The Extrabiblical Sources on Jesus

Examining the Evidence

Written by Taylor Carr - July 6th, 2011
The original version of this article can be found here.

Ever since the publication of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Christian apologists have circulated a rarely changing list of extrabiblical (outside of the bible) sources that allegedly testify to the historicity and character of Jesus Christ. These sources are not only used to argue that Jesus did in fact exist, but to support specific gospel claims, such as the crucifixion and the accompanying darkness described in the book of Mark [1]. Yet in their haste to corroborate the gospel stories, apologists have accepted sources that are of dubious credibility and offered their own questionable interpretations. The aim of this article will be to demonstrate the unreliable nature of the extrabiblical sources on Jesus. The question of Jesus' historicity will not be involved here but for a brief introductory note.

My own personal view on the existence of Jesus has changed since I began researching the available evidence. In learning about the secular sources on James, the brother of Jesus, I have found historicity to be the logical conclusion. The sources on James are descriptive, many are unextraordinary, and they paint a very believable portrait of a Jewish radical who was well known enough to have caught the ire of political and religious figures of his day. Robert Eisenman lays out most of the information in James the Brother of Jesus, suffice it to say that Jesus was likely a Jewish radical as well. This view is one that has been endorsed by historical-critical scholarship for some time and seeps through scripture in various instances (Mark 10:17-25, Matthew 5:17-19, 15:24).

While I believe Jesus was a historical person, the extrabiblical sources put forward by apologists are not reliable reports. At best they provide summaries of early Christian beliefs about who Jesus was, and there were numerous competing opinions on the identity of Jesus even in the apostle Paul's time - some 30 to 40 years before the earliest of these extrabiblical sources. It is important to recognize misinformation even when it is used to support a conclusion that one agrees with, or even to support the truth. With that in mind, what can we expect to find or not find in a source that would tell us about its reliability?

I. Reliable Criteria

The evidence for an ancient source being reliable is not the same kind we may ask of scientific concerns. Historical events cannot be tested because they are in the past, and formulas and theories do not apply to history in the way they apply to physics or math. Archaeology may corroborate ancient sources, but the absence of archaeological evidence does not have the same implications as the absence of scientific evidence, since relics and remains are often destroyed or decayed over time. In the case of the extrabiblical sources on Jesus, there is no corroboration with legitimate archaeology (the 'discoveries' of treasure hunters like Ron Wyatt are not legitimate archaeological finds), and so we must find another way of assessing their reliability.

The best and most reliable sources are independent and unbiased. For a source to be independent means that it has not been copied from, or relied on, other sources. The more independent confirmation there is for something, the more likely it is to have occurred. Yet even when we have dozens of sources, historicity is uncertain if they all share a common influence or borrow from each other, because instead of having multiple accounts of a person or event, we merely have one original account that has spread into several. This is like the difference in a crime scene with 3 separate witnesses and a crime scene with only one witness who tells the story to two others.

An unbiased source is one that is not colored by personal interpretation. Consulting a Star Trek fan about the flaws in the series will probably not produce a reliable source, because our investments in a particular thing or ideology frequently compel us to give very one-sided and opinionated presentations. To an extent, bias may be inescapable, but this criterion does not demand that a source be free of all bias - only that the less bias it has, the more reliable it is. Sources that display forms of flattery, denigration, selective bias, or a preconceived conclusion must be seen for what they are and approached cautiously.

Christian apologists appeal to these criteria whenever it suits their purposes, so I believe it's permissible to say that these are non-controversial standards. To reiterate, this will not rule out all dependent and biased sources as being totally untrustworthy, but will simply assist in determining the degree of reliability for a source. These criteria are also applied to many other sources and historical claims, not only those that involve Jesus. They will serve as yet another instrument in exposing the unreliable nature of the secular sources on Jesus.

