Did a historic Jesus exist?

In my previous blog post I criticized in detail the evidence given for the existence of Jesus as a real person, which I find exceptionally weak. I made three major points that can be summarized as:

1. Appealing to an "overwhelming consensus among historians", which is what many Christian apologists do, is nothing but an appeal to authority and an argument from popularity. Also, the claim itself (ie. that the overwhelming majority of historians and scholars agree that Jesus did exist) is dubious given that I'm not aware of any study or research done on the opinion of secular non-Christian historians.
2. No matter what Christian apologists say, there are no non-Christian historic sources for the existence of Jesus. Not a single one. Every single non-Christian source that mentions Jesus in any way, shape or form, even the oldest ones known, were written by people who were born after Jesus's alleged death, and were thus hardly contemporary eyewitnesses. There exist no contemporary records or writings mentioning Jesus or even Christianity. There exist eg. no Roman records or histories mentioning Jesus or Christians. Every single non-Christian source mentioning him was written well over half a century after Jesus' alleged death, by people who weren't even born at the alleged time of Jesus.
3. Even the Christian sources are highly dubious. Even Christian scholars agree that the gospels were written at least 50 years after Jesus's alleged death by unknown authors. From a secular point of view they are quite clearly almost or fully 100% fictional. The scriptures that can be most reliably attributed to an actual nameable person are Paul's letters, and they were written by a person who according to his own writings never met Jesus in person and never witnessed any of his life, acts or speeches.

There are also many other arguments made for the historicity of Jesus that are very weak and illogical, such as the "criterion of embarrassment". The argument is that if some people merely invented the person of Jesus, the promised Messiah, the Son of God himself, the Savior and hero that would liberate them, surely they wouldn't make him weak and ignominiously humiliated and killed by the oppressors who he was supposed to oppose and liberate the people from. Why would anybody invent a hero and a Messiah who gets humiliated, tortured and killed by the enemy, achieving absolutely nothing to combat their oppression?

This argument ignores the fact that the martyr trope has been a staple in mythology and fiction since ancient times. Martyrdom has always been seen as a virtue, for thousands and thousands of years, for pretty much as long as there have been myths and fictional stories. Storytellers have understood since early antiquity that people empathize with the underdog, with the martyr, with the person who exudes virtue and good deeds and who nevertheless gets harshly punished and even killed by evil people, even without them getting any sort of retribution or punishment for their evil actions. In fact, if you want to rile people up against those in power, what better way to do that than to vilify them by having them commit an atrocious heinous act and not get any sort of punishment for it? If the enemy gets no punishment for a heinous crime, that only makes the listeners crave to raise up against the enemy all that more.

From this perspective it actually makes more sense to make a fictional Jesus a martyr who was ignominiously killed by the oppressors, rather than make him a triumphant hero. The "criterion of embarrassment" works in the exact reverse here, as it's the most logical approach at making Jesus a revered figure to be admired and defended, and to rile people up against the Romans.

But, to the question at hand: Did an actual real-life person exist who these stories are based on (no matter how embellished, fictional and mythological they might be)?

I'm inclined to say that probably. A quite weak "probably", but still a somewhat high probability. But not for any of the reasons listed above, nor anything that the Christian apologists often give as an argument.

I'd say "probably" because of the mere reason that I find it somewhat unlikely that Paul would have tried to invent a completely fictional Messiah out of thin cloth. It's possible that's what happened, but I would say that it's somewhat improbable. I'm somewhat convinced (not strongly, but somewhat) that Paul genuinely believed Jesus to have been a real person, even though he himself (according to his own words) never met the man. If that's the case, I think there are only two possibilities:

1. Somebody else, or a group of people (eg. a religious sect) invented a completely fictional Jesus and then convinced Paul that he was real, or
2. there actually was some kind of Jewish preacher or cult leader, perhaps even named Yeshua, and Paul's knowledge and claims about him are based on that person (likewise by having been told and taught by the cult members).

I find the second option more plausible. What I think is most probable is that there was indeed a man named "Yeshua" (or something similar, which might or might not have been his original name) and he was some kind of cult leader, and Paul's letters are based on the beliefs of that cult that were relied to him by the cult members.

