Do Historians Really Agree That 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 persuasions, 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 a consensus across the board. Not as profound, as it would seem many often quote, but consensus, nonetheless.

And, it is true that historians, in general, have a good idea from whom the idea of Christianity was born.

It is agreed that there was a prominent and influential figure by the name of Yeshua about two thousand years ago and that it is primarily this man and his name, that we have transcribed into the lore of Jesus Christ. Further, it appears that Yeshua was called by no other name than his first, and that the label of “Christ” (comes from the Greek word χριστός chrīstós) was an appointed title, following a ritual of anointing or rubbing one in oil. Basically, this is what Christ means; “one who has been anointed in oil.” In Jewish traditions, the title is often translated to; “a messiah”, which incidentally verbatim also means: “[one who is] anointed.” However, this title was, by all accounts, not attributed to Yeshua until many years after his death by the teachings of Saint Paul.

Further, it is agreed that Yeshua came from Jewish roots, and from a rather large family at that. He had at least four brothers (which is even supported by the Gospels themselves) and some sisters too (we do not know how many). They lived in Nazareth, and he too lived by the turn of the century in roughly the same period as the Bible-Jesus supposedly lived. He was a devout follower of John the Baptist, and he formed his own following not until after John’s untimely and unjust death, late in his own life. He preached to Jews as well as gentiles. There is also circumstantial evidence supporting this Yeshua ended his days on the cross, punished by Romans - an execution usually reserved to exemplify the destiny of robbers and bandits. However, it is not known when. He was between 33 - 37 years old when he died.

All of this is what consensus historians agree on. Nothing less, and very little more.

When people cite that Jesus and his existence is 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 punished for it not long after. That is it. They do not reference any of his supposed divine hallmarks, like his resurrection or association to God - this is all on the fables of the holy scriptures alone and 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 of 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 and not the parts that matter?

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, make inanimate objects into food, control the weather, cure illnesses, and even blindness and leprosy and death. Such a man would have drawn quite a bit of headline - 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 in his texts mostly mention the “following” of a Jesus. A cult, more specifically - and it is unclear from where he got this info. However, not anything about Jesus and his hallmarks. And, let us not forget; the “following” is not in question.

Now, view this lack of historical documentation with our history of other historical fantastical personalities from this age, or even preceding this age, and 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 and paintings and drawings across cultures - even some made while they lived. Some, we have writings from, and for several others, we have solid diversified evidence of their being and their achievements over 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 a Jesus indeed did the things he did, we would have had emperors and 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, and they are strangely similar to the allegorical fables of Mithraic, Horus, and even Buddha, Krishna, and not least Lao Tzu. Suspiciously similar. And add to that how 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, 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 points in the direction 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 the following of Jesus is not a debate. Not even the person. The legend is.

Most likely, his legend is built from a combination of many people who lived and an embodiment of many magnificent tales and lores through the ages. The following, I believe, 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 historicity and evidence.

In my opinion, it is a moot quest to seek out evidence for any prophets, 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 - 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 are what need to be contemplated, and we must be honest about it. These are what need substantiation if anything does. And on that, we can categorically and indubitably say that no historical evidence beyond fairy tales and ancient folklore exists. However, faith does not need evidence. Faith needs commitment. And 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 any standards. Two thousand years from now, it is a bit like saying Superman is real because the 20th century found texts (comics) saying Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane met him. And the historically recorded meetings at Comic-con conventions are evidence for him being there. I wish he were, I really do - but wishing does not make it so.

The wisdom and the beauty of the philosophy are what we ought to subscribe to and learn from. But never blindly, and always critically. The core ideas of Jesus, Lao Tzu and Krishna are beautiful; the core idea of Superman is spectacular. Let us hold on to that. Follow what we must, 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, it is based on mainstream literature on the topics and follows 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 Really Agree That Jesus Lived?

WHAT IS PECULIAR ABOUT THE EVIDENCE BEHIND JESUS?

Is there evidence that Superman lived?

Epilogue