In our investigation of non-Christian sources that speak of Jesus and His crucifixion, we have so far looked at the writings of Cornelius Tacitus. We also began investigating what the ancient historian Josephus had to say about Jesus as well. This week we continue to look at his writings. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus in a work dated AD 93, and titled Antiquities of the Jews. This passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, reads: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standingamongstus,hadcondemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day, he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
This passage is perhaps the most thorough, non-biblical account of the crucifixion of Jesus. It not only confirms Jesus as a real person in history, but also substantiates the biblical account of Jesus as a teacher and miracle worker who was crucified by Pilate. As in the case of Josephus’s writing in James, the brother of Jesus, it is important to consider the inherent accountability associated with writing of an event when there are still living eyewitnesses of the event.
The use of descriptive language in this passage by Josephus: “if indeed one ought to call him a man,” and “he appeared to them restored to life,” and “He was the Messiah,” have been pointed to by critics as items of objection to the authenticity of the passage. Critics consider it to be unlikely that Josephus, the Jew, would have acknowledged Jesus with such affectionate terms. In addition, critics also state that the Romans would have suspected Josephus of treason for writing of Jesus in such glowing terms. However, twice in the writings of Origen, he states that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. According to E. M. Blaiklock, “Josephus probably wrote the ‘the so-called Messiah’ as he did in the passage of James, the brother of Jesus.” It is important to note that Christianity, by this time, had become identified with the Gentiles and, therefore, there is no reason to believe his writing about Jesus as the Messiah would have brought reprisal from the Romans. This dispute over whether Jesus was acknowledged as theMessiahorasChrist,however,has no bearing on the existence of Jesus as a real historical person.
Although it is widely accepted that some interpolation (changing of the text by later writers) of the Josephus passage has occurred, there is the existence of an Arabic copy of the passage that is believed to have not been interpolated by Christian influence. It reads: “At this time, there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reportedthathehadappearedtothem three days after the crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, thy believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.”
To this passage the critic G. A. Wells takes an unusual approach. Wells states; “it is very noticeable that in the Arabic, the order in which the statements about Jesus are made differs sharply from that in the Greek text.” Here, Wells seems to focus on minor details to debunk the passage also pointing to the “perhaps the Messiah” wording as opposed to the direct “the Messiah” wording in the Greek version as being problematic. Nevertheless, the key words are still present;” Jesus, crucified, resurrected. This document stands as additional, non-Christian evidence that the man called Jesus was a real historical person, had a devout following, and was crucified by Pilate. Historian Earle Cairns notes “even granting some interpolation by Christians, most scholars agree that this basic information . . . is most likely a part of the original text.” Therefore, even if there has been slight interpolation, the text still shows that Jesus of Nazareth did exist.
This is merely a sampling of a few, independent, reliable, non-biblical sources from the period that provide evidence for the historicity of the existence of a man named Jesus. These sources stand as reliable accounts in rebuttal to the claim that there is not enough independent evidence to substantiate His existence in history. Christian apologist Norman Geisler summarizes best: “in light of these non-Christian references, the theory that Jesus never existed is clearly unreasonable.”
Join us next week as we continue to give due consideration to historical, sources of evidence for the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. Until then, and with a steady gaze at the evidence, ponder the question: is God dead?
Gloria in excelsis Deo! Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.