Apologists will be quick to assert that there are extra-biblical references to Jesus, though none date to his time and the few that are supposed references each have their own problems.
The strongest piece of evidence that there even was a historical Jesus on whom Christian mythology was based is from the Annals of Tacitus. This is a second century reference that explains this obscure religious group called "Christians" gain their name from a leader "the anointed one" ("Christos" in Greek) who was crucified by "procurator" Pilate. This reference is oblique (doesn't even mention "Jesus" by name), late (second century) and Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator. This is as detailed and close to the actual time of supposed events as the historical references get.
A weaker piece of evidence are the two supposed references in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. The first is the Testimonium Flavianum, which is such a frankly laughable piece of hyperbolic Christian propaganda (that fires off in bullet point fashion all the main doctrines of Christian theology in one paragraph) that even apologists are forced to admit there are problems with the authenticity. "Rank forgery" is one memorable quote from a Christian bishop in the 18th century.
Christian apologists are more likely to try to use the "Jamesian Reference" two chapters later that introduces a "brother of Jesus, James". Those who are unfamiliar with the passage may be unaware that the common name "Jesus" is clarified to belong to the "Son of Damneus", not the son of Joseph that Christians will want to hear about.
There's a small collection of even weaker extra-biblical references to Jesus, including:
- Seutonius: Places one "Chrestos" ("the good one") in Rome during the time of Claudius' reign.
- Bar Sarapion: Asks in about 70 CE what the Jews gained by killing an unnamed "wise king".
- The Talmud: A fourth century (!) reference to a "Jesus" who was tried for sorcery in a trial that lasted 40 days. Jesus was, again, a common name and this "Jesus" was some government official or otherwise well connected, which was why, the Talmud explains, the trial lasted so long. No date provided as to when this trail occurred. There are curiously no Jewish references to the Gospel Jesus at any time prior (odd for someone who caused so much controversy within the ranks of the Jewish clergy at the time).
- Thallus: This one is truly sleazy, even by apologist standards.
A Christian Africanus in the 3rd century offers a brief rebuttal of an alleged claim by Thallus that an eclipse created a darkness at the alleged time of the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. We have NO actual writings of Thallus. Even his name comes to us from apologist sources. We can't confirm what Thallus actually wrote or that his claims were faithfully presented by Africanus.
- Pliny: Confirms that there were Christians in the 2nd century. Why is this evidence for Jesus again?
There you have a complete catalog of all the questionable scraps offered by apologists. None of them date to the time Jesus allegedly performed miracles or causing tremendous upheaval in the political and religious landscape. Neither Jewish nor pagan sources apparently considered "the historical Jesus" worthy of mention.
My personal conclusion is that if Jesus existed, he was a wandering rabbi that was so obscure in his own time that no one paid any attention to him and good luck ever knowing what he really preached or what he really did.
The strongest piece of evidence that there even was a historical Jesus on whom Christian mythology was based is from the Annals of Tacitus. This is a second century reference that explains this obscure religious group called "Christians" gain their name from a leader "the anointed one" ("Christos" in Greek) who was crucified by "procurator" Pilate. This reference is oblique (doesn't even mention "Jesus" by name), late (second century) and Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator. This is as detailed and close to the actual time of supposed events as the historical references get.
A weaker piece of evidence are the two supposed references in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. The first is the Testimonium Flavianum, which is such a frankly laughable piece of hyperbolic Christian propaganda (that fires off in bullet point fashion all the main doctrines of Christian theology in one paragraph) that even apologists are forced to admit there are problems with the authenticity. "Rank forgery" is one memorable quote from a Christian bishop in the 18th century.
Christian apologists are more likely to try to use the "Jamesian Reference" two chapters later that introduces a "brother of Jesus, James". Those who are unfamiliar with the passage may be unaware that the common name "Jesus" is clarified to belong to the "Son of Damneus", not the son of Joseph that Christians will want to hear about.
There's a small collection of even weaker extra-biblical references to Jesus, including:
- Seutonius: Places one "Chrestos" ("the good one") in Rome during the time of Claudius' reign.
- Bar Sarapion: Asks in about 70 CE what the Jews gained by killing an unnamed "wise king".
- The Talmud: A fourth century (!) reference to a "Jesus" who was tried for sorcery in a trial that lasted 40 days. Jesus was, again, a common name and this "Jesus" was some government official or otherwise well connected, which was why, the Talmud explains, the trial lasted so long. No date provided as to when this trail occurred. There are curiously no Jewish references to the Gospel Jesus at any time prior (odd for someone who caused so much controversy within the ranks of the Jewish clergy at the time).
- Thallus: This one is truly sleazy, even by apologist standards.
A Christian Africanus in the 3rd century offers a brief rebuttal of an alleged claim by Thallus that an eclipse created a darkness at the alleged time of the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. We have NO actual writings of Thallus. Even his name comes to us from apologist sources. We can't confirm what Thallus actually wrote or that his claims were faithfully presented by Africanus.
- Pliny: Confirms that there were Christians in the 2nd century. Why is this evidence for Jesus again?
There you have a complete catalog of all the questionable scraps offered by apologists. None of them date to the time Jesus allegedly performed miracles or causing tremendous upheaval in the political and religious landscape. Neither Jewish nor pagan sources apparently considered "the historical Jesus" worthy of mention.
My personal conclusion is that if Jesus existed, he was a wandering rabbi that was so obscure in his own time that no one paid any attention to him and good luck ever knowing what he really preached or what he really did.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
