{"id":36314,"date":"2025-12-16T07:00:55","date_gmt":"2025-12-16T12:00:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblicalarchaeology.org\/?p=36314"},"modified":"2025-12-16T09:48:34","modified_gmt":"2025-12-16T14:48:34","slug":"did-jesus-exist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblicalarchaeology.org\/daily\/people-cultures-in-the-bible\/jesus-historical-jesus\/did-jesus-exist\/","title":{"rendered":"Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible"},"content":{"rendered":"

Read Lawrence Mykytiuk\u2019s article \u201cDid Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible<\/a>\u201d as it originally appeared in <\/em>Biblical Archaeology Review<\/a>, January\/February 2015. The article was first republished in Bible History Daily in late 2015.\u2014Ed.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\"The<\/a>

THE MAN CHRIST JESUS. Did Jesus of Nazareth exist as a real human being? Outside of the New Testament, what is the evidence for his existence? In this article, author Lawrence Mykytiuk examines the extra-Biblical textual and archaeological evidence associated with the man who would become the central figure in Christianity. Here Jesus is depicted in a vibrant sixth-century C.E. mosaic from the Basilica of Sant\u2019Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy. Photo: Sant\u2019Apollinare Nuovo Ravenna, Italy\/Bridgeman Images.<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

After two decades toiling in the quiet groves of academe, I published an article in BAR <\/strong>titled \u201cArchaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible<\/a>.\u201da<\/a><\/sup> The enormous interest this article generated was a complete surprise to me. Nearly 40 websites in six languages, reflecting a wide spectrum of secular and religious orientations, linked to BAR<\/strong>\u2019s supplementary web page<\/a>.b<\/a><\/sup> Some even posted translations.<\/p>\n

I thought about following up with a similar article on people in the New Testament, but I soon realized that this would be so dominated by the question of Jesus\u2019 existence that I needed to consider this question separately. This is that article:1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Did Jesus of Nazareth, who was called Christ, exist as a real human being, \u201cthe man Christ Jesus\u201d according to 1 Timothy 2:5?<\/p>\n

The sources normally discussed fall into three main categories: (1) classical (that is, Greco-Roman), (2) Jewish and (3) Christian. But when people ask whether it is possible to prove that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, as John P. Meier pointed out decades ago, \u201cThe implication is that the Biblical evidence for Jesus is biased because it is encased in a theological text written by committed believers.2<\/a><\/sup> What they really want to know is: Is there extra-Biblical evidence \u2026 for Jesus\u2019 existence?\u201dc<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Therefore, this article will cover classical and Jewish writings almost exclusively.3<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

\n
\"Tacitus\"<\/a>

Roman historian Tacitus. Photo: Bibliotheque nationale, Paris, France \/ Giraudon \/ Bridgeman Images.<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Tacitus\u2014or more formally, Caius\/Gaius (or Publius) Cornelius Tacitus (55\/56\u2013c. 118 C.E.)\u2014was a Roman senator, orator and ethnographer, and arguably the best of Roman historians. His name is based on the Latin word tacitus<\/em>, \u201csilent,\u201d from which we get the English word tacit<\/em>. Interestingly, his compact prose uses silence and implications in a masterful way. One argument for the authenticity of the quotation below is that it is written in true Tacitean Latin.4<\/a><\/sup> But first a short introduction.<\/p>\n

Tacitus\u2019s last major work, titled Annals<\/em>, written c. 116\u2013117 C.E., includes a biography of Nero. In 64 C.E., during a fire in Rome, Nero was suspected of secretly ordering the burning of a part of town where he wanted to carry out a building project, so he tried to shift the blame to Christians<\/a>. This was the occasion for Tacitus to mention Christians, whom he despised. This is what he wrote\u2014the following excerpt is translated from Latin by Robert Van Voorst:<\/p>\n

