Historicity of the Bible - #1 Biblical Reflections

Alexander the Great died in 323BC . Strangely enough there was no historical documents nor autobiographies written during that period. Historians like Arian and Plutarch later documented his life . Arian did write ‘ Anabasis of Alexander’ which is considered the source document evidencing his life events. Historians do consider this as a reliable document even though it was written 300 - 400 years after his death. Despite the time gap , the document is considered trustworthy.

 So what makes a document reliable ?

 

These are vital questions - not just for historical curiosity but also for our faith . These are some of the most debated questions we are going to ponder upon . So here we go on an adventure.

 

1)  Are the biblical records accurate and is it a reliable source ? ( New testament )

2)  Did Jesus really exist and if so was he crucified ?  

 

Earliest Biblical Records

 

ü The Earliest biblical records we have is Pauline Epistoles (letters of Paul), dated around AD 49 - 67

ü Jesus died during AD 30 - 33 AD according to historical evidences.

ü Mark being the earliest Gospel was written around AD 65 - 70

 

Evidence Outside Christianity

Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian)

vAntiquities of the Jews (AD 94) mentions Jesus, John the Baptist, and James.

ü Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3: Refers to Jesus as a wise man, a worker of wonders who was crucified under Pilate. He appeared to his believers as foretold by the prophets.  Though debated (possibly later Christian edits), it still points to his existence.

ü Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1: Mentions James, “ the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ”, who was executed by stoning — widely regarded as authentic.

ü Book 18, Chapter 5, Section 2: Describes John the Baptist, his influence, and execution by Herod—considered the strongest evidence outside the Christian doctrine.

Tacitus (Roman historian)

ü In Annals (AD 116, Book 15, Chapter 44), he confirms Christ was executed under Pontius Pilate. Scholars view this as highly reliable although he has not provided the source of information.

Lucian of Samosata (Greek satirist)

This is what he wrote - “ The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day— the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property. (The Death of Peregrine, The Works of Lucian of Samosata. Translated by Fowler, H W and F G. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. 1905.)

ü Mocked Christians for worshiping a crucified man and rejecting worldly goods (The Death of Peregrine).

ü His hostility ironically strengthens the evidence of Jesus’s existence—he had no reason to invent such details.

Celsus (Greek philosopher, critic of Christianity)

ü In The True Word, he attacked Jesus’s virgin birth, called him illegitimate, accused him of sorcery, and ridiculed Christian faith as downright foolish. The blind faith of Christians were bewildering to him and he used it to further the proclamation that Christianity is a false religion. When compared with the Greek Gods he said that the Christian God isn't all powerful or all knowing.

ü Though critical, his writings indirectly affirm that Jesus lived and had followers.

---

What Does This Tell Us?

All these independent sources—friendly, neutral, and hostile—point to a man named Jesus, who:

ü Existed in history,

ü Taught and gathered followers,

ü Was crucified under Pilate,

ü Left behind a movement that grew despite opposition.

From a logical standpoint, to truly know Jesus, should we rely on eyewitness testimonies (the Gospels), or later secondhand accounts? If you should put trust into the testimonies why only Luke , Mark , Mathew and John ? Why not others? Was it because these were the earliest accounts or were there some other reasons?

The historical consensus is clear: Jesus existed and was crucified. But the deeper question remains—how do we truly know him, and which accounts reveal the truth about his life and ministry?

We have answered the 2nd question but the 1st question still remains. Why not investigate the image the Gospels portray? Is that the true image of Jesus ? Should we trust those sources ? That’s what we’ll explore in the next post: The Analysis of the Gospels of Luke , Mark , Mathew and John.

 

# Note : The opinions, I shared here are not final and may evolve with further study and reflection.