DID JESUS EVER LIVE?

1
Louis W. Cable

Any religion makes sense if you look at it only from the

inside. George C. Scott

Was Jesus of Nazareth a real historical person? Today, we

cannot give a positive yes or no answer to this question. But
after studying the evidence it becomes highly plausible that, as
portrayed in the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth, hereinafter
referred to as Jesus, is a myth and nothing more. It is
reasonable to speculate, however, that somewhere in the
eastern Mediterranean region of two thousand or more years
ago a talented young leader appeared preaching what was for
those days a radical doctrine. Although he in no way
resembled the Jesus of the New Testament, he well might have
provided the inspiration for him, i.e., the kernel of truth out of
which grew the myth.

First, it is inconceivable that if a historical Jesus had actually

founded a world religion, Christianity, that there should be no
contemporary record of his activities. Surely one of the several
Jewish historians active during that period would have
mentioned him. But they remained silent about him - a silence,
it should be noted, which speaks volumes. So in our search for
Jesus we are restricted to the conflicting depictions of the New
Testament gospel writers who are themselves under suspicion
by modern Bible scholars. Surely if such a person as Jesus had
existed, the historians of his day would have recorded
something of his teachings, his alleged miracles, his doctrines
as well as the many other extraordinary events associated with
his short life.

Preeminent among the Jewish historians of the first century is

Philo Judaeus of Alexandria. His dates, 30 BCE - 452, include
Jesus’ alleged life span. Among his writings is a history of the
Jewish people. It is still available today. Philo was particularly
interested in contemporary religious movements and sects of
which there were many. Yet he never once mentions Jesus or
any of the extraordinary events associated with him in the New
Testament.

Justus of Tiberius, another contemporary Jewish historian, also

wrote a history of the Jewish people covering this period.

1
Although the work is now lost, we know that it was extant at
least until 891 because Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople,
read it and expressed astonishment that it contained not one
reference to Jesus (Photius’ Bibliotheca, code 33)3 .

Flauvius Josephus (37-100?), an important first century Jewish

historian, wrote about Pontius Pilate in his important work,
Antiquities of the Jews4. It is unimaginable that he should not
have mentioned the trial and crucifixion of Jesus had they
really occurred. It is evident that at an early date Christians
were painfully aware of this fatal omission and took steps to
correct it. Between sections two and four of chapter 3 of
Antiquities there appears a short section, appropriately titled
section 3, in which Jesus and the Christians are indeed
mentioned. However, section 3 interrupts the natural flow of
the text and appears to be out of place. When section 3 is
removed chapter 3 makes more sense. Section 3 is an
acknowledged interpolation5. Also, early Christian writers,
such as Origen and Tertullian, frequently referred to Josephus
without once citing this passage. They certainly would have
done so had they been aware of it. Last, but by no means least,
the passage was obviously written by a Christian which
Josephus was not. It is interesting to note that in the sixteenth
century Vossius6 had a manuscript of Josephus which does not
contain the passage in question.

A second reference to Jesus is also found in book 20, chapter 9

of the Antiquities. Here it is said that by order of Annainas,
James the Just, the brother of Jesus, and some others were
stoned to death. It is extremely doubtful that Josephus would
have made such a casual reference to Jesus without having said
anything about him elsewhere. This passage seems to imply
the existence of the earlier one therefore it has to be an
interpolation also. The claim that Josephus confirms the
existence of Jesus is refuted. For more information on the
writings of Joseph see Are the Gospels True? on this web site.

There is a reference to Jesus in a letter which Pliny the

Younger, Proconsul of Bithynia, wrote to the emperor Trajan in
the year 113. In it Pliny asked for instructions as to any action
that he should take against the Christians. He informed the
emperor that they sang hymns to Jesus Christ as to a god. They
did not worship the emperor as was required by Roman law of
that day. Although judged to be authentic, the letter, because of
its relatively late date, is of no use in proving the existence of

2
Jesus.

Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, because he is so consistently cited by

Christian apologists as providing extra-biblical proof of the
existence of Jesus, deserves special attention. Tacitus, a
prominent Roman historian who lived from 56 to 120, authored
several major works on Roman history some of which have
survived. Among his most ambitious work is The Annals of
Imperial Rome, a 30 volume set dealing with the empire in the
period from 14 to 68. In chapter 44 of Book 15 of the Annals is
found the following passage:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report (that he was responsible for

the devastating fire which consumed Rome in 64), Nero fastened
the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for
their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from
whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during
the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius
Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the
moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the
evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from
every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
(Annuls, Book XV,sec.44).

Christians claim this passage is a valid confirmation of the

historicity of Jesus. However, when subjected to further
analysis the authenticity of the passage appears to be highly
questionable. First, it must be recognized that in history no
topic is above questioning. If it is claimed that an author wrote
a certain passage, then it is the responsibility of those making
the claim to provide proof of authenticity. If such proof is not
forthcoming, then it follows that the passage in question has no
validity. Also, much of the Christian literature that has come
down to us from the first and second centuries shows clear
evidence of editing and/or interpolation.