\"tacitus-annals\"<\/a>

TACIT CONFIRMATION. Roman historian Tacitus\u2019s last major work, Annals<\/em>, mentions a \u201cChristus\u201d who was executed by Pontius Pilate and from whom the Christians derived their name. Tacitus\u2019s brief reference corroborates historical details of Jesus\u2019 death from the New Testament. The pictured volume of Tacitus\u2019s works is from the turn of the 17th century. The volume\u2019s title page features Plantin Press\u2019s printing mark depicting angels, a compass and the motto Labore et Constantia<\/em> (\u201cBy Labor and Constancy\u201d). Photo: Tacitus,<\/em> Opera Quae Exstant, trans. by Justus Lipsius (Antwerp, Belgium: Ex officina Plantiniana, apud Joannem Moretum, 1600). Courtesy of the Philadelphia Rare Books & Manuscripts Co. (PRB&M).<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

[N]either human effort nor the emperor\u2019s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered [by Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts \u2026 whom the crowd called \u201cChrestians.\u201d The founder of this name, Christ [Christus <\/em>in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate \u2026 Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular.5<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Tacitus\u2019s terse statement about \u201cChristus\u201d clearly corroborates the New Testament on certain historical details of Jesus\u2019 death. Tacitus presents four pieces of accurate knowledge about Jesus: (1) Christus<\/em>, used by Tacitus to refer to Jesus, was one distinctive way by which some referred to him, even though Tacitus mistakenly took it for a personal name rather than an epithet or title; (2) this Christus<\/em> was associated with the beginning of the movement of Christians, whose name originated from his; (3) he was executed by the Roman governor of Judea; and (4) the time of his death was during Pontius Pilate\u2019s governorship of Judea, during the reign of Tiberius. (Many New Testament scholars date Jesus\u2019 death to c. 29 C.E.; Pilate governed Judea in 26\u201336 C.E., while Tiberius was emperor 14\u201337 C.E.6<\/a><\/sup>)<\/p>\n

Tacitus, like classical authors in general, does not reveal the source(s) he used. But this should not detract from our confidence in Tacitus\u2019s assertions. Scholars generally disagree about what his sources were. Tacitus was certainly among Rome\u2019s best historians\u2014arguably the best of all\u2014at the top of his game as a historian and never given to careless writing.<\/p>\n

Earlier in his career, when Tacitus was Proconsul of Asia,7<\/a><\/sup> he likely supervised trials, questioned people accused of being Christians and judged and punished those whom he found guilty, as his friend Pliny the Younger had done when he too was a provincial governor. Thus Tacitus stood a very good chance of becoming aware of information that he characteristically would have wanted to verify before accepting it as true.8<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

\"Codex<\/a>

CHRESTIANS OF CHRIST. Book XV of Tacitus\u2019s Annals<\/em> is preserved in the 11th\u201312th-century Codex Mediceus<\/em> II, a collection of medieval manuscripts now housed in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence, Italy, along with other manuscripts and books that belonged to the Medici family. Highlighted above is the Latin text reading \u201c\u2026 whom the crowd called \u2018Chrestians.\u2019 The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate \u2026\u201d Photo:<\/em> Codex Mediceus 68 II, fol. 38r, the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence, Italy.<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

The other strong evidence that speaks directly about Jesus as a real person comes from Josephus<\/a>, a Jewish priest who grew up as an aristocrat in first-century Palestine and ended up living in Rome, supported by the patronage of three successive emperors. In the early days of the first Jewish Revolt against Rome (66\u201370 C.E.), Josephus was a commander in Galilee but soon surrendered and became a prisoner of war. He then prophesied that his conqueror, the Roman commander Vespasian, would become emperor<\/a>, and when this actually happened, Vespasian freed him.<\/p>\n

\u201cFrom then on Josephus lived in Rome under the protection of the Flavians and there composed his historical and apologetic writings\u201d (Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz).9<\/a><\/sup> He even took the name Flavius, after the family name of his patron, the emperor Vespasian, and set it before his birth name, becoming, in true Roman style, Flavius Josephus.<\/p>\n

