The recent deluge of books and movies on early Christian literature has generated much interest among Christians and non-Christians alike. Amid skepticism and apologetics, readers seek answers to questions that bring the historical Jesus to the forefront of the debate. Who was he? What evidence do we have, besides the writings from Jesus' own followers, of Jesus' existence? And, what impact does this evidence, or the lack thereof, have on faith?

Outside of early Christian sources, very little evidence exists for documenting the life of Jesus. That is because, historically speaking, Jesus would have been regarded as an itinerant peasant preacher wandering the cultural backwaters of the Roman Empire and therefore would hardly have come to the attention of most aristocratic biographers of his day. He simply would not have been considered important enough to be noticed. Yet, there exists a few possible scattered references to Jesus in non-Christian sources from antiquity.

Who Was He?

It is believed that Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, speaks of Jesus in two texts in his massive history, the Judean Antiquities. Most famous of these is the Testamonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63ff), which gives a brief account of Jesus life and death. Few scholars today, however, take this account at face value as a historical report. Specifically, they doubt that Josephus would say that Jesus was more than a man, that he was the Messiah, and that he was raised from the dead after three days claims which instead dominate early Christian documents. Scholars are even less certain about the origins of the description: did an early Christian copyist simply insert the whole passage, attempting to give Christianity historical support through the voice of a Jewish historian? Or did Josephus actually mention Jesus in some passing, but fairly neutral comments that were then expanded into a more positive and confessional direction by a Christian scribe? Less debated, but even less informative is another passage that mentions Jesus, in passing, by way of discussing James, who is described as the 'brother of Jesus who is called Christ' (Ant. 20.200). "Christ" here seems to be less a confessional title than simply a name mentioned to distinguish this Jesus from other men of the same name. So although Josephus mentions Jesus, the information offers little or nothing about the man himself.

Digging Through the Talmud

Some scholars have turned to rabbinic texts for historical references to Jesus, although the findings are both debated and limited in value. The Talmudic text, b.San 43a, is sometimes mentioned in this context. The text describes an execution by stoning and then the crucifixion of Jesus the Nazarene and five of his disciples on Passover in the context of discussing rabbinic legal procedures. Some scholars view this as an independent tradition of Jesus' death, although others question both the historical accuracy of the details, and the origin of the tradition by suggesting the story instead reflects a rabbinic response to Christianity in the second century. Representing Jesus as a sorcerer and an apostate, for example, better fits this later historical context than it does an earlier, independent tradition.

A first-century Stoic philosopher from Syria, Mara bar Sarapion, is sometimes introduced as a source, as well. Sarapion's letter to his son, likely written in the first century, but existing now only in the work of a third-century writer, perhaps makes reference to Jesus, though it is important to point out that Jesus is not mentioned by name. The "wise king" mentioned by the philosopher might be Jesus, in light of a few other details in the letter, but even this reference is quite likely not an independent source. It is possible that Sarapion was familiar with Christians in Syria and simply got his information from them.

Sifting Through Roman History

As scholars try to unearth historical evidence, they sometimes point to Pliny the Elder, a Roman governor in the early second century. Pliny wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan around 110CE to inquire about the legal status of some Christians who had been accused of crimes. Jesus, or rather "Christus," is casually mentioned in the letter as a man worshiped as a god by Christians. That is all Pliny seems to know. His information is likely based on rumors and his own interrogations and is therefore not only very limited but hinges on the testimony of others.

Tacitus, a Roman writer and historian, also mentions Jesus as "Christus." In his biography of Nero, written around 116CE, Tacitus describes the execution of Christians during the great fire in Rome. He also reports what information he has on Jesus, noting that Jesus was executed as a criminal in Judea by Pilate and that he was the founder of a "superstition" that began in Judea and had now spread to Rome. It is unclear whether Tacitus is simply reporting what he learned about Jesus from public trials of Christians, and is thus simply repeating Christian testimony, or if he used official archival sources.

Finally, Suetonius, another Roman historian and a friend of both Pliny and Tacitus, seems to mention Jesus in another context of Roman persecution, this time of Jews in 49 CE during the reign of Claudius. Suetonius says that Claudius expelled Jews from Rome because they were stirred up by one "Chrestus." Apart from the odd spelling and assuming that this man was in Rome, this seems like a reference to Christ to some scholars. Still, the information is meager at best and questionable at worst as an independent source about Jesus. Perhaps the best that can be said is that writers like Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius themselves never questioned the historical existence of Jesus.

Winnowing the Chaff

While there is not much independent non-Christian historical information about Jesus, this lack of sources is not terribly surprising, nor is it necessarily damning criticism of claims concerning Jesus' historical existence. We normally do not question the historical existence of countless men and women about whom we have little independent historical information. There is John the Baptist, the apostle Paul, the Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Rabbi Hillel of Talmudic fame, and Bar Kochba, the leader of the second Judean revolt against Rome, to cite a few examples from Jewish and Christian history. Each has uneven historical sources, some produced only by their followers and friends. Yet few, if anyone, would seriously doubt that these historical figures actually lived.

On the other hand, rigorous skepticism has a role in sorting out the historical wheat from the imaginative chaff in early Christian texts. Left mostly with the gospel narratives as solid sources for historical information about Jesus, New Testament scholars have developed principled skepticism into specific criteria for measuring the historical reliability of the gospel accounts. Debate and disagreement persist, of course, and there is nothing like a concentric view of the historical Jesus. Thus, it is unlikely that what historical wheat is left can be ground carefully enough to support the more important theological claims about Jesus' miracles, his resurrection, and his divine nature. As important as historical investigations into the life of Jesus may be, they will likely never generate an independent ground for supporting or disproving the theology of the Christian faith.

by Eric Thurman,
PhD Candidate, Drew University, Madison, NJ