Do Historians Agree Jesus Lived?

Although the answer to this is often said to be as natural as rain and supported by any historical scholar worth his own salt, the truth is not quite as accommodating — as it is with many things, the answer is somewhere in between “yes” and “no.”

Naturally, we have a following of Jesus, which has turned into what we call Christianity. This cannot be questioned. Such a following must start from something or someone. It is like this with anything.

To find a more specific answer, we must navigate through historians of Christian and non-Christian persuasions. Bias can come in many forms, and few are without it. Though opinions differ on what we can actually view as valid historical sources, there is some consensus across the board. It's not as profound as it would seem, as many often quote, but consensus nonetheless.

And indeed, it is true that historians, in general, have a good idea of where Christianity was born.

It is agreed that a prominent and influential figure named Yeshua existed about two thousand years ago and that it is primarily this man whose life and identity have been transcribed into the lore of Jesus Christ. Further, evidence suggests that Yeshua was not called anything beyond his first name, and the title “Christ” (derived from the Greek word χριστός or chrīstós) was attributed to him later. The term essentially means “one who has been anointed with oil.” In Jewish tradition, this title translates to “Messiah,” which also means “[one who is] anointed.” However, by all accounts, this title was not associated with Yeshua until many years after his death, primarily through the teachings of Saint Paul.

Additionally, it is agreed that Yeshua came from Jewish roots and a rather large family at that. He had at least four brothers (as even supported by the Gospels) and some sisters, too (though the exact number is unknown). They lived in Nazareth, and Yeshua lived there as well around the turn of the century, aligning roughly with the timeframe attributed to the biblical Jesus. He was a devout follower of John the Baptist and only began forming his own following after John's untimely and unjust death, late in Yeshua’s life. He preached to Jews as well as Gentiles. There is also circumstantial evidence suggesting that Yeshua ended his days on the cross, punished by Romans — a punishment typically reserved to exemplify the destiny of robbers and bandits. However, it is not known when. The details surrounding the crucifixion, such as exact age or specific charges, are not clear from historical records outside of Christian sources. He was, though, between 33 - 37 years at the time of his death.

This is the extent of what consensus historians agree upon — nothing less and very little more.

When people cite that Jesus and his existence are well supported by historians, independent of what their religious creed may be, Yeshua is whom they reference: A jew who started a following late in his life and was possibly and likly punished for it not long after. That is all. Historians do not affirm any of his supposed divine attributes, such as his resurrection or his association with God — these elements are derived solely from the narratives of the holy scriptures and fables, not the historicity consensus.

WHAT IS PECULIAR ABOUT THE EVIDENCE BEHIND JESUS?

The essence and the real question on evidence about Jesus…

… is not if there was a man named Jesus (or Yeshua).
It is not if there was a man who preached kindness and love.
It is not if there was a following based off a philosophy on compassion and love.
It is not even about such a philosophy or rule of living or if people have faith in it.

All of that is a given to a theist, as well as an atheist. No. The essence of Jesus is who he was. Who he is.

He is the all-powerful son of the creator of everything. He is God. That is not a trivial thing. And this is the part of his lore to ponder.

Can this go beyond faith? Does this have historicity?

No, that part has no recorded historical evidence outside the holy scriptures. None. Not even fantastical recordings or campfire tales across regions. And I submit that there would have been, had there been some historical truth to such a being.

Indeed, scholars, independent of religious creed, agree on several fundamental references behind a historical Yeshua, but, at the same time, they discard supposed evidence for the mystical/Biblical Jesus. They do this because this is the step (between history and fable) where the trail of objective evidence and historicity breaks down. Such lack of evidence in the chain of causality leading to Christianity is peculiar. Why would it break down and not be intact? Why does evidence only support the mundane parts of his story - impressive as they are — and not the parts that set him apart?

Objectively, one must find this lack of historical support peculiar.

Remember, you have a man with supernatural abilities walking amongst us and sharing his powers openly. Yet, no source outside of the holy scriptures mentions him (which, by the way, was written about 50-150+ years after the events). He can walk on water, turn inanimate objects into food, control the weather, cure illnesses, and even blindness, leprosy, and death. Such a man would have drawn quite a bit of headlines — even in his day. And yet, we have no such recordings. Nothing.

Indeed, there are outside sources that mention the following of Jesus in those days. The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, is often referred to as an unbiased source, as he is the only outsider who mentions Jesus’ amazing achievements (still about half a century after the “fact,” mind you). He was an adamant historian, and he references Jesus twice in his many texts. This source, however, is not entirely valid. Many of his texts have been proven doctored by Christian followers and have gone through many revisions. The remaining authentic parts of his texts mostly mention the “following” of Jesus. A cult, more specifically — and it is unclear from where he got this info. However, there is nothing about Jesus and his hallmarks. And let us not forget that the “following” is not in question.

Now, when we compare this lack of historical documentation with our history of other historical fantastical personalities from this age or even preceding this age, it becomes peculiar still.

For example, we have multiple records of Thales of Miletus (650 BCE), Pythagoras of Samos (570 BCE), Plato (528 BCE), Socrates of Athens (470 BCE), Alexander The Great (356 BCE), Hannibal The Conqueror (247 BCE), Siddhartha Gautama The Buddha (480 BCE). Etc. Etc. These men have statues, paintings, and drawings from different cultures — some even made while they lived. Some, we have writings from, and for several others, we have solid, diversified evidence of their being and their achievements from many different sources. And yet, despite the immense fascination our ancient historical records show for such fascinating men, none of them can compete with the amazing and fantastic things Jesus supposedly did — and still, we have no outside records of his powers.

