Was Jesus a Real Person?
By Jon Therkildsen
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 or her own salt, the truth is not quite as accommodating, and as it is with many things, the answer is somewhere 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 consider valid historical sources, there is some consensus across the board. It's not as profound as it would seem, as many often quote, but a 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 verbatim means “[one who is] anointed.” Exactly when the title first became associated with Yeshua is uncertain, but it was already established among his followers by the time of Saint Paul’s earliest letters, written roughly twenty years after his death.
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 the Gospels support) 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 primarily to Jews, but also Gentiles. There is also evidence suggesting that Yeshua ended his days on the cross, punished by the Romans - a punishment typically reserved to exemplify the destiny of robbers and bandits. However, it is not known when. The details surrounding the crucifixion, including his exact age and the specific charges against him, remain uncertain. Estimates place him at roughly 29 to 37 years old 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 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 when discussing authenticity among the historical records.
Can this go beyond faith? Does this have historicity?
It does not. That portion of the lore is not supported by any recorded historical evidence beyond the holy scriptures. There is none - not even legendary accounts or folktales from other regions. I would submit that it is fair to assume such evidence should exist, yet we have none.
Indeed, scholars of all religious creeds generally agree on several fundamental references to a historical Yeshua. However, they also reject the purported evidence for the mystical or Biblical Jesus. They do so because this is the precise point - between the historical figure and the legendary fables - where the trail of objective evidence and historicity breaks down. Such a gap, or lack, in the chain of causality leading to Christianity is peculiar. Why would the evidence suddenly break off here and not remain intact? Why does it support only the more mundane aspects of his story, impressive as they are, and not the extraordinary elements that set him apart?
We are speaking of a man with supernatural abilities who walked among people and openly displayed his powers. Yet no source outside the holy scriptures mentions him - all of them written 20 to 150+ years after the events. He could walk on water, turn inanimate objects into food, control the weather, and cure illnesses, including blindness, leprosy, and even death. Such a figure would surely have generated considerable attention, even in his own time and across different faiths and cultures. And yet, we have no such recordings. Nothing.
What we do have is early Christian writings, such as the New Testament Gospels and Paul’s epistles, which offer narrative support for Jesus’ historicity, though their theological bias requires very astute and careful analysis. Paul’s letters, written around 20-30 years after his death, are among the earliest Christian documents that mention Jesus’ crucifixion and teachings. The Gospels, composed between 70–100 CE, contain details about Jesus’ life, some of which historians actually do consider plausible when cross-referenced with non-Christian sources. While these texts reflect the beliefs of early Christians, historians apply methods like multiple attestation - where independent sources agree - to extract reliable data. This lends the texts a measure of value for assessing historicity, despite their religious context and other obvious biases.
Besides the Christian writings, we also have external sources that mention Jesus and his followers from that period. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus is frequently cited as one such unbiased reference. He mentions Jesus twice in his Jewish Antiquities. The first passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, was partially altered by later Christian scribes, but most scholars believe it retains an authentic core that talks of Jesus as a teacher and leader who was executed under Pontius Pilate. The second passage, which refers to the execution of a James as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,” is widely accepted as genuine, though not terribly informative. While Josephus’s texts show signs of later Christian interpolation and doctored revisions, the remaining authentic portions do mention a following - a kind of cult; however, it is unclear where he obtained his information. We should also note the Roman historian Tacitus, another non-Christian source, who wrote in his Annals (ca. 116 CE) about Jesus’ execution under Pontius Pilate and the subsequent spread of his followers. Likewise, Pliny the Younger, in letters from around 112 CE, describes early Christian practices. These sources, while not contemporaneous, corroborate the more natural aspects of Jesus’ existence and the impact of his movement - consistent with how historians of the period typically documented non-elite figures. Of particular relevance here, none of these non-Christian sources mention any of Jesus’ miraculous or godlike achievements; they refer only to the more mundane aspects of his life and movement.
When we compare the mentioned gap of Jesus’s more anomalous hallmarks in the historical record with the documentation of other prominent and even fantastical figures from the same era or earlier, the absence becomes even more peculiar: For example, we possess multiple independent 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), among many others. These figures are attested through statues, paintings, drawings from various cultures (some created during their lifetimes), contemporary writings, and diverse accounts from multiple sources. Despite the ancient world’s clear fascination with remarkable individuals and extraordinary deeds, none of these men performed acts that rival the miraculous feats attributed to Jesus. And yet, we have no contemporary or near-contemporary records of his supposed powers from outside the Christian scriptures. One would expect that emperors, kings, and wise men from across the known world would have traveled to witness and document such phenomena, in which case these events would have been richly recorded in many different forms and by many different cultures. The Bible famously mentions three wise men present at Jesus’ birth, yet no sources outside the Bible corroborate this or later similar events - despite the fact that such visitations would almost certainly have left traces in historical records.
