Jesus Was a Real Historical Person
How do we know if something really happened in the past? There are actually several different ways in determining if an event took place. Historians weigh the evidence of past events by using specialized methodologies to establish a level of probability that an event actually occurred.
First, let’s quickly nail down the most obvious fact before diving into the arguments that historians use in supporting the resurrection narrative. Let me make it clear that Jesus was a real historical person.
You would be surprised at how many internet atheists out there have been duped into believing that Jesus never really existed. These folks often refer to themselves as Jesus Mythicists. However, because no real historian takes these silly claims seriously, combined with the absence of scholarly peer-reviewed published research, and a non-existent presence within academia, I’m not going to waste our time arguing this point right now. The real scholars and historians, including the atheists and secular non-believing ones, unanimously agree that Jesus was a real historical person.
Historians have confirmed that Jesus was a first-century Jewish religious leader. John Meier, probably the world’s foremost Jesus scholar, and one who is skeptical towards the ability to historically evaluate the resurrection, has said this about Jesus existing as a real human in history:
“Jesus was, if nothing else, a charismatic religious leader, specifically a charismatic prophet.”[1]
Just look at what this highly respected historian says: James Dunn states,
“No one with any sense of history can dispute that Jesus existed and that he was active in some sort of mission in Galilee, probably in the late 20s or early 30s of the first century, prior to his execution in Jerusalem “under Pontius Pilate.”[2]
Nonbiblical Evidence of Jesus and His Crucifixion
What about sources outside the Bible? We should actually be surprised to find any historical references of Jesus in first-century Rome, since Jesus was part of an insignificant ethnic group dominated by a tyrannical empire that had no interest in a marginal Jew.
Also, Jesus’ ministry occurred primarily in rural areas and not in the center of major cities. Lastly, there is no doubt that some records may have been destroyed or lost since this happened two thousand years ago.
Although the gospels are enough to prove the existence of Jesus based on the historical reliability of the information it contains, many atheists believe that the Bible is the only source we have referencing Jesus. Let me briefly review some of the nonbiblical evidence for Jesus. New Testament scholar Darrell Bock lists them for us.
(1) In Claudius 25.4 (A.D. 120), Suetonius, a non-Christian Roman historian, references what Claudius did when he expelled the Jews from Rome during the riots that took place in A.D. 49, which were instigated by what appears to be Christ (Chrestus is the name used, but various historical sources strongly support that Christ is the proper interpretation).[3]
(2) In Annals 15.44 (A.D. 115-117), Tacitus, a non-Christian Roman historian, writes of a great fire in Rome that occurred in A.D. 64 started by Nero, who blamed Christians for the event, ultimately, torturing and killing many of them. In this nonbiblical source, Tacitus also mentions Christ and his death under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.[4]
(3) In Epistles 10.96-97, Pliny the Younger, a non-Christian Roman senator during the rule of Trajan, mentions Christians worshiping Christ as a god around A.D. 111.[5]
(4) Indirect references concerning Jesus’ crucifixion come from Roman non-Christians: Thallus presented by Julius Africanus (A.D. 170-240), and Lucian of Samosata in the work The Passing of Peregrinus (A.D. 115-200).
(5) A letter dating A.D. 73 from Mara Bar Sarapion, a non-Christian Syrian philosopher, mentions the Jews killing their wise king, which is obviously a direct reference to Christ.[6]
(6) In Antiquities, Flavius Josephus (A.D. 36-100), a non-Christian Jewish historian says: Jesus was a wise man, performed unusual works, was opposed by Jewish leadership, his crucifixion under Pilate, the Christian movement, and his half-brother James’ martyrdom.[7]
(7) Late non-Christian Rabbinic sources from Jews show long-standing traditions concerning the charges against Jesus that claimed he was a sorcerer and deceiver of the nation, and early sources from Christian Justin Martyr who mentioned the Jews arguing about Jesus’ healing power, attributing it to demonic assistance.[8]
Brief Overview on Historical Reliability
The New Testament (NT) documents record events that can be analyzed just like any other reliable historical document. We can measure the reliability of the text by evaluating the content, contrasting it with other historical writings and artifacts outside of the Bible during that period.
Remember, just because the gospels were written by Christians, does not mean skeptics can dismiss the data, nor does it discount the information as being classified as historical, which is exactly what historians have done.
If we applied that same overly skeptical reasoning to other historical sources written by religious groups, then that would be like saying we couldn’t trust historical information from the diaries of Jewish holocaust victims because they were biased against the Germans Nazis. Nonsense!
We can have a high level of confidence when it comes to believing that certain events took place in the past based on the data accessible for historians to evaluate. The gospels are historical documents that have given historians the ability to do just that.
