Like a broken record, Christian apologists will state that 'most scholars believe Jesus existed', when the historicity of their savior is called into question. The statement intends to lend credibility to the existence of Jesus by noting how the majority of experts consent that there was a historical Christ. Typically, an apologist or expert will go on the offensive against anyone who merely suggests that the evidence for Jesus' existence is not so conclusive.

However, many Christians may neglect to tell you that the scholars they reference all have deeply vested interests in the historical existence of Jesus. These scholars are professors of New Testament studies, biblical history, and other subjects that will certainly attract religious individuals more than skeptics or non-believers. Charlesworth himself is a professor of New Testament language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. There are quite a few reasons for why these so-called experts might not have faithfully completed all their research on the issue of Christ's existence.

1. The disciplines appeal primarily to Christians.
As I already explained, the fields of New Testament and biblical studies are most likely to attract Christians. This seems obvious, because there first must be some basic level of interest in a subject in order for someone to seriously consider obtaining a degree and making a career out of it. No group is probably more interested in Christian theology and history than Christians themselves, and of course it poses a significant problem for a believer's faith if they honestly entertain the possibility that their savior may not have existed.

2. Skeptics still face plenty of peer pressure.
Even in those rare cases when a non-believer or Jesus skeptic makes it into a theological seminary, there will still definitely be pressure to accept the historical existence of Christ. Any student hoping for a future position of tenure or respect won't want to run the risk of pissing off their professors by espousing the highly controversial idea that Jesus was more myth than man.

3. The idea of a historical Jesus is very entrenched in our thinking.
There's no question that Jesus Christ has been an extremely influential character throughout history, whether he existed or not. Because of this, many people would need some pretty miraculous evidence, like a letter written by one of the disciples detailing how they invented Jesus and plainly spelling out the fact that Christ never literally existed. Then, of course, there are also those individuals for whom no amount of evidence would ever be convincing enough to debunk their lofty vision of the messiah.

4. The idea that there is some truth behind most myths.
I might venture to say that there is some truth behind most myths, but the problem is often in determining what that truth is. If I say that Jesus never existed, it is still possible that the words attributed to him were spoken at a time, by one or more individuals now lost to history. Perhaps that is the kernel of truth to the Jesus myth. It could also be that a person named Jesus was actually crucified during the first century, but without further information, it's irresponsible to claim that this was the same Jesus from the bible, especially given that the name 'Jesus' was a fairly common one [2].

When a Christian points out that 'most scholars believe Jesus existed', they are indirectly telling you that you should side with the majority of experts. Don't study the evidence for yourself and make your own judgments, just listen to these theologians and take their word for it. Make no mistake about it either, they are theologians, not historians. The fascinating thing is that most secular historians and archaeologists don't seem that concerned with the existence of Jesus. Maybe they consider it to be unimportant because history itself has left little trace of Jesus to begin with. According to the bible, Christ allegedly traveled through several centers of commerce and metropolitan areas, stirring up a fuss among Jewish and Roman leaders of his day. Yet even if we are to believe that the evidences from Josephus, Tacitus, and others are legitimate, it still seems that Jesus was little more than a footnote in the first century.

The question of Jesus' existence must be approached from a more unbiased perspective. Christian scholars and Jesus mythicists both seem deadset in their ways, when the actual issue is not so black and white.

1. Charlesworth, J. (2006) Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
2. Palmer, B. (2008) Was Jesus a common name at the beginning of the first century?. Retrieved May 10, 2009.