Most Jews viewed him as a despicable traitor. It was by command of Vespasian\u2019s son Titus that a Roman army in 70 C.E. destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple, stealing its contents as spoils of war, which are partly portrayed in the imagery of their gloating triumph on the Arch of Titus<\/a> in Rome.10<\/a><\/sup> After Titus succeeded his father as emperor, Josephus accepted the son\u2019s imperial patronage, as he did of Titus\u2019s brother and successor, Domitian<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Yet in his own mind, Josephus remained a Jew both in his outlook and in his writings that extol Judaism. At the same time, by aligning himself with Roman emperors who were at that time the worst enemies of the Jewish people, he chose to ignore Jewish popular opinion.<\/p>\n

Become a BAS All-Access Member\u00a0Now!<\/h3>\r\n

Read Biblical Archaeology Review<\/i> online, explore 50 years of BAR<\/b>, watch videos, attend talks, and more<\/p>\r\n\"access\"<\/a>

\n

Josephus stood in a unique position as a Jew who was secure in Roman imperial patronage and protection, eager to express pride in his Jewish heritage and yet personally independent of the Jewish community at large. Thus, in introducing Romans to Judaism, he felt free to write historical views for Roman consumption that were strongly at variance with rabbinic views.<\/p>\n

\"Josephus,<\/a>

Jewish historian Josephus is pictured in the ninth-century medieval manuscript Burgerbibliothek Bern Codex<\/em> under the Greek caption \u201cJosippos Historiographer.\u201d Photo:<\/em> Burgerbibliothek Bern Cod. 50, f.2r.<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

In his two great works, The Jewish War<\/em> and Jewish Antiquities<\/em>, both written in Greek for educated people, Josephus tried to appeal to aristocrats in the Roman world, presenting Judaism as a religion to be admired for its moral and philosophical depth. The Jewish War<\/em> doesn\u2019t mention Jesus except in some versions in likely later additions by others, but Jewish Antiquities<\/em> does mention Jesus\u2014twice.<\/p>\n

The shorter of these two references to Jesus (in Book 20)11<\/a><\/sup> is incidental to identifying Jesus\u2019 brother James,12<\/a><\/sup> the leader of the church in Jerusalem. In the temporary absence of a Roman governor between Festus\u2019s death and governor Albinus\u2019s arrival in 62 C.E., the high priest Ananus instigated James\u2019s execution. Josephus described it:<\/p>\n

Being therefore this kind of person [i.e., a heartless Sadducee], Ananus, thinking that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus had died and Albinus was still on his way, called a meeting [literally, \u201csanhedrin\u201d] of judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah \u2026 James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned.13<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

James is otherwise a barely noticed, minor figure in Josephus\u2019s lengthy tome. The sole reason for referring to James at all was that his death resulted in Ananus losing his position as high priest. James (Jacob) was a common Jewish name at this time. Many men named James are mentioned in Josephus\u2019s works, so Josephus needed to specify which one he meant. The common custom of simply giving the father\u2019s name (James, son of Joseph) would not work here, because James\u2019s father\u2019s name was also very common. Therefore Josephus identified this James by reference to his famous brother Jesus. But James\u2019s brother Jesus (Yehoshua) also had a very common name. Josephus mentions at least 12 other men named Jesus.14<\/a><\/sup> Therefore Josephus specified which <\/em>Jesus he was referring to by adding the phrase \u201cwho is called Messiah,\u201d or, since he was writing in Greek, Christos<\/em>.15<\/a><\/sup> This phrase was necessary to identify clearly first Jesus and, via Jesus, James, the subject of the discussion. This extraneous reference to Jesus would have made no sense if Jesus had not been a real person.<\/p>\n

\n

Visit the historical Jesus study page in Bible History Daily to read more free articles on Jesus.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\"Josephus\"<\/a>