In addition to the NT writings and nonbiblical sources, numerous archaeological findings have proven that the gospels are very reliable historical sources of information.
One quick example is when the gospels tell us about Pontius Pilate. Archaeologists such as Tyson Kennedy, show that we can verify Pilate’s existence apart from the gospels by way of Roman historical records, a ring with Pilate’s name inscribed on it, and the discovery of an inscription that Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from A.D. 26 to 36; Jesus’ death under Pilate was around A.D. 30/33 corresponding with those dates.[9]
Concerning Matthew, Mark and Luke (Synoptic Gospels), Prominent New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg says,
“Our best efforts and reconstructing the processes that went into the formation of the Synoptic Gospels, taking seriously the ancient external evidence as well as the internal evidence for their authorship and dating, give us optimism about the historical reliability of the information the gospels present.”[10]
The prominent Cambridge historian Richard Bauckham argues that we should evaluate the gospels as eyewitness testimony and understood as such are
“entirely appropriate means of access to the historical reality of Jesus.”[11]
Historians Gary Habermas and Michael Licona note,
“The Bible has never been controverted by solid historical data. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt should go to the Bible in places where it cannot be verified, when there is no evidence to the contrary, and when it seems clear that the author intended for us to understand the event as historical.”[12]
Let’s not forget another important piece of information that sets the NT apart from other ancient works of literature: the amount of time from when the events happened and the actual writings occurred was relatively short, and the time between those original writings and the surviving writings (copies) is very short. This is good because it drastically minimizes the chance for legendary embellishment to occur. In other words, there hasn’t been enough time for fairy tales to develop.
New Testament scholars Köstenberger et al. explain that the New Testament has the smallest amount of time between the surviving manuscripts and the originals; we have around 5,800 copies and portions of these manuscripts today.[13] When you compare that with other ancient works of literature, the comparison isn’t even close.
For example, Homer’s The Iliad is the next closest comparison with around 2,200 copies; Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars has 10 copies and the earliest dates 1,000 years after it was written; there are only 3 manuscripts from Roman historian Tacitus and the earliest dates around 800 years after it was written; we have a few fragments of Plato showing up around 600 years later; the earliest of Josephus’s Jewish War dates nearly 900 years after the original.[14] Historian’s do not doubt that these individuals existed and can determine the accuracy of its information.
After comparing these works with the gospels, consider it amazing that we have evidence of fragments of the Gospel of John dating within 20-30 years from the original. Compare that to the hundreds of years from the other ancient writings. That’s absolutely incredible.
Theologians Paul Copan and William Lane Craig emphasize the embarrassment of riches concerning the early writings of Jesus, explaining that Caesar Augustus has only six sources that refer to him, and the earliest writing being 90 years after his death.[15] They note,
“When we consider that this is what we have for the greatest Roman emperor, four biographies of Jesus written within 35-65 years of His death is pretty good!”[16]
The life of Jesus was written within the first generation while the eyewitnesses were still alive. Good evidence does not become bad evidence over time. There is no question that we can know details about events happening in ancient history, and this is especially true when you have good evidence for it, which is precisely what we have in the gospels.
Because there are thousands of copies of the NT dating extremely close to the actual events, textual critics have been able to identify an accurate reading of the text with great confidence.
New Testament Manuscript expert Dan Wallace notes,
“The New Testament is far and away the best-attested work of Greek or Latin literature from the ancient world. Precisely because we have hundreds of thousands of variants and hundreds of early manuscripts, we are in excellent position for recovering the wording of the original.”[17]
Nearly all of these differences are minor and have no significant impact on the text, nor does it change any doctrines that Christians hold. They primarily consist of spelling errors. And the only two “big” differences that scholars have debated come from 12 verses following Mark 16:8 and 12 verses in John 7:53-8:11.
Concerning these verses, manuscript expert Peter Williams says,
“They show that Gospel manuscripts vary, and therefore there has been no successful attempt by rulers or scribes to make them all agree or to cover up debate.”[18]
Think about it, if you had multiple manuscripts that were word-for-word perfect, then you would have a group of people conspiring and manipulating the text to say what they want it to say, forging the similarities.
It’s a good thing to have multiple copies of something because it allows you to have confidence in what was originally communicated. You do not want just one “perfect” manuscript because someone could make a massive change in it during the copying process, and you would have no way of comparing it with other manuscripts to ensure its accuracy.
It’s beyond amazing that our manuscripts from 400 years ago are nearly identical to the newly discovered manuscripts that are dated 1,600 years ago. This demonstrates that the text was not changed or lost over time as many skeptics claim. Many of them just don’t take the time to read this information, nor do they have Christians who tell it to them!