II. Josephus

The extrabiblical source most frequently cited in conjunction with Jesus is the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. The most famous passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, reads as follows:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. [2]

Josephus was an orthodox Jew who would've had no reason to talk of Jesus so favorably. In other passages, he discussed alleged messiah figures like Judas of Galilee, the Samaritan prophet, John the Baptist, and Theudas, yet his talk of Jesus is uncharacteristically flattering, especially since Josephus had acknowledged the emperor Vespasian as the messiah [3]. This has led scholars to suspect that the Testimonium is a partial interpolation, with the Christian-sounding portions added by a later author [4]. Geza Vermes has proposed a reconstruction of the original passage without the bolded segments above, and inserting that Jesus was "called" the Christ, in keeping with Josephus' Jewish identity [5]. Some scholars like Earl Doherty, G.A. Wells, and Steve Mason argue that the entire passage is an interpolation.

In fact, there are several peculiar things about the Testimonium that may point to inauthenticity. No other historian or religious apologist mentions this portion of Josephus' writings before the 4th century. Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and many others do not seem aware of the passage. The church father Origen quoted extensively from Josephus, yet never mentions the Testimonium. The first time the passage is brought into an author's defense of Christianity is with Eusebius, writing around 324 CE [6]. Some apologists have suggested that the existence of Jesus was not questioned in that time, so there was no reason to quote the Josephan reference to Jesus. However, Origen found it useful to quote Josephus on John the Baptist being a historical figure, even though there is no evidence that the existence of John was questioned in that time. The absence of the Testimonium from the church fathers, the lateness of its appearance, and the evidence for interpolation pose a challenging question of why some of the passage is singled out as authentic when there is so much of a case against the entire thing.

The reconstructed version may be independent and unbiased, but with the status of the Testimonium as controversial and in dispute as it is, concluding that it is a trustworthy extrabiblical source for the historical Jesus is too hasty a move. Especially when we look at the reconstruction and consider that, if authentic, Josephus composed it around 93 CE, there is nothing in it that could not have come from Christian traditions or hearsay. In other words, it's well within the realm of possibility that Josephus was relaying what he had heard, not arguing from personal knowledge or reliable records. Until further discoveries or enlightening information, the Testimonium cannot be regarded as an accurate account.

III. Tacitus

Writing in approximately 116 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus penned the following in The Annals:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. [7]

The tone of this passage seems polar opposite to Josephus' praise, but consider what information it really gives us about a historical Jesus. All we can gain from the passage is that a group of Christians were persecuted and blamed for the fire of Rome, and legend has it that their leader was someone called "Christus", who endured suffering at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Additionally problematic is the title given to Pilate, who was not procurator but prefect of Judea, as archaeological evidence has revealed [8]. It's difficult to understand how Tacitus, who had himself risen through the magisterial ranks of Rome from senator to governor, would make such a mistake in terminology. Yet the title of Pilate is not the focus of the passage, nor is the story of Jesus' death. All of that serves as an aside to explain the origin of the name "Christian," which is only brought up because of Nero's actions against them.

Much debate has ensued over the sources used by Tacitus, with some scholars even suggesting other extrabiblical accounts like those of Josephus and Pliny [9]. Given that the mention of Jesus is in passing to contextualize Nero's behavior, given the mistaken title attributed to Pilate, and given the mention of Jesus as "Christus" - a clearly religious title - it is certainly believable that Tacitus might have even used Christians themselves as his source, being that historical accuracy on their beliefs was not the purpose of the passage. Scholars of Tacitus have also pointed out that the historian was known to relate unverifiable and false rumors at times [10]. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the Tacitean passage is an independent, unbiased, or reliable source.