Among the more compelling reasons for doubting the

authenticity of the statement in question is the fact that there is
no evidence that Nero blamed any group for the fire in
question nor is there any evidence that a group called
"Christians" were well known in Rome during Nero's reign (54-
68.) Also, there is no mention of Jesus by name. The passage, as
important as it obviously is to Christian apologists, is never
referred to by any of the early church fathers. In fact, it was not
mentioned by Christian writers until as recently as the15th
century. However, it is the issue of Pontius Pilate that stands

3
out as clear evidence of forgery in the subject passage.

The name Pontius Pilate is used as if the reader would

recognize it. But, there is no reason to believe that a pagan
Roman living more than half a century after Pilate's time
would recognize the name of a minor official governing a
distant province. However, a Christian would recognize it
instantly. This raises another important question, "Assuming
that Tacitus actually wrote the passage, where did he get it?"
He was far too late to have had any first hand knowledge of
Jesus and the extraordinary events allegedly surrounding his
life. So did he rely on the gospels as a source of information?
They were available at the time the Annals was written. If so,
here we have a classic case of circularity.

There is also the problem of Pilate's title. According to

Encyclopedia Britannica (2002 deluxe electronic edition),
Pontius Pilate’s title was "prefect," not "procurator" as Tacitus
says. The office of procurator was not created until the reign of
the emperor Trajan (98-117) which fits within the time of
Tacitus’ writings. Prefect, on the other hand, was the title used
during the reign of the emperor Tiberius (14-37) under whom
Pilate served. The gospels are of no help here because in them
Pilate is referred to neither as prefect nor as procurator but
simply as governor (Matthew 27:2, Luke 3:1).

The claim that Tacitus was quoting from official government

records is not plausible for the following reasons. First, there is
the problem of Pilate's title as mentioned above. Second,
official government records would not have referred to an
executed man as "the Christ."

The conclusion is that, although attributed to Tacitus, the

passage in question is obviously a forgery interpolated into the
Annals long after they were written. Its sole purpose was to
make it appear that Tacitus actually wrote about a historical
Jesus7.

The Roman historian Suetonius (69-122) tells us in his Life of

Claudius that the emperor expelled the Jews from Rome
because, "At the instigation of 'Christus', they were continually
making trouble." Some Christian apologists contend the
Christus referred to in this sentences is none other than Jesus
himself. Therefore, it stands as proof positive of the historicity
of Jesus. First, the words, "at the instigation of Christus," imply
that the instigator was present at the time. Claudius reigned

4
from 41 to 54 therefore no rational theologian or historian
would seriously make such a preposterous claim that Jesus was
in Rome inciting the Jews to riot some 15 years after his alleged
crucifixion. The name, Christus was common in Rome of that
day. Also, no reference is made to the fire nor of the attendant
circumstances which Suetonius does mention elsewhere. The
sentence obviously does not fit into the context of the narrative
in which it appears. It looks suspiciously like another Christian
interpolation. In any case, the sentence, due to its relatively late
date, has no evidentiary value in the quest for the historical
Jesus.

If Jesus had lived, disputed with the scribes and Pharisees,

desecrated the holy temple and had been put to death after a
trial by the Sanhedrin or at the instigation of the chief men
among the Jews, the rabbis certainly would have had
independent knowledge of him, and there would have been
some mention of him in Jewish writings such as the Talmud.
Many passages, we know, were deleted from the Talmud by
the censors. Did any of these deletions reference Jesus? Here is
one example of a censored passage from Sanhedrin 43 referring
to a Jesus:

It has been told that on the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus.
An announcer went out for forty days before the hanging
saying that he was going to be stoned and hanged for the crime
of leading Israel astray, and asking that anyone having
anything to say in his favor let him come and plead on his
behalf. Not having found anything in his favor, they hanged
him on the eve of Passover.

This account has nothing to do with the Jesus of the New

Testament for the following reasons: 1) Jesus, according to the
gospels, was not stoned and then hanged. He was crucified by
the Romans for insurrection. 2) The gospels tell us that the trial
and execution of Jesus were on the same day, not separated by
40 days as said in the censored Talmud passage. 3) The gospels
relate that Jesus was crucified at the sixth hour (noon) not
towards evening as is stated in the Talmud. 4) In the gospels
Jesus was condemned to death at a Roman trial before Pontius
Pilate not before the Sanhedrian. 5) While in the Gospel of John
the day of execution is the day before Passover, the three
synoptic gospels made it the day of the Passover which again
disagrees with the censored Talmud story. 6) The Jesus of the
Talmudic account lived and died during the reign of King
Alexander Janaus, 150 years before the alleged time of Jesus of

5
the New Testament.

There are those who will say, "But Jesus could not just have
been invented. His good works, his miracles and his ethical
teachings are a proof of his existence." However, the ethical
doctrines of many before and since Jesus have reached ethical
levels as high and perhaps higher than that ascribed to him.
For example, the golden rule, said to encapsulate the Christian
mystique, was enunciated by Confucius centuries before
Christ. Socrates, in the speech he delivered to his judges, is
reported to have said, "We know that no evil happens to a
good man either in life or after death. I am not angry with my
accusers. They have done me no harm, though none of them
meant to do me good. For this I may gently blame them." The
point is that there existed in antiquity a body of ethical doctrine
and sufficient examples of the finest kind of behavior to supply
the gospel writers with ample sources with which to construct
the mythical portrait of the ideal man, if that is what they
intended to do.

Evidence that Jesus ever lived is found only in the New

Testament gospels. But just how reliable is it? Consider the
following: 1) The dates of their writings are well after the
alleged time of Jesus and contain numerous irresolvable
contradictions and obvious forgeries9. 2) The writer of the
Gospel of John presents a different Christ from that of the
synoptic gospels. 3) Paul presents a mystery Christ unlike that
of both John and the synoptics. 4) Much in the gospels was
borrowed from pagan sources. 5) No two gospels writers could
agree as to the date or circumstances of Jesus’ birth, and the
birth narratives appear to have been contrived. 6) The gospel
writers cannot agree on the short inscription over Jesus' head at
the alleged crucifixion. 7) The gospel accounts of the crucifixion
and resurrection are hopelessly contradictory.

The New Testament is the last place to look for historical facts.
It is simply a book of church dogma and an exhortation to faith
in that dogma. It is believed that the ideas of a suffering
messiah is out lined in the 53rd chapter of the Old Testament
book of Isaiah. And it is certain that this and other passages in
the Hebrew Bible supplied details for the prophecy of the birth
and crucifixion of a suffering servant. The conception of a son
of God who came to earth, was a benefactor of man, died and
rose again, was widely prevalent in the pre-Christian pagan
world of the eastern Mediterranean area. Examples include
Adonis, Hercules, Houris and many others. Naturally, during

6
their stay on earth these "sons of god" were said to have had
mortal bodies. So, the attribution of a mortal body toa divine
man, Jesus, proves nothing whatsoever as to his historicity.

The Pauline writers were interested only in the death and

resurrection of Jesus. Paul did not tell his converts anything
about the beautiful earthly life of a good man. What he did was
to preach Jesus and the means of redemption offered through
his death. In other words, Paul preached a dogma, and the
death of Jesus in the Pauline epistles is no more an historical
event than is that of the death and resurrection of Osirus. For
more information on this subject see The Mystery of Paul's
Ignorance on this website.

If Jesus did not exist, how did the story about him begin? One
must remember that in the time when Jesus was supposed to
have lived, there were many Jewish cults, especially in Galilee.
Jewish mysticism, mixed with the Hellenistic stoic philosophy,
gave birth to the legend of Jesus. Gullible minds accepted the
myth, and as the centuries passed, a new religion developed
out of a legend. Over time, as the gospels went through
successive editions, "corrections" were made which reflect the
compromises upon which the minds of Christians were
exercised at the time and speeches were put in the mouth of
Jesus in order to give authority to some particular dogma or
view. The parable of the Good Samaritan, for example was
added for the purpose of combating Jewish exclusiveness
exhibited in many passages of earlier gospels. Meanwhile the
Hebrew Bible was ransacked for passages which could be
manipulated so as to apply to Jesus. Corresponding incidents
were then written into the gospels to make it appear that Jesus
had fulfilled these prophecies. This was done to such an extent
that one writer observed that the Old Testament was converted
to a biography of Jesus. The early Christian writers tried to
prove the truth of Christian beliefs not by contemporary
evidence of Jesus’ existence, which surely they would have
done if they could, but out of the prophets and the Psalms by
taking verses out of context and in many cases altering them so
as to make them appear to be speaking about Jesus.

There are those who would protect the gospels by saying that
everything in them is symbolism. But symbolism is not history.
If the conclusion is accepted that the primitive gospels were
essentially symbolism, with some infusion of myth, then the
further conclusion must follow that the writers of these gospels
were not intending to relate the actions of a real man. Thus the

7
only evidence, such as it is, that Jesus ever lived ceases to be
any evidence at all.

______________________________________________

1 Compiled by Louis W. Cable in part from audio tape #41 of

The Light of Reason by Shmuel Golding of the Jerusalem
Institute of Biblical Polemics.

2 All dates are Christian era (CE) unless otherwise indicated.

3 Larson, M. A., The Story of Christian Origins, p. 304.

4 Josephus, Flauvius, Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3.

5 Larson, M. A.., The Story of Christian Origins, p. 305.

6 Voss, Gerhard Johann (1577-1649), Dutch Humanist

theologian.

7 Wells, G. A., Did Jesus Exist?, p. 13.

8 Ibid, Jesus and the Early Christians, p. 186-187.

9 See New Testament Forgeries on this web site.