I cannot believe how often educated people pull out the claim that Jesus probably never existed. Except that it’s not PC to say so, it really deserves the title of Old Wives Tale!
Down in my neck of the woods, Gospel for the Gong has been running a “Jesus Is ________.” month of mission. [More info here.]
Jesus once asked his followers, “Who do people say that I am?” and “What about you? Who do you say I am?” (Mark 8:28-29).
We’re using an internet site (jesus-is.org.au), social media, T-shirts, business cards and public preaching at our churches to continue that conversation today. We’re asking people to ‘fill in the blank’ in that sentence above.
So as I said, it astonishes me how boldly people claim “Jesus is fiction”.
It can’t come from a review of the evidence. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a single professor of ancient history in any secular university around the world to agree with that claim. (The very few academics you can dredge up to claim he is fictional are almost always notable for their lack of qualifications in the discipline of ancient history!)
I conclude it’s a lazy way to keep the claims of Christ at arms length without having to seriously engage with what the Bible says.
But just for the record, here is some of the evidence.
1. Non-Christian sources
[Links to English translations provided in each case]
- Mara bar Serapion – in a letter generally dated to the first century (c. 73 A.D.) – speaks of the Jews executing their “wise king” shortly before their kingdom was abolished, though he lives on in his teaching. This letter doesn’t mention Jesus by name, but most scholars agree no other Jewish figure from the period except Jesus fits the ‘identikit’ of king, teacher and martyr.
- Jewish historian Josephus (c 37-100 A.D.) mentions Jesus twice in his Jewish Antiquities. The uncontroversial reference (20.200) tells how a Jewish high priest, Ananus, organised the death of James, whom he describes as the brother of Jesus, “called the Christ”.
- The more controversial reference as it comes to us from Josephus in the existing text today (18.63-64) appears to have been embellished at some point by a copyist (likely a well-meaning but misguided Christian). Historians disagree about reconstructing the original underlying text. The reference to his resurrection is especially disputed. But a majority agree that Josephus at least reports that Jesus had a reputation as a wise man, wonder-worker and teacher; was called the Christ, and was crucified under Pilate; further, that members of the “tribe of Christians” are named after him.
- Rome’s greatest historian, Tacitus (56-120 A.D., in his Annals (15.44) records how Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome. Tacitus makes clear his revulsion of Christianity, but nevertheless confirms that the movement got its name from Christ, a man who was executed during the reign of Tiberius by the governor Pontius Pilate, and indicates that this superstitious devotion to Christ (as he sees it) continued after his death, spreading to Rome.
- Pliny the Younger, a Roman administrator, writes c. 110 A.D. in a letter to Emperor Trajan that (despite official persecution) Christians continued to meet and sing hymns to Christ as to a god.
- Another Roman historian, Suetonius, in Life of Claudius 25.4 (c. 120 A.D.) reports that Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because of a riot caused at instigation of “Chrestus”. Most experts think is likely a confusion for the name of “Christ”, and it is certainly consistent with information from Acts 18:2.
- The Jewish Talmud (dating 100-200 A.D.) reports (baraitha Sanhedrin 43a) that Yeshu (= Jesus) was hanged around Passover for practising sorcery (most likely a reference to his exorcisms).
- Lucian of Samosata (115-200 A.D.) in his The Death of Perigrinus (11-13) mocks the founder of the Christian movement as a Palestinian man and “crucified sophist”, who persuaded his followers they were all brothers and to deny the Greek gods.
There are a couple of other secular references to Jesus’ existence dating from the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., but together from these early non-Christian sources we can determine the following details were known and reported of Jesus:
- his existence in Palestine during the reign of Emperor Tiberius;
- his activity as a teacher/wise man;
- his reputation as some sort of wonder worker;
- the attribution by some to him of the title “Christ” (= Messiah in Hebrew);
- the time and manner of his crucifixion near Passover;
- the involvement in this execution of the Roman governor Pilate;
- the flourishing of a movement that worshipped him decades after; and
- that he had a brother named James.