IV. Suetonius

The Roman historian Suetonius is another source that Christians declare as evidence for Jesus. In The Twelve Caesars, written in 121 CE, he states:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome. [11]

What is interesting about connecting this passage to Jesus is that Claudius' expulsion of the Jews occurred in 49-50 CE, far too late for it to have been "at the instigation of [Jesus]". The name "Chrestus" was also common among slaves and meant 'good' or 'useful,' as some scholars have noted [12]. The Jewish Encyclopedia provides some elaboration:

The emperor Claudius was not unfavorably disposed toward the Roman Jews in the beginning of his reign, but in 49-50, in consequence of dissensions among them regarding the advent of the Messiah, they were forbidden to hold religious services. The leaders in the controversy, and many others of the Jewish citizens, left the city. [13]

With this information, it seems very probable that Suetonius was merely writing about the popularity of messiah cults and the troubles which arose from disagreements among them, leading up to the expulsion of many Jewish sects. Since Jesus Christ was allegedly crucified around 30 CE, it is unlikely that Suetonius was referring to him 20 years later. It could refer to the Christian sect, but this too seems unlikely, since Jews are mentioned in the passage, not Christians, and Suetonius was doubtlessly familiar with the differences, as he wrote of Christians elsewhere (Twelve Caesars, 16.2).

The Suetonius source does not provide independent or reliable evidence for Jesus. In fact, there is practically nothing in the passage to connect it with Christianity at all.

V. Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger was a provincial governor in the Roman Empire who corresponded with the emperor Trajan through several letters. In an excerpt from their correspondence, Pliny describes the members of the Christian religion and their beliefs:

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ � none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do � these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ. [14]

A little background history may be helpful here. From the context, it seems Pliny contacted the emperor not because the Christians were practicing beliefs that he did not like, but because he suspected them of political alliances that might've threatened the Roman Empire. Furthermore, it is apparent that Pliny was not even sure of who Christians were or what they believed:

...the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished, for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. [14]

Pliny's first 9 books of letters are thought to have been written between 99 and 109 CE, yet book 10, which contains his correspondence with the emperor, was not intended for publication. It was eventually released after his death. The apparent problem with using Pliny as a source is that his information is certainly not unbiased or independent, because he obtained it from former Christians, as well as believers who were tortured to the point of renouncing their faith. The only reasonable conclusion is that Pliny's interrogation exposed what Christians of his time believed, not who Jesus really was, especially given that most of the believers living around 110 CE probably had not lived during Jesus' lifetime.

VI. The Talmud

The Jewish Talmud refers to an individual named 'Yeshu', whom a great deal of Christians and apologists consider to be Jesus:

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him." Yeshu was different because he was close to the government. [15]

In another excerpt from the Talmud, we find disciples listed for Yeshu: "It is taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah." Five disciples instead of the legendary twelve, and only one (Matai) has a name that resembles the men in the gospels? The passage also goes on to tell that all five disciples were executed after Yeshu was put to death. These details, along with the mention of hanging instead of crucifixion, the calling of witnesses to defend Yeshu, and the part about Yeshu being "close to the government", seem to cast significant doubt on Yeshu being the Jesus Christ of the gospels.

Yeshu was quite a common name in that time as well. In the Talmud alone, there are at least four other occurrences of it, each quite different from the others (Avodah Zarah 16b-17a, Sanhedrin 103a, Sanhedrin 107b, Gittin 56b & 57a). The similarities between the Talmud's reference to Yeshu and the character of Jesus that is found in the New Testament are underwhelming, to say the least. Finally, the precise dating of this passage is not known, because the material is estimated to be from 70-200 CE, yet the Mishnah was not written down until the 5th century. It's far from certain who the Yeshu in this portion of the Talmud was, but by all accounts it does not seem likely that it was the Jesus of the gospels.

VII. Thallus

Of all the extrabiblical sources used by apologists as evidence of Jesus, Thallus might possibly be the worst. There is very little information on him, and none of his works survive, except through fragments cited in the works of later authors. The passage supposedly relevant to Jesus comes from Eusebius, quoting Julius Africanus (c. 221 CE):

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun. [16]

If you're asking what this has to do with Jesus, since it makes no mention of Christ, "Chrestus", or anything of the sort, try thinking like an over-eager apologist. According to Africanus and others, the darkness mentioned by Thallus is the darkness that came over the land during Jesus' crucifixion (Mark 15:33). The problem with this source is that the majority of it is the word of Julius Africanus, not Thallus. All we learn of Thallus is that he called some darkness an eclipse of the sun. I say "some" darkness, because it is unclear when exactly Thallus wrote.