I could provide several other world-renowned scholars who also agree that the New Testament manuscripts are reliable sources of ancient history, which is why historians have classified the gospels as ancient biographies and not mythology; nevertheless, that is not my primary focus for this article. I just wanted to provide you a small glimpse of what scholars have said, and this is a good segue into the first historical fact for Jesus’ resurrection that we know is true.
What Do Historians Believe About Jesus’ Crucifixion?
Historians have no doubt that Jesus died by crucifixion, and all agree this occurred under the Roman governor Pontius Pilate sometime around A.D. 30/33.
Licona adds, “Given the strong evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion, without good evidence to the contrary the historian must conclude that the process killed him. This is the conclusion shared by virtually all scholars who have studied the subject.”[19]
Historian Daniel Harrington says, “The mode of Jesus’ execution (crucifixion) and the official charge on the cross (“King of the Jews”) confirm the primary Roman responsibility.”[20]
Prominent skeptic John Dominic Crossan notes, “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[21]
Princeton New Testament and liberal scholar Dale Allison says that “Jesus had been publicly humiliated and tortured to death.”[22]
Renowned atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann confirms, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.” And confirms that “the trial, execution and death of Jesus took place on one and the same day.”[23]
World-renowned Jewish historian (non-Christian) Geza Vermes says, “Pilate, notorious for his cruelty, did not hesitate to put to death the ‘king of the Jews’. Jesus expired on a Roman cross.”[24]
Eminent historian E. P. Sanders says that Jesus was “crucified as an insurgent, along with two others. He died after a relatively brief period of suffering.”[25]
Distinguished historian Richard Horsley says that Jesus was executed as a political threat, claiming, “Insofar as crucifixion was the form of execution that the Romans used for political agitators in the provinces, Jesus must have been executed because he was at least thought to be a rebel against the Roman imperial order.”[26]
Of course, we also know there’s more to the story, since it was the Jewish leaders who manipulated the crowds and Pilate, pressuring the governor that if he let Jesus go, then he is “no friend of Caesar” (John 19:12). I’m sure Pilate was thinking it would be a bad career choice if he let a man go who could potentially bring a defying uprise, no matter the size, against the empire and the “peace” of Rome.
After reviewing the internal and external historical evidence surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion, there is no doubt that his existence and death are indisputable facts of history. The acclaimed biblical scholar N. T. Wright declares,
“We, as historians, must ask: what precisely happened after Jesus’ crucifixion that caused early Christianity to come into being?”[27]
Hundreds of people were crucified in the Roman empire, so why did this death result in the transformation of the Western world as we know it today? A part of the world that values the marginalized and attempts to liberate the oppressed. A world that cherishes the helpless and the innocent while championing life.
A world that sees humans as invaluable because they are made in the image of God and were created by him. A world filled with orphanages, welfare programs, hospitals, universities, and scientific models and theories birthed from the Christian movement that started because of Jesus’ crucifixion.
So, history confirms that something tragic has brought forth something beautiful, and we can expect that from an all-loving God. The next article will cover: Historical Fact 2: Jesus’ followers believed he was risen. Thanks for reading. Be bold and share this!
Blessings,
Andrew Drinkard
[1] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 655.
[2] James D. G. Dunn, New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 16.
[3] Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing, 2002), 48.
[4] Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 49.
[5] Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 50-51.
[6] Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 52.
[7] Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 53-57.
[8] Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 58-62.
[9] Titus Kennedy, Unearthing the Bible: 101 Archaeological Discoveries that Bring the Bible to Life (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2020), 190-191.
[10] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2016), 49.
[11] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2017), 5.
[12] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004), 31.
[13] Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock, and Josh D. Chatraw, Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging Skeptical Challenges to the Bible (Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2014), 84.
[14] Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2016), 37.
[15] Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, eds., Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics (B&H Publishing Group, 2012), 215.
[16] Copan and Craig, Come Let Us Reason, 215-216.
[17] Daniel B. Wallace, “Has the New Testament Text Been Hopelessly Corrupted?” Ed, Cowan and Wilder. In Defense of the Bible, 151.
[18] Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton: Crossway Publishing, 2018), 101. Kindle.
[19] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 311.
[20] Daniel J. Harrington, SJ, Historical Dictionary of Jesus (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2010), 122.
[21] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (NY: HarperCollins, 1994), 145.
[22] Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: Bloomsbury Academic & Professional, 2005), 365-366.
[23] Gerd Lüdemann, The History and Nature of the Earliest Christian Belief in the Resurrection, in James D. G. Dunn, and Scot McKnight, Historical Jesus in Recent Research (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 413.
[24] Geza Vermes, Jesus in the Jewish World (London: Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd, 2010), 33.
[25] E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin Books), 25. Kindle.
[26] Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2013), 1.
[27] N. T. Wright, Resurrection Son of God V3: Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 18.
