I once again understand the usefulness in recording the major things that I struggle with in my mind. I often return to these same things. It means that I have either failed to fully convince myself of a position on the issue in the past, or I have forgotten the proof that led me to the decision and no longer trust my past-self's judgment. The latter is almost always the case... I usually have this train of thought, "Ah, I know I thought I figured out this before, but how?" And then I go on to recall the arguments. I either convince myself again or I fail to.
Today, I failed to.
How can I trust the Bible? >> Trust the author(s)/process. I feel I can trust the inspired word by trusting the person who claimed to inspire it all, God. >> Is there evidence aside from the Bible that Jesus existed?
Is there evidence aside from the Bible that Jesus existed?
Immediately, I recall Josephus (first century Jewish historian). Antiquities is important, but I don't remember why. A quick google search reminds me: this is the work that claims to record the history accurately, despite Jewish historians recording inaccurately at the time. (Josephus is Roman and Jewish who was hired by and wrote from within the Roman empire, and he was also hired by the Romans for some special appointment regarding the Jews in a particular area). Josephus very clearly acknowledges Jesus' existence, Jesus' claims to be God, the miracles good deeds he had done[, and confessions of Jewish higher-ups wanting to take him down before his religion and followers overtake Judaism].
This bracketed region was harder to verify by going back. It is not so nicely stated anywhere in the works. There are numerous accounts of historians referencing Josephus on this matter, which I feel comfortable with. Josephus is not a perfect historian and is very exaggerated in many things. He retells biblical stories with his own twists and lessons. My major takeaway about Josephus is that he was too self-interested to be taken at face value. His motive was obviously to make Judaism more palatable to the Greeks by framing it in a very logical way. He was also trying to make the Roman empire look good while preserving the Jewish reputation in some ways. Despite this, I feel comfortable trusting his word that Jesus existed and that the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus (whether the initial intent was through stoning or crucifixion with Roman approval).
Herod was an extremely cruel and law-breaking ruler. He was regularly having people killed for crimes that were not worthy of death or were unproven. A common crime not found anywhere in the Law that he accused people of was a crime against the state[1]. It is very in line with his character, then, to push for the death of Jesus. Rome also behaved in a similar manner and was happy to punish those that did not serve the state properly. Rome was also apparently happy to crucify people (which could only be ordered by a Roman judge). The existence of Jesus' fame, then, fits.
Someone who wanted to start a religion could have taken advantage of this time and just added in Jesus as one of the crucified without anyone being able to easily verify or disprove the event of the crucifixion. They would need to make up all of the events and then tie it back to Judaism (making use of the prophecies to capture the attention of religious Jews). Rumors would spread and historians would hear the stories and write them down.
How do I know this didn't happen?
No one can know anything for certain. But, I would bet my life that a huge sect of Jewish people would not be willing to suffer and die for a rumored man they or someone they trust had never met or seen. Imagine that 100 people agreed to lie and say that they had seen Jesus do miracles. They could each have 100 people that trust them and would believe what they say and that could produce 10,000 followers. Those 100 people could each have 100 people that trusted them and you could have 1,000,000 followers. But if you asked them to die for what they believe, perhaps the 10,000 would, but would the 1,000,000? Doubtful. The estimate of persecuted Christians during the first century is 2 million.
Tacitus
Very anti-Christian, very Roman, but definitely said Pontius Pilate condemned Jesus to death. That's all I remember.
Pliny the Younger
I had not, prior to writing, read anything about this man. Essentially, he just said Rome was expelling Christians for causing disturbances and constantly singing hymns to Jesus as if he were God[2]. He was asked to investigate. This means that Jesus was widely accepted as a living person in the surrounding areas.
Trust the Bible?
I can go from here in my mind and get back to belief in many things. If Jesus existed and he gained a following, it was likely for a reason. I can easily move from "Jesus existed, but he was not God," to "Jesus was God" based on the devotion his followers had. Perhaps he was just a great leader who pointed out the flaws of Judaism and offered an alternative, like Martin Luther. But, Jesus also claimed to be God and claimed to have done miracles, and he has followers back that up. It's a bit harder to understand where that power would have come from then. He could have been a prophet or a shaman, but the Jewish prophecies describe all of these events of the Messiah, including a few that would be out of the control of the shaman. The events of God pronouncing Jesus as his son are important regarding this, too.
I could have skipped this mess and focused on just the prophecies of the Old Testament and arrived at trusting the Bible. However, my emotional concerns were really focused on whether or not Jesus existed today, not on trusting the Bible.
If Jesus existed, then I mostly trust what he said aloud, including that he was God, including that the Holy Spirit would dwell inside christians and act as a counselor, and including his belief in the Old Testament as trustworthy. I can trust the New Testament based on the validity of the Old in addition with the transpiring of history.
I very clearly have not mentioned many things: canonicity, the prophecies of the Old Testament [regarding the Messiah], actual proof (instead of merely compelling arguments). But, none of these were my aim or goal or concern, I have resolved each on my own in the past. This was the pointed piece of my faith that was faltering today.
__
1. Zeitlin, Solomon. “The Crucifixion of Jesus Re-Examined.” The Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. 31, no. 4, 1941, pp. 327–369. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1452234. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.
2. Melmoth, William. “10.96 To the Emperor Trajan.” Pliny Book 10, Letter 96 (English), www.vroma.org/~hwalker/Pliny/Pliny10-096-E.html.
