I came across your website and looking for first-hand eyewitness evidence of Jesus’ ministry. I wish to quote a line you wrote:
In the early years of the church the story of Jesus was being told and retold by eyewitnesses of these events.
My question is, where are the original source documents that cite (at least some of) these eyewitnesses? Many Christian apologetics claim that there were many eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus. The question is, what evidence do we have that such eyewitnesses even existed?
Thanks for your question; it’s a good one. My first observation may sound a bit silly, although I don’t intend it to be so. But when I think about it, if there were no eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry, if literally no one witnessed anything of his teachings, miracles, etc., then it seems that we would simply have no record of these events at all (for no one would have witnessed them). But in fact, conservative scholars agree that we have a great deal of eyewitness testimony recorded in the New Testament documents themselves. For instance, the gospels of Matthew and John were written by two of Jesus’ original disciples. So both of these gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. Early church tradition claims that Mark’s gospel was based on the preaching of the apostle Peter (another eyewitness of Jesus’ life and ministry). And Luke’s gospel begins by noting the importance of eyewitness testimony to the ministry of Jesus:
Luke 1:1-4 says,
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
In addition, Peter (in his second epistle) wrote: “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”
Similarly, the apostle John begins his first letter this way:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1-4 ).
Finally, Paul writes of seeing Jesus after his resurrection: “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1)
These are just a few examples. Others could be offered as well. But these are sufficient (I think) to show that the earliest records we have of the life and ministry of Jesus claim to be solidly grounded in eyewitness testimony.
I hope this is helpful.
Shalom in Christ,
Michael Gleghorn
Probe Ministries
Thank you for your reply, and I thank you for your efforts to answer my question. I appreciate that you took time out of your life to answer it.
However, what I am really after is a list of non-Biblical sources that back up the Biblical sources. If the events of Jesus really happened, it would be logical to assume that there would be plenty more writings of this event. Well, this would at least appear logical in my mind.
I know there were at least two historians, Josephus and Tacitus, and also the Jewish writings of the Talmud. Why did these historians and sources only write a small amount? If Jesus really did turn water into wine, or fed 5,000 with two fishes, then this would attracted an incredible amount of attention.
It appears to me, and perhaps you can shed some light on this matter, that Christianity begun as a political movement whose ulterior motive was social control. It is only the fear of Hell that ultimately connects people to the Christian view, including mine.
Anyway, any correspondence would be appreciated. I’m not trying to debate you, but seek earnestly for answers.
Good questions! I’ve written a brief article which deals with some of the evidence you’re asking for. You can find it here.
One of the best book-length treatments that I’m aware of is Gary Habermas’s The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ..
Other helpful resources would be Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, Craig Evans’ Fabricating Jesus, and Robert Bowman and J. Komoszewski’s Putting Jesus in His Place.
Finally, I would highly recommend the articles dealing with the Historical Jesus by William Lane Craig, which you can find here.
These recommendations are all of high quality (some popular, some scholarly).
It’s important to understand that the New Testament documents are our earliest and best sources of information about Jesus. Many people don’t realize this, but it’s a fact that even liberal scholars don’t dispute. The New Testament was not originally written as a single volume. Rather, each book is an independent source of information about Jesus and early Christianity. In other words, what we have in the New Testament is not one source, but rather twenty-seven sources. Granted, many of these sources are authored by one individual (the apostle Paul), but my point is that these documents were originally separate, independent, sources of information. That’s an important point to bear in mind.
After the New Testament documents (and assuming you don’t include early Christian sources outside the Bible), the earliest non-Christian testimony about Jesus that survives is that of the Jewish historian, Josephus (near the end of the first century). After Josephus, there is Tacitus (a Roman historian) and so on. Three things must be borne in mind here:
1. Most of the written sources from the first and second centuries are simply lost to history. Only a fraction of what was written at this time survives to our own day. Thus, there could have been other sources of information about Jesus which are simply not available to us 2000 years later.
2. It’s really not strange that more non-Christian sources don’t record information about Jesus. After all, Jesus was a poor Jewish teacher who spent most of his time outside Jerusalem. Since most non-Christian historians of that time focused their writings on great political figures, military leaders, etc., it’s really not surprising that they wouldn’t mention someone like Jesus. Indeed, what’s actually surprising is that he IS mentioned by Josephus, Tacitus, etc. My point is this: Although Jesus is a hugely significant figure today, he was little known in the first century. The church is a worldwide phenomenon in our day, but it began as a very small offshoot of the Jewish religion. We shouldn’t think that Jesus’ name was a household term in the ancient world like it is today. The spread of Christianity took place over many centuries and continues today.
3. The Gospels (and other New Testament documents) should not be immediately discounted as reliable historical sources of information about Jesus. As I said, these are our earliest and best sources about Jesus. What’s more, we have good reason to consider these sources as reliable sources of information about Jesus. In addition to the resources recommended previously, see also Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.
Finally, I can only give a very brief response by email. Please be sure to check out some of the resources I’ve recommended above.
Michael Gleghorn
© 2009 Probe Ministries