When we examine the holy scriptures themselves more closely, more peculiarities emerge. The stories told about Jesus also contain motifs strikingly similar to those found in the allegorical traditions and tales surrounding Mithras, Horus, Buddha, Krishna, and Lao Tzu. Not identical, but suspiciously familiar. Furthermore, the apostles’ Gospels frequently disagree on key details of Jesus’ life and ministry. These are not minor discrepancies; they concern significant matters such as the number of his siblings, events surrounding the resurrection, the time and circumstances of his death, the location of his burial, the identity of the witnesses, and more.
We also know of numerous other early holy books and texts (such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter) that were not included in the biblical canon as it took shape through a complex interplay of theological judgments, institutional developments, and political considerations. This naturally raises the question: what else was omitted or altered? Even the canonical Gospels provide a surprisingly incomplete picture of Jesus’ life. What happened during his childhood, his teenage years, or his early adulthood? Who was he, really?
Look at the evidence - scarce as it may be - and much of the story surrounding him appears less like recoverable history than a mixture of theological construction, legendary embellishment, and, at times, prevarication, shaped by the religious and political purposes of those who transmitted it. Of course, even if we did have several sources backing him and his deity-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.
I want to make one thing clear: the existence of a following centered on Jesus is not in debate - nor is the historical person at its origin.
What is very much open to question is the legend that grew around him. I suspect this legend was not born of a single individual, but rather constructed from a combination of real people, teachings, and magnificent tales accumulated over the ages. It likely began with a man named Yeshua, but it clearly did not end there. The movement itself appears to have been fueled by oppression, a deep yearning for purpose, and hope in difficult times. The birth of the concept of Jesus was, I believe, both beautiful and profoundly needed in its historical context, and I respect that deeply.
I will go so far as to say that Jesus the man and philosopher needs no ironclad proof of existence. The philosophy is here, undubitably. What people actually follow, admire, and worship is the divine, supernatural figure. It is this elevated, deity-like aspect that demands substantiation when we orient our attention to historicity and authenticity. And then again, one might fairly argue that this is irrelevant to a faith.
In my opinion, seeking evidence for prophets is a moot quest, as it ultimately changes nothing. They are men or women, or ideas of men or women. And the ideas are here, and they are real even if the men or women were not.
But for those pursuing authenticity and objectivity, and the finer point of our history, culture, and the evolution of religiosity, the deeper question must be whether the qualities and supernatural abilities ascribed to these religious figures are, at the core, true or false.
Have their supernatural abilities been proven factual, or are they hoaxes and embellishments?
Are their claimed connections to a supreme, transcendent entity genuine, or are they expressions of wishful thinking?
It is based on faith or is is based on evidence?
When these questions are contemplated, we must be honest about them. And we can state categorically and without hesitation that there is no credible, unbiased historical evidence for the magnificent supernatural hallmarks of Jesus Christ outside the holy scriptures. The holy scriptures contain these records, indeed, but nothing outside of them does. However, faith does not need corroborating evidence. Faith needs commitment. Both viewpoints need honesty.
Jesus preaching the gospel.
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?
Holy scriptures of any religion, considered as a single body of work, cannot be held to the goldens standards of recorded, analyzed and learned history - which remain our most reliable means of determining what actually occurred throughout our human history. For extraordinary or fantastical events to be accepted as historically valid, historians exact a wealth of independent, diverse, corroborating, and preferably contemporaneous sources. This is the standard method used in historical scholarship: the strength of a claim is evaluated through several key principles - multiple attestation (confirmation from unrelated sources), corroboration by external records, and the absence of strong motives for fabrication. The closer the sources are in time to the events they describe, the more weight they carry. Extraordinary claims, especially those involving supernatural phenomena, demand correspondingly strong evidence. A single body of texts written by adherents of the movement, decades or centuries after the events, simply does not meet this threshold of historicity. This is, in many ways, journalism 101 as well.
As a Superman fan myself, I cannot resist making this humorous analogy: Two thousand years from now, someone might argue that Superman was a real historical figure because 20th-century texts (comic books) describe how Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane met him, and the existence of Comic-Con conventions offers “evidence” of his cultural impact and presence. A basic resistance to naïveté dictates that while such detailed internal narratives and cultural footprints tell us a great deal about human celebration and influence, these narratives say very little about whether such events actually reflect actuality. To have that conversation, we need evidence beyond the comic books themselves.
The wisdom and beauty of the philosophy (if religious or not) 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 intellectually 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 that 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 Edinburgh - [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, with a disciplined focus on Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet within first-century Judaism]
“Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth” (2012), by New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman of the Princeton Theological Seminary - [Balanced and rationally argued, but with an underlying emphasis on a human, historical Jesus over a divine figure, though his scholarship remains rigorous]
"Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography" (2009), by New Testament scholar (and former Catholic Priest) John Dominic Crossan of DePaul University - [Balanced and rigorously argued, but with an underlying preference for a socially radical Jesus over spiritual dimensions]
“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, heavily favoring apologetic arguments]
Photos & Images via Google - © 2016 WARNER BROS / © 1998 AARHUS UNIVERSITET