Did Jesus Really Exist?

Examining the Evidence

Written by Taylor Carr - August 16, 2024
This article contains some arguments and views to which I no longer subscribe. For an analysis
of the extrabiblical sources on Jesus that is more consistent with my present position, go here.

Whatever you believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth is certainly one of the most influential characters in human history. His teachings and life story, as presented in the bible, have provided the basis for much speculation on his identity, with commentaries arising from Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus, in addition to Christians. The question of who Jesus was and what he taught has become a major point of contention in the last few decades, especially with popular books like The Da Vinci Code and Misquoting Jesus challenging the status quo concept of Christ. The only logical way to arrive at an accurate understanding of who this character was is to start at the beginning and let the evidence take us where it may.

To many people in the world, it will seem absurd to ask if Jesus really existed, but this is the question we must ask if we hope to objectively uncover anything at all. One can't simply start with the description of Christ in the gospels, because we need to know if we can trust the gospels first. The best way to find out the reliability of the gospels is to look at historical evidence left for archaeology. We could find out a great deal about Jesus by looking at ancient documents that may be relevant to him, as well as artifacts, inscriptions, and many other bits of evidence. Christian apologists have several sources they cite in support of an historical Jesus, but as we will see, these are not all they're made out to be. In fact, there is quite an interesting silence on Jesus in the historical record.

But first, it will be useful to explain just why the bible cannot be counted as historical evidence for the existence of the Jesus character.

I. Use of the Bible

The bible is our most comprehensive source for information on Jesus, and yet it simultaneously makes very extraordinary claims about him, claims which require a great deal of supporting evidence. He is associated with miracles, titles of godhood, and supernatural details that are not found in reliable historical records. When there is reason to suspect that a text may be exaggerating events or characters as an allegory would, it cannot be treated as a completely historical document, and it must be examined with caution and suspicion. If archaeology or history happen to turn up findings that validate the biblical view of Jesus, then the bible can be called historical in that sense. But until then it must be viewed with healthy skepticism. There are a multitude of good examples of historical blunders in the bible, but that is an issue for another article.

Now, the bible could be used as a guide on how to recognize and search for evidence of Christ, but its usefulness may be somewhat limited too. For example, Frank Zindler has argued that the city of Nazareth did not exist at all in Jesus' day. He bases his argument on the following points:

No ancient historians or geographers mention Nazareth before the beginning of the fourth century AD.

Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor the Apocrypha, and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.

Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages.

Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by the first century historian Josephus.

Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud. [1]

It has also been suggested that when the New Testament refers to Jesus as a Nazarene, it is actually a mistranslation of the word 'Nazarite', which is a person who has taken a vow of holiness, such as Samson is described in Judges 13:5. From this issue alone, hopefully it is evident enough that the bible may not be the most reliable means for determining factual evidence about the character of Jesus Christ, and so sources outside of the bible are needed, for the sake of credibility.

II. Josephus

The extra-biblical source most frequently cited by Christians as evidence of Jesus' existence comes from the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. His writings which are supposedly revelant to Jesus are found in Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93 AD. It is important to note that Josephus never witnessed any of the gospel events himself, as he was not born until 37 AD. Historians generally believe that if the bible events are true, Christ would've died sometime between 26-36 AD, as that was the period during which Pontius Pilate governed the Judean province. The passage on Jesus, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is as follows:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." [2]

There are several things about this passage that lead many to doubt its authenticity. No other historian or religious apologist mentions this portion of Josephus' writings before the 4th century. Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, the church father Origen (who quoted Josephus quite often in his writings), and many others do not seem aware of the passage. The first time it is brought into an author's defense of Christianity is with Eusebius, writing around 324 [3].

This raises the possibility that the references to Christ are an interpolation, added at a later date and not contained in the original work. Further evidence of this would be the surrounding context, which begins by describing conflict between Pontius Pilate and the Jews, and resumes discussing the 'terrible misfortune' of the Jews after the passage on Jesus. The portion about Christ seems to be a break in the flow of the text. Josephus was also an orthodox Jew who had no reason to talk of Christ so favorably. In some of his writings, he even discusses other self-proclaimed messiahs like Judas of Galilee, the Samaritan prophet, John the Baptist, and Theudas, yet his talk of Jesus is so flattering that one can't help but wonder why he didn't convert.

