DID JESUS EXIST?

Did Jesus Exist?

“This is all well and good, but if the Bible IS the word of God, then why don’t we have evidence that Jesus existed?”

First I must point out that, despite the fact that most scientists and historians have atheistic leanings, and despite the fact that atheists would in general love to discredit the existence of Jesus at all, the wide majority concede that He did in fact exist. Please research it for yourself. You’ll find that they believe He was only a normal man of course, but they believe that an actual person named Jesus lived in Judea around the time the Bible claims. That by itself says a great deal, since if they could prove He never existed they would gladly do so.

But let’s not take anyone’s opinion at face value; how can we KNOW Jesus existed? It’s a fair question. First let’s ask, what you would accept as evidence? How do you know that anyone existed that you never met personally? Say, Julius Caesar – did he exist? Or Aristotle, or Buddha or Mohammad – you were not there, you cannot possibly find an eyewitness still living that you could ask. You would have to rely on history. Preferably contemporary eyewitnesses.

But history can be a vague subject – some people are mentioned in passing in histories, others write their own books. But as often as not those books were changed by copyists, sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally to twist the viewpoint to the copyists idea. So how can you KNOW that a person existed?

We only have two real options; archaeological evidence, and contemporary historians. Archaeology is difficult in this area because people seldom had stones inscribed in their honor unless they were governors, kings, or extremely wealthy; so the odds of finding actual archaeological evidence of Jesus would be slim in any case, particularly since if the Bible is true, Jesus left no body behind for us to unearth. The best we can do is confirm the existence of people in the Biblical record.

Archaeology has done wonders in that area, with solid proof of towns mentioned in the Bible once thought by skeptics to be mythical, artifacts left by Pontius Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas, and many other figures and facts have been confirmed. There are references to the apostle Paul throughout all of Asia Minor. And recently a bone-box (called an ossuary) of of Jesus’ brother has been unearthed; despite a massive effort on the part of a few people to prove in court that it is a fake, every evidence still points to it being genuine.

This bone box is dated to A.D. 63. It bears the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”. The James ossuary was on display at the Royal Ontario Museum from November 15, 2002 to January 5, 2003.

The significant part for our case is that it mentions “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”; while Jesus was a common name, it was NOT common for someone to mention “brother of…” on their tombstone. In the absence of last names, ancient cultures usually distinguished between people with the same first names on the basis of their father’s name; as is done here, “James, son of Joseph”. The ONLY reason to mention a brother would be if the brother was well known – perhaps even more well known than the father. The odds of having more than one person from that area named James, with a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus – a famous brother at that – are very slim

This provides a strong evidence of the existence of Jesus. As I said, considering the nature of Jesus as a non-militant leader, disrespected and killed by the people with power in the community, there is very little chance of any direct evidence being found, whether He existed or not; for this, we must rely primarily on history.

But historians, no matter how well intentioned, are always biased. An American history of WWII would be quite different than a German or Japanese version. An American history of WWII written today would be quite different from one written in 1948, because the viewpoint changes with perspective and what is more “popular” to believe at the time. This has been a flaw with history from the very beginning.

All that said, there are two good ways to be sure any historical figure actually existed; lots of eyewitness accounts, saved in as many different copies in as many different places as possible; and accounts by historians who are antagonistic towards the viewpoint. For instance, so what if I say I didn’t commit a crime; of course I could be lying. If my best friend says I didn’t do it, that is a little better, but still – he likes me, and so he might lie too. But if someone who HATES me, someone who would LOVE to see me go to jail, says I’m innocent – well, that’s a strong point in my favor. If HE admits I didn’t do it, with no motive at all, then I probably didn’t do it.

So when a “Christian” says that Jesus existed, well duh! Of course they’d say that! It’s their own viewpoint and to their best interests to say it, true or not! But if a Roman, or a non-believing Jew, or anyone else opposed to Christianity admits that Jesus existed and confirms other events spoken of in the Bible, you would KNOW that Jesus really did exist!

