Update October 31, 2007: You are viewing the classic article style where all research relating to one article is
posted on one page. If you wish to read this article like a book (this will offer faster page loads for those with
slow internet connections), please click here.

A lot of evidence has been presented during this discussion to confirm Jesus Christ as a historical figure. We
have viewed accounts taken from numerous authors of different theological backgrounds and we have answered
some common skeptic questions concerning Jesus' historicity.

I purposely avoided using Biblical evidence to support the existence of Jesus because that would be "using the
Bible to prove the Bible." Instead we focused this study on extrabiblical sources. However, early Christian
historians and witnesses were unanimous in their accounts that several New Testament books were written by
eye witnesses of both Jesus and the apostolic ministry. If these authors were indeed eye witnesses, we can
believe they also provide evidence to the historicity of Jesus.

Some readers may be satisfied with such evidence, some may not. Whatever the case, I encourage you to
examine all the facts for yourself before reaching a logical conclusion.
In this section, we will examine 1st and 2nd century sources which verify Jesus
as an actual man of history (not a compilation of pagan myths as some critics
allege). Each of the following sections offer their own advantages: the
non-Christian sources are important as they had nothing to gain by their
admissions. On the other hand, the Christian witness had everything to lose-
many paying for their testimony with their lives.

The outline we will be following for this discussion is as follows:
1) Secular Sources (Documentary)
2) Secular Sources (Commentary)
3) Jewish Sources (Non-Christian)
4) Extra-Biblical Sources (Christian)
5) Answering Common Skeptic Questions Concerning Jesus' existence
6) Conclusion

CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through
the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome,
Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from
26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the
reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea,
where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44

What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account:
  • Jesus did exist
  • Jesus was the founder of Christianity
  • Jesus was put to death by Pilate
  • Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus)
  • Christianity later spread to Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists)

Skeptic Interjection: Could Tacitus have taken his information from Christian sources?
Answer: Because of his position as a professional historian and not as a commentator, it is more likely Tacitus
referenced government records over Christian testimony. It is also possible Tacitus received some of his
information from his friend and fellow secular historian, Pliny the Younger. Yet, even if Tacitus referenced some
of Pliny's sources, it would be out of his character to have done so without critical investigation. An example of
Tacitus criticising testimony given to him even from his dear friend Pliny is found here: Annals XV, 55. Tacitus
distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of
Jesus was only a rumor or folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified.

Skeptic Interjection: Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation?
Answer: Judging by the critical undertones of the passage, this is highly unlikely. Tacitus refers to Christianity as
a superstition and insuppressible mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does
not contain this passage. There is no verifiable evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage.

Skeptic Interjection: Why is this passage not quoted by the early church fathers?
Answer: Due to the condescending nature of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not
have quoted such a source (assuming Tacitus' writings were even available to them). However, our actual
answer comes from the content of the passage itself. Nothing in Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was
not already common knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus' existence (a topic not
debated at this point in history) and not his divinity.

Skeptic Interjection: Does the incorrect use of title procurator instead of prefect negate Tacitus' reliability?
Answer: No. Evidence is provided in both secular and Christian works which refer to Pilate as a procurator:
It has been suggested by both Christian and secular scholars that Tacitus was either using an anachronism for
the sake of clarity or, since Judea was a relatively new and insignificant Roman province, Pilate might have held
both positions.

GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS (69 - 130 A.D.) Suetonius was a prominent Roman historian who recorded
the lives of the Roman Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns. He served as a court official
under Hadrian and as an annalist for the Imperial House. Suetonius records the expulsion of the Christian Jews
from Rome (mentioned in Acts 18:2) and confirms the Christian faith being founded by Christ.

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from
Rome." Life of Claudius 25.4