2. Christian Sources
Of course, this is all consistent with the Bible. And far more information about Jesus’ life can be obtained from the sources within the New Testament, especially the canonical Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. These are now quite widely considered to fit into the genre of Graceo-Roman biography. In addition, the Epistles of Paul (dating even earlier) and James give important incidental information regarding his life and teaching. Academics consider much of the material in these sources helpful for insights into the historical Jesus.
SCHOLARLY CONCLUSIONS
So when ancient historians have reviewed this evidence, they uniformly conclude (across the worldview divides, to account for bias) – conservative, liberal, Christian, Jewish, agnostic and atheist alike – that Jesus existed as a person of history. They have varying interpretations as to the claims of his divinity and resurrection.
But they all agree: Jesus is beyond fiction. Here is a sampling of their verdicts.
Rudolph Bultmann (German Professor of New Testament, liberal), 1958, p 13, Jesus and the Word, (Collins/Fontana)…
“Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement…”
Michael Grant (English classicist), 1977, p 200, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (Charles Scribner’s Sons)
“To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.’ In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’–or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”
Robert Van Voorst (American Professor of New Testament), 2000, p 16, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Eerdmans)…
“Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e. Jesus mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.”
Geza Vermes (British Professor of Jewish Studies), 2008, p ix, The Resurrection (Doubleday)…
“Let me state plainly that I accept that Jesus was a real historical person. In my opinion, the difficulties arising from the denial of his existence, still vociferously maintained in as small circle of rationalist ‘dogmatists,’ far exceed those deriving from its acceptance.”
Craig A. Evans (American Professor of New Testament), 2009, p 3, in C.A. Evans & N.T. Wright, Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened (Westminster John Knox)…
“No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”
(The quotes above are less than half the samples provided to establish this point by Michael Licona in his magisterial, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (IVP/Apollos; 2010), p 63, fn 125.)
Bart Ehrman (American Professor of Religious Studies, sceptical), 2011, p 285, Forged: Writing in the name of God…
“He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees.”
From a different angle, the atheist journalist, Matthew Parris, warned in The Spectator this year against a watered-down or decaf view of Jesus. In his judgment,
“One of the reasons we can be pretty sure Jesus actually existed is that if He had not, the Church would never have invented Him. He stands so passionately, resolutely and inconveniently against everything an established church stands for. Continuity? Tradition? Christ had nothing to do with stability. He came to break up families, to smash routines, to cast aside the human superstructures, to teach abandonment of earthly concerns and a throwing of ourselves upon God’s mercy.”
Jesus is beyond fiction, and before lazily dismissing him, the genuinely open-minded should grapple with the key primary documents concerning his life, found in the New Testament!
If you’re in Wollongong (Australia!) this Sunday night, you can hear Simon Manchester speak, on behalf of G4G, more broadly on the topic: “Jesus is Beyond Fiction.”
7pm, 28 October, at Hope Theatre, UOW.
Its worth watching Dr John Dickson talk on “Why trust the Gospels?” that he did for the Bible Society’s 25 words campaign: http://vimeo.com/44641877
Good call, Graham, I’m more a reader than a watcher, but John’s stuff is great in this area, and I’ve found his books and doco material all very helpful.
One of my Facebook conversation partners has raised the associated canard that the Jesus of the Gospels bears a striking resemblance to other ancient heroes and the figureheads of pagan saviour cults,
They have supplied no evidence as to what they see as the specific parallels, beyond a general dying and rising motif, nor for a firm dating of their parallels as being before the Gospels, let alone being able to demonstrate any causal connections or dependency.
However with another HT to Mike Licona’s book, I supply this information…
Regarding the subject of the dying-and-rising god motif in antiquity, perhaps the most recent thorough treatment of the topic is by T.D. Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection: Dying and Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East (2001).
Mettinger reports that the strong scholarly consensus is that there is no clear recurring motif of the dying-and-rising god in antiquity.
Mettinger then explains why he challenges that consensus. He gives what he considers are 3 clear pre-Christian examples of a dying-and-rising god (Dumuzi, Baal and Melqart) and 2 possibles (Eshmun and Adonis).
However he notes that you cannot generalise these gods into a single neat or consistent category, since they are very different. But one thing they do have in common is close ties to the seasons and plant growth cycles.