There is another passage in Josephus' writings, which allegedly provides evidence of Jesus by reference to his brother, James. Once more, from his Antiquities:

"Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified... Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest." [4]

Along with the Testimonium, this passage features one of the only two uses of the word "Christ" in Josephus' entire writing career. This fact, as well as many others, has led scholars like G.A. Wells to consider the portion, "who was called Christ" to be an interpolation [5]. We can observe this from simply reading the full context of the passage too. Josephus describes the priestly lineage fathered by the elder Ananus, and also explains who the brother of James is at the end of the passage: Jesus, son of Damneus, who was (not surprisingly) a member of the priesthood. The younger Ananus, Josephus tells us, had a passion for punishing those who violated the law, treating them much less humanely than average Jews. Whatever this James had done, he was a law breaker, according to Ananus, and so was punished with death by stoning. However, protests to his action arose, and eventually culminated in his removal by king Agrippa, who sought to further disgrace Ananus by selecting Jesus, the brother of James, to succeed him as high priest.

Neither of these Josephan passages cited by apologists provide any reliable evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. One has an alternate meaning involving a different Jesus that makes far more sense in the context, and the other has long been suspected to be an outright forgery.

III. Tacitus

Writing in approximately 116 AD, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote the following in his work, Annals:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." [6]

The tone of this passage seems polar opposite to Josephus' praise, but consider what information it really gives us about a historical Jesus. All we can gain from the passage is that a group of Christians were persecuted and blamed for the fire of Rome, and legend has it that their leader was someone called "Christus", who endured suffering at the hands of Pontius Pilate. 'Christ' is a title, not a surname, and so this individual and his followers who are described could be almost any messiah cult of the 1st century. Additionally, some have suggested that the word in the passage is actually "Chrestus", which was a popular name for slaves in that time, meaning 'good' or 'useful' [7].

Again, no early Christian writers or historians refer to this passage until it appears nearly verbatim in the Chronica of Sulpicius Severus around the 5th century. Tacitus was born in 55 AD, so he could not have witnessed the gospel events, and his writing in Annals comes almost 80 years after the alleged death of Jesus Christ. In short, a lot more information would be needed to conclude that Tacitus is talking about the character of Jesus Christ depicted in the Christian bible.

IV. Suetonius

The Roman historian Suetonius is another source that Christians trumpet as evidence for Christ's existence, and yet in the third case we've seen now, Suetonius was also born too late (circa 69 AD) to have witnessed the gospel events himself. Nevertheless, he wrote this extremely brief description of a person who believers identify as Jesus:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome." [8]

This seems to be a perfect example of the lengths that the religious believer will go to in order to reaffirm his faith. As I've already mentioned, "Christ" is a title, not a surname, so it could've been used for several different messiahs of the time, and "Chrestus" was also a fairly common name for slaves in first century Judea.

The Jewish Encyclopedia gives us a more accurate interpretation of Suetonius:

"The emperor Claudius was not unfavorably disposed toward the Roman Jews in the beginning of his reign, but in 49-50, in consequence of dissensions among them regarding the advent of the Messiah, they were forbidden to hold religious services. The leaders in the controversy, and many others of the Jewish citizens, left the city." [9]

So it is very probable that Suetonius was writing about the popularity of messiah cults and the trouble which arose from disagreements, leading up to the expulsion of many Jewish sects. With Jesus Christ allegedly being crucified around 30 AD, it is unlikely that Suetonius is referring to him 20 years later. It could be referring to the Christian sect, but there appears to be no concrete way of knowing, with as little information as the passage provides.

V. Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger was a provincial governor in the Roman Empire who supposedly corresponded with the emperor Trajan through several letters about the Christian sects. Here is an excerpt from the correspondence in question:

"Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ � none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do � these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ."