Skeptic Interjection: Because Suetonius misspells Christus as Chrestus, is it possible he was referring to
someone else?
Answer: Because Chrestus was an actual Greek name, critics speculate Suetonius may have been referring to a
specific civil agitator. I would like to present a few arguments as to why I feel this is a reference to Jesus. In
order to get as close to the author's intent as possible, this is the passage as it exists in the original Latin:
    "Iudaeos (The Jews) impulsore (the instigation) Chresto (Chrestus) assidue (upon) tumultuantis
    (making a disturbance) Roma (Rome) expulit (were expelled)."
  1. Suetonius seems to imply the word Chrestus as a title- not as a reference to a particular rebel. Though I
    have seen critics cite the passage as "a certain/one Chrestus" we can see this is incorrect by the lack of
    the word quodam in the original Latin.
  2. Suetonius uses the word instigation- not instigator. The Latin word referring to an instigator is impulsor but
    the term referring to an instigation is impusore- and this is the word Suetonius uses, thus affirming the
    belief he is using the word Chrestus as a title and not as a name.
  3. It was common for both pagan and Christian authors to spell the name using either an e or an i- and we
    know the Christian authors were obviously referring to Jesus when they spelled the name as Chrestus.
  4. Tertullian criticises pagan disdain for Christianity and points out the fact they can't even spell the name
    correctly. He implies the common misspelling of Chrestus by their use of the term Chrestians: "Most
    people so blindly knock their heads against the hatred of the Christian name...It is wrongly pronounced
    by you as "Chrestians" (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate)... But the special
    ground of dislike to the sect is, that it bears the name of its Founder." Apology, Chapter III
  5. We also see Justin Martyr (a Christian apologist, nonetheless!) using the incorrect spelling of Chrestian.
    First Apology IV
  6. Lactantius repeats the lament of Tertullian with his statement, "But the meaning of this name must be set
    forth, on account of the error of the ignorant who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him
    Chrestus." Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries
  7. Chrestus was a Greco-Roman slave name but Suetonius tells us "foreigners" were not allowed to adopt
    such names. Knowing the Jews were a close-knit community, the idea of them following the revolt of a
    gentile slave to such an extent to get them (and only them!) expelled from Rome is quite a stretch.

Skeptic Interjection: How could this passage refer to Jesus. He was never said to have travelled to Rome.
Answer: If Chrestus does refer to a title and not a specific name (as we are asserting), there is no need for Him
to have been in Rome. A leader can still be "an instigator" for a cause without being in the vicinity. There are
many causes that survived long after the lives of those who initiated certain movements.

THALLUS (~ 52 A.D.) Although his works exist only in fragments, Julius Africanus debates Thallus' explanation
of the midday darkness which occurred during the Passover of Jesus' crucifixion. Thallus tries to dismiss the
darkness as a natural occurrence (a solar eclipse) but Africanus argues (and any astronomer can confirm) a
solar eclipse cannot physically occur during a full moon due to the alignment of the planets. Phlegon of Tralles, a
2nd century secular historian, also mentions the darkness and tries to dismiss it as a solar eclipse. He also states
the event occurred during the time of Tiberius Caesar.

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness. The rocks were rent by an earthquake and many
places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History,
calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the
14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover. But an
eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other
time... Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from
the sixth hour to the ninth-manifestly that one of which we speak. Chronography XVIII, 47

Skeptic Interjection: Why doesn't Pliny the Elder or Seneca mention this event in their writings?
Answer: Pliny focused his writings on natural astronomical events that had physical, scientific explanations. It is
doubtful he would have found it necessary to record an event of supernatural origin. I can also find no mention of
him being in Judea at the time so it is doubtful he would have mentioned it if he did not witness the event first
hand. Seneca focused his writings on dramas, dialogues, and tragedies but also wrote a meteorological essay,
Natural Questions, composed of theories pertaining to ancient cosmology. However this was by no means a
complete scientific almanac of events- it was a literary work. And like Pliny, it is doubtful Seneca was in Judea
during this event.

Skeptic Interjection: Because Thallus' and Phlegon's works exist only in fragments, can their testimonies be
considered reliable?
Answer: This is something the reader will have to determine on their own. Africanus was an honest, qualified
author who did not alter the quotes to serve his own purpose. This is very likely considering what we know about
Africanus (See: here). Africanus' methods were highly respected by his peers, he was often quoted by other
authors, and he even chastises his friend and fellow Christian, Origen, for citing information from a
spurious/unreliable source! (See: Africanus' letter to Origen). It also must be noted that Thallus never said this
eclipse did not happen but instead was trying to actually come up with a scientific explanation to the eclipse
instead of assigning it divine origins.

PLINY THE YOUNGER (63 - 113 A.D) Pliny the Younger admits to torturing and executing Christians who
refused to deny Christ. Those who denied the charges were spared and ordered to exalt the Roman gods and
curse the name of Christ. Pliny addresses his concerns to Emperor Trajan that too many citizens were being
killed for their refusal to deny their faith.

