Here are some other proofs, from a historical perspective, to support the idea that Jesus existed:
1. Historical proof #1: The New Testament document versions of these stories pass the “transmission test” better then many other historical document.
The transmission test (or Bibliographical test) works likes this: The original story is “lost” either through lack of evidence of an original document, or because the story was transmitted orally before it was written down. So, we don’t have the originals, which is a common occurance with ancient documents. So historians use a method that can be called the “transmission test,” where they check the trustworthiness of the “story” by looking at the evidence we do have today. People critique the New Testament all the time because the original gospel’s texts are lost. They argue that since there is no original source that can be found, then how do we know that this Jesus character wasn’t made up. Oral tradition doesn’t cut it for them either, because they argue that it could have been fabricated or changed that way as well.
Now it is right to question a document or story when the original is missing. This is the scholarly thing to do. However, just because the “proof” of the original story is missing, this doesn’t mean that the story was “made up” any more then it could mean that it was true.
So how do we narrow it down? How do we use the evidence that does exist to see if it points towards the idea that Jesus existed, or didnÂ’t. We use the transmission test. The factors involved in this test are the number of copies that exist within a given time frame, how much time passed between the copies and the alleged original, and the accuracy of the copies (how similar are they). I maintain that the New Testament passes this test with accuracy far beyond ANY other ancient document.
First, let's count the number of New Testament manuscripts. There are 5,686 Greek manuscripts (which continue to grow with archeological work). Additionally, there are copies of ancient translations of the Bible which include over 10,000 in Latin, over 4,000 in Slavic, over 2,500 in Armenian, over 2,000 in Ethiopian, and hundreds more in other languages. Combining the Greek texts with the translated documents gives the New Testament over 24,000 manuscripts. By comparison, other ancient documents, which are relied on commonly by historians, are dwarfed by the New Testament numbers. Let's tour some of the best attested and highly prized sources we have from ancient history. We have 643 copies of Homer's Iliad, 200 copies of Demosthenes' works, 20 copies of Tacitus' Annals, 10 copies of Ceasar's triumphs in the Gallic Wars, and 8 copies of Herodotus' History. Clearly, the New Testament has enough copies to exceed the standards secular history places on ancient texts to pass this part of the bibliographical test.
Before moving on to the question of time span, I want to address the issue of consistency in the copies. Often people charge that the many copies we have of the New Testament contain enough variant readings to hurt rather than help the case for the accuracy of the New Testament. Rather than debate every variant reading, I will make two points that refute this objection. (1) Most variant readings are inconsequential to the text. Many variants include spelling errors, inverted word order (which matters very little to Biblical Greek), repeated words, and other variations where it is easy to see what the document from which it was copied contained. The stories themselves with JesusÂ’ divinity and all remain the same. (2) There are very few variant readings on important essential texts, and even for those texts there are methods for navigating through the variant readings to reach a version of the original document. Most scholars estimate that the Biblical stories as we have it today is 99% accurate compared with the original manuscripts. So, the problem of variations within the many copies of the New Testament is not a problem after all.
The original manuscripts of the Gospels are believed by most scholars to have been written between A.D. 50 - A.D. 90 (although some say 70-110; but it is very difficult for the historians to pin down exact dates, so this issue as to when the first ones were written is still up for grabs). Jesus' death on the cross occurred around A.D. 30 (give or take about 10 years, again we do not know exactly), so the events of Jesus were recorded within a short time span of the original events. In fact, they were written when eyewitnesses were still alive who could confirm or invalidate its testimony. History does not record that the earliest enemies of the Gospels who were alive from A.D. 50 - A.D. 90 tried to discredit the Bible by claiming it is full of lies. Instead, their most frequented attack against the Gospels attempts to discredit Jesus by claiming His mighty works were done through demonic powers, not God's. The eyewitnesses of the first century could not deny that the Gospels record an accurate description of Jesus' life and teaching. The enemies of the Gospel could only debate about the source of Jesus' mighty power. So, the original New Testament manuscripts were recognized by its contemporaries as historically accurate. Eyewitnesses at least believed the very things that were written in the Gospels. However, since we do not have the originals, it is important to look at the time span between the copies and the originals.
The last evidence we must examine for the bibliographical text is the span of time between the original documents and the copies. The earliest fragment we have of the New Testament is the John Rylands Fragment, which contains pieces of John's Gospel and is dated around A.D. 125. Although this sounds like a very long time after 30 AD, that would still be less than one generation from the original text. This is not far. We have whole books copied within 100 years of the originals and entire copies of the New Testament as one corpus within 250 years from the date of its completion. The time span of other ancient documents cannot compare with the New Testament's numbers. 1,000 years separate the copies of Tacitus and Ceasar with their original texts. Herodotus' writings were copied 1,300 years after the original manuscripts, and 1,500 years separate the copies of Demosthenes' writings with their originals. Once again, the New Testament proves itself when compared with other ancient texts.