What about Jesus in terms of this dying-and-rising god category? Mettinger says this is beyond the direct scope of his study. However he notes that for the earliest Christians, “the resurrection of Jesus was a one-time, historical event that took place at one specific point in the earth’s topography. The empty tomb was seen as historical datum.” (p221). By contrast to the other gods mentioned, the death and resurrection of Jesus “is a one-time event, not repeated, and unrelated to seasonal changes” (p221).
Mettinger’s conclusion:
Thanks heaps Sandy, I’ve been looking for a collection of historical references to Jesus for ages. Thanks for collating them and presenting them thoughtfully. Keep on striving for the faith, Brother!
Sandy
How do you know that any of the non-Christian references to Jesus are not just reporting Christian tradition?
Hi Michael, and thanks for your encouragement.
And hello, again, Brian, and thanks for the question. Before I address it, may I ask you a clarifying question myself. Namely, what is the significance – in terms of an historian’s assessment of this evidence’s value – if most or all of the early non-Christian references to Jesus are only reporting even earlier Christian tradition?
That said, I assume that almost all the non-Christian references to Jesus are reporting some sort of earlier reports or traditions. That’s because almost all of the authors of these sources post-date the death of Jesus (33 A.D. at the latest). So no question, they must be relying on earlier sources.
It’s not clear to me that they are all relying on Christian sources, since many of them are hostile to Christian beliefs and practices. And in some details, there is some divergence. For example, the Talmud account suggests there was a 40 day period in advance of his execution where a herald offered the chance for people to speak in Jesus’ defence. Presumably it got this from somewhere earlier, but not any Christian source we know of. (In fact, I’m not aware if anyone knows the source of this particular assertion.) As a significantly later source, this variation does not concern me much, but it does show something other than a straight reliance on Christian traditions.
In regards to Roman sources, especially someone like Tacitus, whose work I understand indicates reliance on senatorial sources (all now lost), there is a prima facie case that he may have had access to official Roman documentation regarding a provincial governor’s actions.
Of course, these sources give more than information about what was taken for granted about Jesus the man from a generation earlier, they also give insight into then current Christian beliefs and practices.
As I say, I hope you might answer my earlier question.
I’d also like your own opinion on whether or not Jesus existed, if you are willing to offer it, along with whatever reasons you have for your opinion.
Sandy,
Sandy,
I have no firm opinion on the question of the historicity of Jesus because I don’t find the evidence compelling either way.
If the sources you mention are only reporting tradition, they provide little evidence for the existence of Jesus. At best they tell us that there were certain beliefs about Jesus current at that time.
Brian, thanks again for replying. I guess this raises the questions of historiography or historical method. That is, what approach do you think it reasonable for establishing the existence of a person in ancient history (and beyond that what a person may have done)? And are we consistent in applying this to other figures of historical discussion from similar times?
Such an approach needs to take into account the fragmentary nature of what has survived the vicissitudes of history, and also the durability of methods available for preparing and preserving texts. Then in terms of assessing evidence, how do you transcend your own horizons. Things like making your method and presuppositions public, submitting your ideas to peer review, including unsympathetic experts, etc.
In this case, I think I have shown early evidence from a variety of both Christian and non-Christian sources (which as I mentioned do not all seem necessarily reliant solely on Christian sources for information) for the existence of Jesus as a person.
And I have shown evidence that scholars from a wide variety of presuppositions and beliefs – believer and non-believer, conservative and liberal, Christian and Jew, and I could go on – believe evidence like this points to his existence. They also report this is by far and away the majority conclusion among the qualified people in the field.
Now remember I am not asking you to sign up for belief in Jesus’ divinity or miracles or resurrection on the basis of this (though I think there is some evidence for that too, including of an historical nature, though much more disputed). Just for his existence.
In my opinion, on the question of Jesus’ existence, I think fence-sitting is a weak choice that avoids a serious engagement with what’s available.
Which of the ‘Jesus as fiction’ proponents have you read Sandy?
Brian, busy with other stuff. I think your question is a red herring to the main issue. It does not engage with the evidence I have adduced. Whether or not I have read people with a different view from mine does not actually relevant for evaluating the merits of (very brief) outline of the evidence available.