JAMES, BROTHER OF JESUS. In Jewish Antiquities<\/em>, parts of which are included in this mid-17th-century book of translations, Josephus refers to a James, who is described as \u201cthe brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.\u201d Josephus\u2019s mention of Jesus to specify which James was being executed by the high priest Ananus in 62 C.E. affirms the existence of the historical Jesus. Photo: Josephus,<\/em> Famovs and Memorable Works of Josephvs, trans. by Thomas Lodge (London: J. L. for Andrew Hebb, 1640).<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Few scholars have ever doubted the authenticity of this short account. On the contrary, the huge majority accepts it as genuine.16<\/a><\/sup> The phrase intended to specify which <\/em>Jesus, translated \u201cwho is called Christ,\u201d signifies either that he was mentioned earlier in the book or that readers knew him well enough to grasp the reference to him in identifying James. The latter is unlikely. First-century Romans generally had little or no idea who Christus <\/em>was. It is much more likely that he was mentioned earlier in Jewish Antiquities<\/em>. Also, the fact that the term \u201cMessiah\u201d\/\u201cChrist\u201d is not defined here suggests that an earlier passage in Jewish Antiquities<\/em> has already mentioned something of its significance.17<\/a><\/sup> This phrase is also appropriate for a Jewish historian like Josephus because the reference to Jesus is a noncommittal, neutral statement about what some people called Jesus and not a confession of faith that actually asserts that he was Christ.<\/p>\n

This phrase\u2014\u201cwho is called Christ\u201d\u2014is very unlikely to have been added by a Christian for two reasons. First, in the New Testament and in the early Church Fathers of the first two centuries C.E., Christians consistently refer to James as \u201cthe brother of the Lord\u201d or \u201cof the Savior\u201d and similar terms, not \u201cthe brother of Jesus,\u201d presumably because the name Jesus was very common and did not necessarily refer to their Lord. Second, Josephus\u2019s description in Jewish Antiquities<\/em> of how and when James was executed disagrees with Christian tradition, likewise implying a non-Christian author.18<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

This short identification of James by the title that some people used in order to specify his brother gains credibility as an affirmation of Jesus\u2019 existence because the passage is not about Jesus. Rather, his name appears in a functional phrase that is called for by the sense of the passage. It can only be useful for the identification of James if it is a reference to a real person, namely, \u201cJesus who is called Christ.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

This clear reference to Jesus is sometimes overlooked in debates about Josephus\u2019s other, longer reference to Jesus (to be treated next). Quite a few people are aware of the questions and doubts regarding the longer mention of Jesus, but often this other clear, simple reference and its strength as evidence for Jesus\u2019 existence does not receive due attention.<\/p>\n

The longer passage in Josephus\u2019s Jewish Antiquities<\/em> (Book 18)19<\/a><\/sup> that refers to Jesus is known as the Testimonium Flavianum<\/em>.<\/p>\n

If it has any value in relation to the question of Jesus\u2019 existence, it counts as additional<\/em> evidence for Jesus\u2019 existence. The Testimonium Flavianum<\/em> reads as follows; the parts that are especially suspicious because they sound Christian are in italics<\/em>:20<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Around this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man<\/em>.21<\/a><\/sup> For he was one who did surprising deeds, and a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah.<\/em> When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place came to love him did not give up their affection for him, for on the third day, he appeared to them restored to life. The prophets of God had prophesied this and countless other marvelous things about him.<\/em> And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, have still to this day not died out.22<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

All surviving manuscripts of the Testimonium Flavianum<\/em> that are in Greek, like the original, contain the same version of this passage, with no significant differences.<\/p>\n

The main question is: Did Flavius Josephus write this entire report about Jesus and his followers, or did a forger or forgers alter it or possibly insert the whole report?23<\/a><\/sup> There are three ways to answer this question:24<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Alternative 1:<\/strong> The whole passage is authentic, written by Josephus.<\/p>\n

Alternative 2:<\/strong> The whole passage is a forgery, inserted into Jewish Antiquities.<\/p>\n

Alternative 3:<\/strong> It is only partly authentic, containing some material from Josephus, but also some later additions by another hand(s).<\/p>\n

