The Historicity of Jesus Christ

The Historicity of Jesus Christ

     I had always assumed that the biblical Jesus existed. Mainly because I also believed he died for my sins, rose from the dead, and spoke to me personally ... be it through my internal conscience or just a euphoric warm fuzzy feeling. Even after losing my faith in god and my belief in all the magic in the gospels I still held as a given that behind all the legend was a real person, there just had to be. It was by searching for who Jesus REALLY was that I came to realize that the christian doctrine that I was taught was ignorant of the facts or just shamelessly dishonest. 

   Does it matter if Jesus was a real historical person? If you're a christian it matters immensely but if you are not then Jesus's existence may or may not matter to you. There is an inherent asymmetry in bias toward this question. In order to fairly look at this issue we need to look our own bias's in the face.

   

     The stakes are significantly higher for a christian believer than a non-believer. I would like to say I have no bias either way and that I can be completely impartial in my analysis of the evidence but that would not be strictly true. If Jesus existed then I am where I started, believing him to be a Jewish rabbi who lived roughly 2000 years ago. If Jesus turned out to be an absolute myth I stand to benefit by undercutting the tedious arguments for Christianity. I could nip them in the bud.

     However, I cannot ignore the skeptical part of me that warns, "If you desire a certain answer before you look at the evidence you will tend to find the answer you wanted in the first place... regardless of what the evidence actually says." So I will try my best to account for this unconscious bias by representing the best arguments I can find against my own position as well as my arguments for it. If I fail at this please let me know... truth is more important than confirming my desires.

Did Jesus Exist?

Evidence for a historical Jesus

Testimonium Flavianum

     I had a conversation with a youth pastor recently where we discussed some arguments for and against god. One question he asked me was "Do you think Jesus existed?" and I answered with, "I don't really know." Technically,  this was true, I don't know, but I really just wanted to see what reason he had for believing Jesus did exist. The first piece of evidence my pastor friend brought up outside the bible itself was Josephus. 

Titus Flavius Josephus

(~37 CE - 100 CE)

     Josephus was a famous first century Jewish Historian who wrote books on Jewish-Roman history that survive to this day. Allegedly, Josephus was the earliest secular historian to have mentioned Jesus. Josephus's work "Antiquities of the Jews" has two places where Christ appears.

The main reference quotation known as the "Testimonium Flavianum"
is found in Book 18, Chapter 3 

“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him.  [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

     You'll notice in the selection there are a few [Red Bracketed] portions. These are known interpolations (Additions to the original text) made by early christians and this fact is not in any dispute. However, the Testimonium Flavianum is believed by many historians to be entirely a forgery. There is a second reference where the phrase "who was called Christ" is inserted in a paragraph in Book 20 Chapter 9 of Antiquities of the Jews.

Here is a link to the second Josephus reference

      Christian apologist Matt Slick at Carm.org makes a case for the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum. He argues that the braked portions are most likely interpolations but that the rest of the passage is authentic. To back this up he makes reference to the work of Shlomo Pines who published citations of the Testimonium Flavianum from the 10th century written in Arabic that agree with the passage as it is today except for the bracketed interpolations. Slick concludes that even if both the Greek and Arabic versions were tampered with they at least mentioned Jesus and made reference to his miracles.

Here is a link to the argument at Carm.org

     A bit more information may clear up this problem. Josephus originally published Antiquities of the Jews in 93 CE (1st century). The Arabic quotation of the Testimonium Flavianum  appears in Agapius of Hierapolis's book, "Book of the Title" written in 942 CE (10th century). There are appearances of the Testimonium Flavianum as early as 324 CE (4th century). Knowing this, I am far more likely to believe that Agapius was quoting from an already interpolated version of Antiquities of the Jews. 

     In fact, from it's initial publication in 93 CE there are no reference to the Testimonium Flavianum until in 324 CE when the Bishop Eusebius, the father of Church History, cites it in the form that survives today in all manuscripts. Do not confuse the Testimonium Flavianum which is just the passage about Jesus for the entire book "Antiquities of the Jews" which is quoted at length by many early christians. Why wouldn't they use this golden piece of evidence to win their arguments back then? Some historians believe it is because the Testimonium Flavianum was not in the original version and that Eusebius had it added in. Other arguments that put the credibility of this passage in doubt are out there, see my link below.