I submit that if Jesus indeed did the things he did, we would have had emperors, kings, and wise men coming from all over to meet and study these phenomena. They would have been richly recorded and documented in many different forms outside of the holy scriptures. The Bible does describe three wise men famously present at his birth, but no sources outside of the Bible do, and there would have been. There should have been. Plenty.

Go more meticulously into the holy scriptures themselves, and it becomes even more… peculiar.

Look at his tales and writings about him; they are strangely similar to the allegorical fables of Mithraic, Horus, Buddha, Krishna, and Lao Tzu. Suspiciously similar. In addition to this, the apostles’ Gospels vastly disagree on key points about Jesus and his life. It is not small things they disagree on; it is things like the number of siblings and wives, events at the resurrection, when he died, where he was buried, witnesses, and more. Also, we know several other holy books (like that of the Gospel of Thomas) that have been omitted from the Bible for political reasons (officially so). And this begs the question of what else has been omitted or manipulated? Even the canon source material does not describe Jesus and his life too well. What happened through his youth? His teens? His childhood? His early adulthood? Who is he, really?

Look at the facts — scarce as they may be — and the conclusion is that his stories are prevaricated to serve a political and religious agenda.

Of course, even if we did have several sources backing him and his abilities, one should always remain skeptical. Carl Sagan taught us that;

“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.”

And as David Hume said;

“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”

The thing is, though, we have no such “testimonies” or “evidence,” and so it stops there, doesn’t it?

I want to make it clear that following Jesus is not a debate — not even the person nor the lore ascribed to him.

Most likely, his legend is built from a combination of many people who lived and an embodiment of many magnificent tales and lore through the ages. The following, I suspect, is a result of oppression and a yearning for purpose and hope. It may have started with a man called Yeshua, but it clearly did not end there. I am sure that the birth of “the concept of Jesus” was beautiful and a need for its time. I respect that. Follow what you must.

I will go as far as to say that Jesus, the man, and the philosopher, need no proof of existence, as it is his supernatural deity that people follow, admire, and worship. It is this divine part we would need to substantiate or ever attempt to prove when we talk about historicity and evidence. And then again, one might fairly argue this is irrelevant to a faith.

In my opinion, seeking out evidence for prophets is a moot quest, as, in the end, it does not change anything. They are men or ideas of men. And the ideas are here, and they are real even if the men are not.

What matters — and this is the only thing that matters in my humble view — is if what people (you?) ascribe to these champions of religions hold truths or if they hold falsehoods.

Have their qualities and supernatural abilities been proven to be factual, and none hoaxed?
Are their connections to a supreme supramundane entity real or wishful thinking?
It is based on faith or is is based on evidence?

These questions need to be contemplated, and we must be honest about them. We can categorically and indubitably say there is no historical evidence for these magnificent hallmarks beyond holy scriptures. However, faith does not need evidence. Faith needs commitment. Both viewpoints need honesty.

Lao%2BTzu.jpg — Lao Tzu spreading the gospel 600 years before Jesus.

Krishna playing the gospel 3 000 years before Lao Tzu.

Is there evidence that Superman lived?

The holy scriptures, as a singular source, cannot be held to rigorous historical standards. For fantastical events to be considered historically valid, there must be a wealth of diverse sources. Two thousand years from now, someone might claim Superman was real because 20th-century texts (comics) mentioned that Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane met him, and historically documented events like Comic-Con conventions provide evidence of his presence. I wish he were, I really do — but wishing does not make it so.

The wisdom and beauty of the philosophy are what we ought to appreciate and learn from, but never blindly and always critically. The core teachings of Jesus, Lao Tzu, and Krishna are profound; the essence of Superman is extraordinary. Let us hold on to these ideals, follow what resonates with us, and be free and honest about it.

Epilogue

I am not a historian, nor have I been trained academically in religious dogmas. The above piece reflects my own findings and opinions on the subject. It is a reaction to the discussions that often muddy faith and evidence together. These are two distinct and opposite paradigms of contemplating existence — both valid, but one must earnestly own which paradigm one's thoughts belong. When I reference facts, they are based on mainstream literature on these topics and reflect what I believe to be the consensus orientation. It is historicity. Remember, lack of historicity does not mean it wasn't so. It just means we have no evidence if it was so.

For reference, I can recommend the following books:

“The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed” (2012), by Professor Helen K. Bond of the University of St Andrews - [Unbiased and balanced; representing several points of view]
“The Historical Figure of Jesus” (1996), by Professor E. P. Sanders of Duke University - [Balanced; rationally and objectively argued]
“Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth”, by New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman of the Princeton Theological Seminary - [Balanced, and rationally argued, but holds an underlying attitude against the Biblical Christ]
“The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of a Historical Jesus” (2005), by B.A. in Ancient History Earl Doherty - [Biased; reasoning logically (in my view, some of its claims won’t hold up to historic scrutiny) against both the historical and the Biblical Christ]
‘The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus” (1998), by journalist and public speaker Lee Strobel - [Biased; a tale attempting (and in my view, naively failing) to objectively argue for the Biblical Christ]

Was Jesus a Real Person?

Do Historians Agree Jesus Lived?

WHAT IS PECULIAR ABOUT THE EVIDENCE BEHIND JESUS?

Is there evidence that Superman lived?

Epilogue

Was Indiana Jones a Hero or a Zero?

The Real Reason Why Light Is Slower in Water