Evidence points to existence of Jesus
I really appreciate the platform that Mercury Mailbox offers for the discussion of various matters and, as a new contributor, I also appreciate the comments that others have made regarding the information that I have presented so far.
The interchange of experience and information can only be good.However, in commenting on my letter about the historicity of Christ, I am sure that most readers will realise that letters are edited by the Mailbox team, and for good reason.
With this in mind I would like to say that only about half of my letter was printed and I really feel that the material left out would be beneficial to the ongoing discussion.
The two first century historians I mentioned, Josephus and Tacitus, are not the only non-Christian writers who have referred to Jesus in their writings.
Pliny the Younger and Seutonius also accepted that Jesus was a real person.
Referring to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times, even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus."
The historian HG Wells is reported to have said that a man's greatness can be measured by "what he leaves to grow and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigour that persisted after him."
Wells, although not claiming to be a Christian, acknowledged: "By this test, Jesus stands first."
We could also ask, is it reasonable to believe that a man who never lived could have affected human history so remarkably?
Just think about it, even calendars today are based on the year that Jesus was thought to have been born.
I fully accept that the Roman historians never actually met Jesus, but they, by their writings, show that they accepted that he lived. So they must have trusted their sources and, as respected historians, their word has value.
When I consider all of the available information – the harmony of the Holy Bible, the historical writings, the opinions of those of greater intellect than me and the effect he had on Mankind, I am absolutely convinced of the existence of Jesus Christ as a truly historical person. But what is he doing now?
Keith Coleman, Worthington
Historians later
In his response to my last letter requesting proof of Christ's existence, via the supporting evidence of contemporary historians who lived at the time of Christ but were independent of any biblical connection, Keith Coleman (Mailbox, September 12) points out that Christ is mentioned by the first century historians Josephus and Tacitus.
However, what Mr Coleman fails to mention is that neither of these writers had been born at the time that Christ is said to have lived (c. 7BC or 5BC— circa 30AD or 33AD).
Josephus was born in AD37, and Tacitus in AD55.
Consequently, their accounts about the life of Christ were written quite a few decades after the events were supposed to have taken place and neither of them was in a position to confirm Christ's existence from direct experience.
If the only material available to them were accounts given by the four Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, whose attestations would eventually form the first four books of the New Testament with descriptions of the life of Christ – all so varied, they sound as if they were played out in four parallel universes – then the reliability of Josephus and Tacitus' writings as factual historical documents is very questionable.
That is unless they had access to the writings of contemporary and reliable independent historians who lived at the time of Christ and could confirm his existence. If that is the case, who were they?
Alan Pendragon South Knighton
Proof is there if you look for it
Alan R Pendragon is still waiting for evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, in his letter, "Historical Proof Not Forthcoming" (Mailbox, September 1). A very reasonable request, I would suggest.
Of course, the Bible is the principal source of evidence that Jesus is an historical person. The record of the Gospels state clearly times, places and events in detail.
However, for someone who cannot accept just the Bible's accounts, other sources must be found.
The first century Jewish historian, Josephus, referred to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ," in his publication The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX sec. 200.
Tacitus, a Roman historian of the first century AD, wrote "Christus, from whom the name Christian had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius."
These two are not the only non-Christian, first century historians to have referred to Jesus in their writings. I sincerely hope his evidence provides the answers Mr Pendragon is seeking.
As to the other matters he raised, such as the virgin birth, the answers are all contained in the Bible.
Jesus is not Almighty God. He never claimed to be. The Bible does not say that he is. He is the "son of God". Perhaps that is a discussion for another time.
Keith Coleman, Worthington
Proof/probability divide enduring
May I make two points, one in particular and one general about the Christian v atheist argument, which has surely gone on long enough?
Mr Pendragon (July 31) fails to grasp what kind of history was written in classical times – and, indeed, much more recently.
Independent, unbiased historians could not exist before the days of printing and universities with history departments.
Josephus – the only historian who could matter in the context of the Holy Land – and his contemporaries were, like poets of the time, spin doctors, writing what pleased the Roman establishment.
In general, there will always be a division between people who insist on absolute proof, as with the famous square on the hypotenuse, and those of us – including me; I am a Christian – who are content with experience and the balance of probability, not only in religious contexts.
That is one reason why the proposal by the House of Lords to make all A-level courses include maths will fail to produce more engineers, though it will produce worse historians, worse linguists and so on, if it makes any difference at all.
What we need are not more round pegs but more square holes, to accommodate the human race in all its variety.
Veronica M Brown, Wigston