Most likely, however, the cult was relatively small and inconspicuous (so inconspicuous as to not having been written about in any non-Christian sources, records or histories, at least not any that have survived). It's also very likely that much of the ideas, words and speeches attributed to this man by Paul and other authors were invented by these authors or by other cult members. Some ideas may be based directly on what this Jesus person did actually say.

It may even be that this cult leader was actually executed by Roman authorities, and the crucifixion story is based on this. (However, once again, even if this happened it was most likely such an insignificant event that no Roman or other historic record of it has survived. Most likely he was just executed among many other criminals and dissenters, without much show or ruckus.)

However, as mentioned, it's highly, highly likely that the gospels are pretty much completely fictional. A fictional "origin story" by a couple of authors (who may have concocted these narratives based on the oral myths that had quickly formed around the man and spread among the congregations of early Christians).

Thus, even if an actual person did exist, he most probably was nothing like what the scriptures describe him to be like, and quite probably most of the speeches and ideas attributed to him were embellished or even invented by later authors.

Of course it's still not completely out of the realm of possibility that the initial sect, or even Paul himself, just invented Jesus out of thin cloth because he wanted a Messiah figure to make his new religious ideas to gain traction.

A critical view on the historicity of Jesus

Consensus among historians and scholars?

The Wikipedia page (as of writing this) about "Historicity of Jesus" seems strangely unencyclopedic, and almost seems to have been written by a Christian apologist rather than unbiased editors. Indeed, it makes strong claims that use rather unencyclopedic language. Much of the article is worded like it were someone's opinion piece in an online forum or blog, rather than an encyclopedia article.

And, indeed, almost all of the citations refer to Christian scholars and historians, almost none of them to secular historians. The amount of bias in these sources is undeniable (as no Christian scholar would ever argue against the historicity and existence of Jesus, as that's the most fundamental core tenet of their belief system.)

It is, thus, very strange for the article to make strong claims such as "virtually all scholars who have investigated the history of the Christian movement find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain", when almost every single "scholar" being cited is a Christian theologian or apologist. It would be much more accurate and honest to write "virtually all Christian scholars", as those are almost exclusively the ones being cited.

It is indeed an extremely common, almost universal, argument among Christian apologists that the existence and historicity of Jesus is not only undeniable, but also very widely agreed upon among historians, and that pretty much no scholar of any repute, no matter what their personal belief system, doubts this.

Yet, both their evidence of this (ie. that the vast majority of historians, even secular ones, agree with them) and their arguments for the historicity of the man, are extremely weak and lacking. I have not found any survey, study or paper that would investigate what the percentages are on the opinions of professional scholars and historians, especially secular ones, about this subject. The only thing I have found (and what the Wikipedia article is able to cite) is claims by Christian apologists and theologians that this is the case. Claims with little supporting evidence. This is being asserted with strong conviction, but not much proof is being provided. Only a small handful of (alleged) non-Christian scholars are ever cited as evidence that this is a vast majority consensus among the academia. And the only people I have ever seen make these assertions are Christians themselves.

Non-Christian evidence for the historicity of Jesus?

What is the (unbiased) evidence provided for the historicity of Jesus? Why are these Christian scholars so sure that he was, in fact, an actual real person and that this is completely undeniable based on every source we have?

All the evidence provided seems extraordinarily weak, considering how strongly these apologists assert that his existence is "an undeniable historical fact".

The historians Josephus and Tacitus are two of the most commonly cited early non-Christian sources for the historicity of Jesus. These two names always appear when a Christian apologist is asked for historical evidence. Yet, curiously, you'll almost never hear them mention, without them being asked, when these two people were born. Almost invariably the apologists will leave it unstated and vague when these two historians lived, and when they wrote their texts mentioning Jesus. One has to wonder why.

It may well be that they leave that information out because if their listeners were aware of it, it might erode the credibility of their sources. Josephus was born in 37 AD, and Tacitus circa 56 AD. Well after Jesus's alleged death.

In other words, these two most famous non-Christian historians that are always brought forward when the question arises, were not even born during the (alleged) lifetime of Jesus. They were hardly contemporary witnesses to the events. The writings of Josephus that mention Jesus were written in around 96 AD, and the writings of Tacitus were written in around 115 AD. Both well over 50 years after Jesus's alleged death, neither historian having been even born at the time.

One would think that if, as the Christian apologists claim, there's an abundance of historic evidence for the existence of Jesus, they wouldn't need to resort to the writings of two historians who hadn't even been born at the time, and wrote their texts well over a half century after the alleged events. Certainly, if I were asked to give evidence for the existence of a famous person, like for example Albert Einstein, I wouldn't have to resort to citing the writings of some historian who was born 10 years after Einstein died. I would, rather obviously, cite texts written during Einstein's life.

Yet, such contemporary writings about Jesus seem suspiciously lacking. In fact, there exist no known nor surviving writings about Jesus that are contemporary to his alleged life and acts. Not even from Christian sources.

The fact is that both Josephus and Tacitus were simply writing about what Christians of their time believed and claimed. The only thing that their writing is evidence of, is that Christians, and their beliefs, existed by the year 96 AD (a claim that's hardly controversial). They are not evidence that the claims of the Christians of that time were real and accurate.

It is, thus, extremely strange for any self-respecting honest scholar or historian to give Josephus and Tacitus as evidence for the historicity of Jesus. They are evidence of Christianity having existed by that time, not that everything they claimed (eg. about Jesus) is factual. Josephus and Tacitus are very valid sources for the history of Christianity in the early second century, but they are extremely weak evidence for the existence of Jesus himself. Citing them as strong evidence for the latter is both fallacious and very dishonest.

Evidence from Christian sources?

Unsurprisingly, Christian apologists will use their own scriptures as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, regardless of the rather obvious bias of the authors. But even ignoring this blatant bias, do even these sources hold up to scrutiny?

Arguably, and without much controversy, the Pauline epistles are the earliest surviving writings to ever mention Jesus in any way, shape or form. However, even by the author's own admission, he never himself personally witnessed Jesus, never met him, never saw any of his acts. He only had second-hand accounts about the man. He was not, thus, an eyewitness to any of the alleged events, or even to the existence of the person himself.

Also it should be noted that Paul's writings are very lacking in any biographical detail about Jesus. Even if he was writing about a real person who actually existed, eg. some kind of Jewish preacher or cult leader, his writings do not reveal much about his life, only about his teachings. Even then, it's almost impossible to know how much of these teachings were the words of this Jesus person, and how much were the inventions of Paul himself.

The other letters of the New Testament, written by other people, probably much later than Paul's letters, are not much better in this regard either. They, too, reveal little to no biographical details about Jesus, and mostly deal with Christian doctrine (from which, once again, it's impossible to tell if they are the opinions of the writer himself, or the actual words of the supposed Jesus person they are attributing these thoughts to.)

It is almost universally accepted by serious scholars and historians, even most Christian ones, that the Gospels were written much later than the Pauline epistles, by unknown authors. Most secular scholars would agree that these writings are by far and large completely mythological and fictitious, containing little to no accurate information about Jesus, even assuming they are loosely based on a real existing person. Even the more mundane parts of the Gospels (ie. those that do not deal with any supernatural events) are likely to be fictitious. It is quite likely that the gospels, which are probably based on one or two original sources, are a largely fictitious "origin story" for the (alleged) founder of Christianity. Due to their mythological nature, the Gospels are extremely weak evidence of a historical Jesus, even one who did almost nothing of what is described in the texts.

Using the Gospels as evidence for a historical Jesus is like using the Historia Regum Britanniae as evidence for a historic King Arthur, or the Kalevala as evidence for a historic Väinämöinen.

One of the strangest (and weakest) arguments often given for the veracity of the scriptures is that of "criterion of embarrassment" (also mentioned in the Wikipedia article): The claims about Jesus are believable because his followers wouldn't have invented a story about him being humiliated and ignominiously tortured and killed by the Roman oppressors, with him being unable to do anything about it, rather than him being a great victorious leader and inspiration. If early Christians simply invented the story of Jesus, who was supposed to be the promised Messiah that would liberate them from the oppression of the Romans, surely they would have not made him such a weak person who ended up being embarrassed and killed by those same oppressors?

