To historians, how many separate documents must be found in order to validate the existence of a person?

Question

...Or historical figure? Because I'm concerned about Jesus's existence. Did he historically exist? What other separate document supports those that are found in Gospels? Many people say he doesn't exist.

Some people say he lived in a different time, not in the supposed BC-AD transition.

Answer 1

There is no set amount of documentation which is required to prove the possibility that a historical figure existed. Historians are most interested in the reliability and quality of a source. Historians look at many other contemporary sources to back up their theories, these can include art and architecture etc. Primary sources include the following categories:

Contemporaries of Jesus

Eyewitnesses of Jesus

Items written within same century as Jesus

Preponderance of academic consensus

Copies and manuscripts in hand today



Here are some of the renown non christian sources for Jesus's exitence.

Tacitus (AD 55-120), a renowned historical of ancient Rome, wrote in the latter half of the first century that ‘Christus ... was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.’ (Annals 15: 44).

• Suetonius writing around AD 120 tells of disturbances of the Jews at the ‘instigation of Chrestus’, during the time of the emperor Claudius. This could refer to Jesus, and appears to relate to the events of Acts 18:2, which took place in AD 49.

• Thallus, a secular historian writing perhaps around AD 52 refers to the death of Jesus in a discussion of the darkness over the land after his death. The original is lost, but Thallus’ arguments — explaining what happened as a solar eclipse — are referred to by Julius Africanus in the early 3rd century.

• Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian writing after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, mentions the earlier execution of Jesus, whom he calls a ‘King’.

• The Babylonian Talmud refers to the crucifixion (calling it a hanging) of Jesus the Nazarene on the eve of the Passover. In the Talmud Jesus is also called the illegitimate son of Mary.

• The Jewish historian Josephus describes Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate in his Antiquities, written about AD 93/94. Josephus also refers to James the brother of Jesus and his execution during the time of Ananus (or Annas) the high priest.

Answer 2

There is more supporting evidence for the existence of Jesus than for Homer, but I don't note that people get into a tizzy over whether Homer existed or not.

You need to note, for a start, that the gospels are themselves, four separate documents supporting the life of Jesus. They were written during the historical time when people who had known Jesus were still around. There is validation within the gospels and in other historical records for the census of Augustus which registered Joseph's family at Bethlehem.

BC and AD were not developed until a few hundred years after Christ's life and birth, by Gregory, a Pope. It is probable that Christ was born between 2 and 6 b.c. with 4 or 6 being more likely. And this is just the kind of problem people have when trying to make calendars. Gregory's calendar was practical in that it made the birth of the Christ the central point of history--from which we could count back (BC) or forward (AD). Until that time calendars were generally reckoned by the reigns of kings and so working out years (especially between countries or where two kings reigns overlapped) was problematical. It was intended to put everyone on the same calendar and same page of it, so to speak.

I recommend you read

Answer 3

Well, I guess 'some people' lied.

There are no 'separate documents' to validate the existence of Jesus, unfortunately. The four gospels can only be counted as one document, as Matthew, Luke and John are all derivative of Mark. Jesus' habits, miracles and attributes don't pin him to any one culture or any one era--he seems to be a catch-all persona.

His hometown cannot be found or pinned down; it is not where today's town of Nazareth sits, because that was a burial ground up until two centuries after the beginning of the common era (AD).

Not one person who ever saw him has been corroborated by any one else who can be documented. For example, neither he nor his activities have been recorded by either the Roman or Jewish authorities of the time. There was no census requiring people to travel to Bethlehem or anywhere else, no astronomer in the entire world ever noted the Star of Bethlehem, there was no report including the murder of innocents by Herod, no transcript of the details of his trial or crucifixion, no acknowledgment of the darkness (eclipse?) on Good Friday afternoon. Nevermind any observers of his ascension into heaven on a Thursday in August.

This could be explained in a more unsettled period, but the reign of Tiberius happens to be one of the best documented periods in recorded history. Romans were avid recordkeepers and the emperor demanded (and got) regular reports from each governor/king/prefect in the empire listing tax receipts, unrest, and any requests for assistance, among other things. While it can't be expected that each of these events would be duly noted, at least a few of them should have been verifiable. Moreover, although Christian authorities destroyed as much of the knowledge of the Greco-Roman period as they could find during the fourth and fifth centuries, they were avidly searching for any records of Jesus to prove his existence, and none has ever been found.

There is more objective documentation for the existence of Aesop than there is of Jesus.

Answer 4

It's not the number of documents, it's the number of sources. There are four gospel writers, but three of them probably had the same source: the Q Document. The fourth, John, was written much later. There are no other credible contemporary accounts of a personnage named Jesus. Many documents from this time were either forged later or were altered by the church to make it appear as if the source was authentic. The historian Josephus mentioning Jesus, at the time, for example, is a forgery of epic proportions.

Answer 5

There are several Roman, non-christian historians whose documents are historical proof of the man known as Jesus. Examine the writings of Josephus if you really want to know.

Answer 6

Does the "facts" about Jesus really alter the "truths" accredited to him? Is the same not true where it Mohammed, Buddha, or Moses? I think that's the only real question a person needs to ask

Answer 7

For some (possibly many or perhaps maximum) Fundamentalist Protestant communities (and proper Protestant communities like JWs) hatred of alternative religions is taught as a results of fact all different religions (alongside with the Christian ones they got here from like Catholic and Orthodox and usually even othe FP communities) areSatanic deceptions that mimic "the actuality" some how and finally end up with the worship of demons posing as divine or sturdy spirits wisdom of background isn't considered one of their sturdy factors. apparently they think of that would in basic terms incredibly exist good in the event that they portray all people who dissents from them as completely demonic and wicked Reasoning("whore reason", to apply Luther's word) is likewise no longer considered one of their sturdy factors. between the ironies is they seem to spend maximum of their time, potential and spleen on hating those usually morally closest to their very own declared positions! this isn't any longer unique to FPs yet in addition to different "fundamentalists" who're Muslim,Marxist-Leninist ,Dawkinist,Feeneyite,and so on

Answer 8

There is, at this time, no conclusive documentary evidence to prove the existence of Jesus. I guess you'll just have to rely on faith.