But since it is good to read people who disagree to account for bias etc, FYI, Richard Carrier is the main one I’ve read some of.
Sandy,
Many ancient heroes and religious figures were originally non-historical and got historicized later; Osiris, Horus, William Tell, Adam&Eve and many OT people. Christianity got kick started by Paul who never met Jesus in real life, and Christians produces tens of made up Gospels to historicize Jesus. There isn’t any evidence that even Nazareth was habited during Jesus time (Yardenna Alexandre has not presented her findings yet). That is a good start to doubt Jesus of Nazareth ever lived.
Central claim of Christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead. If that is fiction then Christianity is fiction. Universities are full of historians and theologians who think Jesus’ resurrection is fiction thus Jesus of Gospels if fictional.
When apologist like you present the “best” case for Jesus, they tend exaggerated all data, which to me puts even more doubt to the case. Let’s look at some of your claim:
– Mara bar Serapion’s letter is generally NOT dated to the first century. Most book give between 73AD and 200AD. Most scholars DO NOT think that no other Jewish figure from the period except Jesus fits the ‘identikit’ of king, teacher and martyr. If fact scholarly literature discusses no less than three other people who fit the description, one even better than Jesus.
– Josephus’ reference tells how a Jewish high priest, Ananus organised the death of James, whom he describes as the brother of Jesus, “called the Christ is NOT uncontroversial. Many academics and books discuss the authenticity of that passage
– Tacitus wrote about Chrestian not Christians (Making the following sentence in the text a suspect). Remember we know the followers of Chrest from the 1st century BC. And no early Christian mentioned Nero’s persecution. Pliny the Younger worked in Rome late first century and did know that Christians were blamed for the fire.
– The Jewish Talmud mocks Jesus. It does not give any credibility to actual Jesus. If you write an article mocking the Golden Plates of Mormon’s it does not give any additional credibility to the existence of Golden Plates.
– Geza Vermes is Jew and does not believe Jesus rose from the dead. He says “Jesus was a real historical person” but thinks Jesus of Gospels is a fictional figure.
I could go on and point out misleading info in every point you make, but I hope you got the point. To make up your mind if Jesus of Gospels was a historical figure at least Christians should honestly look at the facts.
Jon, thanks for commenting, and I prefer you approach of engaging with the specific evidence I raised. Taking your points para by para…
That some characters began as fiction and became historicised does not prove one way or another what happened in the case of Jesus. It also seems to me that some of the other (and mostly it is agreed, later, non-canonical) gospels don’t especially ‘historicise’ Jesus at all, or at least certainly don’t present him with the historical, earthly, human flavour I read in the biblical Gospels.
My article was not aimed at arguing for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. It was aimed at the fairly low level aim of establishing the existence of Jesus as a person in human history, and indicating that there is an extremely wide scholarly consensus about this, even among those who reject such things as the resurrection. Happy to talk of the resurrection another time.
Exaggeration of data. Yes, that’s definitely a danger for Christians. It is also a danger for those promoting other world views. I have made mistakes about this before, and no doubt will again. I have also seen militant atheists make similar hyperbolic claims, exaggerate data, or advance factually incorrect claims, or create straw men to tear down. We naturally gravitate to those opinions which reinforce our own views. We should read people who disagree with us as a check and balance. And of course, in each case, we then need to discuss the merits of the particular data and conclusions drawn from it.
On Mara Bar Serapion, Van Voorst (who does date the letter later), also says the majority claim, with which he disagrees, is for the first century. However, I agree that I should re-word my article to say “most scholars agree Jesus fits the ‘identikit’ of king, teacher and martyr better than any other Jewish figure from the period”. That would be a more careful statement.
On scholars questioning Josephus on James, the brother of Jesus, could you cite some scholarly sources, please, to establish your claim that “many” academics and books discuss its authenticity, and, as you seem to hint, dispute it. I am not aware of this strong trend you assert. (I know we can always find the odd scholar to say a divergent view for every majority position, because that’s how the PhD industry keeps going, but I’d like more than a fringe position for this one.)