     But what is the big deal? Let's say that the Testimonium Flavianum is 100% authentic. What would that achieve? Jesus is said to have died around the year 30 CE and Josephus wasn't even born until 37 CE. So Josephus could not have possibly been an eye witness himself and given the life span of people back then was about 30 years, not many surviving eye witnesses would have been able to give the historian first hand accounts. This means even if the Testimonium Flavianum was authentic it would have been 2nd or 3rd hand account at least. This is far from the eye witness certainty most apologists give Josephus.

For a more comprehensive analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum check this link

Other Sources 

     While the Testimonium Flavianum is the main piece of evidence that people will bring up for a historical Jesus it is not the only one. The following is a list of  people who mentioned Jesus in their writings. Clicking on their names will bring you to their Wikipedia page... I know Wikipedia has its problems but it is a jumping off point if you want to learn more. Names in red are early Christians, saints, or apologists.

Clement of Rome (Died 99 CE) Info Info
Ignatius of Antioch (35 or 50 CE  – 98 to 117 CE) Info
Pliny the Younger (61 CE–  113 CE) Info
Suetonius (~70 CE - 130 CE) Info
Cornelius Tacitus ( ~56 CE – 117 CE) Info
Polycarp (69 CE – 160 CE) Info Info
Phlegon (~2nd century) Info
Thallus (?) Info
Justin Martyr (100 CE – 165 CE) Info
Lucian of Samosata (125 CE - 180 CE) Info
Clement of Alexandria (150 CE – 215 CE) Info
Tertullian (160 CE – 225 CE) Info
Origen (184 CE – 254 CE) Info
Cyprian (200 CE – 258 CE) Info
Eusebius (260 CE - 340 CE) Info

     Most of the non-christian authors listed made mention of Jesus or of Christians in the ancient world but reported these things not as historical facts but as the tales told by early christians. This is similar to the way a modern reporter might describe the story of  L. Ron Hubbard the founder of Scientology. This reporter wouldn't be reporting the story as fact but simply as a way of telling her readers what a Scientologist is and what they believe. 

     The more glaring problem with these sources is timeing. All of them were born after Jesus is said to have died. That means not one of them could have been an eyewitness. Even if they interviewed eyewitnesses, Which none of them claim to have done, the further you are from the events the less credible you are as a source. Below is a timeline of these sources along with Jesus's reported lifetime.

The Argument from Silence

     This black-out period between Jesus's ministry and death ~30 CE and the first few historic references to Christ ~90 CE seems odd. But It gets even more odd when you look at the historians who lived and wrote during this dark period of christian history... but made no mention of Jesus Christ. There were many historian of the mid first century who neglected to mention Jesus the most notable is Philo of Alexandria.

Philo of Alexandria (25 BCE –  50 CE)

     Philo of Alexandria also known as Philo Judaeus was a Jewish philosopher and historian who lived and wrote at the perfect time and place to be a credible witness of Jesus and early Christianity. Philo worked to merge Judaism with Greek and Roman philosophy. So why wouldn't he mention the Jewish reformer who stirred up the Jewish authorities and the roman occupants so much that he was crucified. Many mythicists (People who believe Jesus was entirely a myth) say this is because there was no Jesus but this is not proof.

     The main problem that I have with the argument from silence is one of logic. Carl Sagan once said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The example he gives in his book 'Demon Haunted World' is the claim of dinosaurs still living in the Congo jungle. If we send an expedition into the Congo and they do not find the dinosaur that doesn't mean that the dinosaur isn't in there somewhere. I think this is similar to the case with Jesus. Just because a historian who had the motivation and ability to report on Jesus did not report on him doesn't prove that Jesus didn't exist. Although, to me this does hint that the story reported by christians isn't right either.

Conclusions

     So how does all this bear on the question of the historicity of Jesus? Well this becomes a question of "who has the burden of proof?" If you want to claim that Jesus was real, then you have to prove your claim... and I don't think that has been done yet. On the other hand if you want to claim that Jesus did not exist and that the christian myth was built on a celestial tale, then you must prove your claim... I do not think this is proved either. So where does that leave us? I don't know. We must admit our ignorance on this subject. Neither side has proved their case.  The idea that a man lived is not an extraordinary one so I tend to think there was some kind of person beneath it all ... but the mythic claims are not as ridiculous as they have been made out to be. Perhaps time will tell.

For those of you who have been thinking "What about the Gospels" this whole time I plan on posting a historical critique of the gospels in a separate post, there is a lot to talk about.

Thank you for reading and as always any comments corrections or questions are welcome!
-Adam