What historical evidence supports the Gospel stories?

History provides with abundant evidence us for the existence of Jesus. There is more written about him than any other major character in history. Let's consider some sources other than the Bible that prove there was a man named Jesus

• Josephus Writes about Jesus
• ** Josephus was a Jewish Historian commissioned by the Roman Government to write the history of his people-The Nation of Israel.
  • He wrote seven books between 60 and 80 AD, about a generation after the life of Jesus. Of Jesus Josephus said, "He is a doer of wonderful works" He also said that Jesus was condemned to the cross by Pilate and appeared to them alive again on the third day. (Josephus 18.3.3).
  • It is significant to note that Josephus was neither a believer nor a Disciple of Jesus, yet he put Jesus in the same place and time as the Bible does.

• Thallus, a Gentile (circa AD 52) wrote a history about the Middle East from the time of the Trojan War to his own time. The work has been lost and the only record we have of his writings is through Julius Africanus (AD 221). Below Julius Africanus refers to Christ's crucifixion and the darkness that covered the earth prior to his death.

This reference reveals several key things:

Answer

Go to a library and look for a publication called Bibical Archeology Review magazine. There are literally hundreds of places that have been located that are in the Bible. Not to mention the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is a huge historical find which mentions many of the people spoken of in the Bible. also 2 Corinthians 5:7

Answer

Outside the Bible and the later fraudulent interpolation in the writing of Josephus, NONE.

Answer

Regarding the census mentioned in Luke 2:2, the context of which has been included, there is a good deal of different lines of evidence, some of which are outlined below.

Luke 2:1-8 (King James Version)

1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

It used to be thought that because there was no evidence supporting Luke's reference in Luke 2 v 2 to the taxing and to Cyrenius being Governor at this time, it therefore did not occur. However, as with many other Bible events, evidence has been found that such taxings occurred every 14 years, reference to the specific taxing involved and that Cyrenius was indeed twice Governor of Syria. Thus Luke's reference to this as the first taxing is particularly apt, since it is known that Cyrenius oversaw, with great trouble the second taxing around 10 years later.

The discovery of evidence regarding the first Governorship of Cyrenius also resolves the apparent contradiction between the date of the death of Herod and Cyrenius' (also known as Quirinius) second term of office some ten years later.

There are also a number of different lines of evidence which actually exist. It is not a personal belief that evidence actually exists. The question is whether or not one chooses to believe the evidence or not. It is also quite reasonable to assert that where an author has repeatedly been proven to be factual and reliable, as Luke has, that we can take things which have yet no evidence as likely to be correct. In any case, this is certainly not so here as evidence exists.

Regarding the time of Year

According to Luke 2:8 the shepherds were out in the fields watching their flocks at night. This is apparently unlikely to take place in the winter and is thought by some to have been late September, which would make the end of December of the previous year as the time of the miracle of the incarnation. The adoption of December 25 has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual date of Jesus' birth. This is not an unusual thing even in modern times as a holiday for the birthday of the Queen Elizabeth II of England is not held on her actual birthday either.

Evidence from Common Ancient Literary Usage

It is not at all significant that the exact date is not known to us as the fact of both Jesus' birth and death and glorious resurrection are more important to the writers and their meaning, not the actual date in chronological terms, such as we are obsessed with today. Ancient writers commonly only focused on key events in a life or in the history of a nation. In any case, September would be autumn in Israel. Jesus was born sometime before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC.

Luke the careful historian follows the usual custom of other ancient writers by using a known event to anchor the timing of another viz. Jesus birth. Both the census decreed by Augustus Caesar, and the position of Quirinius were undoubtedly known to those who were contemporary with the events.

The visit of the wise men to Jerusalem and Herod and the subsequent murder of the children were also undoubtedly known. In connection with murder, Herod even killed his own son. This led Augustus to remark in reference to Herod's Jewish aversion to pigs and this event, 'It is better to be Herod's sow than to be his son.' So, although this event does seem 'in character' for Herod, it is not useful at this point for our inquiry due to a lack of detail from elsewhere.

Evidence Regarding Herod's Death

Since Luke has provided a number of historical 'anchors', it is possible to state with certainty that Jesus was not born after 4 BC. Herod the great is known to have died around the time of a lunar eclipse which can be fixed by astronomes at 12-13 March in the year 4 BC.

Evidence from the Account of the Wise Men

Although not corroborated elsewhere, what this account shows is that Luke puts the birth of Jesus some considerable time prior to the death of Herod. This is shown in the fact that Luke refers to Herod's reckoning, 'according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.'Thus his ordering the slaying of the children 'from two years old and under,' demonstrates the considerable time that had transpired since Jesus' birth, probably close to two years.

Evidence from a 'Hostile Witness'

Julian 'the apostate' born in 331 AD was so called since, even though he was raised as a Christian, he renounced and became an enemy of Christianity when he came to the imperial throne as Emperor in the year 361. As Emperor he had access to all the imperial records and so wrote in a defiant tone when speaking of the enrolment of Mary and Joseph at Bethlehem, as it is mentioned in Luke 2 above.

"There is absolutely no known record of evidence that Jesus was "enrolled as one of Caesar's subjects," unless it was at the time which Julian affirms. He says : "Jesus, whom you celebrate, was one of Caesar's subjects. If you dispute it, I will prove it.....for yourselves allow that he was enrolled by his father and mother at the time of Cyrenius." (Lardner, Works, 7:626-27) as quoted from Merril F Unger, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, Moody, Chicago 1988. p. 231.

Evidence from Patristic Sources

The references to the works of Justin Martyr and Tertullian are relevant in that they appeal to the records of the Romans. Such were evidently still extant at the time, and so could have and would have been gladly used by the opponents of Christianity at the time.

Justin Martyr (born 105 AD) says: "Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registries of the taxing under Quirinius your first procurator in Judea." (First Apology, chapter 34.)

The context was Justin defending the Christians from persecution by the government. He is most unlikely to appeal to their own records if they did not exist or contradicted his account and so thus giving them a further reason for accusation against the Christians.

Tertullian (born 160 AD) in similar context of defence also appeals to the Romans own records. In referrring to the same enrolment event Tertullian says:

"There is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry repsecting the family and descent of Christ." (Marcion 4.19).

With respect to Luke's reference, it must be pointed out that Luke refers to the timing of the census, not who carried it out. Although, of course, it is likely that Cyrenius was involved in the census where he had jurisdiction.

First answer by Limpetmine. Last edit by Cumsai. Contributor trust: 4 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 45 [recommend question]