Question:
What is the verifiable, historical proof that Jesus existed?
?
2014-04-18 15:11:29 UTC
As an atheist myself, I would like very much to believe that the figure of Jesus is entirely fictional. However, I've frequently heard assertions by both Christians and non-Christians that "a man named Jesus definitely existed". I can't imagine how this is verifiable, and when I attempted to research it for myself, I only found articles on bible study websites (which would, of course, be biased) and otherwise vague references to the overwhelming majority of modern historians agreeing that he existed. Can anyone supply me with the exact proofs of the historicity of Jesus, or links to articles which hold those proofs?
21 answers:
Chances68
2014-04-18 16:13:38 UTC
I'm a working historian, and I handle document verification and authentication pretty frequently.



I can tell you for a fact that there is no contemporary documentary evidence that Jesus actually existed. Sources offered as proof are always decades and even centuries after the fact, written by admittedly biased sources, and / or have been shown to have been "creatively added to" long after their writing.



There are no Roman records of charges against Jesus. No order of execution. No Roman tax record, no Roman census, nothing at all which would provide us with unimpeachable evidence that the guy existed.



Now...it is certainly possible that he did actually exist, but there's no proof. I know that's a fine distinction, but it is an important one. It is also possible that Jesus is merely a fictional amalgam of several actual self-proclaimed messiahs in Judea around that time, added to the necessary exaggerations and wild fictions which typically accompany a story of a demigod, often drawn from other, then-extant stories about other gods (Horus, for example, or Mithras).



As to the vast majority of historians agreeing Jesus lived? First, I'd like to see that poll. Second, I'd like to compare the results of that poll with the religious affiliations of the people who answered it. I strongly suspect that you'd find a direct correlation between being Christian or Muslim, and believing Jesus actually existed. Likewise, I doubt you would find many non-believers who would leap to that conclusion, precisely because there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus lived.



That the "Cult of Jesus" existed and that many Jews, and then Greeks, and then Romans, and then others ended up adopting the belief in the stories about Jesus is not evidence that Jesus lived, either, by the way.
Jim V
2014-04-18 22:35:29 UTC
To begin with, what is reasonable proof for any ancient person's existence?

Can we prove that Aristotle existed? or Plato? or Spartacus? or Virgil?



While there are some exceptions, by far most of the people who lived prior to ... say 300 years ago ... cannot be proven other than by surviving written accounts. So, the question is really about the reliability of those accounts - be it Jesus and the documents that now make-up the Bible, or the works of Plato.



IMO on of the major "proofs" of Jesus is the church - the spreading of the Gospel. If Jesus did not exist then nothing we know of historical Christianity makes sense or is justifiable in any way. "Magic mushroom" hallucinations are just not a reasonable explanation.



I'd suggest this book for anyone who wants to investigate the reliability of the Gospel accounts: 'Cold Case Christianity' by J. Warner Wallace who applies the same investigative tools of the cold case detective to the New Testament documents.
?
2014-04-18 22:46:35 UTC
I can't prove he actually existed.



But I judge that the more likely case. The gospel accounts contain the sort of discrepancies that are normal for multiple witnesses with different experiences and different points of view. If he was entirely fictional, they would probably look more like the accounts of witnesses who had agreed on a certain fabricated formula, or they would vary more widely (as some of the discarded apocryphal accounts do).



Attempts to explain him as a pure fabrication usually produce the same sort of obvious fictions we see in those discarded early gospels. Thus, some historians--less cautious than I, but able to claim a more professional degree of judgment--are willing to argue that the likelihood of a real Jesus is so high as to be a practical certainty.



That still leaves you plenty of room to doubt some of the things we write about him.
ChildoftheKing
2014-04-18 23:15:04 UTC
Since you have done research and found agreement that Jesus

was a person, yet you still refuse to believe without verifiable

evidence. If you believe that Julius Caesar, Nero, Hannibal,

Socrates and many others existed, what verifiable evidence

did you attain to believe they existed? Since there are no

eyewitnesses to any of them, only books and documents that

others have written. Well, the bible is our document and evidence.

and the "overwhelming majority of modern historians" aren't

enough to convince you, then maybe if you just ask him,"'Jesus,

I can believe in other historical figures, but you, I'm having trouble

with. Could you please give me the proof so that I can invite you

into my life" .
Misty
2014-04-18 22:21:22 UTC
Many non-Christians/atheists reject the Bible as evidence because they don't believe it is the Word of God. However, it is a collection of historical documents. These documents have value. Even if you don't believe in God, these documents are thousands of years old and talk about Jesus, as well as other historical figures.