According to Eusebius, Thallus wrote his Histories from "the sack of Troy to the 167th Olympiad" [17]. This would mean that he covered events from 1184 BCE up to about 109 BCE. Obviously this would exclude the time of Jesus' crucifixion, which is typically placed at around 30 CE, so some scholars have suggested that Eusebius' text is corrupted - that it really says (or means to say) he covered events up to the 207th (49-52 CE) or 217th Olympiad (89-92 CE). This is a pretty wide range of possibilities, and there are yet no solid reasons for thinking any dating to be more correct than the others. Also bear in mind that authors don't necessarily write their histories around the same time as the events they describe.

Thallus is an unreliable source for Jesus, because we do not know with certainty when Thallus lived, when he wrote, what he wrote, and so forth. But even if this reference is from 30 CE, there is still the problem of not knowing exactly what year Jesus was supposedly crucified. There is little reason to assume that the darkness was a supernatural event, especially given that Thallus claimed it was an eclipse, as Africanus states. Nothing about this apologetic claim is independent, unbiased, or particularly credible evidence for Jesus Christ.

VIII. Celsus

Another strange extrabiblical source on Jesus that is used by Christians is Celsus, whose works are preserved in the criticisms of him written by Origen. Celsus was a second century Greek philosopher and author of The True Doctrine, which was a refutation of Christianity written sometime around 175-180 CE [18]. From that information alone, we may already suspect that Celsus was simply relaying hearsay and traditions, writing so late after the gospel events allegedly took place. It is odd for Christians to cite Celsus as an example of a historical Jesus, because The True Doctrine is far from flattering in its mention of Christ. It contains several claims that are problematic indeed for a biblical Jesus, such as the assertion that Mary's illegitimate child was fathered by a Roman soldier named Panthera.

However, it's not so much the contents that Christians focus on as it is the way in which Celsus appears to reference a historical figure when he speaks of Jesus. Such a suggestion might have some weight, if Celsus had lived during the time of Jesus. By the time he wrote The True Doctrine, it's much more likely that Celsus was just commenting on what he had heard and what the Christians of his day believed. It is extremely difficult to know if the stories passed on to the author were historically accurate, and as such there is no reason to think Celsus is an independent, unbiased, or reliable source on Jesus.

IX. Lucian

Lucian is another Greek author who wrote a particularly scathing critique of Christianity, in the form of a satirical play called The Death of Peregrine.

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. [19]

It is easy to see that The Death of Peregrine was written around the mid-2nd century as a mockery of the Christian sect and its beliefs, not as a personal attack by someone who knew and disliked the 'historical Jesus'. Citing this material as evidence for Christ's existence is like citing 1984 as evidence for the existence of a literal nation of Oceania. It was written as satire, not historical record, and Lucian's main concern was not with the historicity of Jesus, but with the behavior and beliefs of Christians. Having written so late and neglecting to disclose his sources, it's improbable that Lucian relied on independent information, and unnecessary that he relied on unbiased information, for his satirical critique of Christianity.

X. Mara Bar-Serapion

Writing between 70 and 200 CE, Syrian philosopher Mara Bar-Serapion posed the following question to his son:

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given. [20]

Apologists have suggested that the "wise King" is Jesus, but this interpretation suffers a couple faults. First of all, this king is strangely unnamed amidst two other figures that are specifically identified. If Jesus was intended, why wouldn't the author have just named him? Jews would not have recognized Jesus as their "wise King" either, if the gospels are to be believed. Their role in executing Jesus is also disputable, as many scholars and historians have laid that blame on the Romans.

Secondly, why are we to assume that Mara Bar-Serapion was commenting with any attention to accuracy? The punishments described for the deaths of Socrates and Pythagoras are not historically true, neither is it true that Pythagoras was killed by the "men of Samos," as he escaped to live out the rest of his life in Metapontum (his tomb was being shown there as early as the time of Cicero). It seems likely that Mara was merely relating legends or mythologies to his son to impress a lesson upon him. The uncertain dating of the passage, the context of it, and the vague and problematic references to the king all reveal that Mara Bar-Serapion is not a reliable source for Jesus.