"I asked them directly if they were Christians...those who persisted, I ordered away... Those who denied they
were or ever had been Christians...worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ.
They used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god... All the more I believed
it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by means of
torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped the examination,
and hastened to consult you...on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes,
and both sexes already are brought into danger..." Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan

Though Pliny states some of the accused denied the charges, a recurring theme in the correspondence between
Pliny and Trajan is the willingness of the true believer to die for Christ. This would hardly be reasonable if they
knew He never existed!

Skeptic Interjection: How does dying for one's belief verify the actual existence of Jesus? The sincerity of a
belief does not necessarily make the belief true. How does this passage specifically confirm a historical Jesus and
not just the existence of Christians in Rome?
Answer: Pliny states the Christians worshiped Christ as if he were a god. This indicates one who would not
normally be considered a god, such as a human who was exalted to divine status. Also, the early Christians
would have been in the position to know if Jesus was a historical figure or not. Though critics can claim these
martyrs took Jesus' existence solely on faith, common sense tells us there would have been a lot more evidence
of a historical Jesus at this time than what has been preserved until today. According to early historians, Jesus'
great-nephews and other relatives were still alive as well as the associates of the original apostles. Such
individuals could easily verify His existence. Also, documents which have been lost to us were still in existence
(such as Jesus' trial records and the census records of His birth) and were even referenced by early authors who
wrote about Jesus. These individuals had every reason to be certain of Jesus' existence and were willing to die
because of it.

Skeptic Interjection: Pliny also states some recanted their testimony. Perhaps they did so because they knew
Jesus was a myth.
Answer: There are several rational explanations as to why some would recant their Christian beliefs:
  • Pliny readily admits to torturing some of the accused (are admissions/denials really credible under
    torture!?).
  • The accused knew if they did not recant they would be put to death (fallible human rationalization: confess
    and go home [and work out the hard feelings with Jesus later] or suffer crucifixion?).
  • Some of the accused could have been lackadaisical Christians who half-heartedly accepted Christianity
    because of a spouse, parent, or friend (and would have had no problem reverting back to paganism upon
    facing persecution). There were half-hearted Christians 2,000 years ago just like there are half-hearted
    Christians today.
  • New Christians may have recanted to escape persecution if they were not familiar with or did not
    understand the severity of Jesus' warning regarding those who deny their Christian beliefs).
  • The correspondence between Pliny and Trajan implies many of the accused were being turned in falsely
    by their enemies. Some were never Christians to begin with while some had already left the faith prior to
    their interrogation.
  • Just because there were some who may have recanted out of fear or poor judgment doesn't dismiss the
    deaths of the other individuals who were certain of Jesus' existence and died because of their knowledge.

CELSUS (~ 178 A.D.) Celsus was a second century Roman author and avid opponent of Christianity. He went to
great lengths to disprove the divinity of Jesus yet never denied His actual existence. Unfortunately for Celsus, he
sets himself up for criticism by mimicking the exact accusations brought against Jesus by the pharisees which
had already been addressed and refuted in the New Testament. There are two very important facts regarding
Celsus which make him one of the most important witnesses in this discussion:
  • Though most secular passages are accused of being Christian interpolations, we can accept with certainty
    this is not the case with Celsus! The sheer volume of his writings (specifically designed to discredit
    Christianity) coupled with the hostile accusations presented in his work dismiss this chance immediately.
  • The idea of Celsus getting his information entirely from Christian sources (another recurring accusation
    against secular evidence) is wholly absurd. Though he is obviously aware of his opponents' beliefs (as
    anyone who is engaging in a debate should be), Celsus wrote his exposition in the form of a dialogue
    between a "Jewish Critic" and himself. This gives us cause to believe he used non-Christian (probably
    Jewish) sources.

On Jesus' Miracles: "Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired
certain [magical] powers... He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of
them gave himself out to be a god... It was by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders
which He performed... Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a
few loaves... These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers... It is by the names of certain demons, and by
the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of [miraculous] power..."

Not only does Celsus confirm Jesus' existence, he also tries to debate the source of Jesus' miracles. Like the
pharisees of Jesus' day, Celsus tries to dismiss these miracles as both demonic possession and cheap parlor
tricks. However, he is clearly grasping at straws: On one hand Celsus accuses Jesus of performing magic learned
in Egypt, then later states it is by the power of possession, then states the miracles were not really miracles at all
but were illusionary tricks performed by a deceiver, then finally states the miracles never occurred!