We have plenty of positive witnesses; those who claim Jesus never existed on the grounds that “there are no contemporary accounts” seem to ignore the fact that the Bible wasn’t written by a single person. Luke was there for the events in his gospel and the book of Acts. Matthew, Mark and John all write first-hand accounts of events that happened only twenty to sixty years before that they personally saw. These events were fresh in everyone’s memory. Paul was violently opposed to Christianity before converting and writing most of the new Testament. James, Jude, Peter, all were eyewitnesses and wrote their own separate books. Many times hundreds of other witnesses, still living, are mentioned, for instance in:

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he [the resurrected Jesus] was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep [dead].

So let’s be clear; there ARE witnesses to the events in the life of Jesus. But these witnesses were all grouped together in the end of the first century, probably by the apostle John, into one collection we call the New Testament; but saying these are all irrelevant is deceptive and prejudicial. No serious modern historian believes the New Testament was written by the same author, or spuriously compiled by a lunatic in the 5^th century. These were separate books, and must be treated as separate accounts, and separate witnesses.

But these witnesses all agree with the principles of Jesus, and so cannot be trusted implicitly, since they had a vested interest in what they record. So let’s find antagonistic witnesses. Josephus was a soldier who lived from 37 A.D., to about 100 A.D. He was not a Christian and was not really interested in Christianity. His principle writings were concerned with a history of the Jews from the earliest times up until his own day, and he only briefly touched upon events in the within the time frame of the life of Jesus.

Still, his writings corroborate the existence of many figures mentioned in the Bible such as Annas and Caiaphas the High Priests; Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea, Herod the Great, King Agrippa, as well as confirming the existence of religious sects such as the Sadducees who are mentioned in the Bible. He even speaks of John the Baptist who figured prominently in the Gospels (see Jewish Antiquities book 18, chapter 5, 2). But he has two references which touch on Jesus;

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1 …so he [Ananus, the high priest "Annas" of the Bible"] assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

First, note that the wording “the brother of Jesus, named James”. James was the subject, but Jesus was treated as the more “famous” person. James was identified through his relationship with Jesus, just as we might say “the brother of John F. Kennedy, Robert”. What is important is that this is the EXACT SAME WORDING as was used on the Ossuary pictured above! The burial box ALSO dealt with James as someone who was important because of his relationship with his brother, Jesus!

Even skeptics admit that the bulk of this passage is authentic and came to us unchanged from Josephus’ pen. They however claim that the phrase “the so-called Christ” was added by a later copyist. First of all, there is no evidence of this; every copy of Josephus we have access to reads the exact same way. Secondly, if a lone copyist changed this passage, he could hardly have changed every copy in existence at the same time – when they were scattered in libraries across the world.

So there is no evidence that it is an addition. But even if it were, it would have had to be by an antagonist to Christianity, for the use of “so-called” implies that the writer did not believe Jesus was the Christ! But there is simply no motive for an antagonist to ADD proof of Jesus’ existence to a book!

So since the passage is genuine, we see an independent, non-Christian writer, Josephus, confirming that Jesus was “the so-called Christ”, confirming that Jesus did in fact exist, and that James was his brother, and that James and “some others” were in heavy disfavor by the Jewish priesthood – all facts that are in the Bible!

Most importantly, this passage mentions Jesus first. Yet Jesus was not involved in this issue. (He was dead by this time, if the Bible is correct). The only reason to mention Jesus first is that He was a well-known figure, one who claimed to be “the Christ”, a claim which Josephus disbelieved!

The next quote is probably at least partly spurious, since it is different in some early copies available to us, and is widely disputed today. I’ll not go into the debate here since I don’t have space and it really doesn’t matter. The fact is, nearly everyone believes that at least some of it is true, and practically any portion of it proves that Jesus at least existed.

The consensus (if such a word can be applied to any Christian-Atheist debate) is that the bulk of the statement is original, but key portions of it, those which speak of the divinity of Christ, are later additions by copyists; those portions are underlined in brackets in the quote below:

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 Messiah.] 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 at 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 at this date.

You can take the quote for what it’s worth and make up your own mind. You might ask, if Jesus did all the things the Bible ascribes to Him, why didn’t Josephus mention more of Him? A better question would be why He said anything at all. For the ten years around Jesus’ death, Josephus devoted only SEVEN pages in two separate books!