Regarding Alternative 1, today almost no scholar accepts the authenticity of the entire standard Greek Testimonium Flavianum<\/em>. In contrast to the obviously Christian statement \u201cHe was the Messiah\u201d in the Testimonium<\/em>, Josephus elsewhere \u201cwrites as a passionate advocate of Judaism,\u201d says Josephus expert Steve Mason. \u201cEverywhere Josephus praises the excellent constitution of the Jews, codified by Moses, and declares its peerless, comprehensive qualities … Josephus rejoices over converts to Judaism. In all this, there is not the slightest hint of any belief in Jesus\u201d25<\/a><\/sup> as seems to be reflected in the Testimonium<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The bold affirmation of Jesus as Messiah reads as a resounding Christian confession that echoes St. Peter himself!26<\/a><\/sup> It cannot be Josephus. Alternative 1 is clearly out.<\/p>\n

Regarding Alternative 2\u2014the whole Testimonium Flavianum<\/em> is a forgery\u2014this is very unlikely. What is said, and the expressions in Greek that are used to say it, despite a few words that don\u2019t seem characteristic of Josephus, generally fit much better with Josephus\u2019s writings than with Christian writings.27<\/a><\/sup> It is hypothetically possible that a forger could have learned to imitate Josephus\u2019s style or that a reviser adjusted the passage to that style, but such a deep level of attention, based on an extensive, detailed reading of Josephus\u2019s works and such a meticulous adoption of his vocabulary and style, goes far beyond what a forger or a reviser would need to do.<\/p>\n

Even more important, the short passage (treated above) that mentions Jesus in order to identify James appears in a later section of the book (Book 20) and implies that Jesus was mentioned previously.<\/p>\n

\"codex-parisinus\"<\/a>

THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS. This 15th-century manuscript, now in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale de France, contains the portion of Josephus\u2019s Testimonium Flavianum<\/em> that refers to Jesus (highlighted in blue). The first sentence of the manuscript, highlighted in green, reads, from the Greek, \u201cAround this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.\u201d The majority of scholars believe this passage of the Testimonium is based on the original writings of Josephus but contains later additions, likely made by Christian scribes. Photo:<\/em> Codex Parisinus gr. 2075, 45v. Courtesy Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale de France.<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

The best-informed among the Romans understood Christus<\/em> to be nothing more than a man\u2019s personal name, on the level of Publius and Marcus. First-century Romans generally had no idea that calling someone \u201cChristus\u201d was an exalted reference, implying belief that he was the chosen one, God\u2019s anointed. The Testimonium<\/em>, in Book 18, appropriately found in the section that deals with Pilate\u2019s time as governor of Judea,28<\/a><\/sup> is apparently one of Josephus\u2019s characteristic digressions, this time occasioned by mention of Pilate. It provides background for Josephus\u2019s only other written mention of Jesus (in Book 20), and it connects the name Jesus with his Christian followers. The short reference to Jesus in the later book depends on the longer one in the earlier (Book 18). If the longer one is not genuine, this passage lacks its essential background. Alternative 2 should be rejected.<\/p>\n

Alternative 3\u2014that the Testimonium Flavianum<\/em> is based on an original report by Josephus29<\/a><\/sup> that has been modified by others, probably Christian scribes, seems most likely. After extracting what appear to be Christian additions, the remaining text appears to be pure Josephus. As a Romanized Jew, Josephus would not have presented these beliefs as his own. Interestingly, in three openly Christian, non-Greek versions of the Testimonium Flavianum<\/em> analyzed by Steve Mason, variations indicate changes were made by others besides Josephus.30<\/a><\/sup> The Latin version says Jesus \u201cwas believed to be<\/em> the Messiah.\u201d The Syriac version is best translated, \u201cHe was thought to be the Messiah.\u201d And the Arabic version with open coyness suggests, \u201cHe was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.\u201d Alternative 3 has the support of the overwhelming majority of scholars.<\/p>\n

