Sorry if the title is a little misleading.
The other day, a friend and me were having a discussion about the origins of the book of Genesis, and the reasons why (IMHO) it should not be read literally. My friend was a little taken aback (he is a religious person), and made the statement that there is more documented proof of the existence of Jesus Christ than thewre is of Julis Caesar.
Can anyone tell me if this is true, or is it another UL?
Sorry again. The title should read: Jesus Christ v Julius Caesar.
Huh? I’ve never heard that one. Granted history get muddier the farther away from the event we get, but there is pretty good proof for both JC’s, I’d think.
Or did I miss something?
I guess that it just depends on your beliefs as to what you read into it!! It could be just coincidence, but then again…could just be a plot by the athiest fascists of this world in a sad attempt at not facing a reality!
There is very little arguement over whether a ‘Jesus Christ’ actually lived, because there is enormous documentation and evidence that he did. The question that most people argue over is whether or not he was actually the “Son of God.”
There’s certainly ample documentation of the existence of each, though it’s hardly true that there’s more for Christ.
For Jesus, the earliest written documentation is the epistles, mostly written by Paul who never met Jesus but at least spent LOTS of time interacting with those who did. There’s a great deal of dispute on the authorship of the Gospels–i.e., were they written by Christ’s disciples, based on earlier writings of Christ’s disciples compiled by later writers, etc., etc. Still, the writers were fairly close to the events described, especially by standards of ancient history.
Likewise, whatever your religious belief, it’s a bit hard to imagine that the early Christians, whose knowledge of Jesus would have to have been first or second hand, would have faced persecution and martyrdom for the sake of someone who never actually existed. Now, one could still argue that Jesus existed but wasn’t the Son of God; my point is that the argument that there wasn’t a Jewish prophet named Jesus seems very hard to make.
SO–your documentation lies in the epistles, the four Gospels, and the assorted apocrypha.
If I’m remembering correctly, there’s a quick reference to Christ in Josephus’ history of the Jewish uprising from around 70 AD, but some scholars call that a later addition to the text.
Caesar is exceedingly well-documented, not least through books he wrote himself (The Gallic Wars, anyone?), monumental inscriptions, histories written at the time, references in speeches by his political contemporaries, and so on ad nauseum.
Not to mention that Julius Caesar was a member of one of the most powerful families in Rome, preceded and succeeded by numerous other Julii. He needs no more evidence for his existence than I do.
MR
Thanks folks, you have just confirmed my thoughts on the matter.
On reflection, the statement did sound like one of those standard fundy christian retorts that surface when the faith is being questioned, or to be used when one has no real answer in a debate.
Perhaps I should have asked him for cites? 
There is another thread about contemporary mention of Jesus in the historical record. In my opinion, it is thin, but certainly not any more than other figures of note.
Except Julius Caesar. Jesus never actually wrote anything. Everything we know about him is from other sources who wrote about him. Caesar, on the other hand, wrote an autobiography.
Outside of the NT, I don’t believe there’s much documention for Jesus of Nazareth. He’s mentioned by one Roman historian/commentator and he’s mentioned in the Koran. No where else tho. Sorry, I don’t have a cite for the Roman commentator.
What, nobody knows how to search the archives anymore?
You might be talking about Tacitus.
On another note, even the great Roman critic of Christianity, Celsus (or Celsius?, I don’t recall), didn’t claim that Jesus didn’t exist. Instead, he concluded that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier.
I’d say there is better evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar, but that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that both existed.
That’s OK. We once had some poor soul wander through here whose pastor had claimed that there was more evidence for Jesus of Nazareth than for George Washington. (I don’t know who is ordaining these people, but they should stop it.)
I once came across a different version of this one - not Julius Caesar, but Hannibal using elephants to cross the Alps.
The article I read said that there is only one classical source that mentions the elephants, compared to the four Gospels, Acts and the epistles for the existence of Jesus.
'Fraid I don’t have a source for it, and I’m not familiar enough with classical materials to try to track it down. Anyone out there have any thoughts?
