Did Jesus really exist?

For decades Christian advocates have been trotting out C.S. Lewis’ famous trilemma—that given the things Jesus said about Himself, he must be either a diabolical deceiver, psychologically unhinged, or else, God incarnate. Supposedly those were the only three logical options: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. But in recent years it has become increasingly popular in sceptical circles to suggest a fourth option: Legend. That the stories about Jesus are historical fabrications. That Jesus of Nazareth never even existed, or if he did, he had nothing to do with the founding of Christianity.

Those who promote this view are often termed Jesus Mythicists, and whilst its academic defenders—like George Albert Wells, Richard Carrier, and Robert Price—are astonishingly few in number, for some reason, when surveyed, a surprising number of adults across the Western world expressed serious doubt over whether Jesus of Nazareth ever even existed.

So what does the Christian Story say about whether Jesus is history? Did Jesus really exist?

Despite the popularity of the non-existence hypothesis on the street and in sceptical online forums, it might be helpful to consider just how fringe this view is when it comes to mainstream scholarship. Even Bart Ehrman, certainly no friend of Christianity, set out to explicitly refute Jesus Mythicists in his book Did Jesus Exist? Because despite being an agnostic Bible scholar he argues that the evidence for Jesus’ existence is so overwhelming it would be silly to deny it.

John Dickson, an ancient historian who teaches on the historical Jesus, even went public on social media years ago with the challenge that he would eat a page of his Bible if someone could name a single credentialed professor of Classics, Ancient History, or New Testament Studies who holds a post in a reputable university anywhere in the world and who denies that Jesus existed. To date, John’s Bible remains whole.

Now my goal with this observation is not to belittle Jesus mythicists, nor simply to flex the academic muscles of the majority. No doubt appeals to authority can fall into the trap of being unduly dismissive, substituting real evidence and arguments simply for expert opinions as though piling up academic credentials are enough to make the case.

No my point is simply to demonstrate that sometimes popular beliefs are out of step with informed scholarly consensus. And when it comes to whether Jesus is history this broad consensus is not ideologically driven. These academic fields are populated by non-religious scholars too, with no motivated axe to grind, and often with a whole range of opinions as to Jesus’ true identity. Rather, the monolithic conviction of these diverse scholars that Jesus really existed comes down to one simple reality: the strength of the historical evidence.

So what is the evidence for the historical Jesus?

First, we have the Christian sources that make up the New Testament. Our earliest known sources for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth come from a series of letters written by the Apostle Paul. Penned within 3 decades of Jesus’ death, and some much earlier, Paul makes a number of claims about the historical Jesus. That Jesus was a Jew, born of a woman, and descended genealogically from King David himself. That Jesus had brothers, one of whom was James. That Jesus had 12 disciples, naming Peter and John specifically. That Jesus taught on marriage, summarised the law in term of compassion, and said he would return in glory. That Jesus shared a last meal with his disciples. That Jesus was betrayed by one of his own. That Jesus was crucified. That he was buried. That Jesus was raised bodily from the dead, and that he appeared to a litany of witnesses.

Paul’s claims are then corroborated and fleshed out fleshed out in the Synoptic gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—which were penned roughly around the same time, and certainly within the living memory of the events they record. Along with John’s gospel, written decades later, these 4 biographies contain the hallmarks of genuine eyewitness testimony from people who knew Jesus firsthand. Add to this the rest of the New Testament documents, including letters from James and Jude as two of Jesus’ half-brothers, and you have a compelling case.

Second, we have the Apostolic fathers outside the New Testament. These are the second generation of church leaders at the end of the first century and start of the second century. Christians like Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias. All of whom speak of Jesus, and most of whom likely knew an Apostles personally, receiving from them their testimony about Jesus.

Now secular historians take these Christian sources seriously. Just because these first Christians were persuaded that Jesus was who he claimed to be—Lord—does not nullify their worth as historical sources. Now obviously critical scholars don’t take everything these Christian sources say as gospel truth, swallowing Jesus’ miracles wholesale. If they did that, they’d all become Christians. No, they weigh individual claims within the sources, looking to see if they satisfy a range of criteria so we can confidently affirm actually happened in history.

But let’s say your sceptical of these sources. I mean Christians are biased, right? Surely we can’t trust the motives of these morally transformed people who spent their lives sacrificially serving the poor. Or surely we should doubt the intelligence of these witnesses who, you know, penned some of the most incredible literature in the ancient world. But even if you throw out all of these Christian sources, you’re still in luck. Why?

Because, third, Jesus is better attested in non-Christian sources than nearly anyone outside of the Roman Emperors. And that is no small feat for an obscure itinerant preacher from a backwater Roman province. Across the ancient records there are numerous mentions of Jesus: the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus, the Roman magistrate Pliny the Younger, the Greek satirist Lucian, and even the Babylonian Talmud. In fact, no less than 12 non-sympathetic sources in the first two centuries AD mention Jesus, often corroborating some of the New Testament’s claims with independent details. Now one of Josephus’ references to Jesus, The Testimonium Flavianum, is disputed, because it seems a later Christian scribe edited his original words, but even cutting this out, there is plenty of secular evidence to affirm Jesus existed.

In total, were you to pile all of the sources together—the Christian, Jewish, and Greco-Roman accounts—there are 42 different sources for the historical Jesus that were all penned while Christianity was still a tiny rogue religious contingent of the ancient world.

So the non-existence hypothesis, the idea that Jesus was just a historical fabrication, just does not stand up to scrutiny. There is a reason why secular scholars in this field consider Jesus mythicists to be the ideological equivalents of flat-earthers, because they just don’t seem to be willing to accept where the evidence overwhelming points.

And so, since truth invites questioning, you’re invited to explore the historical evidence about Jesus for yourself, asking: what makes the most sense of the claims in these sources? Was Jesus a liar, cunningly deceiving those around him? Was he a lunatic, psychologically unstable and so confused about his true identity? Or was he truly Lord, and so worthy of our trust as the one who promises life? Given the weight of historical evidence, it would seem the one thing we cannot say is that Jesus of Nazareth was nothing more than a legend.