Did Jesus Exist?

While we wait for Judge Gaetano Mautone in Viterbo Italy to decide whether a parish priest there should stand trial for saying Jesus existed, what do you say we review the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person?

Contrary to popular belief, outside of the Gospels, there really isn’t a whole lot of evidence that Jesus actually lived. This doesn’t necessarily mean anything. The absence of evidence is only meaningful if one can state with assurance that there should be evidence. Given the time that has passed and the curious habit that Christianity developed of destroying documents they didn’t like (along with the poor schmuck that wrote the document if he was still around and they could catch him), it’s not that surprising that even if there was lots of independent evidence at one time, there isn’t that much left. Who knows, maybe there was a whole section dedicated to pagan writings on Jesus of Nazareth in the Library of Alexandria? The destruction of the library by Christian fanatics still stands as one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, crimes against humanity ever recorded. Besides in the scheme of things, the ministry of Jesus probably wasn’t much of a blip on the screen of the Greco-Roman world.

So what independent evidence does exist? Most Apologists, as well as most historians, would list five documents, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and the Talmud. Some Apologists would also add three more documents, Thallus, Lucian and the Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion. That’s about it.

Thallus – I don’t even consider this evidence. It refers to Julius Africanus in the 3rd century referring to a pagan historian by the name of Thallus who recorded a solar eclipse which Africanus claims was a mistaken interpretation of the darkness that occurred during the crucifixion. We don’t know exactly what Thallus said, we’re not sure when he said it nor can we even be sure that it had anything to do with the crucifixion. Weight = 0.

Lucian – This is a reference in a satirical play to Christians and whom they worship. It doesn’t mention Jesus. If anything this is even weaker than Thallus. Weight = 0.

Mara Bar-Serapion – This letter contains the rhetorical question “What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?”

This is certainly suggestive however the dating of the letter is uncertain and could be from well into the second century. So even if the “wise King” is a reference to Jesus, it could be based upon common knowledge.

The letter also contains the rhetorical question “What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras?”

This didn’t happen. The men of Samos didn’t burn Pythagoras so this sort of renders the document less than reliable as evidence for anything. Weight = 0.

Pliny the Younger – Writing to the Emperor Trajan in 106 CE, Pliny describes the practices of Christians including that they sang “a hymn to Christ as to a god.”

Again this doesn’t mention Jesus by name and could simply be based upon common knowledge. I don’t see this as meaningful evidence. Weight = 0.

Suetonius – Writing around 120 CE, this historian makes the statement “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”

The first question is of course the spelling. “Chrestus” was in fact a fairly common name. On the other hand it was not unusual for “Christus” to be confused with “Chrestus.” Keep in mind that we are referring to a time when virtually all information was transmitted verbally. It also wouldn’t make much sense to the average Greek or Roman to talk about “the anointed” so many people apparently assumed that “Chrestus” was more accurate even when “Christus” was used.

The second question relates to whether Suetonius was referring to a contemporary person, which, unless the second coming already occurred and everyone missed it, couldn’t have been Jesus. There is nothing in Jesus’ teaching, that I’m aware of, that would instigate the Jews to make disturbances so if this is a reference to Jesus, it’s being made from ignorance and can’t be relied upon. Weight = 0.

The Talmud – There was considerable friction between Christianity and Judaism during the first few centuries of the Common Era so it’s not surprising that references to Jesus within the Talmud are less than complimentary. I don’t think it’s necessary to go into the details, let’s just say that an alternative explanation for the “Virgin Birth” is provided.

The sources are also from well into the second century and beyond so they really can’t be viewed as very strong evidence for the existence of Jesus. However there doesn’t appear to be any question that Jesus did in fact exist and this point can’t be ignored. Weight = 1.

Tacitus – This historian, writing in the early second century about Nero blaming the burning of Rome on the Christians, makes the statement “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”

Now at first glance, this looks somewhat definitive, but if one looks a little closer, some questions come up. First of all Pontius Pilate was a Prefect and not a Procurator. A minor point perhaps but it would have been important to a Roman. This error makes it rather unlikely that Tacitus’ source was an official Roman document unless he was being careless and quoting the document from memory.

