Did Jesus ever exist?

[TJ]

Evidence from Josephus

On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, the first century Jewish historian mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."

F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him.

We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same.


Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.

The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

"Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. The passage also tells us why Jesus was put to death. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." And such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery. Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.


Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [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.

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater god than any that Greece had to offer!

To summarize:

First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah.

And of course, there are also the four gospel accounts and the entire body of letters in the NT.

[Mr.Obvious]

I find that it doesn't really matter to me if Jesus existed or not.
Was there a historical Jesus? Was he in personality like how the bible describes him?
Interesting questions if you are a historian. But I'm but a layman and my main interests lie elsewhere.
So rather than fine-combing the necessary data to justify having a position in this debate I'll just admit my ignorance.

[Blackleaf]

Jesus supposedly died around 30-33 AD. So let's be generous and use the later year.

Josephus was born 37 AD, four years after Jesus' death. Never saw Jesus himself, and likely never met anyone who did, because by the time he grew up and became a "historian," most of Jesus' contemporaries would be dead. Thirty-five was the average life span in the first century. And notice I put quotation marks over "historian," because he was not a secular keeper of history. He was a Christian, and his "historical" writings included events that his religion taught him to believe happened, such as the six day creation story.

Babylonian Talmud's possible references to Jesus were written hundreds of years after Jesus' death, well after the myth had time to be born and spread. And the references, which are not universally considered to be references to Jesus, were made to make fun of the religion and its beliefs, not to affirm its historical accuracy.

Lucian was born in 120 AD. Never met Jesus, obviously. Never met anyone who met Jesus, obviously. Did not write anything about Jesus until well after the myth had time to form and spread.

Now, where are the contemporaries? Where are the people who met Jesus personally, or even heard about him and decided to write about it? There are none. That speaks volumes. No one from the early first century wrote about Jesus because he either didn't exist or wasn't considered important enough to mention. He was not walking around performing miracles, gathering huge crowds as he healed the sick, cast out demons, raised the dead, and more.

If there was a real man behind the myth, the stories about him became more grandiose over time. The books of the New Testament give evidence for this when read in the order that they were written, starting with the letters of Paul. He goes from being a great teacher to someone who could command the weather. This is how many legends are born. They begin with a true story, but that story changes over time to be more and more fantastical, until the truth is consumed by myth.

[fencerider]

We can add on to this a whole other line of thinking.

According to the Christian religion Jesus was a real person that was crucified by Romans. Then he resurrected himself to prove he is the son of a god. He is supposed to be alive and well and around somewhere right now. How many people have prayed for Jesus to prove he exists and got nothing? Far too many people have not gotten any response to not question the authenticity of the Christian religion.

[Baruch]

We can add on to this a whole other line of thinking.

According to the Christian religion Jesus was a real person that was crucified by Romans. Then he resurrected himself to prove he is the son of a god. He is supposed to be alive and well and around somewhere right now. How many people have prayed for Jesus to prove he exists and got nothing? Far too many people have not gotten any response to not question the authenticity of the Christian religion.

The claim will be payers answered in dreams and visions.  No god or god-ling has ever appeared ... factually.  I discount history, because it mostly can't be confirmed.  This includes Jesus and all other gods.  As long as the subjective and private is discounted, and the objective and public confirmed ... the existence of religion can be confirmed, and the existence of spirituality can be denied.

[baddogma]

It doesn't matter what the majority of historians believe, what matters is what is their evidence. Fact is there are exactly ZERO contemporary accounts he existed and we don't know anything he said except by people that never met him tell us he said. A lot of what he did miracle-wise are copied from prior savior figures. Even if he did exist, he was a man. Period

[Cavebear]

Every reference I see about Jesus as a actual person is by tainted references.  Josphesus was a liar and not really a contemporary, and the references you would expect from the Romans never exist for such a person or the events so currently famous about such person.

Not that it really matters.  So if such a messiah type existed, so what?  The whole deity thing is unfactual at the base.

[trdsf]

Every reference I see about Jesus as a actual person is by tainted references.

Not only tainted references, but absolutely zero contemporary ones.  There are reports of reports of reports, but even those come down to us as copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of translations.  Worse, most of those copies were made by those who had a vested interest in passing down their beliefs more than the truth, rather than the truth despite their beliefs.  It was one of the Josephus documents, in fact, where the supposed reference to Jesus was a clear insert by a later scribe, because the reference is very clearly written to push the idea of the divinity of Jesus -- and therefore not at all what an observant Jew like Josephus would have written.

[fencerider]

so Jesus is fiction huh? and how much money did people make off of the Jesus fiction???

I would love to create a fiction like that (with some iron clad royalty rights to boot)

[Blackleaf]

so Jesus is fiction huh? and how much money did people make off of the Jesus fiction???

I would love to create a fiction like that (with some iron clad royalty rights to boot)

People continue to get rich off of the Jesus fiction. The Bible is the number one best seller, and the church is the biggest business in the world. Joel Osteen's church even charges for tickets for the Sunday services.

[AwkwardOctopus]

There are some historical records that support Jesus being a real person. There is no evidence supporting miracles, great travels, or any contemporary disciples. We have no contemporary accounts. The 4 "gospels" were in fact found to have been written/compiled around the time of the early councils of nicea, over 300 years after the approximated time of crucifixion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

There are some historical records that support Jesus being a real person. There is no evidence supporting miracles, great travels, or any contemporary disciples. We have no contemporary accounts. The 4 "gospels" were in fact found to have been written/compiled around the time of the early councils of nicea, over 300 years after the approximated time of crucifixion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Can you share with me what historical records that support jesus being a real person might be?  One will do.

[PopeyesPappy]

There are some historical records that support Jesus being a real person. There is no evidence supporting miracles, great travels, or any contemporary disciples. We have no contemporary accounts. The 4 "gospels" were in fact found to have been written/compiled around the time of the early councils of nicea, over 300 years after the approximated time of crucifixion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Welcome, AwkwardOctopus!

And no, there is a good deal of evidence supporting a late 1st or early 2nd century origin for at least some of the synoptic gospels.

[Baruch]

Welcome, AwkwardOctopus!

And no, there is a good deal of evidence supporting a late 1st or early 2nd century origin for at least some of the synoptic gospels.

For small parts of the synoptic gospels.  The first full copies are circa 200 CE.  Similarly the epistles of Paul ... though in content the true epistles (with some later editing) do seem to come from the first century CE.  And Paul knows no human Jesus.  The Jesus of Paul and John, is gnostic, metaphysical ... not historical nor human.

[AwkwardOctopus]

Can you share with me what historical records that support jesus being a real person might be?  One will do.

There is a Roman record of crucifixion, and a burial record for a man named Jesus of Nazareth around the correct time. There was an excellent research study published last year. I'll have to dig around and find it again.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk