# Is there no reference to Jesus in first christian century **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 14, 2013, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870 "2013-09-14T22:55:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/41 "2013-09-16T02:51:43Z")
Did Ehrman actually say the quote? If he did, in what context did he say it? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/42 "2013-09-16T03:39:47Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Did Ehrman actually say the quote? If he did, in what context did he say it? I haven’t read his book, but I’ve listened to podcasts of a number of courses of Biblical studies including one by Yale professor Dale B. Martin, who assigns Ehrman as reading, and these scholars accept that it was likely that there was a historical Jesus, but that he would be considerably different than what was portrayed in the NT. Googling, this person’s comment seems to make reasonable sense for the meaning of the quote, that it is telling people who believe that the NT is historical that it is not. > [@](#): > > On the matter of whether Jesus existed, the highly respected and renowned biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman, believes that in all likelihood some sort of Jesus existed, but that we can never really know for sure what he was like. A major reason for this is because the Gospel accounts are self-referential. We don’t have the original documents. What we have are copies of copies of copies of stories about stories. This cuts to the heart of the reliability of the NT. As Ehrman says: “Sometimes you will hear Christian apologists say that the NT is the best attested book from antiquity and therefore you can trust it. It’s true it’s the best attested book from antiquity, but the attestation evolved from a thousand years later. It doesn’t make sense to say you can trust it because it is well attested. If the NT was well attested then you could say what the NT originally said. Whether you can trust it or not is another question.” He also says that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness reports and we cannot rely on the Gospels as historically accurate! And I should add that even if there were eyewitnesses there is no way we can be sure that they saw what is often claimed they saw. We cannot cross-examine their supposed testimony. > > The NT is a self-referential document (thereby open to all sorts of fallacies and circular reasoning by apologists). Ehrmann is emphatic on this point: “Jesus is never mentioned in any Greek or Roman, non-Christian source until 80 years after his death. There is no record of Jesus having lived in these sources. In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, or religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero. Zip references.” > > This doesn’t mean that he believes Jesus never existed – clearly Ehrmann does. But it undermines the reliability of the NT as a source of historical evidence (and ultimately to its claims of being inerrant and divinely inspired). THIS is the real issue. Perhaps this comment was aimed at those who believe that the KJV is faxed from God. ---
**Author:** ![jbaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jbaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jbaker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/43 "2013-09-16T03:59:38Z")
Now that I’ve actually tracked down Ehrman’s quotation, it makes a lot more sense. It’s from a public debate, with Ehrman’s points summarized at [国产在线观看不卡,公交车车站最后一排被多人玩,人成午夜高潮免费视频,印度av无码一级,综合色美女,国产片一区二区,久久免费看黄片](http://www.cobourgatheist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1459:is-the-bible-accurate-history&catid=25&Itemid=107) and the Youtube short version at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0GF6YIk-2s&feature=youtu.be](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0GF6YIk-2s&feature=youtu.be). Ehrman’s point is simply that the Christian sources provide virtually all the first century information about Jesus, other than a couple of references in Josephus. In this context, it doesn’t matter that Paul and Josephus were Roman citizens or that some of the epistles arguably were private correspondence, because he’s specifically referring to sources other than Christian writers and Josephus. However, Ehrman very much is not arguing that this means Jesus did not exist. To the contrary, his article Did Jesus Exist? in The Huffington Post, [Did Jesus Exist? | HuffPost Religion](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html), includes the following: > [@](#): > > It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate. > > . . . . > > The question is not whether sources are biased but whether biased sources can be used to yield historically reliable information, once their biased chaff is separated from the historical kernel. And historians have devised ways of doing just that. > > With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) – sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus’ life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus’ closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/44 "2013-09-16T06:14:04Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That is a rational position, and therefore particularly inapplicable to the discussion, especially here in America, where most people believe that the Bible was written in English and Jesus had a listing in the Jerusalem phone book. Not most people, thank God… a surprisingly large amount, but nowhere near “most”. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/45 "2013-09-16T07:26:48Z")