Second is that the information about “Christus” could have just been from common knowledge of the day.

Third, is that it is possible that the sentence referring to “Christus,” is an interpolation. The full sentence reads.

"Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."

If the sentence is removed, the document still makes sense and, in fact, flows better. While it’s hard to believe that a Christian interpolator would refer to Christianity by such unflattering terms as “pernicious superstition,” “mischief,” “hideous” and “shameful,” a pagan interpolator during a subsequent period of suppression might.

Still, I find it hard to ignore this reference altogether. Weight = 1.

Josephus – This is by far the most famous, and potentially the strongest, independent evidence for the historicity of Jesus. There are two distinct references. The first, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, occurs in Antiquities 18.3.3.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.] He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ;] and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, [for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him;] and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

There are three opinions about this passage; that it’s completely genuine, that it’s completely a later Christian interpolation and that’s it’s a partial Christian interpolation represented by the bracketed phrases.

I dismiss the idea that the passage is completely genuine because Josephus, a Pharsaic Jew, would NEVER have called Jesus “the Christ” nor claimed that he rose from the dead and most certainly he would not have said that “the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.”

The arguments for a partial interpolation are simply that the passage still makes sense once you remove the obvious Christian sentiments and is not unlike other side comments that Josephus inserted in the main text in those days before footnotes were invented.

Arguments for a total interpolation include observations related to unusual (for Josephus) word usage, the impression that the next paragraph seems more logically tied to the paragraph preceding the Testimonium and the fact that the passage is not referenced by any Christian writer prior to Eusebius in the 3rd century CE. At least one critic has claimed that the style of the passage is closer to the style of Eusebius than Josephus. Given that Eusebius’ view on morality when “defending the faith” was, shall we say, a tad elastic, this opens up some interesting possibilities.

As an example of unusual word usage, the word translated as “worker” is the Greek word poietes, the root of the English word "poet." While technically the meaning is simply "one who does,” in Josephus' day it had already come to mean literary poets and this is how Josephus uses the word everyplace else.

Personally I’m not terribly impressed by the arguments that the passage is a total interpolation. I think it’s most likely that it’s a partial interpolation by some monk who was outraged that a reference to Jesus didn’t include any references to his divinity. Weight = 5.

The second reference is in Antiquities 20.9.1, a passage about an illegal trial held by the High Priest Ananus which resulted in the death of James the Just among others.

“…so he (Ananus) assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others;”

There are a number of arguments that this is an interpolation. One is that it was accidental and caused by a proof reader making a margin notation that the James mentioned here was the brother of Jesus.

Another argument is that Josephus would not have expected his primarily Roman readers to recognize Jesus nor the term “Christ” without some explanation. Josephus is famous for going off upon, sometimes multi-page, tangents in similar circumstances. This would be especially true if the reference in 18.3.3 was a total interpolation, but since I don’t think it is, I don’t find this argument terribly compelling.

What I find as the most persuasive argument against this being genuine is simply that this was a strange way for Josephus to have picked to identify this particular James. James the Just had a reputation all his own as an upright and righteous Jew. A reputation so strong that his downfall was generally believed to have angered God so much that it led to the fall of Jerusalem. King Agrippa and Albinus, the new Roman governor, weren’t thrilled with Ananus either and stripped him of the High Priesthood although this may have been more because Ananus called the Sanhedrin together illegally than because of the death of James.

Overall I think it more likely than not that this is an interpolation, but I could very well be wrong. Weight = 1.

So, of the nine possibilities I find three weak pieces of evidence and one strong piece of evidence. Is this enough to conclude that Jesus really lived, taught and died in 1st century Palestine? Yeah, I think these references, when added to the Synoptic Gospels, provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

As to whether he was Lord, Liar, Lunatic or just some poor schnook that got carried away with the apocalyptic message of John the Baptist and paid the price, I have no idea.