We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources\u2014one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish\u2014confirm what we are told in the Gospels:31<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. He existed as a man.<\/strong> The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus\u2019 death. Jesus\u2019 known associates, such as Jesus\u2019 brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus. \u201cIf any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point,\u201d Robert Van Voorst observes.32<\/a><\/sup> And Tacitus was careful enough not to report real executions of nonexistent people.<\/li>\n
  2. His personal name was Jesus,<\/strong> as Josephus informs us.<\/li>\n
  3. He was called Christos<\/em> in Greek,<\/strong> which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah<\/em>, both of which mean \u201canointed\u201d or \u201c(the) anointed one,\u201d as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus<\/em>.<\/li>\n
  4. He had a brother named James (Jacob),<\/strong> as Josephus reports.<\/li>\n
  5. He won over both Jews and \u201cGreeks\u201d<\/strong> (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were \u201cmany\u201d at the end of his life. Large growth in the number of Jesus\u2019 actual followers came only after his death.<\/li>\n
  6. Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him,<\/strong> at least according to some versions of the Testimonium Flavianum<\/em>.<\/li>\n
  7. Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed,<\/strong> as both Tacitus and Josephus state.<\/li>\n
  8. His execution was specifically by crucifixion,<\/strong> according to Josephus.<\/li>\n
  9. He was executed during Pontius Pilate\u2019s governorship over Judea<\/strong> (26\u201336 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius\u2019s reign.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Some of Jesus\u2019 followers did not abandon their personal loyalty to him even after his crucifixion but submitted to his teaching. They believed that Jesus later appeared to them alive in accordance with prophecies, most likely those found in the Hebrew Bible. A well-attested link between Jesus and Christians is that Christ, as a term used to identify Jesus, became the basis of the term used to identify his followers: Christians. The Christian movement began in Judea, according to Tacitus. Josephus observes that it continued during the first century. Tacitus deplores the fact that during the second century it had spread as far as Rome.<\/p>\n

    As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist.33<\/a><\/sup> Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, \u201c\u2026 [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus\u2019 historicity or even questioned it.\u201d34<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

    Nondenial of Jesus\u2019 existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries C.E.: \u201c\u2026 [I]f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity \u2026 [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person \u2026 [T]he rabbis \u2026 used the real events of Jesus\u2019 life against him\u201d (Van Voorst).35<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

    Thus his birth, ministry and death occasioned claims that his birth was illegitimate and that he performed miracles by evil magic, encouraged apostasy and was justly executed for his own sins. But they do not deny his existence.36<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

    \n

    Want more on Biblical figures? Read \u201c53 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically<\/a>,\u201d<\/strong> “New Testament Political Figures: The Evidence<\/a>“<\/strong> and “Herod the Great and the Herodian Family Tree<\/a>“<\/strong> by Lawrence Mykytiuk.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n

    Lucian of Samosata (c. 115\u2013200 C.E.) was a Greek satirist who wrote The Passing of Peregrinus<\/em>, about a former Christian who later became a famous Cynic and revolutionary and died in 165 C.E. In two sections of Peregrinus<\/em>\u2014here translated by Craig A. Evans\u2014Lucian, while discussing Peregrinus\u2019s career, without naming Jesus, clearly refers to him, albeit with contempt in the midst of satire:<\/p>\n

    It was then that he learned the marvelous wisdom of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And\u2014what else?\u2014in short order he made them look like children, for he was a prophet, cult leader, head of the congregation and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books, and wrote many himself. They revered him as a god, used him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector\u2014to be sure, after that other whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.37<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

    For having convinced themselves that they are going to be immortal and live forever, the poor wretches despise death and most even willingly give themselves up. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws.38<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Although Lucian was aware of the Christians\u2019 \u201cbooks\u201d (some of which might have been parts of the New Testament), his many bits of misinformation make it seem very likely that he did not read them. The compound term \u201cpriests and scribes,\u201d for example, seems to have been borrowed from Judaism, and indeed, Christianity and Judaism were sometimes confused among classical authors.<\/p>\n

    Lucian seems to have gathered all of his information from sources independent of the New Testament and other Christian writings. For this reason, this writing of his is usually valued as independent evidence for the existence of Jesus.<\/p>\n

    This is true despite his ridicule and contempt for Christians and their \u201ccrucified sophist.\u201d \u201cSophist\u201d was a derisive term used for cheats or for teachers who only taught for money. Lucian despised Christians for worshiping someone thought to be a criminal worthy of death and especially despised \u201cthe man who was crucified.\u201d<\/p>\n