A little background history may be helpful here. From the context, it seems Pliny contacted the emperor not because the Christians were practicing beliefs that he did not like, but because he suspected them of political alliances that might've threatened the Roman Empire. Furthermore, it is apparent that Pliny was not even sure of who Christians were or what they believed:

"...the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished, for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction." [10]

From his descriptions, it looks as though many of the people he questioned did not even know what a Christian was. Some professed to have been former Christians, others claimed to believe until they were punished, etc - but many ultimately pledged their dedication to Rome and the emperor. Bear in mind that a Christian, in its literal meaning, is simply someone who follows 'the anointed one'. It is not necessarily a reference to Jesus or a man from Nazareth, especially in the early years when Christianity was still not seen as more than a sect of Judaism. Were these Christians as we know them today, or members of the various messiah cults of the time? Did they even know what they were confessing to at all?

Pliny's first 9 books of letters are thought to have been written between 99 and 109 AD, yet book 10, which contains his correspodence with the emperor, was not intended for publication, though it was eventually released after his death. And as with the previous 3 historians we've covered, Pliny the Younger could not have witnessed the gospel events, since he was not born until sometime around 62 AD.

VI. Celsus

One of the most curious extra-biblical sources that Christians argue to be evidence of Jesus' existence is Celsus, whose works are preserved in the criticisms Origen wrote of him. Celsus was a second century Greek philosopher and author of The True Doctrine, which was a refutation of Christianity written sometime around 175-180 AD [11]. From that information alone, we already know that Celsus could not have been a contemporary witness to the gospel events. It is strange for Christians to cite Celsus as an example of a historical Jesus, because The True Doctrine is far from flattering in its mention of Christ. It contains several claims that are problematic indeed for a biblical Jesus, such as the assertion that Mary's illegitimate child was fathered by a Roman soldier named Panthera.

However, it's not so much the contents that Christians focus on as it is the way in which Celsus appears to reference a historical figure when he speaks of Jesus. Such a suggestion might have some weight, if Celsus had lived during the time of Jesus. By the time he wrote The True Doctrine, all Celsus could have commented on was hearsay or tradition, and it is extremely difficult to know if the stories passed on to the author were in fact historically accurate.

VII. Lucian

Lucian is another Greek author who wrote a particularly scathing critique of Christianity, in the form of a satirical play called The Death of Peregrine.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws." [12]

For the fifth case we've seen now, Lucian lived too late to have witnessed any of the gospel events himself, and his satire was not published until sometime around the mid-2nd century. It is easy to see that The Death of Peregrine was written as a mockery of the Christian sect and its beliefs, not as a personal attack by someone who knew and disliked the 'historical Jesus'. Citing this material as evidence for Christ's existence is like citing 1984 as evidence for the existence of a literal nation of Oceania. It was written as satire, not an historical record, and Lucian's main concern was not with the historicity of Jesus, but with the behavior of Christians.

VIII. Thallus

Of all the extra-biblical sources used by apologists to justify their faith in the existence of Jesus, Thallus might have to be the worst. There is very little information on Thallus, and none of his works survive, except through fragments cited in the work of later authors. The passage supposedly relevant to Jesus comes from Eusebius, quoting the writing of Julius Africanus (c. 221 AD):

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun." [13]

If you're asking what this has to do with Jesus, since it makes no mention of Christ, "Christus", or anything of the sort... use your imagination and try thinking like an over-eager and desperate apologist. According to Africanus and others, the darkness mentioned by Thallus is the darkness that came over the land for hours during Jesus' crucifixion (Mark 15:33). The problem with this source is that the majority of it is the word of Julius Africanus, not Thallus. All we learn of Thallus is that he called some darkness an eclipse of the sun. I say 'some', because it is far from clear when Thallus wrote.

According to Eusebius, Thallus wrote his Histories from "the sack of Troy to the 167th Olympiad" [14]. This would mean that he covered events from 1184 BC up to about 109 BC. Obviously this would exclude the time of Jesus crucifixion, which is typically placed at around 30 AD, so some scholars have suggested that Eusebius' text is corrupted - that it really says (or means to say) he covered events up to the 207th (49-52 AD) or 217th Olympiad (89-92 AD). This is a pretty wide range of possibilities, and there are yet no solid reasons for thinking any dating to be more correct than the others. Also bear in mind that authors don't necessarily write their histories around the same time as the events they describe.