> [@jbaker](#): > > Now that I’ve actually tracked down Ehrman’s quotation, it makes a lot more sense. It’s from a public debate, with Ehrman’s points summarized at [国产在线观看不卡,公交车车站最后一排被多人玩,人成午夜高潮免费视频,印度av无码一级,综合色美女,国产片一区二区,久久免费看黄片](http://www.cobourgatheist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1459:is-the-bible-accurate-history&catid=25&Itemid=107) and the Youtube short version at [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0GF6YIk-2s&feature=youtu.be](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0GF6YIk-2s&feature=youtu.be). Ehrman’s point is simply that the Christian sources provide virtually all the first century information about Jesus, other than a couple of references in Josephus. In this context, it doesn’t matter that Paul and Josephus were Roman citizens or that some of the epistles arguably were private correspondence, because he’s specifically referring to sources other than Christian writers and Josephus. Excellent find. Listening to the short version, it’s clearly a rebuttal to Craig Even’s claims of accuracy in the Bible. The debate concerned the reliability of the bible, including the four gospels, and it was debated before a crowd which believed them to be so. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/46 "2013-09-16T15:28:30Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Not most people, thank God… a surprisingly large amount, but nowhere near “most”. And yet, think about this quote from Ehrman that jbaker posted: > [@](#): > > If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church that Jesus was an only child and that mentioned siblings were in fact cousins or Joseph’s children by a previous marriage. I think [catholic.com](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin) should be a good cite: > [@](#): > > The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity. > > Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants. The most powerful evidence of the existence of Jesus comes from Jesus’s brother, yet the most powerful christian churches in world history must deny that Jesus ever had a brother to supply this evidence. It’s obviously true that some modern scholarship looks at the Bible rationally to try to uncover what Ehrman describes as the historical kernel. Trying to apply rationality to the church, the beliefs, the believers, or even all historians is a doomed exercise. People don’t want a rationalized religion. That’s atheism for them. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/47 "2013-09-16T15:44:07Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > As jbaker has already pointed out, epistles are not private correspondence. > > Ehrman is making a point, and uses very specific language to frame it in. He may be technically correct in it or not. But I’m very sure he’s not so stupid as to forget Paul. If you think he’s doing so, you’re the one who needs to double check your assumptions. That was and continues to be my point. No, of course I don’t think Ehrman \*forgot \*Paul. I think he phrased the quote in a way to make it seem like no letters from the first century mention Jesus, while remaining technically correct. In other words, he uttered the most sensational thing he could with a little bit of weaseling to keep it ‘true.’ ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/48 "2013-09-16T16:16:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Exapno** : > > The most powerful evidence of the existence of Jesus comes from Jesus’s brother, yet the most powerful christian churches in world history must deny that Jesus ever had a brother to supply this evidence. The Catholic church acknowledges the existence of James, that he had a brotherly relationship with Jesus, and that he was referred to as “the brother of Jesus”. The exact details of their familial relationship are irrelevant to the reference in Josephus. Of course, the Catholic church also doesn’t consider the reference in Josephus to be particularly necessary, since they of course consider the abundant Biblical references to Jesus to be perfectly sufficient. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/49 "2013-09-16T16:38:49Z")
I’m not arguing for or against the existence of Jesus, and I’m not arguing for or against the existence (or value) of faith. Merely that applying standard rationality tests to statements of faith is at best a shaky proposition and almost certainly irrelevant to all those who adhere to the faith. If you insist upon making it rational and relevant, then you do have to be consistent in its application. Using the Bible to prove the historic truth of the Bible is circular reasoning that is all too common. That’s my understanding of Ehrman’s statement. He’s saying that we need to expand your thinking to look at it from the outside. I’m seeing reflexive dismissal of that perspective in that thread. But that’s what makes Ehrman an interesting read for me. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/50 "2013-09-16T16:44:27Z")
**Exapno** , **Chronos** ’s point (IIUC) is that _your_ objection (quoted below) can be dismissed by understanding “Jesus’s brother” to mean “the person referred to as Jesus’s brother.” > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The most powerful evidence of the existence of Jesus comes from Jesus’s brother, yet the most powerful christian churches in world history must deny that Jesus ever had a brother to supply this evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/51 "2013-09-16T17:22:49Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > **Exapno** , **Chronos** ’s point (IIUC) is that _your_ objection (quoted below) can be dismissed by understanding “Jesus’s brother” to mean “the person referred to as Jesus’s brother.” Yeah, I got that. And I’m responding by saying that’s the problem, not a solution to the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/52 "2013-09-16T17:33:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It has been stated in this thread that, amazingly, no one ever doubted that Jesus existed when they wrote about him, but how amazing is it? Were there other figures from that approximate period of time who’s existence was questioned by those who wrote about them? I’m still wondering about this, btw. How strong _is_ this evidence of Jesus’ existence? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/53 "2013-09-16T18:59:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’m still wondering about this, btw. How strong _is_ this evidence of Jesus’ existence? Are you asking “How strong of evidence is it that nobody who wrote about Jesus questioned his existence?” I don’t know how to measure that. If we knew about somebody who didn’t exist, who some ancients for a long time never questioned the existence of, that might help. I have no idea if anybody fits that bill. ---
**Author:** ![johnspartan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a183cd/32.png) [@johnspartan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnspartan)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/54 "2013-09-16T19:15:35Z")
> [@destry](#): > > Can anybody verify or disprove the following? > > “In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!” > > ~Bart D. Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill > > If true, it seems so strange that it’s not been mentioned before. Isn’t Peter and the foundation of Catholicism generally dated to the 1st century? I don’t see significant dating of it after that (or much doubting of the historicity of Peter)… and certainly he addressed the topic. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/55 "2013-09-16T19:16:41Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Are you asking “How strong of evidence is it that nobody who wrote about Jesus questioned his existence?” > > I don’t know how to measure that. If we knew about somebody who didn’t exist, who some ancients for a long time never questioned the existence of, that might help. I have no idea if anybody fits that bill. Including Jesus. That fact that nobody questioned the existence of Jesus in the first few centuries he was written about could merely mean that people back then weren’t in the habit of questioning the existence of the people they were writing about because, for the most part, there was no way to fact-check the information. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/56 "2013-09-16T20:03:36Z")
Perhaps Christianity was not founded by Jesus, but by another person of the same name. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/57 "2013-09-16T20:10:15Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Perhaps Christianity was not founded by Jesus, but by another person of the same name. And perhaps he was just an amalgamation of several miracle workers, and the name of one of them just took. It’s much easier to put forth the idea of one Son O’God then several dozen of them, so he becomes the figurehead for the movement and a collection of tall tales are attributed to him to further the movement along…which would certain account for the disparity between the Gospels. ---
**Author:** ![johnspartan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a183cd/32.png) [@johnspartan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnspartan)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/58 "2013-09-17T21:36:04Z")
> [@johnspartan](#): > > Isn’t Peter and the foundation of Catholicism generally dated to the 1st century? I don’t see significant dating of it after that (or much doubting of the historicity of Peter)… and certainly he addressed the topic. I mean I suppose you could argue that Peter was neither Greek nor Roman so the statement still is true from a strict semantics perspective — though he settled in Rome long enough that now you’re just arguing citizenship issues, which is minutia even for historicity. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/59 "2013-09-18T01:39:22Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It has been stated in this thread that, amazingly, no one ever doubted that Jesus existed when they wrote about him, but how amazing is it? Were there other figures from that approximate period of time who’s existence was questioned by those who wrote about them? That has never been a strong argument for me. > [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > According to what I’m reading in ‘Zealot’, Jesus was one of hundreds (possibly thousands) of miracle workers/exorcists claiming to be the messiah at the time. So he wouldn’t be remembered by historians, people like him were everywhere. Isn’t the existence of Jesus’s brother James considered a historical fact? Doesn’t that imply something about his existence? > > However the book Zealot does imply Jesus’s family was known. So I don’t know if James (brother of Jesus) was pretending to have a brother Jesus he never had. Or if the apostles were pretending to know a Jesus that never existed. So historians don’t remember him, but the impression I got is his friends and family did. But the book implies they were illiterate, so they couldn’t really leave a record of their experiences. Again, there would be no outside historical record of James, brother of Jesus. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > And perhaps he was just an amalgamation of several miracle workers, and the name of one of them just took. It’s much easier to put forth the idea of one Son O’God then several dozen of them, so he becomes the figurehead for the movement and a collection of tall tales are attributed to him to further the movement along…which would certain account for the disparity between the Gospels. Assuming there is a Jesus, the disparity of the Gospels can be easily accounted for by various interpretation of Jesus’ teachings by the movement following his death, and for the propaganda purposes of the respective authors. There really isn’t a need to have multiple miracle workers to account for that. I’ve heard the argument that Jesus had been a disciple of John the Baptist and then founded his own group. This would be somewhat similar to this idea in that Jesus would have incorporated some of John’s message into his. OTOH, I would expect that with the reports of the miracles first recorded in the Gospels more than 40 years after the death, there would have been a significant amount of details either created or borrowed from other miracle workers. > [@johnspartan](#): > > Isn’t Peter and the foundation of Catholicism generally dated to the 1st century? I don’t see significant dating of it after that (or much doubting of the historicity of Peter)… and certainly he addressed the topic. Although that’s the traditional view, it’s not commonly accepted by most New Testament historians. The historians I’m studying explain that in the first century, there wasn’t a unified movement, and that orthodoxy developed only. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870/60 "2013-09-18T01:40:26Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Perhaps Christianity was not founded by Jesus, but by another person of the same name. Sure, but did he have the same birthday? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-no-reference-to-jesus-in-first-christian-century/668870.md?page=4)