On Tacitus, yes, it seems he wrote Chrestians, although from my limited knowledge the conclusion that he was referring to someone else altogether or that the reference regarding Christ is an interpolation is not in any way the majority view. Tacitus still points pretty well to historicity on balance.
Agreed the Jewish Talmud is a later (hence I listed it later) and weaker piece of evidence as to the historical existence of Jesus.
On Vermes, you concede, then, that he agrees with the fairly minimal thesis I am defending here in my article: that Jesus existed in history.
I need to leave it there now. Thanks Jon.
Great summary! Worth noting: “The idea of a crucified god really did not make sense in the first century. It’s not a message you make up if you’re going to start a religion in the first century A.D.” (Ben Witherington).
“Jesus of Nazareth remains the most important individual who has ever lived. Nobody else has had comparable influence over so many nations for so long. Nobody else has so affected art and literature, music and drama. Nobody else can remotely match his record in the liberation, the healing and the education of mankind. Nobody else has attracted such a multitude not only of followers but of worshippers. Our claim, then, is not just that Jesus was one of the great spiritual leaders of the world. It would be hopelessly incongruous to refer to him as ‘Jesus the Great,’ comparable to Alexander the Great, Charles the Great, or Napoleon the Great. Jesus is not ‘the Great,’ he is the only. He has no peers, no rivals and no successors” (John Stott, The Contemporary Christian). http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/can-we-trust-the-story-about-jesus-christ/
Sandy, I asked who you had read because you hadn’t engaged with any of the arguments from such authors in your post and I wondered if you were aware of them. Carrier, among others, provides some pretty strong reasons to doubt the value of many of these sources as evidence for Jesus’ existence and I don’t think you can present a fair evaluation without dealing with such arguments.
My point is simply that there is no strong evidence to support the contention that any of these references to Jesus are based on primary sources – eyewitness or otherwise contemporaneous reports, official documentation, etc. – and none of the authors claim that they are. Therefore we can’t exclude the likelihood that they are simply reporting unfounded hearsay – just as we now think reports assuming the historicity of King Arthur were probably based on false traditions.
You say they “do not all seem necessarily reliant solely on Christian sources for information”. This is not my point. I’m not saying they are ‘necessarily’ reliant on Christian sources or any particular type of source, just that there is there is no good evidence that they are based on primary sources.
The only case in which you try to establish that any of these references are based on primary sources is Tacitus and the best you can claim there is a‘prima facie’ case that he ‘may’ have had access to official Roman documentation about Jesus. Yes he may have, but there is no evidence that he used such sources and there are reasons, such as the anomalous use of the titles ‘Christus’ and ‘procurator’, to think otherwise.
That the authors were opponents of Christianity or include details that are no longer part of the tradition add little weight to the veracity of the reports. There are any number of possible explanations for these characteristics which do not entail that they are more likely accurate reports of Jesus’ existence.
I’m a bit surprised that you put so much stock in the weight of scholarly consensus in your case here. I remember not long ago you were very quick to reject the value of scholarly consensus on outcomes for children of same sex parents. Perhaps if you applied that more skeptical turn of mind to this matter you wouldn’t be so certain of your conclusions ;-)
Brian, just a quick follow up. In regards to the consensus, here is the difference, as I see it. The consensus here – merely on the existence of Jesus – comes from scholars of a variety of world views. Many of them reject aspects of the NT reports of Jesus – e.g. his divinity, his miracles, his resurrection – some are atheists, some agnostics, some liberal Christians, some Jewish, some evangelicals. This helps account for bias.
When I looked into the materials published on same-sex parenting, I discovered two things.
(i) Methodological problems (often understandably) abounded.
(ii) Almost every time I googled the CVs of the authors of the papers being cited in favour of same-sex parenting, I discovered that the authors were already committed to the pro- gay and lesbian agenda. The research still has to be engaged with (see first point), but the consensus there was of a different nature, a consensus mostly among those who have already committed to a certain trajectory.
This is the same problem that Christians can be accused of – just uncritically accepting the word of those who agree with us.
In the case of the consensus about the historical existence of Jesus as a person, the worry about bias does not apply, since it is across the board.