Based on the information given above, it is safe to conclude that the New Testament stands as the best transmitted manuscript we have of any document from the ancient world. We have more evidence to back its content and check its transmission than any other ancient source, yet other ancient texts are questioned much less then the Biblical texts. One has to ask themselves: why? It was asked to me what I ment by me saying that other historical occurances with less evidence to prove it are more readily acceptable then Biblical texts. Well, this is what I am talking about. To question the New Testament on the grounds of its merits under the transmission test would call into question every ancient manuscript. Classic historians accept the works of Tacitus, Ceasar, and Herodotus as fairly reliable and well-transmitted, and the New Testament far exceeds their credentials. The New Testament clearly passses the bibliographical test, which demonstrates the accuracy of its transmission. However, a document that is transmitted with precise accuracy may still be a fallacious text. So, we must look into other historical tests to see if Jesus was a living person, or was it all fabricated.
#2. The New Testemament texts pass the “internal tests,” proving consistency.
The internal test checks whether the document in question is consistent with itself. In other words, it asks whether the text contradicts itself or provides a harmonious picture.
Most critics of the New Testament constantly allege that the Gospels contradict themselves repeatedly; thus, crippling the integrity of their accuracy. However, I have yet to be shown a true contradiction in the Gospels. Most examples of contradictions in the Gospels go like this: "One Gospel account claims there were two angels at the empty tomb, while another claims there was one angel! So, there is a blatant contradiction!" But this is not an example of a contradiction because it is entirely possible for one account to mention one angel, while another account mentions two, and for both to be true. For whenever there are two angels, there necessarily is at least one angel. (This would be different if each Gospel claimed "only one angel" or "only two angels" were present, but they don't.) The point is that the Gospels do not contain any “hard” contradictions. Jesus performed miracles, and Jesus didn’t perform miracles is an example of a “hard” contradiction. There are different accounts of the same event, but it is possible to harmonize those accounts into one coherent picture.
However, in order to pass the internal test, Historians do not have to prove the difficult claim that the Gospels do not contain any contradictions. For present purposes all that they need to show is that the Gospels agree to the major facts about Jesus' life and teachings. In fact, all the Gospels agree about the "big picture" decription of Jesus. All of them agree that He performed supernatural acts like healings, exorcisms, and commands over nature. Every single Gospel records that Jesus was an amazing teacher who believed He was the Jewish Messiah. Additionally, all the Gospels agree that He was killed by a conspiracy between the Jewish religious leaders and the Roman state. Finally, the Gospels all agree that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the grave. The New Testiment letters and writings beyond the Gospels further support rather then contradict the conjectures made in the Gospels. So, the Gospels present an overall harmonious description of the essentials of Jesus' life and teachings. Therefore, we can conclude that the Gospels pass the internal test.
#3. The Gospels pass the “external tests,” in that they are supported by outside verification other then the stories themselves.
This was a major topic of discussion, and I gave other sources outside of “the Bible” to support the stories. I will cover some more items here.
The external test checks other ancient sources to see if they agree on material commmon to both sources. The Gospels make several claims which can be checked with other historical sources such as ancient government records, archeology, other classic writers, and other historical witnesses. In what follows I will survey a mere smattering of cases which are typical of the entire New Testament.
First, let's look at some of the archeological finds that coincide with data in the Gospels and see if they support or disconfirm the historical witness of the Gospels. Many secular archeologists assumed that certain places mentioned in the Gospels were made up by the New Testament writers. However, some of these questionable locations have been identified by archeologists. These include the pavement mentioned in John 19:13, the pool of Bethesda, Jacob's well, the pool of Siloam, several ancient cities [Bethlehem, Cana, Nazareth, Capernaum, and Chorazin], and the residence of Pilate in Jerusalem. Furthermore, there have been important archeological finds like the remains of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol. Yohanan's skeletal remains were found among a number of other persons killed by the Roman government for the Jewish uprising in A.D. 70. Yohanan was executed by crucifixion, and his remains exemplified that the New Testament's description of Roman crucifixion is accurate. He had a spike driven into both feet, and nails driven between the lower bones of the arms. Furthermore, Yohanan appeared to have had his legs broken, which also dovetails with the New Testament account of Roman crucifixion. There are more archeological finds that support the New Testament and no credible disconfirmations I am aware of. Therefore, I think it is safe to conclude that the external witness of archeology supports the Biblical account of history. But you do not have to take my word on it. Millar Burrows, an archeologist from Yale University, concludes:
On the whole, archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by experience of excavation of Palestine. (What Mean These Stones? [New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941], 1.)
In addition to archeology, there are significant non-Christian textual sources that share common materials with the Gospels, which can be compared. Lets review Flavius Josephus again. In his famous writing, the Antiquities, xvii, 3.3 he writes this:
And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, “if indeed we should call him a man”; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who received the truth with pleasure. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Greeks. “This man was the Christ [or Messiah]”. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross on his impeachment by the chief men among us, those who had loved him at first did not cease; “for he appeared to them on the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of wonderful things about him”; and even now the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out.
