Are there any historical mentions of Jesus or his miracles by anybody that ever met Jesus?

Are there any historical mentions of Jesus or his miracles by anybody that ever met Jesus?

I presume you mean never your typing is nearly as bad as mine :smiley:

I pressume that the question was stated as it is, and not with “never” implied. If that is the case, the Jewish historian Joshephus mentions Jesus in his writings, so we know that he was truely here, and not just some made up person.

As to the second question dealing with healings, I take that to mean “Are there any writings by those whom were affected my Jesus’ miracles?” For that answer, I have no idea.

I can’t believe you’re discounting the entire New Testament as an historical document. :eek:

I think it’s funny that because this best evidence was gathered together in the Bible it is automatically discounted.

I agree. What’s wrong with the Gospels? If there’s anything I want to know about Jesus they’re the first place I go.


a jewish historian at the time recorded the crucification of Jesus for claiming to be God.
haven’t got a link to give you remeber watching about it on discovery channel

I meant besides the Gospels.

I understand the question to be, “Are there any historical documents mentioning Jesus or his miracles by someone who personally knew him, aside from the New Testament?”

Objectively speaking, there are lots. But I think we have to narrow our focus again. Naturally, we want to consider credible historical testimonies. I say this because the Gnostic scriptures are historical records purported to be by people who knew Jesus personally, examples including the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Acts of Peter, etc. But most Scripture scholars believe that even though these documents claim to be from 1st Century eyewitnesses, they were actually penned by 2nd Century (and later) Gnostics. The authors were attempting to put a Gnostic spin on what we find in the New Testament, so the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, for example, was not actually written by Mary Magdalene.

In light of all this, I think the challenge at hand is to only consider what is generally considered to be credible documentation of actual 1st Century Christians. But if we also want to examine the documentation of people who knew Jesus personally, but exclude what is in the New Testament, I don’t think we will have much luck. After all, if someone knew Jesus personally and made a written record of his miracles and such, why wouldn’t that have ended up in the New Testament? To put this another way, I think it is safe to assume that all surviving credible records of the memoirs of people who knew Jesus personally ended up in the New Testament, and therefore we should not expect to find any outside the New Testament.

In terms of people of the ancient world who wrote about Jesus but may not have ever encountered him in person, we have the 1st Century Jewish historian Josephus who briefly mentions Jesus, describes him as a wonder-worker, and states that his “tribe” (i.e., Christians) has grown. There are additional comments displaying some pretty heavy Christology, so much so that many historians believe them to be additions made by a later Christian. After all, if Josephus actually wrote such things why didn’t he convert?

I would like to cite the actual passage from Josephus for you, but I am about to go on a road trip and do not have the time at the moment. But hopefully someone else will supply that information (even though it may not be the sort of thing that you are specifically looking for). A long time ago I once heard about another ancient historian (I think a Roman) who briefly mentioned Jesus, but it came to him as news from afar, and therefore there was not an eyewitness. I don’t know anything else about this other alleged historical source or even if it is true.

The OP is asking whether we have any accounts written by people who actually met Jesus. The Gospels, as most scholars know, were not written by eyewitnesses. They were produced later in the first century (decades at the earliest after the supposed events) by people who were not eyewitnesses.

Josephus was not an eyewitness, nor was Paul (though he apparently had some sort of visionary experience, he never actually met the historical) Jesus.

There don’t seem to be any first hand eyewitness accounts of the man.

Matthew and John, their Gospels. Luke draws from eyewitness accounts as well.

EDIT: oops

A good case can be made that the 4th gospel is from an eyewitness (either John the Apostle or John the elder as Richard Bauckham has recently argued in his recent book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). Many scholars think Matthew Levi authored the gospel of Matthew.

