acquainted. Eastern, Middle-Eastern, and Grecian religions have been based primarily upon
philosophies and myths - not on past events. Consequently, they need no historical
corroboration. Christianity, however, is largely predicated upon the events of history, and its
veracity is therefore partially determined by the accuracy of its historic claims. E.F. Harrison
remarks: “Some religions, both ancient and modern, require no historical basis, for they
depend upon ideas rather than events. Christianity is not one of these”1. If any of its historic
claims were found to be false, then the Christian Bible would be nothing more than an
inspiring product of men, containing several questionable tenets. As Wayne Jackson
affirms: “The religion of Jesus Christ stands or falls upon the events of history”2. The Bible,
then, must be proven to be historically accurate. This is especially true with regard to the
historicity of its founder — Jesus Christ. Did a man named Jesus of Nazareth ever live? Or,
as some have been disposed to affirm, was the “New Testament Jesus…a myth”3? Let’s
examine the evidence.
The Testimony of Eyewitnesses
In an unbiased court of law the testimony of eyewitnesses plays a crucial role in defense
of a case. This is no different in connection with the historicity of Jesus. He can be
confirmed as a historical figure based upon the testimony of those who walked and talked
with Him.
At least twelve individuals were personal companions to the Lord. Many more walked
with Him during the course of His earthly ministry. Paul argues that over 500 individuals
witnessed His resurrection. He “was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was
seen of above five hundred brethren at once” I Cor. 15:5-6. Many of these witnesses,
including all but one of the apostles, would be martyred for defending their faith in this
Jesus of Nazareth. This begs the question: Why would these individuals be willing to die for
somebody whom, ostensibly, they knew to be a mere myth? It is entirely unreasonable to
have hundreds of individuals willing to be persecuted, never mind be killed, for that which
was concocted in their own minds. The fact that they affirmed His existence and remained
loyal to Him to the point of death demonstrates that Jesus not only existed but also was a
remarkably influential character. The testimony and the actions of the eyewitnesses of
Jesus, then, confirm His historicity.
The Testimony of the Early Historians
Many Jewish and Roman historians allude to Jesus in their writings. These historians are
certainly not considered supporters of the cause of Christ, and many were antagonistic to
Him. And yet none of them ever denied His existence. That position has only been held by a
few modern atheists and historians.
Flavius Josephus—a Jewish historian who wrote under Roman purview between 37-100
A.D.4, mentions, in his Antiquities of the Jews, a man who became popular among “many
Jews, and also many of the Greeks” whose name was “Jesus”. He calls Him “a wise man”
and “doer of marvelous deeds”. This same Jesus to whom Josephus refers was one who was
“condemned” by another man named “Pilate”. He further suggests that at the time at which
he was writing “the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out”5. Later, in
discussing the deeds of the high priest, Josephus states that Ananus “assembled a council of
judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was
James”6.
Indisputably, these descriptions depict in precise detail the Jesus of Nazareth of the New
Testament. His testimony in this regard is dispassionate and unbiased. He simply states the
facts. His narrative concerning Jesus reveals the additional fact that He did not believe Him
to be the Christ, but only considered Him to be a “wise man” who did many “marvelous
deeds”. Although Josephus denied Jesus’ Messianic claims, he nevertheless acknowledged
Him as a historic figure.
theless acknowledged Him as a historic figure.
Celcus, a pagan philosopher who wrote during the 2nd century, spoke of Jesus as having
“come from a village in Judea”. After charging Jesus with being a “bastard”, he affirms that
his poverty led him to Egypt. “While there” suggests Celcus, “he(Jesus, AP) acquired certain
magical powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly
elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god”
7. Even more disdain for the New Testament Jesus oozes from Celcus’ pen, and yet he too
accepted Jesus’ existence.
Pliny the younger, in 112 A.D., being governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote to his
Emperor Trajan to acquire his advice regarding certain Christians, who, according to Bruce,
“were embarrassingly numerous in his province”8. Pliny states that the Christians “were in
the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light” to sing “an anthem to Christ
as God”9.
Cornelius Tacitus, an esteemed historian of the Roman Empire cir. A.D. 115, spoke of
one named “Christus”, whose followers were “styled Christians”. This “Christus…had been
executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor”10,
confirming the Bible’s account of Jesus’ death.
Lucian of Samosata, c. A.D. 115-200, according to Jackson, “was called ‘the Voltaire of
Grecian literature.’ He wrote against Christianity more with patronizing contempt than
volatile hostility. He said Christians worshipped the well-known ‘sophist’ Who was crucified
in Palestine because He introduced new mysteries. He never denied the existence of Jesus”
11. The fact that most of these historians and writers were either apathetic to or hostile to
the teachings of Jesus is certainly significant. If Jesus were a myth, then those who were
unfriendly to the claims of the Christians would have most certainly held this against them,
rather than concede His existence and influence.
These and many other ancient writers confirm unequivocally that Jesus was a historical
figure and not just some theological myth contrived by delusional and inane Jews. Bruce
affirms: “Whatever else may be thought of the evidence from early Jewish and Gentile
writers…it does at least establish, for those who refuse the witness of Christian writings, the
historical character of Jesus Himself”12. The prejudice of modern critics of Christianity has
led them to employ copious absurd and untenable arguments, most of which stand entirely
differing to facts, in order to deprive the religion of Jesus Christ of its prodigious influence
among the people of the world. Shall we believe historians who lived a generation after
Jesus, or shall we believe historians who are two millenniums removed from the same?
Indeed, the prior of the two by far carries with them the weightiest authority. No amount of
modern skepticism will expunge the testimony of these reliable historians and writers.
Conclusion
The witnesses in support of the historicity of Jesus are preponderant. In fact, more
evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ exists than for such widely accepted historical
figures as Alexander the Great, Martin Luther, or even the great composer J.S. Bach. To
quote Jackson again: “The cause we espouse is not grounded in a wispy vapor of antiquity,
but on unshakable historical facts”13. Without a doubt, to His twelve Apostles, to those who
sat at His feet learning the impregnable truths of Jehovah, to those who witnessed His glory
as He spoke with Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration, to those who heard
His cries on the cruel cross of Calvary, to those who saw His scars and felt His wounds, to
those who witnessed His ascension into heaven from the mount called Olivet, and even to
those who denied Him and despised Him for the many centuries following, Jesus was no
mere theological myth manufactured in the minds of mundane men. On the contrary, He
was indeed a bona-fide historical figure. The historicity of His life, coupled with the
extraordinary integrity of His teachings, make the Christian religion immeasurably
incomparable to any other, and far superior to the myriad philosophies of this world, sacred
and profane alike.
Bibliography
1 Harrison, E.F., 1968, A Short Life of Christ, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, p. 11.
2 Jackson, Wayne, 1996, “The Historicity of Jesus Christ” Christian Courier.com (http://
www.christian courier.com/archives/historicityJesus.htm)
3. Barker, Dan, 1992, Losing Faith In Faith, Minneapolis, MN: Freedom From Religion
Foundation, p. 378.
4 Bruce, F.F., The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company p. 102.
5 Josephus, Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews, xviii.3.3
6 Ibid., xx.9.1.
7 See Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.28
8 Bruce, p. 119.
9 Epistle of Pliny to Trajan, x. 96.
10 Tacitus, Annals xv.44.
11 Jackson, “The Historicity of Jesus Christ”, ChristianCourier.com
12 Bruce, p. 119
13 Jackson, “The Historicity of Jesus Christ”, ChristianCourier.com