XI. A Jesus By Any Other Name

One last commonly cited extrabiblical source comes again from the historian Josephus. In Antiquities, Josephus mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [21]. This exceptionally brief reference may be the only independent, unbiased, and reliable secular source for Jesus. However, it's not without its skeptics, and a later comment in the passage about a "Jesus son of Damneus" has led to some suspicion of interpolation. It's also interesting that the only two instances where Josephus uses the Greek word "Christ" are the two controversial passages relating to Jesus. Although it is a title meaning 'messiah' or 'anointed one,' Josephus does not use it for any of the other messiah claimants he describes in his writings.

Nonetheless, the James passage in Josephus is unextraordinary and does not have the same inconsistencies or problems as the other extrabiblical sources. It is of a late date, but there's nothing mythical or unusual in the notion of Jesus having a brother. Jesus isn't even the main focus of the passage, and while this does offer support to the historicity of a man named Jesus, who was possibly called "Christ," and had a brother named James, it does not tell us anything more. Because of this, the source is really of more use for James than Jesus.

What we are left with will probably be displeasing to many apologists, because the goal has never been to just establish that Jesus existed, but to establish a particular identity for him as well. Looking at these extrabiblical sources that have circulated lists for decades, we can see why conservatives like Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and Gary Habermas have elected to place them on their lists. Josephus and the Talmud seem to speak of miracles and wonders. Thallus allegedly mentions a miracle from the crucifixion. Mara Bar-Serapion appears to connect the execution of Jesus to the fall of Jerusalem. Tacitus and Pliny reference persecution. In all of these cases, if one applies the apologist's interpretation, the gospel narratives are 'corroborated,' not only on basic details but on supernatural claims too. The appeal of these sources, and the vigor with which they're often defended via elaborate mental gymnastics, is explainable as a motivation of faith, not of reason or evidence.

Sources:

1. Strobel, L. (1998) The Case for Christ. p. 80,84. Zondervan: Grand Rapids.
2. Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews. XVIII.3.3.
3. Josephus. Jewish War. VI.312-313.
4. Kirby, P. (2001) Testimonium Flavianum. Early Christian Writings. Retrieved July 6, 2011.
5. Vermes, G. (2010) Jesus in the eyes of Josephus. Standpoint.
6. Eusebius. The Church History. Book I, Chapter XI. Retrieved Apr. 4, 2010.
7. Tacitus. The Annals. XV.44.
8. Wroe, A. (1999) Historical Notes: Pontius Pilate: a name set in stone. Retrieved July 6, 2011.
9. Harris, M. (1985) "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors." Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Vol. 5, p.351.
10. Mellor, R. (1993) Tacitus. p. 44. Routledge: New York.
11. Suetonius. Life of Claudius. 25.4.
12. France, R. (1986) The Evidence for Jesus. p. 42. Regent.
13. Jacobs, J. & Schulim Ochser. Rome: Expelled Under Tiberius. JewishEncyclopedia.com. Retrieved Apr. 4, 2010.
14. Pliny. The Letters of Pliny the Younger: Letter 96. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved Apr. 4, 2010.
15. Sanhedrin 43a. The Talmud.
16. Africanus, J. "Extant Writings". (1973) Ante-Nicene Fathers. XVIII. Vol. VI. p.130. ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
17. Eusebius. Chronicle. I. K125.2.
18. Anonymous. Celsus. Wikipedia.org. Retrieved Feb. 28, 2009.
19. Lucian. "The Death of Peregrine". (1949) The Works of Lucian of Samosata. Vol 4. Translated by H.W. Fowler. Oxford: Clarendon.
20. Bruce, F. (1972) The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 114. InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove.
21. Josephus. Antiquities. XX.9.