I was just wondering if anyone knows of any evidence, through Roman records and such like, that supports the existence of Jesus. I'm after non biblical evidence here.

Ta.

I'll answer the best I can.

Tom/TVoLT makes a good point about there being a lack of credible non-Gospel writings before 100. The 64 Fire likely would explain why there's a paucity of Roman records.

However, there's a very important section that I didn't see touched upon (maybe it was, but I only read the first replies of the people here and not all of them). That deals with the nature of Jesus's life and ministry.

The problem with documenting such a life is this: he was a nobody for most of his life. Outside of his parents being counted in a census (if one takes that account at face value), there likely would not be any documented evidence of a Yeshua of Nazareh outside of eyewitness accounts.

The 64 fire and the 70 destruction of Jerusalem likely would have erased almost any mention of such a character, if any had been made in the first place. Also, considering that there were quite a few wanna-be Messiahs wandering the hillsides of Judea and Galliee during this time, the execution wouldn't have stood out. If you've seen one crazed prophet, you've seen them all, the Romans likely would have thought

So the person seeking historical evidence is left to depend upon eyewitness accounts. The problem is that eyewitness accounts usually are oral in nature. Maybe later, if it's really important (say the eyewitnesses are dying off due to persecution or to any number of age or disease-related causes), these accounts are written down. This is likely the origins of the canonical Gospels, the earliest of which wasn't written until around 70 CE/AD based on historiographical evidence. That's a full generation after the crucifixion events. Now Paul's epistles are the earliest known written evidence (likely between 463 AD), but again they are many years after the fact and the accounts of Jesus the person are based on reports Paul would have heard from others (as well as his own vision account).

Also, don't forget that the majority of people could not read or write, even though the literacy levels were likely much higher than subsequent early medieval literacy estimates. So that would probably explain why there weren't many written records of any sort in the Judea province. By the way, did you know that until recently, there was question as to whether or not Pontius Pilate was ever the Roman Procurator for Judea? It wasn't until a limestone block was found in Casearea recently that bore his name and title that conclusive evidence was found for Pilate being in the region at that time. So if the Roman records do not easily show Pilate being there, why would there be a great likelihood of a charismatic figure being recorded, especially if he didn't operate much in the Jerusalem area before the crucifixion?

I guess what I'm trying to illustrate here with this long-winded () response is that written records just wouldn't have been kept during Jesus's lifetime or even for his death. Since the Christians were considered by the Romans (based on ancilliary evidence) to be a Jewish sect, very little notice would have been taken prior to around 60. It was around then that there was a riot in Rome dealing with the explusion of Christians from the local synagogues, if I remember correctly.

So in the end, one has to accept that virtually all of the earliest records relating to Christianity are going to be Christian writings. Who else would have given a damn in the early years? If these are practically the only contemporaneous sources (and I say that with tongue-in-cheek, considering the oldest extant documents are a generation or two after Jesus's death), then one has to examine these texts and deconstruct whatever messages or hints as can be sifted through the biases of the authors.

I hope this made some sense.


Dylanfanatic

Illusions fall like the husk of a fruit, one after another, and the fruit is experience. - Narrator, Sylvie

OF Blog of the Fallen