Specifically, Jesus Christ and the likes of Julius Caesar? Mel Gibsons new film and other message boards have gotten me wondering about a leaflet handed out by a religious organisation a while ago. It claimed there is more evidence for the existance of Jesus than Julius Caesar and other Kings/Emperors in ancient times. Is this so? It seems curious that a head of state who is more likely to be recorded in official records and the like is less well represented by historical artifacts
“…a leaflet handed out by a religious organisation…” should make you suspect of their claims. I’m an atheist, so I immediately take anything that a religious organization claims with a grain of salt, but I think that’s just a good rule of thumb for anyone.
I am not a classicist, but I would easily call BS on such a claim. From Julius Caesar’s reign, we have plenty of historical artifacts, both archaeological and literary, attesting to his existence–coins, sculptures, writings by him (The Gallic Wars) and about him by contemporaries (e.g., Cicero).
Compared to Caesar, we have virtually no documented evidence about Christ from his lifetime. In fact, all the earliest historical documents that refer to Christ–the Gospels, Paul’s letters, and Josephus and Tacitus’s accounts–were all written after his death.
I don’t doubt the historical existence of Christ, but certainly Caesar’s existence is much better documented.
I’ve heard this claim before. You need to remember that the religious organisation making this claim doesn’t cite any of their sources. If they did, the bulk of their sources would be composed of the vast number of printings of the Bible. In fact the Bible, for many, is the only relevant source. Inerrant and and divinely inspired unlike Cicero or Cato, by its very prodigiousness it provides more evidence for the existence of Christ than any other historical figure has.
My guess is that Mao’s Little Red Book had more printings in existence at some stage but it’s surely been overtaken by the Bible since his discrediting.
> My guess is that Mao’s Little Red Book had more printings in existence at some
> stage but it’s surely been overtaken by the Bible since his discrediting.
I believe that it’s always been true that there have been more copies of the Bible printed than of the Little Red Book. There have been 6 billion copies of the Bible printed but only 900 million of the Little Red Book (according to a couple of sources I’ve checked). It’s vaguely possible that the number of Bibles ever printed has doubled or tripled since, say, 1950, but surely not more than that. So even before the first Little Red Book was ever printed, there were surely 2 or 3 billion copies of the Bible already printed.
How much proof do you need before you believe someone existed??? Wow, Jesus existed. So? He obviously didn’t need some two-bit preacher to endorse him.
Sure Wendell. I never had any doubt that more Bibles than LRBs have been printed since Gutenberg. However, I was assuming there were more LRBs in existence at the height of the cult of Mao. I’m not questioning your figures though. If anything, I’d have thought there had been more Bibles and fewer Little Red Books printed (surviving or not) than the numbers you mentioned. I guess I had underestimated the idiocy of the Cultural Revolution not to mention the tenacity of individual Bibles.
You might want to add Plutarch’s Life of Caesar, though this is of course not the only biography of Julius Caesar. Interestingly, it was written around the same time the Gospels were being written (at least the earlier ones). None of the authors of these texts actually knew their subject. I suppose the timespan between Caesar’s death and Plutarch’s biography is longer than the time between the crucifixion and the writing of Mark (or Q) so maybe many of the details of Caesar’s life had been falsified in the interval. But there is little reason to believe the coins, statues, biographies, etc. were simply made up, and that Julius Caesar did not exist. Executing such an elaborate plot would have required a very strong motivation. The only motivation I can think of would be to justify the Roman imperium, and they hardly had to make up a great unifying leader in order to do that. At any rate, all the things which are attributed to Caesar – the conquest of Gaul, for example – must have been done by someone. (Or maybe the maps and artifacts were fabricated too. Maybe Jupiter scattered evidence of Roman occupation in northwestern Europe as a test of loyalty.) There is simply no reason to believe that Julius Caesar might not have existed, that he might have been an invention of his contemporaries, even if some of his qualities might have been exaggerated or even mythologized.
The same does not apply for Jesus, for whom little extrabiblical evidence exists. Of course, there are no coins, no statues – that can’t be expected of a religious leader. There are some passing references in classical literature to Christians – mostly summaries of their beliefs, and certainly not a biography. The only thing that comes close is a passage in Josephus’ Antiquities that is widely believed to be a later insertion or at least a modification. (The passage is discussed here. Be warned this does not favor the passage.)
So the historicity and the physical existence of Jesus really stands on the veracity of the New Testament, since the only real contemporary account is somewhat dubious. That is enough for many – certum est, quia impossibile.
Even if Julius Caesar did not exist, even if the biographies and the artifacts and the month of July were all simply made up, it would imply nothing about the existence of Jesus. I think it’s clear that there is substantially more evidence for the historicity of Julius Caesar than for the historicity of Jesus, though, so I conclude that the leaflet’s claim was incorrect.
Socrates is a bit more difficult than Julius Caesar, though there is still probably more evidence than for Jesus. While it’s true that Socrates didn’t record his own work (as far as I know), we certainly have volumes of Plato’s writings that make reference to him.
One crucial difference between Socrates and the others is that, because he was a philosopher and not a religious or political leader, he was an acceptable target for satire. Aristophanes’ The Clouds is a rather scathing parody of Socrates and his ideas, and was later used to condemn him.
Ironically, this play, which is still read and even still funny to a certain extent, won third prize in a contest of comedies. More ironically, the play that won, around 30 of Aristophanes’ plays, and a whole lot of other classical plays, poems, and works of all types were destroyed by the followers of another of the individuals being discussed.
Anyway, the comedy is one important non-Platonic source confirming Socrates’ existence. I’ve been told that the only thing we really know for sure about Socrates is that he existed – we can’t be sure that he said all the things Plato said he said, but we can be certain he said something.
Stone was a muckraking journalist turned amateur classicist, and I understand some classical scholars have found fault with his research, but as a layman, I found the book pretty exciting to read.
A former neighbor of mine had studied religion quite a bit. I don’t have a cite, but according to him, there was very little evidence that Jesus existed outside of the Bible. There was one brief mention of Jesus in a chronicle of things that were going on at the time, and it was kind of like here’s what’s going on in this area, and oh by the way there’s this guy named Jesus over in the next town with quite a following.
Julius Ceasar is clearly better documented, but (according to my neighbor) there was documented proof from a source outside of the church that Jesus did exist, just not much of it.
I’ve also heard the OP’s claim several times over the years. In my experience it seems to be popular in some circles as a defense against those who say there is no proof that Jesus existed. It’s not just one leaflet passed out by a single organization. It’s something that is believed by many different orgranizations and people.
Here are a couple of items that may be of interest, though they don’t directly address whether the evidence for Jesus is as strong as for other figures of the same era:
I heard that claim made by an historian. He was actually talking about the Gulf War and how it would be viewed by later historians. In making the point that studying contemporary history was very different due to the variety of sources he pointed out that many commonly accepted historical events and personalities have very poor contemporary accounts. He said that, for instance. most people would be surprised to learn that Julius Caesar has less contemporaneous proof of his existence than Jesus Christ does but no-one doubts that the accounts of Caesar’s life are true. He was simply comparing the study of ancient history to modern history. He also pointed out that in other wars accounts of the battles were only available sometime after the event, in the case of WWII often months or years later.
Could not have said it better myself man. I’m in Hon. Archaeology and Hon. Classical studies and this question blows my mind. I wont add anymore because you did a thorough job of answering the question (and also because I might go on a rant if I have to reply :P)