On the Virgin Birth: "Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her
living by the work of her hands. His mother had been turned out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade,
on being convicted of adultery [with a Roman soldier named Panthera]. Being thus driven away by her husband,
and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard."

Celsus acknowledges Jesus' birth and existence but does not accept the concept of a virgin conception. He tries
to dismiss Mary's premarital pregnancy as the result of an affair she had with a Roman soldier. Strangely
enough, there is a very similar passage in the Jewish Talmud which makes the same accusation. This gives us
reason to believe Celsus might have referenced Jewish sources for some of his arguments.

On the Apostles: "Jesus gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious character... tax-collectors,
sailors, and fishermen... [He was] deserted and delivered up by those who had been his associates, who had him
for their teacher, and who believed he was the savior and son of the greatest God... Those who were his
associates while alive, who listened to his voice, and enjoyed his instructions as their teacher, on seeing him
subjected to punishment and death, neither died with nor for him... but denied that they were even his disciples,
lest they die along with Him."

Celsus' intentions were to argue that if the disciples really believed Jesus was the Son of God, they would not
have forsaken Him at His arrest. Instead, he only ends up confirming the Biblical account! The Bible tells us when
Jesus was arrested, the apostles denied being His followers. It was only upon Jesus' resurrection they understood
the spiritual principles concerning Jesus' crucifixion and boldly went out to preach the Gospel. Celsus is also
wrong with his statement, [they] neither died with nor for him. We are told by early historians all but one of the
remaining apostles were killed for their faith.

On Jesus' Divinity: "One who was a God could neither flee nor be led away a prisoner... What great deeds did
Jesus perform as God? Did he put his enemies to shame or bring to an end what was designed against him? No
calamity happened even to him who condemned him... Why does he not give some manifestation of his divinity,
and free himself from this reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult both him and his Father?"  

Celsus ridicules Jesus for the exact same reasons the pharisees of His time ridiculed Him- if Jesus was the Son of
God, why didn't He save Himself from the cross? Neither Celsus nor the pharisees understood the spiritual
implications of Jesus' death to atone for sin. Celsus also asks why no judgment came upon the Jews but history
shows shortly after His death Jerusalem was invaded by the Romans, the Jewish temple was destroyed, and the
Jewish people were dispersed for almost 2,000 years!

John the Baptist "If any one predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit mankind, he was one of our
prophets, and the prophet of our God? John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew."

Celsus confirms Jesus' baptism by John but asserts that John was the only one who actually prophesied His
coming- not the Old Testament Messianic prophecies.

On the Crucifixion: "Jesus accordingly exhibited after His death only the appearance of wounds received on the
cross, and was not in reality so wounded as He is described to have been."

In this statement, Celsus confirms Jesus' death by crucifixion although he claims the only wounds Jesus received
were those inflicted by the crucifixion (thus denying any previous torture had taken place). But not even history
offers Celsus the benefit of a doubt as floggings were the standard form of torture given to victims prior to
crucifixion (See here). Celsus contradicts himself yet again when he later states Jesus was probably never even
crucified but instead had an impostor die in His place!

Skeptic Interjection: Celsus also states, "It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that
your fables are not well enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction." How do we know Celsus is
referring to a historical Jesus and not just debating myth?
Answer: Evidence which shows Celsus to be refuting aspects of a historical Jesus is as follows:
  1. Our answer can be found in Celsus' own words: He was therefore a man, and of such a nature, as the
    truth itself proves, and reason demonstrates him to be. Satisfied with his presentation of evidence, Celsus
    offers his conclusion that Jesus was only a man- not a myth (or a God, as the apostles had claimed).
  2. Instead of denying the alleged events, Celsus offers alternative theories to the early Christian claims (like
    the virgin birth being a cover-up for an illegitimate pregnancy and the miracles actually being works of
    sorcery). If he was discussing a mythical character, he would not have needed to go to such lengths but
    merely to have dismissed Jesus as a myth. After all, there is no easier way to discredit a religion than to
    assert its founder never existed! Of course, this is an argument Celsus never makes.
  3. The "fables" Celsus refers to is his belief that the claims such as a virgin birth and resurrection were
    embellishments created by early Christians- not that Jesus was Himself a myth. Celsus was debating the
    claims of Jesus' divinity, not His existence.

LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (120 - ~180 A.D.)