Jesus as an actual, living, historical figure: is this bound by concrete evidence? Of course, there’s the whole “is he actually the Son of God” thing (which I’m sure you’ll say no). But I’m just wondering if you believe there was any man in the Middle East at all resembling Jesus during his era (and if he was actually crucified, etc).
Reasons to Doubt Jesus Ever Existed
This is a great question and Sunday morning before Christmas is the perfect time to answer it. Yes, any historical figure must be proven by historical evidence. While I do not claim to know for certain, I think it is highly unlikely that Jesus was ever a real historical figure. In this post I’m going to focus on the lack of evidence and why this points to fictional Jesus.
There is a shockingly small amount of evidence. The reason our pool of evidence is so small is that we must be strict about what can be considered evidence. We must only consider independent sources, that have validity, integrity, and are reasonably connected to the events.
So what do we have when we apply all of these rules to the evidence of Jesus? Virtually nothing. The New Testament contains almost everything that can be said to be known about Jesus Christ. You would think that for such a monumental figure there would be a large amount of corroborating evidence, but NT is all we have. Even that obviously leaves gaping holes. We know nothing of Jesus’ life between birth and prophethood, and none of this information is very reliable.
Remember we need authenticity and integrity, the NT does not truly meet these requirements. We know for a fact that there is a large amount of editing, rewriting, and flat out forgery within the NT. Mark is the first Gospel written and every one after that is a retelling of the same story, so as a collective they don’t contribute a large amount of independent information. The Gospels are not eye witness accounts as they are said to be, scholars unanimously agree that they were written toward the end of the 1st century, anywhere from 60 CE to 130 CE. So on top of the fact that the documents have been rewritten, redacted, and altered over and over they are essentially lies in the first place. However, it could be that these were documents that existed and were republished under their pseudonyms later on, or they are referencing documents that have been lost (which is the assumption). The reason they are called the Gospel according to… is because this phrase was meant to name the source where the author got the information, not the author themselves.
Then we have the Epistles, which many were written by Paul. Paul is seen as one of the most reliable sources of information on Jesus, but there’s a real problem with that. Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian writings that exist and yet they were written around the 50s CE, he was not a contemporary of Jesus either. Even worse, Paul states that all he knows of Jesus comes from hallucination (Gal. 1.11-12 & Gal 1.16 & Rom. 16.25-26). Paul is seen as the founder of Christianity by many and by his own account we have no reason to believe that his letters are based on fact.
You may not be aware, but there are literally no surviving documents of the first 60 years of Christianity. We are asked to believe that Nero persecuted Christians around the 30′s or 40′s, but this group was so clandestine that nothing of their actual activity, beliefs, structure, or anything else survived. Christianity literally begins with Paul (on paper). Carrier has an interesting idea about how Paul essentially usurped Christianity from the elders by introducing revelation, but that’s another story. What’s significant about this in the question of Jesus is that we want to get the most direct evidence possible and if anyone were going to write something reliable about Jesus it would be the contemporary Christians who he supposedly inspired, yet literally nothing exists.
That leads into my next point that there are no contemporary writers that talk about Jesus. Furthermore, non-christian writers that came shortly after him and wrote historical accounts of the same time as Jesus’ supposed life never mention him! Here’s a list of historical writers that we would have absolutely expected to mentioned Jesus, but didn’t!
Nicolaus of Damascus (Official court historian of Herod The Great)
Justus of Tiberias (King Agrippa’s personal secretary-Agrippa from Acts 25-26)
Philo of Alexandria (Jewish Historian and Writer)
Marcus Velleius Paterculus (Wrote a history of Rome up to 29 CE)
Marcus Servilius Nonianus (Wrote a history of 1st century)
Pamphila of Epidaurus (Writer of history in the 1st century)
Aufidius Bassus (Historical writer)
Pliny the Elder (Historical writer)
This is by no means the whole list of writers that should have written about Jesus, but even the fact that these people did not write about him is unbelievable. It’s the same situation as Moses. He supposedly brought destruction down on Egypt and led the exodus of millions of slaves, yet there is not a single word written about him or piece of evidence for those events. I find the lack of writing on Jesus extremely hard to swallow.