The “” parts of the above quote are disputed among scholars whether they belong in the original text or not. Many antagonists are quick to point this out, for it seems that the manuscript would fail the internal test, since Josephus is a Jew, he would not likely refer to Jesus as the Messiah or speak so highly of Jesus.
However, some scholars defend the authenticity of this document by claiming that Josephus may be speaking tongue-in-cheek in parts of this section, and that the reference to Jesus as the Christ may be a general reference to Jesus, since he was known as "Christus" to the Roman world. If the “” portions are granted as authentic, then this passage of Josephus confirms much of the Gospels' portrayal of Jesus. However, it doesn’t matter if they are or not. Even without the questionable “” parts, Josephus reports many facts of Jesus' life which coincide with the Gospels and confirm their truth from an independent non-Christian source. There are other significant texts from Josephus that confirm the Gospels historical claims, which I will not get into for the sake of saving space (lol, look at all the space I wasted already), but from the information given above, I think it is safe to conclude from Josephus' writings, and some of the others I have mentioned, that we have a corroborative source for some of the major claims of the Gospels like the fact that Jesus existed and was considered a great teacher and miracle worker. Let's look at some other external sources which can be used to test the Gospels.
There are a number of other non-Christian and even non-Jewish sources which match the historical picture given by the Gospels. The Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, records that Jesus Christ is the man from whom Christians derive their name when he wrote about Nero's burning of Rome. I mentioned this already, but was discredited without evidence to support the discrediting, of course. Furthermore, from Pliny the younger's letter to Emperor Trajan (dated A.D. 112), we learn of some of the beliefs and practices of the early church, which correspond with the New Testament. Additionally, ancient manuscripts from Suetonius, Lucian, Mara Car-Serapion, Emperor Trajan, Emperor Hadrian, other Jewish sources (like the Talmud), and heretical sources (such as works from Gnostic writers) supports the historical facts given in the New Testament. So, many other ancient texts match the same picture of history given by the New Testament.
Finally, I will assess the information we have from the writings of Luke - the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Luke lists many places, names, and other historically verifiable events, which could be checked to test his accuracy. If Luke was in the habit of making up his history as he saw fit, then he left himself vulnerable to critics who could go and check his story-telling. Historians have confirmed many things Luke records (although not everything), but they have not shown a credible discrepency in all of his work. Among the many confirmation include:
· The census and governorship of Quirinius (Luke 2:1-3)
· Description of Athens (Acts 17), including the agora, the altar to the "unknown god", and designation of "Areopogite" for a member of the court (Acts 17:34)
· Accurate record of Gallio as Proconsul (Acts 18:12)
· Correct description of two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28)
· Accurate explanation of provincial penal procedure (Acts 24:1-9)
· True depiction of invoking one's roman citizenship (Acts 25:18), including the legal formula, de quibus cognoscere volebam (Acts 25:18)
· Description of being in Roman custody (Acts 28:16) and conditions of being imprisoned at one's own expense (Acts 28:30-31)
Indeed there are literally dozens and dozens of more confirmations of historical data given in Luke's writings. With so many confirmations, and no credible discrepencies, it is fair to say Luke's writings have earned respect as historical documents that show accuracy and scrutiny for detail.
So, the Gospels also pass the external test. For they have shown that they dovetail with other historical sources that share information in common with them. These sources include archeology, Jewish writings, Gentile writings, government records, and many other informants not reviewed above. The Gospels have shown with incredible accuracy that whenever their is information that can be verified by other sources that it is going to be on the side of truth. In short, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the New Testament based on the external test.
Conclusion
If you have followed what I wrote above, then you have learned several things. (1) There is a method for investigating historical sources. (2) The Gospels pass the bibliographical test, proving their faithful transmission, and exceeding any other ancient document in this respect. (2) The Gospels pass the internal test because they provide a unified picture of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. (3) The Gospels pass the external test because they report accurately information that can be cross-checked by a variety of sources.
So what do we conclude from all of this? I have not demonstrated that the Bible is infallible or that it is God's inspired word. (I did not intend to, that isnÂ’t the argument here.) Rather, I think I have shown that the Bible's historical accuracy and faithful transmission is impeccable. There are grounds by which a person can reject the Christian message, but one option that is not available as an intellectually sound choice is the argument that the Gospels are corrupt documents with historically inaccurate information. It is not intellectually sound either, given the evidence, to say that Jesus was some made up Character.
Here are some books that I heard were also good reads:
Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
Also, I must disclaim that although most of my arguments have been my own, I “plagerised” most of the material above regarding the historical arguments from something I copied off the net a long time ago. I thought the arguments were good, so I kept it in my pile of crap that I keep for situations like these. I hope whoever the author was, that he won’t mind me borrowing his arguments.
. I was referring to all of the gospels(cannonical and non-cannonical) in my post, I wasn't simply referring to the 'official four'... 