This argument holds no water. Martyrdom was a very common trait in many contemporary and much older stories and writings, including biblical ones. The Old Testament scriptures themselves are full of stories of pious men of God who suffer at the hands of evil people. Being martyred, rather than being a conqueror, was a very common trait in the stories about God's chosen people. In fact, the fate of Jesus in the Gospels quite closely follows what many Jewish scholars interpreted the Messiah to be like, from the Torah scriptures, which describe a suffering Messiah who is tortured and killed. It is quite probable that the authors of the Gospels were fitting Jesus into what they interpreted the Torah scriptures to predict about the Messiah, which was probably a common story among Christians of the time. (This is precisely where you get all the "the Old Testament predicted Jesus" claims among Christian apologists. Of course it "predicted" him, because the authors of the Gospels made him fit those "predictions".)

Martyrdom, dying for the cause, is and was a very common heroic narrative. Many stories, even very old ones, have their heroes die ignominious deaths and meet shameful fates even after heroic acts. This is not something unusual. (In fact, it might even be more common in stories from antiquity than it is today.)

The man versus the myth

Many historians like to differentiate between real historic people, who actually existed, and the myths that were created around them. Myths may be formed around a real person, but the myth itself may have little to no resemblance to the actual person, or the actual events. Much of these stories may be complete fabrications or distortions.

Thus, many historians like to separate the actual person from the fictitious character invented loosely based on that person. As an example, Blackbeard, the famous 18th century pirate, was a real existing person, real name Edward Teach. However, much mythology surrounds the man, and it's dubious how many of the events and actions attributed to him are real, and how many are exaggerated or even completely fictitious. Thus, some historians like to differentiate between "Edward Teach the man" and "Blackbeard the fictitious pirate", even though the latter is largely based on the former.

Even if there existed some kind of Jewish preacher or cult leader, perhaps even named "Jeshua" (or who called himself as such), and even if the Christian religion, mostly built and spread by Paul, was based on some of the things that this person taught, a difference can be made between the real person and the mythological Jesus described in the Gospels and alluded to by the New Testament letters.

I think making this distinction is important, for intellectual honesty. When someone makes the claim "Jesus was a real historic figure who actually existed", it's deceiving and dishonest to equate this possibly existing real person with the mythological Jesus that Christianity believes in, described in the Gospels. For all intents and purposes, even if a real person existed, it was a completely different person than the "Jesus" that Christians believe in. Many historians like to separate "the man" from "the myth", and I think that should be done here as well.

Did a real person exist, perhaps even some kind of preacher and cult leader, on which the story of Jesus is based on? Maybe, maybe not. However, did the "Jesus" described in the New Testament exist? Probably not, in this sense.

Claiming that there's strong evidence for the historicity of Jesus, and that the vast majority of scholars and historians agree, is deceitful and dishonest.

How to have a discussion with an apologist

Many a skeptic / atheist has one time or another run into a street preacher or other type of Christian (and sometimes other type of) apologist, asked a bunch of questions, tried to either outsmart the apologist or even respond genuinely, only to have the apologist use all kinds of tactics to make the skeptic look foolish and ignorant about their own world view and their own arguments.

This happens most often because the skeptic does not have the necessary experience in conversing with Christian apologists, who often do have a lot of experience in all kinds of argumentative tactics (both honest and dishonest), and the skeptic often gets surprised and cornered by difficult questions to which they unwittingly give answers that the apologist then essentially makes a fool of.

A skeptic should know what Christian apologists usually expect to encounter, and what their tactics are. A skeptic should know to not fall into the argumentative traps laid by the apologist (and even if he tries to do that, the skeptic should know how to properly respond to them.)

Here are some useful tips for how to approach a discussion with a Christian apologist or street preacher (most effective in real-life, may also apply to an extent in online conversations, although this tends to be less effective because online conversations tend to be group conversations and your arguments will probably just be buried under everybody else's):

1: Do not be afraid of answering with "I don't know".

For some reason the vast majority of people, both skeptics and apologists, have this misguided intuitive notion that they should never answer with "I don't know", as they feel it to be a concession and a defeat, and having lost the argument. In fact, many Christian apologists in particular have this notion that if they get a skeptic/atheist to say "I don't know", they have disarmed them and have got the upper hand, and can then dismantle their existing world view and start building up a Christian one.

