Is there any mention of Jesus by historians AT THE TIME... or only hundreds of years later?

Question

It's widely known that Josephus
is a forgery.... is that all you've got?

Answer 1

He his discussed in these non-Christian source at the time:

Tacitus, the Roman historian
Pliny the Younger, Roman historian
Josephus, Jewish/Roman historian
Lucian, Greek writer

Answer 2

The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example, see Luke 3:1, 2, 21-23.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.

Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: “Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), “The Annals,” Book 15, par. 44.

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”—(1976), Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145.

Josephus was Jewish. Pliny, Tacitus & Suetonius were Roman. The Jews and Romans were enemies of the Christians. It is amazing that any of them would refer to Jesus at all. To me, that's pretty conclusive.

Answer 3

Wiki screws up again, or the Christians have been at their editing again. I did a search in the "histories" of Flavious Josephus from a scholarly source and Jesus wasn't present in them.

Neither is Jesus written of in any of the works that mentioned Herod or Herod Antipas and there is no mention of Jesus. Now this is really interesting because the Bible states he had all the male children murdered in his kingdom to kill Jesus. I can find nothing, in any book but the bible that such a terrifying horrible and historical event took place, which surely must have been recorded somewhere. Roman Governors had to send news of such events back to Rome by Roman law.

I don't account Paul as a historian.

Answer 4

There is no mention of Jesus in any historical account from his time. Josephus was born AFTER Jesus' death (they GUESS at his death to be around 30 - 33 AD... Josephus was born in 37 AD) and never claims to be an eye-witness.

I did several studies trying to find historians of his time that would relate ANYTHING about miracles being performed by ANYONE. I didn't find anything substantial and nothing of a "Jesus of Nazareth" outside of the Bible (which wasn't even written during Jesus' time anyway.....)

I've always found it interesting that they can give the dates of both birth and death for important people even before Jesus... yet they can't even give the year Jesus was born... they have to guess.

Answer 5

From everything I've read that is from a nonreligious source (meaning that they won't lose money and/or power when people know the truth), no, there was no historical Jesus.

In fact, Jesus was merely one in a long line of god-men who were born of virgins, died for our sins, were resurrected, etc.

Did a historical Jesus exist?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

Answer 6

this is particularly particular his call become not Jesus Christ as that isn't a Hebrew call. i've got heard it become possibly to have been Joshua ben Joseph (Joshua son of Joseph). There actually become a instructor who sparked the Christian circulation, yet how a great number of his existence interior the Bible is actual and how plenty made up is uncertain. His divinity become created via the Romans to make him greater suited to the Roman public and there become no point out of him being "the son of God" previously 3 hundred advert. Now the words of Christ may be extremely on the brink of precise because of the fact they have been written down, copied, and unfold for hundreds of years previously the Romans assembled the Bible. in addition they make severe solid experience. you are able to evaluate the guy to be the 1st Protestant because of the fact he become protesting how the Sanhedrin and Pharisees have been controlling the Temple and coaching in basic terms what they needed taught. Like Martin Luther, he become knowledgeable interior the holy e book of that component (the Torah) and knew there become greater that become being disregarded. Jesus become not the son of a detrimental wood worker because of the fact there have been no detrimental carpenters in that era. Carpenters have been experienced hard artwork and firmly center class. He become additionally a Rabbi. Like maximum Jewish adult males, he possibly have been given married at age 13 and had infants. because of the fact he became a instructor and left living house at age 30, that shows his relatives duties have been completed. He could have been widowed at that component. one element this is regular is there become no slaughter of childrens in Bethlehem in the time of the reign of Herod the super. That tale did not look until the 400s and there is extremely no modern point out of it interior the 1st century BC or advert.

Answer 7

Beside the bible, there are no contemporaneous accounts of jesus. The closest one is from Flavius Josephus several decades post jesus, which some have shown may have been forged many centuries later by bishop Eusebius.

Answer 8

There's nothing strong from the time. Some people argue that this or that was Jesus, but nothing conclusive. Compare it to Socrates who is quoted everywhere (around the same time).
Jesus becomes an important figure a couple of hundred years after his death. Funny eh?

Answer 9

Yes, one of the most famous of Jewish historians - Josephus who lived in Jesus' day mentioned of him and John the Baptist.

Not to mention of course guys like Luke who wrote the gospel of Luke - an historian himself. But I assume you meant extra-Biblical accounts.

Answer 10

Flavius Josephus

The Talmud

The Sicarii

Rome's own documentation of His execution.

Ummm.... The Bible...... The gospels weren't written by inherent followers of Jesus but by their scribes.

Historically speaking the two most accurate books on the subject are the Gospels of Mark and Luke. Mark was a historian and Luke was a Jewish scribe who followed the apostle Paul around.

Just because the Bible has become canonical doesn't mean it's inaccurate. A simple source analysis of any book will inform you on just how reliable these old books are.

Answer 11

Josephus himself never mentions him. The parts which do have been known by scholars for some time to be forgeries.

Seems odd that he would call him "the son of God" and then die a devout Jew condemning Christians.