Remember, the Bible says Jesus went out of His way on many occasions to avoid notice. He was not trying to get involved in politics, or to encourage the overthrow of Roman rule, although many times His disciples pressured Him to do so. After His miracles, he regularly said “Go and tell no man”, (Matthew 8:4, etc). When He realized the publicity He was getting for baptizing, He moved someplace else (John 4:1-2). He kept a low profile most of the time and seldom made a scene unless He was confronting the priesthood of the Jews – something that the soldier Josephus would not likely have cared about. To quote one passage in the New Testament that sums up His attitude:

Matthew 12:15-19 (Phillips) … Large crowds followed him and he healed them all, with the strict injunction that they should not make him conspicuous by their talk, thus fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy: … he shall declare judgment to the gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry aloud; neither shall anyone hear his voice in the streets.

This is why we know of Him primarily through His followers. But we need more than Josephus, and more antagonistic witnesses, so we can be certain Jesus really did exist! The Roman historian Tacitus, with a strong anti-Christian bias, wrote the following early in the second century:

Tacitus, Annals, 15.44 [Nero was being blamed for setting fire to Rome...] Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus [the Latin word for Christ], 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 …

This passage is incredibly important, because Tacitus hated Christians and would never confirm their beliefs if there was any doubts that they were true; so when Tacitus says that Pilate condemned Jesus to death in the reign of Tiberius, we can trust that he had no ulterior motive for saying so. He also speaks of the persecution of Christians in Judea, probably that of Saul (who later became Paul) and the Jewish priests written about in the early part of the book of Acts. He then records that the sect revived (probably after the conversion of Paul), and that it spread to Rome – which is recorded in Acts 28:16-31. An independent, antagonistic historian confirming all these facts is quite a support to our belief that Jesus truly existed.

The best part of all is that there is very little doubt among modern historians that this passage is in any way falsified; practically all agree that there is every reason to believe these words came to us direct from Tacitus. And those words said that Pilate killed Jesus Christ in Judea, which started the Christian religion.

There is also a later reference by the historian Pliny that applies to Jesus obliquely, but it isn’t important enough to quote here. Lucian is a critical historian originally from what is now Turkey who wrote in Greek in the mid-second century. For reference, his perspective on Jesus’ execution and the subsequent Christian movement is similar in timeframe to our perspective on World War I. Meaning that most of us have spoken to people who fought in it, or at least knew of it secondhand.

Lucian is a confirmed pagan and tells the story of Peregrinus who became a well respected Christian leader early in the first century, and was revered as a God … “after [or "second to"] that other, to be sure, whom they [the Christians] still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult to the world.” (Lucian, Passing of Peregrinus, 11).

Certainly only one man was ever worshiped by the Christians, the founder of the Christian cult, and crucified in Palestine. Lucian was antagonistic to Christianity and known for rigorously checking his facts. If he had any doubts that Jesus WAS Crucified in Palestine 100 years ago, he would likely have been mocking Christians for being tortured to death for their belief in a myth.

Lucian continues “The poor wretches [Christians] have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them.

Note how Lucian mocks the “poor wretches” who believe in eternal life and are willing to be imprisoned and even killed for their beliefs!

Furthermore, their first lawgiver [an allusion to Jesus], persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another [compare to Matthew 23:8] after they have transgressed once, for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that CRUCIFIED SOPHIST HIMSELF and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, [compare to Acts 4:32] RECEIVING SUCH DOCTRINES TRADITIONALLY WITHOUT ANY DEFINITE EVIDENCE.”

Now notice! Lucian thinks Christianity’s doctrines are foolish! He says they have NO evidence for their doctrines! In other words, they have no proof of an afterlife or the other beliefs – BUT HE SPEAKS TWICE OF JESUS AS CRUCIFIED IN PALESTINE, WITHOUT CASTING THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT ON THE FACT THAT IT HAPPENED!

Lucian says that their doctrines are moronic, but that this man WAS CRUFICIED IN PALESTINE! To quote it again, he said they worshiped “the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult to the world.” – there is not a hint of doubt in those words from this skeptic!

So there must have been every reason to believe Jesus existed, it must have been common knowledge from memories fresh in the minds of every grandparent and great-grandparent – just as we all know about World War I!