Not to change the subject too much, but from Cecil’s column:
Does anybody else find it remarkable that
A) Someone claims to know some of the physics of a miracle and
B) The prestigious journal “Nature” actually printed his blatherings?
<Sigh> How many times are religious apologists going to trot out this old lie? “There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for X,” where X is some famous historical person. Names I’ve heard so far include George Washington, Napoleon, William the Conqueror, and now Julius Caesar and Hannibal.
Here is a simple refutation to this argument. Tell your friend that in order to make such a statement, he must be completely familiar with every single piece of evidence for the historical Caesar. If he is not, then there may very well be evidence of which he is simply unaware, hence making his statement incorrect. Tell him that you would appreciate a list of all of the contemporary references to Caesar, which surely cannot be many, since they are allegedly outnumbered by the evidence for Jesus, which is quite small, as already mentioned in previous posts.
Watch as he blusters and flusters and finally admits that he has no clue what contemporary evidence there is for Caesar, and that he just saw this argument in some Christian apologetic text somewhere. Remind him that bearing false witness is a sin, and that he should not repeat this statement until he has researched it himself to check its veracity (or lack thereof).
Caesar was also mentioned in the historical record of the regions he conquered, the northern “barbarians,” and the Middle East kingdoms. Not to mention Egyptian record, which notes that Cleopatra had a child by him, who would have been king if wiley Augustus hadn’t killed him.
Let’s be generous. Let’s assume that every single one of the gospels and every single New Testament Book and Letter is a different, independent source. (This is being way generous, since lots of the letters are known to be by the same person; and since the first three gospels are almost certainly taken from the same source material, not eye-witness accounts; However, let’s not quibble.)
So we have, what, fewer that forty texts that mention Jesus. These are all texts written by people who believed Jesus was divine, and written by people who were trying to start a new religion and convert followers. You can’t exactly call them unbiased.
The only outside historian to mention Jesus is Josephus, and that reference is almost certainly a later addition. (Josephus was a brown-noser, who wrote whatever his patron wanted to hear; his patron would have been very anti-Christian, so it is highly unlikely that Josephus would have written glowing words about Jesus. And, IIRC, a copy of Josephus exists that does NOT have the added phrases about how brilliant and popular Jesus was.)
Someone mentioned the Koran, but that’s 600 years later. By that time, Christianity was a major religion.
There is no record of Jesus on the tax rolls. There is no letter from Pontius Pilate to Caesar saying, “Wow, this Jesus guy is a pain in the butt, how about I bump him off.” There is no letter from Mary to her cousin in Rome about how her son doesn’t want to be a carpenter, he wants to go to Gallilee and start a religion. There is no outside, independent evidence.
OK, now, let’s look at Caesar or George Washington or…
First off, we have texts written by Caesar. We have tons of legal documents, tax rolls, recordings of speeches in the Senate, lists of property owned and taxes paid, documents issued in Caesar’s name, dedications on buildings, – the list is endless. And, more to the point, these are INDEPENDENT writings. Their purpose was not to convert folks to a new religion and they had no ulterior motive in mentioning him.
Jesus doesn’t appear in Genesis. The book WHO WROTE THE BIBLE by Richard Elliott Friedman is very good on who wrote Genesis and other early books. He shows who was likely to have been the J,E,D, and P sources.
Also, the Gospels don’t present stories of Jesus as fiction, and several contradictory points of view are given, which would tend to show there was such a person, especially since it would be hard to find any other ancient character who was written about by several people in different ways who hadn’t really existed. The idea that there was no Jesus is preposterous.
The paternity of Caesarion (Caesar’s alleged child by Cleopatra) is far from a certain thing. As for his being King, he probably would have been King of Egypt, but he would never have been Roman emperor–the Roman people wouldn’t have stood for it.
Re the OP, I don’t think there’s any SERIOUS debate that Julius Caesar ever existed. There are also coins bearing his name (as well as a few bearing his likeness) that still exist.