This is all fallacious thinking. The actual fact is that if you immediately respond with "I don't know" to something you honestly do not know the answer to (because you can't possibly know it), that actually disarms the Christian apologist, not you.

The most typical and best situation where that answer applies is in the very initial parts of the discussion, when the apologists asks a question like "where did the universe come from?" At this point the vast majority of skeptics commit the mistake of trying to give scientific hypotheses, talk about the Big Bang or whatever. However, the correct and best answer to give is: "I don't know."

That's not only the correct and honest answer (because you really don't know, nobody does), but it will usually catch the apologist by surprise because he most probably did not expect such an answer so soon, and was not ready for it.

The most usual response from the apologist at this point will most probably be "I do know" and to try to proceed to talk about God. At this point it will be you who can corner the apologist, with actual genuine correct logic, by pointing out that he does not know, he believes. Nobody knows the answer. You can point this out to the apologist, and simply refute his claim that he does know, because he truly does not; he only believes. This is the actual fact of the matter, which is your strongest weapon in this discussion.

Do not succumb into going into the swamp of trying to go to scientific explanations and hypotheses. You can skip all of that, even if the apologist tries to go there. The apologist will not get the upper hand in the debate if you keep it simple, honest and factual.

(If the apologist starts with "where did all this come from?" pointing to your surroundings, you can simply redirect the question to be more pertinent, with something like "do you mean where did the universe come from?" Do not go into the origins of the Earth and life. Go straight to the core of the matter.)

An experienced apologist may still try to reverse this situation and try to lay further argumentative traps for you, but if you watch enough Christians vs. skeptics videos and other material, you'll get the experience and argumentative arsenal to respond properly.

2: Answer "why don't you believe in God?" correctly

One extremely common tactic that apologists use is to ask for the reasons why somebody doesn't believe, and then dismantle those reasons. This is an endless and perilous path of conversation that's full or traps and obstacles, and doesn't really lead anywhere.

There's an extremely simple counter to that question that avoids all that in a very easy way: Simply answer the question with another question: "Why should I?"

That might sound like flippant and sarcastic, but it's actually genuine and very effective. It once again stops the argumentative barrage that the apologist was readying himself before it even begins.

This is not really some kind of dirty dishonest diversionary tactic. It's actually a very intellectually honest question: You are the skeptic, you are the doubter. You are completely free to doubt and not believe, and you do not have the burden of proof. You do not need to justify your doubt. The person making the positive claim ("God exists") is the one with the burden of proof. You do not need to give any arguments for your doubt. You don't have to have any arguments for your doubt. It's not your duty to argue why you don't have a particular belief. It's the duty of the person trying to convince you of that belief to present you with the arguments. With this question you are asking for these arguments.

Keep in mind to keep it simple and honest! Do not succumb to the temptation of asking things like "what's your evidence of God?" This is not something you should ask. You should keep it much simpler and simply ask "why should I believe?" Do not give the apologist any more argumentative ammunition than needed.

Almost inevitably the apologist will try to answer with the first point above, or the ones below, so be ready for them.

3: Respond to arguments-from-the-Bible correctly

Almost inevitably (although not always, as some apologist tactics are based on not using the Bible to convince skeptics) the apologist will try to point passages in the Bible that are (at least allegedly) accurate, for example describing corroborated historical events, places and people, and the like.

Do not succumb to trying to argue about these examples. That's a mistake (which is way too common). The problem with trying to discuss the veracity or importance of those particular passages is that you are inadvertently making an incorrect concession: Without even realizing it, you are making the admission that "yes, if these passages are correct and factual, then it gives strong evidence of the existence of God." Which is, rather obviously, incorrect.

Do not discuss the passages in question. Instead, point out that fallacy. Point out that even if those particular passages were 100% accurate, that doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is accurate. Just because a book as some facts in it doesn't mean that every single thing written in it is factual. It doesn't matter how mundane or seemingly supernatural the factual parts of it are, that doesn't say anything about the rest of the book. Note to the apologist that you could write a thick book stock full of verifiable known hard facts, and then somewhere in the middle insert a completely false claim. Just because the rest of the book is factual doesn't make that one claim any more true.

