Many engaged in academics make the mistake of denying the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. A favorite tactic of many Athiests is to deny the existence of Christ and even the existence of historical documentation of his existence. The denial of Christ’s existence is rather ancient, but it did not gain a strong foothold in academia until the renaissance. The church, both Protestant and Catholic, strongly refuted this outright rejection of the very nature of Christ, but from time to time the rejection of even the physical existence of Jesus has reared its demonic head and this was most notably seen in French enlightenment era philosophes, Marxism, and in European scholarship following the First World War of 1914-1918.
To be fair some of these doubts as to the authenticity of some of the documents supporting the existence of Jesus in secular history have some grounds as the overzealous Christian Historian Eusibeus embellished the words of Flavius Josephus, the noted first century Jewish historian. That being said there is a considerable historical and archaeological record that supports the existence of Christ.
Flavius Josephus is the first historian whose works will be explored, for the sake of historical accuracy the questionable passages will be bolded. That being said here is the passage, in its entirety from Antiquities Book 18, Chapter 3, section 3.:
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 Jews and many of the gentiles. He was the Christ And when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men among 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 on 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 to this day.
Again in the third century the church historian Eusibeus embellished Josephus’ passage to give Christ a divine nature, but the rest of the passage is legitimate. The second historian to be explored is Publius Cornelius Tacitus. While describing Nero’s response to the Fire of Rome, Tacitus describes Christians and their founder and here is what he said:
Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was
to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the
Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to
Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the
matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast,
whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the
goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils
celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish
gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not
banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an
order. 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.
Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a
show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a
charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who
deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of
compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but
to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
This can be found in the Fifteenth Book of The Annals of Imperial Rome Chapter Fourteen
The final historian to be examined is Suetonius who mentions the harsh treatment and the fear of their dangerous superstitions when he writes about Nero and Claudius. In the twenty fifth chapter of his writing on Claudius he writes:
Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.
(my comment, if you want to see something thats kinda cool read Acts 18:2 which says: 2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.)
While writing about the life of Nero, Suetonius writes in his sixteenth chapter on Nero that:
A sumptuary law was enacted. Public suppers were limited to the Sportulae [576]; and victualling-houses restrained from selling any dressed victuals, except pulse and herbs, whereas before they sold all kinds of meat. He likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious [577] superstition.
In addition to the historical documentation there is also much in the way of archaeological support. This is amazing considering that of the original histories of that era we only have a few fragments and scraps. When one combines archaeology, scripture, and history, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there was indeed a Jesus who claimed to be Christ. This then returns to the original argument of was Jesus of Nazareth a liar, insane, or who he says he was. If he was a liar why did the disciples keep the faith after the resurrection? If it were me and I had saw someone on the cross who claimed to be messiah I would have walked away from the faith without a very real resurrection. For the same reason we must rule out that he was insane. The only possible answer in light of scripture, history, and archaelogy is that Jesus Christ is who he says he is.
