Did Jesus exist, and what do historians conclude?

What are the sources, and what do historians conclude?

Historians test ancient sources by asking how early and how independent they are. E. P. Sanders, author of The Historical Figure of Jesus, explains in Britannica that one key test is multiple attestation: a report found in two or more independent sources is likely to be authentic. Here are the main sources.

Paul’s letters. Paul began writing around 50 CE, and his letters are the earliest surviving Christian texts. Scholars agree that his earliest letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’ death at the latest, notes Simon Gathercole of the University of Cambridge. Paul says little about Jesus’ life. But in 1 Corinthians 15 he passes on an early tradition about Jesus’ death, burial and appearances to his followers. In Galatians, he says he stayed fifteen days in Jerusalem with Cephas and saw “James the Lord’s brother.” Cephas is the Aramaic form of the name Peter; both names mean “rock” (John 1:42). Sanders calls Paul’s letters reliable but meager evidence.

The Gospels. Mark was written around 60–80 CE, and Matthew, Luke and John around 75–90 CE. Sanders calls Matthew, Mark and Luke the primary sources for the historical Jesus, but notes that they are theological documents, not academic biographies. Writing for the Society of Biblical Literature’s Bible Odyssey site, New Testament professor Mark Allan Powell says historians are skeptical of miracle stories, yet widely accept much of what these Gospels report as reliable.

Josephus. Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who wrote in Rome; his Antiquities of the Jews appeared in 93/94 CE. It mentions Jesus twice. The longer passage calls Jesus “a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man” and says “He was [the] Christ.” Britannica says this hint that Jesus was divine could not have come from Josephus and reflects “tampering (if not invention)” by a later Christian copyist. Scholars disagree about how much is original. Gathercole writes that Christian scribes probably turned a negative account into a more positive one. Sanders says Josephus’s original words cannot now be recovered. D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, in a 1974 journal article, judged that the arguments against the passage’s authenticity outweigh those for it. The shorter passage describes how a high priest had “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” stoned. Gathercole calls that reference not suspicious.

Tacitus. About 20 years after Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus described how Nero blamed Christians for a fire in Rome. He explains that their name came from Christus, who “suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.” Gathercole notes that this fits the Gospels’ timeline. Sanders adds a caution: Tacitus’s knowledge depended on familiarity with early Christianity, so it is not independent evidence about Jesus.

What historians conclude. From these sources, Sanders describes a short public career. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, became a traveling preacher and healer, and was executed in Jerusalem at Passover, sometime between 29 and 33 CE. Britannica’s article says we have fairly good general knowledge of his life and message, though many details are uncertain or dubious. Bart Ehrman, a scholar who calls himself both an agnostic and an atheist, sums up one key argument: Paul personally knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter, and his brother James. “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.” Ehrman adds that before Christianity no Jews expected a crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of power who would overthrow the enemy, so no one making up a messiah would have him crucified.

What is the strongest objection?

The strongest challenge is mythicism, the view that Jesus never lived as a person. Richard Carrier, who holds a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, defends it in books he describes as peer reviewed. He argues that Christianity began with revelations, and that the Gospels are later literary works that Christians came to treat as history. He treats the argument from Paul’s letters as “a respectable point of debate,” but argues that the passages in Josephus and Tacitus were either added later or derived from Christian stories. He also challenges the crucified-messiah argument. In a new article for the Canadian-American Theological Review, he argues that some fringe groups of Jews before Christianity did expect a messiah who would die and rise, though he grants that this finding is “not evidence either way” on whether Jesus existed.

Most historians are not persuaded. They point to Paul’s meeting with James, to Josephus’s second passage, and to the fact that, in Gathercole’s words, “we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.” Ancient critics attacked Jesus instead: early rabbinic writings called him a sorcerer, and the pagan writers Lucian and Celsus dismissed him as a scoundrel. Gathercole adds that the two mainstream historians who have written most against mythicism, Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman, are atheists.

What can history not settle?

History deals in probabilities. In a 2006 debate, Ehrman argued that historians can only say what probably happened, and a miracle is by definition the least probable event, so history cannot show that one occurred. “I’m not saying it didn’t happen,” he added; for him, the resurrection has to be taken on faith. His opponent, William Lane Craig, argued the Christian side: the resurrection, he said, is the best explanation for facts most scholars accept, namely Jesus’ burial, the empty tomb, his appearances after death and his followers’ belief that he had risen. Craig replied that Ehrman’s case against miracles repeats an old argument made by David Hume in the 18th century, which Craig said most philosophers today reject. In a 2002 lecture, N. T. Wright argued that historians’ usual method, inference to the best explanation, points strongly toward the bodily resurrection, but he added that from that point on “the historian alone cannot help.”

Others draw the line sooner. Nicola Denzey Lewis, writing for Bible Odyssey, says we cannot verify that Jesus performed miracles or that he is the Son of God, because these are theological ideas, not historical statements. Britannica’s article notes that the sources disagree about who saw the risen Jesus and where, and that deliberate fraud by the first believers seems unlikely. As Gathercole puts it, the more interesting question, “whether Jesus died and lived,” goes beyond history. That is why we label these questions Beyond science.

What do people often get wrong?

• “No one outside the Bible mentions Jesus.” Within a few decades, Gathercole notes, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, Josephus and Tacitus among them.
• “Records from his own time would mention him.” Ehrman notes that Roman sources from Jesus’ day mention scarcely anyone from his time and place.
• “Historians have confirmed the Gospel stories.” They accept a historical core, not every story. Britannica says many details are uncertain, and Powell notes that historians are skeptical of miracle stories.
• “Jesus was copied from pagan gods.” Ehrman says the claimed parallels mostly exist in the modern imagination: we have no accounts of others who were born to virgins, died to atone for sin and were raised from the dead.
• “Hardly anyone doubts that Jesus existed.” Among the public, many do. Gathercole cites a survey in which 40% of adults in England did not believe Jesus was a real historical figure. Asking is reasonable; the evidence is what matters.

Where can believers and skeptics agree?

• Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Scholars who argue for the resurrection, such as N. T. Wright, and nonbelievers such as Bart Ehrman agree on this.
• History and faith ask different questions. Wright says that past a point the historian alone cannot help, and Ehrman says historians have no access to God.
• Honest handling of sources matters. Scholars on every side discuss openly how copyists changed Josephus, and they weigh each source’s limits.
• Questions are welcome. Whether you are deepening a faith or rethinking one, our answers on questioning what you were raised to believe and on loving science while believing in God may help.

How can you check this yourself?

• Read the ancient texts. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, and Josephus, Antiquities 18.63 and 20.200, are free at the Perseus Digital Library in older English translations.
• Read Paul. Galatians 1:18–19 and 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 are only a few lines long.
• Hear both sides. Read Ehrman’s short essay “Did Jesus Exist?” and Carrier’s essay “Why Is a Historical Jesus an Obsolete Paradigm?”, and compare how each handles the same sources.
• Separate the questions. Ask whether a claim is about what happened, which history can weigh, or about what it means, which faith answers. In the strict sense, proof belongs to mathematics; our answer on what science can and cannot settle explains why. History, like science, weighs evidence.

The answer stays the same. Nearly all historians conclude that Jesus lived and was crucified. What that means is a question each reader answers in faith or in doubt, beyond what history can settle.