To summarize, this source is an exceedingly poor one, because we have little to no information on when Thallus lived, what precisely he wrote, and when exactly he wrote it. The darkness he may have discussed might not have fallen on Passover at all.

IX. The Talmud

The Babylonian Talmud, in Sanhedrin 43a, refers to an individual named 'Yeshu', whom a great deal of Christians and apologists consider to be Jesus.

"It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that '[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him.' But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) 'Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him.' Yeshu was different because he was close to the government."

This portion of the Talmud is thought to date back to the Tannaic period, which was 70-200 AD. That is no small gap, and even if we presume it to have been written at the very beginning, in 70 AD, this source is still no less than 40 years late from the gospel events. However, there are other problems with applying the passage to Jesus too. In another excerpt from Sanhedrin 43a, we find disciples listed for Yeshu:

"It is taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah."

Five disciples instead of the legendary twelve, and only one (Matai) has a name that resembles Jesus' group? The passage also goes on to tell that all five disciples were executed after Yeshu was put to death. These details, along with the mention of hanging instead of crucifixion, the calling of witnesses to defend Yeshu, and the part about Yeshu being "close to the government", seem to cast significant doubt on Yeshu being the Jesus Christ of the gospels. Yeshu was quite a common name at the time as well. In the Talmud alone, there are at least four other occurrences of it, each quite different from the others (Avodah Zarah 16b-17a, Sanhedrin 103a, Sanhedrin 107b, Gittin 56b & 57a).

The similarities between the Talmud's reference to Yeshu and the character of Jesus that is found in the New Testament are underwhelming, to say the least.

X. Evidence?

These historians and accounts are the main examples Christians give for the historical existence of Jesus Christ, and there is not that much evidence offered beyond them. Most, if not all, of the writings cited provide little information on anything but the Christian sect itself. What is missing is not just discussion of the character of Jesus, but discussion of the miraculous events surrounding Jesus' life and death. Why don't the historians of antiquity mention such phenomenal local events as the 500 witnesses to the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6) and the graves bursting open to allow zombies to waltz about into Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53)? Even some corroboration with the New Testament miracles could be sufficient to make us doubting Thomases think twice about the bible's historical presentation of Jesus.

Do not think that the crux of this article has been about denying the existence of Jesus though. I might be willing to give Christians the benefit of a doubt and agree that some individual named Jesus could've existed in 1st century Judea. Yet until we have good reason to assume that person was actually anything more than a footnote in history, it is an exercise in blind faith to conclude he was the son of god, the messiah to the world, or anything else. Could Jesus have really existed? Well, anything is possible, but even if you establish Christ's existence, you're still left with the daunting task of establishing the biblical version of Christ as the real deal.

Sources:

1. Zindler, F.R. (1996) Where Jesus Never Walked. American Atheists. Retrieved Apr. 4, 2010.
2. Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews. XVIII 3.3.
3. Eusebius. The Church History. Book I, Chapter XI. Retrieved Apr. 4, 2010.
4. Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews. Book XX, Chapter IX.
5. Wells, G.A. (1986) Did Jesus Exist?. p.11. Pemberton Publishing Co.
6. Tacitus. Annals. Book XV, Chapter 44.
7. France, R.T. (2006) The Evidence for Jesus. p.42. Regent.
8. Suetonius. Lives of the Twelve Caesars.
9. Jacobs, J. & Schulim Ochser. Rome: Expelled Under Tiberius. JewishEncyclopedia.com. Retrieved Apr. 4, 2010.
10. Pliny. The Letters of Pliny the Younger: Letter 96. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved Apr. 4, 2010.
11. Anonymous. Celsus. Wikipedia.org. Retrieved Feb. 28, 2009.
12. Lucian. "The Death of Peregrine". (1949) The Works of Lucian of Samosata. Vol 4. Translated by H.W. Fowler. Oxford: Clarendon.
13. Africanus, J. "Extant Writings". (1973) Ante-Nicene Fathers. XVIII. Vol. VI. p.130. ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
14. Eusebius. Chronicle. I. K125.2.