4: Respond to arguments-from-miracles correctly

Very similarly, some apologists, and often Christians in general, will argue for the existence of God from alleged miracles, presenting examples of them.

Once again, do not succumb into trying to discuss the veracity of these miracles. You would once again be making an incorrect concession: You would be admitting that "yes, if these miracles are actually genuine, that would be evidence of the existence of God" (and thus the only question here is whether those claimed miracles actually happened or not), which is incorrect.

Realize that it doesn't actually matter if the alleged miracles happened or not (quite obviously they did not, but that doesn't really matter). Just because something seemingly supernatural has happened, that still tells us absolutely nothing about the existence of some alleged god. That's because even if the events are indeed miraculous, we have no idea what caused them, what their source is. Even if they genuinely could not be explained by the natural laws of the universe, even ones that we are yet to discover, we still wouldn't know what caused them, and thus jumping to "it was God" is completely fallacious thinking.

Point that out instead of going into the endless and fruitless swamp of trying to argue whether those miracles actually happened or not. Even if the apologist tries to drag into discussing the miracles themselves, you can simply refuse by pointing out that the whole argument is fallacious.

(If the apologist seems to be particularly friendly and understanding, and seems extremely willing to have an actual back-and-forth conversation where both people understand and acknowledge each other's points, you could start discussing possible natural explanations for those miracles, from a hypothetical point of view. But only do this after having made it clear that it doesn't really matter whether there is a natural explanation or not.)

5: Get to know and understand typical apologist arguments

Watching lots of skeptic videos and online material is a great way of getting knowledge on all kinds of arguments presented by apologists. Many apologists think that they have come up with all kinds of really clever and irrefutable "logical" arguments that "atheists have no answer to".

Well, you should have an answer to them ready. Correct answers, of course. Answers that point out the argumentative fallacy.

Note that you will not convince any apologist with your answers. They will not accept your answers. However, you can still answer to them for your own sake, or the sake of anybody else who is listening. There are tons and tons of such arguments, but some of the most typical are:

- Argument from morality: The apologist will argue that absolute morality exists and will ask where it comes from (and maybe even claim that "atheists have no basis for morality").

The answer is complicated, but you can try to keep it as simple as possible: We humans are a social species that has survived in families, groups and  large societies via cooperation and working together. Over vast amounts of time (depending on the apologist you might want to avoid using "millions of years" so as to not trigger yet another swamp of fruitless and useless discussion about the age of the universe) we, as a society, have developed rules of civility and morality that work for a functioning and prosperous society. We have millenia of experience on what kind of societal rules work and what doesn't. We, as a society, have come up with laws and systems of law enforcement, to punish those who commit crimes against society that would harm people.

- The fine-tuning argument: The apologist will argue that the universe is too fine-tuned for life to be just mere random chance.

Here even experienced skeptics succumb to a bad mistake: They start pointing out how the vast majority of the universe is completely hostile to life, and how rare it is for any place to be able to sustain life. This is a mistake because the argument was not that the entire universe is friendly to life, but that it's fine-tuned so that life on Earth is possible. The rest of the universe doesn't matter.

You can keep it simple: We do not know what exactly determines the laws of the universe to be like they are, and how they may or may not be modified, or what caused them to be like this here (assuming they could be any other way), and even if they were indeed "fine-tuned" we have absolutely no idea what caused them to become such "fine-tuned". Jumping to "God did it" is just fallacious argumentation. We do not know what did it. We cannot jump to "God" as a blanket explanation.

- The God-of-the-gaps argument: Perhaps one of the most hilariously bad and fallacious arguments ever presented by apologists, who honestly think it's one of the most clever arguments ever, is a very direct and straightforward God-of-the-gaps argument: We only know a minuscule fraction of everything there is to know about the universe, everything that exists, and existence itself. Couldn't God be in that huge part that we do not know?

Yeah, and likewise there could be unicorns, leprechauns, and Chtulhu. Or, less flippantly: There could also be the absolute certainty of knowledge that there is no god of any sort.

Arguing anything from what we do not know is so utterly fallacious that it's ridiculous.