What about Josephus? If you’ve followed atheist blogs and channels then you’ve probably heard someone mention the Jewish historian Josephus. His accounts add another layer of doubt about the specific Jesus Christ from scripture being real. Josephus himself was not a contemporary of Jesus either, but he wrote history about that same time period. He is known to be one the most reliable historians of his time because he was detailed, reasoned, and admitted or noted oddities in historical accounts. ( I just want to take a second to say this is a quality that the Gospels absolutely lack. They are not written by historians for sure, because they do not question anything. They are written as narratives that take the supernatural for granted and offer not suspicion or amazement.)
As you’ve probably heard before, Josephus wrote about four savior figures: The Samaritan, Theudas, The Egyptian, and The Impostor. All around the same time period, these men came preaching radical ideology, gained a mass following, and were executed by the state. None of them fit Jesus Christ’s description in detial though. If we take Josephus as reliable then we know radical cults were common. In fact we know from other sources that there were many different Jewish and Pagan cults at this time all competing for followers, and in the past 100 years writings of messiahs and saviors were very popular. People actually often attended meetings of multiple ideologies. It was Christianity that popularized devotion to a single ideology. Even other figures int he Bible have a messiah over tone, such as John, Joshua, Isiah.
This leads me to believe that forging a fictional narrative about a man named Jesus would be extremely easy. I won’t go into the motivations now, because this post is long enough, but suffice to say that Christianity was an attempt at cultural reform and power, like many other movements in history have been. Like many other movements, they used a figure head (a infallible model) to be the source of their movement to give it authority. This point of course ties into the fact that there are many previous god and demigod figures in previous faiths that have extremely similar dying and rising savior stories. I won’t get into that line of argument now, but it’s important to know Jesus was not original and therefore makes his fictional creation very believable.
On what we do have there is very little agreement. Scholars cannot agree on his place of birth, year of birth, year of death, or even who killed him. Was Jesus born around the time of Herod’s death in 4CE or the take over Judea in 6CE? Did he die by Pontius Pilot’s hand around 30CE or under Emperor Claudius in the 40sCE? OR Did he live and die under King Jannaeus around 100BCE? Early Christian Bishop Epiphanius wrote about a sect of “Christians” that followed the old law yet believed in Christ. Yet these Nazorians believed that Jesus lived under Jannaeus a century earlier than typically assumed. They essentially have their own Gospel of another Jesus by a different name, Ben Stada. Their story mirrors Jesus Christ with small differences, but have the important details. It is a far better match than any of Josephus’ savior figures. This story is confirmed in the Babylonian Talmud. Last Christmas I wrote a post specifically on the conflicts in the details of Jesus’ birth. What’s strange about Jesus’ birth is that we often don’t know when a historical figure was born exactly, because he wasn’t famous then. However, in Jesus’ case, he somehow was famous before he was born, yet there is so much disagreement on the simplest of facts. Plus, we apparently lose track of him immediately after he’s born, which is also suspicious. Then he pops around 30 years later and we’re supposed to believe it’s definitely the same person. The fact that the very little information we have about Jesus cannot be agreed upon makes accepting him as historical very difficult.
I don’t think there are any absolutely solid facts about Jesus. There are things that are mostly agreed upon, but they alone don’t constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Acceptance of Jesus’ existence is mostly an assumption based on the prolific influence the figure has had on the world. That, however, does not prove his existence. King Author, Robin Hood, Moses, Socrates, Betty Crocker. These are all famous figures that never existed in history. Socrates is assumed to have been real, but there’s not a shred of proof. We know for a fact that a fictional figure can be created, passed off as historical, and become highly famed and beloved. We also know that people are subject to outrageous beliefs about recent history (i.e. Holocaust denial). So it’s not unreasonable to believe that Paul and those that actually wrote the Gospels could have fallen victim to this historical revisionism, or even consciously took park it in. Remember, Paul said he only knew Jesus through revelation(i.e. dream, hallucination, or lie).
So this sums up the problem of lack of evidence for Jesus, and pushes me to think he was never an actual living person. There are many other reasons to doubt his existence, and maybe I’ll keep writing on them in a series fashion. Maybe I’ll make it a tradition to write about his controversial existence every Christmas. I hope everyone found this interesting. Check out the authors below for more information regarding Jesus and early Christianity.
Thank you all for reading!!