As Jason Engwer has written, "If a historical source tells us that somebody saw the risen Jesus, what’s the significance of the fact that the resurrection witness in question didn’t leave us a New Testament document in which he made the claim that he saw Jesus risen from the dead? If Josephus tells us that Herod the Great made claim X, do we dismiss Josephus’ report just because we don’t have a document from Herod in which he affirms X?

The Apostle Paul says that he met with the apostle Peter and James the relative of Jesus just 5 years after Jesus’ crucifixion (Galatians 1:18-20). He then said he met with the apostle John 14 years after that (Galatians 2:9) and they gave Paul the right hand of fellowship (Galatians 2:9). These three agreed with Paul as to what the gospel consisted of. Paul’s summary of that gospel is in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and includes the bodily resurrection as its focal point.

How long are you going to continue expressing this erroneous statement on CAF? As I have explained to you before, you presume that the earliest written account of something is likewise the date of the account’s origin. So for the third time I submit to you [this information.]( information)

The elements of the gospels were orally taught immediately after the events they described, by eyewitnesses.

And yet the OP is looking for a text authored by someone who met Jesus.

The fact that the existing stories of the guy – written down by non-eyewitnesses – might be based on stories that came from people who did know him doesn’t change the fact that we don’t have any of the stories straight from the “horse’s mouth,” so to speak.

The very early Christians (as in right after Jesus’s activities) thought Jesus was coming back very soon. As such, there wasn’t much need to write things down, what with the apocalypse coming soon. The end was nigh, why bother writing down history? And then He didn’t return, and He didn’t return, and He didn’t return, and then they realized “Oh, wait… Maybe He didn’t mean He was coming back right away”. So they started to write things down that they remembered and track down what few eyewitnesses still lived and hunt down any letters or what few writings were created, and compiled all of this research into the New Testament. Does it really matter if the person writing had seen it themselves or if they were interviewing / taking notes for an eyewitness? The people who had been there were probably quite old by the time these things were being recorded and I can only imagine didn’t have the eyesight or steady hand to write well.

The OP asked for “historical mentions”. Naturally in the long run were are going to be resorting to text at this stage in the game, but an oral eyewitness account that is later committed into writing still constitutes a “historical mention.” Nevertheless, the OP has since clarified that something other than the gospels is desired (and I presume Acts and the rest of the NT are to be excluded as well).

The fact that the existing stories of the guy – written down by non-eyewitnesses – might be based on stories that came from people who did know him doesn’t change the fact that we don’t have any of the stories straight from the “horse’s mouth,” so to speak.

I know that scholars debate this, but there are still arguments out there that all the gospels are from the horse’s mouth. For example, John is believed to have been written by “the beloved disciple” (and therefore an eyewitness) or a disciple of his. Likewise, Matthew is believed to have originated from the apostle of the same name (he taught it orally and either he eventually committed it into writing, possibly in Hebrew, or one of his disciples did). Mark is believed to have interviewed Peter for his gospel. Luke is believed to have interviewed Mary. In any case, what the written gospels preserve are eyewitness testimonies, and the process was basically the same used by everyone else in the ancient world.

Consider these two cases, one ancient and one modern: Josephus fought in the Jewish War of the 1st Century and then wrote about it after the war was over. Winston Churchill led Britain during WWII and then wrote several books about it years later in his retirement. I see no difference between how information was recorded and preserved regarding Josephus and Churchill, and what happened concerning the apostolic testimony of the NT.

someone said Paul was not an eyewitness to Christ but can we be sure; just because he was against Christ to start does not mean he was unaware or not a witness to some aspects of the journey of Christ. I came across somewhere the idea that Paul was present at some of the judgements on Christ in Jerusalem. I’m vague thats me im no scholar on this but i’m sure you guys can refute or confirm what I say for me. :thumbsup:

You are again incorrect. And as usual, it’s clear who those ‘scholars’ are working for.

His consitant error and lack of even to make an attempt to look at what is presented to him, is the main reason why I do not ingage him. I strongly suggest that all ignor him.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit