to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, 'I'd rather be Herod's pig than Herod’s
son.'" Macrobius
Unlike the account mentioned in the book of Matthew, Macrobius mentions the massacre taking place in Syria and
combines the event with the murder of Herod's sons. Because Palestine was considered a Syrian province at the
time, Macrobius could be referring to the vicinity of Bethlehem. Due to the difference between Macrobius' and
Matthew's account and knowing Macrobius was a pagan, we can assume Macrobius used an independent source
for his writings.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (paraphrased): "Herod's ruling passions were jealousy and ambition, which urged
him to sacrifice even those that were nearest and dearest to him: murder was an equally good means to an end.
The slaughter of the Innocents squares perfectly with what history relates of him, and Matthew's statement is not
contradicted by the silence of Josephus- for he follows Nicholas of Damascus who was a courtier to Herod.
Macrobius states that Augustus, having heard about the children Herod had ordered slain in Syria was the king's
own son, remarked 'It is better to be Herod's swine than his son.' Cruel as the slaughter may appear to us, it
disappears among the cruelties of Herod. It cannot surprise us that history does not speak of it. The author
shows, as others have done, that the number of children slain may not have been very great."
WHY IS THERE NO PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OR DEPICTION OF JESUS ANYWHERE IN ANTIQUITY?
Critics cite the lack of a physical description of Jesus as evidence that He never existed. In fact, the only
reference to His human appearance is a prophecy found in Isaiah! Yet, the fact there is no known physical
depiction of Jesus doesn't mean He never existed. Even if a painting or sculpture did exist it's authenticity would
certainly be disputed. Furthermore, many other figures of antiquity have no contemporary image depicting their
appearance yet we can believe they existed.
Even if there were entire manuscripts dedicated to detailing Jesus' appearance or museums filled with first
century artwork depicting Jesus, it still would not prove He existed. There are paintings and sculptures of
mythological Greek and Egyptian deities, fairy tale creatures, and fictional characters of literature. Aphrodite,
Paul Bunyan, Dorian Gray, Isis, and Peter Pan all have artwork depicting their appearances yet they are
imaginary figures. A physical depiction or lack of one neither proves nor disproves one's existence.
A very good reason there may be no images of Jesus is to prevent the sin of idolatry. Original images of Jesus
would certainly be considered holy relics by some people. Many believers would turn their attention away from
Jesus as the Son of God to the man-made images of an earthly Jesus.
WHY DON'T ANY AUTHORS SPECIFICALLY ATTEST TO JESUS' HISTORICITY?
Other than Justin Martyr's mention above when he refers his readers to the tax registers that document Jesus'
birth, there really was no need to have done so in their opinion. If I was to write a biography of a historical
figure, Adolph Hitler for example, I would find it unnecessary to dedicate an entire chapter to quotes,
photographs, and sources which confirm his existence. To us, he is known to be a historical figure. I would have
to anticipate 2,000 years from now there would be those who would doubt he ever existed. We know that only 65
years after the Holocaust there are people who deny its scope (even when faced with mounds of evidence that
verify the tragedy)! The authors of antiquity were discussing a figure known to exist. The burden of proof
revolved around Jesus' divinity- not existence- as we can see in the above testimony. The authors had no reason
to even suspect His actual existence would one day be in question.
I would also like to mention there is no text from this period of antiquity that argues Jesus did not exist. The
easiest way to silence the early Christians would be to prove the focal point of their beliefs was a lie- but this
never happened! Even the secular authors listed on this page do not argue Jesus' existence.
WHAT ABOUT THE AUTHORS WHO DO NOT MENTION JESUS?
This argument leads to the false assumption that any author who was a contemporary of Jesus would find it
necessary to write about Him. We could dissect every single author of Jesus' lifetime, but because others have
already done so, I will simply give a brief synopsis. The three authors commonly mentioned are Pliny the Elder,
Seneca, and Philo Judeaus:
- Pliny the Elder's area of expertise was natural phenomena. He dedicated his writings to the historical
sciences such as botany, geography, and zoology. In essence, he wrote scientific almanacs- not
religious history. - Philo Judeaus was a Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher- not a historian like many critics claim. He was also an
Egyptian-born Jew who served as an ambassador to Caligula for Jewish rights in Alexandria- not Judea. - Seneca was a Roman philosopher and rhetorician who concerned himself with philosophies, tragedies, and
meteorologies. His works were more literary than historical.
The miscellaneous others who are randomly mentioned may be dismissed for a variety of reasons including
geographical locations and areas of interest. In my opinion, the amount of evidence we do have regarding Jesus
is incredible considering there was no organized media at the time. Though given little attention at its onset,
secular authors had no choice but to take notice once Christianity began to spread like wildfire. This is when we
begin to see an explosion in written evidence concerning Jesus.
 |  |  |  |  |
| Bookmark Us (Ctrl + d) |
