I heard an interesting question recently. Unfortunately, I didn’t get the chance to actually sit down and talk with the person to get clarification, but the question was this: “If Jesus really lived, why isn’t He mentioned, even in passing, by any of the historians of the day?” I wish I could find out which historians this individual is talking about, because I don’t know of any historians of that general time period that didn’t mention Jesus, at least in passing.
Flavius Josephus, an historian who actually lived in the first century, doesn’t claim that Jesus was the Messiah, but that there were a large number of followers of Jesus. Josephus seems to think that Jesus was a real person, whose following has been growing. There has been a lot of discussion as to whether the references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus are legitimate. There is a link here to a page that discusses the dispute, fairly objectively, IMHO. To be honest, there are some editions of Josephus’s writings where Jesus is described as the Messiah, which is, at best, an odd thing for a Jewish historian to say. That phrase was almost certainly added to the text. There are other editions, however, that mention Jesus in a much more secular way. These are much more likely to be genuine.
Stop the presses! I just did some research, and I came across a website that asks very much the same question as in the opening paragraph, but with a great deal more detail. The author seems to have been unaware, during the initial writing, of the other editions of Josephus that I mentioned earlier, because he rejects the references to Jesus out of hand at first, but there is an addendum at the bottom of the page where he states that he has changed his mind (at least partially). But he points out that Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberias both chronicle the events of Rome and/or Judea during Jesus’ lifetime, and neither mentions Jesus at all. If you discount the writings of Josephus on the grounds that most of the existing editions have clearly been altered, then, yes, none of the historians of that time period mentioned Jesus.
Seem odd? It did to me, at first, also, but, allow me to ramble on about something else for moment and come back to this.
Another argument that I have heard against the validity of Jesus as Christ is that the Dead Sea Scrolls mention several other people that claimed to be the Messiah, as well. Some of them would seem to have even closely approximated the teachings of Jesus. I was asked how did I know that Jesus was the true Christ, and not one of these others, or for that matter, that He wasn’t also a fake. The person asking seemed to think that I would be shocked and surprised that there were other ‘messiahs.’ I was able to answer him with Scripture. In the book of Acts, a Jewish teacher named Gamaliel, told the Sanhedrin to leave the apostles alone, and reminded them that a man named Theudas had claimed to be the messiah, but after his death, his followers scattered. Then a man named Judas claimed to be the messiah, but after his death, his followers scattered. Gamaliel suggested that, if Jesus were just another false messiah, then his followers would disperse on their own, eventually, but if wasn’t faking it, then the Sanhedrin would be fighting against God. So, the Bible tells us that there were other people claiming to be the messiah, which is confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls, but that these others ended up not being remembered specifically because they were false messiahs.
I haven’t read the works of Josephus, or Philo, or Justus, but I have to wonder, if any of them mentioned someone claiming to be the Christ, at all, wouldn’t that have been brought up in this discussion before now, either in support of Jesus or to refute Jesus? So, they apparently didn’t think that self-proclaimed messiahs were of particular historical significance, and they clearly didn’t believe Jesus was the real Messiah, or they would have been converted; is it really any surprise that they didn’t write about Jesus? It may simply have been a question of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
On the other hand, if Jesus wasn’t real, if there was never an actual individual walking around teaching in Israel named Jesus, then where did the stories come from? Out of all the real individuals that did walk around Israel trying to force their own agenda, why is this ‘fictitious’ Jesus the one name that has survived all these years? Isn’t it pretty clear that it’s because He really was who He said He was?
Flavius Josephus, an historian who actually lived in the first century, doesn’t claim that Jesus was the Messiah, but that there were a large number of followers of Jesus. Josephus seems to think that Jesus was a real person, whose following has been growing. There has been a lot of discussion as to whether the references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus are legitimate. There is a link here to a page that discusses the dispute, fairly objectively, IMHO. To be honest, there are some editions of Josephus’s writings where Jesus is described as the Messiah, which is, at best, an odd thing for a Jewish historian to say. That phrase was almost certainly added to the text. There are other editions, however, that mention Jesus in a much more secular way. These are much more likely to be genuine.
Stop the presses! I just did some research, and I came across a website that asks very much the same question as in the opening paragraph, but with a great deal more detail. The author seems to have been unaware, during the initial writing, of the other editions of Josephus that I mentioned earlier, because he rejects the references to Jesus out of hand at first, but there is an addendum at the bottom of the page where he states that he has changed his mind (at least partially). But he points out that Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberias both chronicle the events of Rome and/or Judea during Jesus’ lifetime, and neither mentions Jesus at all. If you discount the writings of Josephus on the grounds that most of the existing editions have clearly been altered, then, yes, none of the historians of that time period mentioned Jesus.
Seem odd? It did to me, at first, also, but, allow me to ramble on about something else for moment and come back to this.
Another argument that I have heard against the validity of Jesus as Christ is that the Dead Sea Scrolls mention several other people that claimed to be the Messiah, as well. Some of them would seem to have even closely approximated the teachings of Jesus. I was asked how did I know that Jesus was the true Christ, and not one of these others, or for that matter, that He wasn’t also a fake. The person asking seemed to think that I would be shocked and surprised that there were other ‘messiahs.’ I was able to answer him with Scripture. In the book of Acts, a Jewish teacher named Gamaliel, told the Sanhedrin to leave the apostles alone, and reminded them that a man named Theudas had claimed to be the messiah, but after his death, his followers scattered. Then a man named Judas claimed to be the messiah, but after his death, his followers scattered. Gamaliel suggested that, if Jesus were just another false messiah, then his followers would disperse on their own, eventually, but if wasn’t faking it, then the Sanhedrin would be fighting against God. So, the Bible tells us that there were other people claiming to be the messiah, which is confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls, but that these others ended up not being remembered specifically because they were false messiahs.
I haven’t read the works of Josephus, or Philo, or Justus, but I have to wonder, if any of them mentioned someone claiming to be the Christ, at all, wouldn’t that have been brought up in this discussion before now, either in support of Jesus or to refute Jesus? So, they apparently didn’t think that self-proclaimed messiahs were of particular historical significance, and they clearly didn’t believe Jesus was the real Messiah, or they would have been converted; is it really any surprise that they didn’t write about Jesus? It may simply have been a question of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
On the other hand, if Jesus wasn’t real, if there was never an actual individual walking around teaching in Israel named Jesus, then where did the stories come from? Out of all the real individuals that did walk around Israel trying to force their own agenda, why is this ‘fictitious’ Jesus the one name that has survived all these years? Isn’t it pretty clear that it’s because He really was who He said He was?
Posts
1 comment:
A book on this (that I've never actually read) is Jesus Outside the New Testament: Introduction to the Ancient Evidence by Robert Van Voorst.
Post a Comment