Why aren't there very many references (good or bad) to a 'Jesus the Christ' in 1st century documents?

Question

(Outside New Testament or Gnostic gospels)

kinsmed: apocryphal, royalty, etc?-Have you read the book of Matthew? Com'on...I would think a man walking on water, raising a rich guy's daughter from the dead, time standing still (refering to the 3 hrs the sun stood in place after the cruc.), the dead walking to the 'nearest holy city', etc...wouldn't that warrant a little documentation?

Josephus Flavius: I've read that there are 2-4 mentions of JC, some resources say some have been proven to be false; there are recordings here even about mentions from this man that are different; also that the quotes were obvious later inserts, one says the basic Xian concept but he claimed to be a Jew and none of his other writings record anything similiar; I've also read that JF himself was unreliable, even so, a non-controversial quote would do but the more I read, the less reliable any mention of his name becomes

Williamzo:
I read the whole d*mn thing and all of the recorders listed recorded that Christians were all gung-ho about a JC but no mention of anyone outside the NT actually seeing him;
however, it does seem odd that many people got all bothered over an imaginary person...but didn't the Greeks over Dionysis? The character we have now, the son of God that performs miracles, does not exist in any recordings, outside the NT books chosen at the Council of Nicae (3rd or 4th century); the book of Matthew reports events that are not mentioned anywhere else
but thanks for the info anyway
(BTW, what does the tomb of a New Testament character prove? Aren't there other people, like Pontius Pilate, that existed? I don't see how that proves JC did.

Answer 1

Other than the forged writings of Josephus, there is nothing that refers to Jesus.


The references are to "Christians," and it is obvious Christians existed, what is not obvious is who it was they were following.

There is no mention of Jesus anywhere outside the bible and the forged writings of Josephus.

Fact.

Answer 2

The life of Jesus was based on a need for salvation. Not from hell but from Rome.

The bible does this thing. Everytime things start going badly for the Jews/Christians an apocalyptic book appears. These cryptic tales of beasts and demons, wars and famine. In reality they are more of a political statement against the tyrannical empires overlording them.

Well the same thing happens concerning Jesus. With the defeat of Cleopatra and Marc Antony, the Senate makes Octavius dictator for life. Octavius becomes the Immortal Ceaser Augustus and the Roman Republic becomes an Empire. Scary times if you live under Roman occupation. Roman would have been kicking in everyone's teeth at the time. The Jews, who mind you, are the scrappiest people in history, saw no good in this transformation. Low and behold a Messiah is born.

The Bible, like all canons, tells a story to justify a position. Jesus justifies christianity. He certainly wasn't the big deal that he is made out to be or he certainly would be mentioned in Roman texts. the truth is that by as early as the reign of Nero (54CE) only 20 or so years after the "death and ressurection" the church began to question whether or not the man even existed. This is one of the reasons that Revelations was written. The church at the time was beginning to assimilate into Roman society. Christianity would have died if not for the cyrptic book siting Rome as the ultimate evil and the ticket to salvation being to resist(Kind of like the Muslims view the USA).

There is nothing from that time because, quite frankly Jesus didn't historically exist until almost a hundred years after his death. But in order to corroborate something in History you must have two sources. The Bible is only one. Other documents from that time are 1) dated after he dies, 2) are third or fourthhand accounts. "They say that Jesus..." "The Jews believed that He was a man that performed..."

Answer 3

Whether you believe there was a little or no non-bibilical references to Jesus the 1st century, it doesn't make sense that he would have been well documented anyway. Judea was a pretty far-flung Roman province 2000 years ago and light years away from Rome and Western Europe where "civilization" was thought to be happening at the time. Jesus was, during his life, considered troublesome provincially at worst, but certainly would have insignficant to the major Roman writers of the day. Why bother to go all the way to the edge of the empire to write about some meddling "Rabbi" from some wacky cult of desert folks who worship only one God that we crucified? I doubt it seemed worth the effort.

The myth of Jesus has been building for 2000 years. It seems like a big deal now. It's hardly reasonable to think people took much notice of the whole thing back then.

Answer 4

Contrary to what other posters have stated, Jospehus did not write "extensively" about jesus and his followers.

Scholars have noted that the passage has many internal indicators that seem to be inconsistent with the rest of Josephus' writing and with what is known about Josephus, leading them to think that part or all of the passage may have been an interpolation

Tacitus wrote only two paragraphs on the subject of Christ and Christianity in 116.

Pliny the Younger never mentioned the name Jesus in his whitings, there were multiple people claiming to be the messiah at that time.

Answer 5

You have to see it in the context of an age and region where religious zealots and ascetics claiming to be the Messiah were ten a penny. To contemporaries such people were just trouble makers who provoked the Romans into taking reprisals so your average holy man wasn't generally embraced by the population-I doubt if Jesus was seen as being much different from all the rest or worthy of any special mention.

Answer 6

The extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ of Nazareth is verified by the following contemporary historical evidence sources; Flavius Josephus, Thallus, Phlegon, Pliny the Younger, Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonisu and Mara Bar-Serapion. You can verify more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ at http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/rhjesus.html

Answer 7

A good place to start is here


"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9-10

Answer 8

Because He is referred to as Jesus Bar Joseph of Nazareth.

Answer 9

We can't explain why we may not be able to find many, but there are some there. Check out the complete works of Josephus, a "secular" historian.

Answer 10

because the religion was still banned by the roman government. Kind of like Christianity in Islamic countries now

Answer 11

One reason is the temple, and all of it's documents, in Jerusalem were destroyed by the Roman army.