The books of the Bible were not written as "books of the Bible" they were merely documentation regarding what was happening at the time. They were selected and compiled by the Catholic Church to become part of the Bible. There is no reason to reject them as historical documentation.
?
2014-04-19 00:00:38 UTC
There is none.

By the way, the "christian apologist" claim that if you "believe" that Julius Caesar, or other ancient people, actually existed then you should believe that Jesus existed is disingenuous at best, completely dishonest at worst. Those above who claimed there are no "eyewitnesses" of those other people who wrote what they saw are being flat-out dishonest. And at any rate, none of those people are claimed to be magical sons of imaginary gods who did miracles and were "resurrected," so claims about them are already more likely -- even in the absence of any evidence -- than any "Jesus" claims.



Here, read this site:



http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm
imacatholic2
2014-04-21 02:52:46 UTC
There is no evidence for almost all of the 240 million people alive in the year 33 CE but there is evidence of the historical person of Jesus Christ. http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/World%20Population%20Estimates%20Interpolated%20and%20Averaged.pdf



Call them short-sighted but historians write about history and not current events. Unless someone was royalty (and sometimes not even then) almost no one received "contemporary attestation." If this standard was used with Alexander the Great then it would be determined that he did not exist.



People accept what Greeks and pro-Greeks wrote about Greeks,

People accept what Romans and pro-Romans wrote about Romans,

But people refuse to accept what Christians and pro-Christians wrote about Christians?



Luckily there is an abundance of anti-Christians who wrote about Christ. For example:



The (Pagan) Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus Christ, His execution by Pontius Pilate and the persecution of early Christians in Rome in his 109 AD work, "The Annals,"



"Consequently, to get rid of the report (that Nero started the great fire of Rome), 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 Pilatus, 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."



Book 15, chapter 44 of "The Annals" by Tacitus, translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html



See also Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith (Why Believe in Jesus?) http://magischristwiki.org/index.php?title=Why_Believe_in_Jesus%3F#Is_There_Historical_Evidence_for_Jesus.3F



With love in Christ
?
2014-04-18 22:23:19 UTC
There was a historical figure called jesus. There is evidence to back that up i think (don’t ask, i’m high on night nurse)

The religious implications of the man you can argue about all day if you want, but he did exist.
User
2014-04-18 23:24:21 UTC
Many people in history who, during their lifetimes, were deemed very much more important and influential than Jesus was deemed to be during his own lifetime, cannot be **proved** to have existed. Jesus is unusual in that he was not deemed extremely important and influential during his own lifetime but - rather - after, and so it should be no surprise that proof is lacking for him just as it is lacking for many people deemed so very much more important during their own lifetimes.



Consider, for example, Attila the Hun or Hannibal of Carthage.



That being said, this topic is called "the historicity of Jesus", and here is some info regarding the available evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
?
2014-04-18 22:25:24 UTC
Meh, Richard Carrier doesn't think so, but you can believe whatever you want. I couldn't describe to you the fck I DON'T give if some guy named jesus ever lived or not. I'd rather read Confucius or Robert Green Ingersoll for inspiration anyway.
?
2014-04-18 22:15:31 UTC
Proof is a philosophical concept that is subjective in nature and can only be realized after an individual weighs the purported evidence.



If you want evidence though, there is much evidence readily availble. Only proof, or believing, can arise from your own brain
darwinsfriend3 AM
2014-04-18 22:40:57 UTC
There isn't any.

There is not one mention of him in Roman records.

There are no contemporary writings about him.

Others, who also claimed to be The Messiah of that time are mentioned but Jesus?

Nothing
?
2014-04-18 22:15:53 UTC
To me, the most convincing argument is that someone gathered a group of followers that continued to spread the teachings of their leader after his death. The Jerusalem church appears to have crystallized around an individual, unlike Paul's churches which seem to have crystallized around an idea.
2014-04-18 22:48:52 UTC
Just for curiosity what is Verifiable but not historical. I have English as my first language and I am profoundly puzzled.
?
2014-04-18 22:13:27 UTC
Christians have a bad habit of lying for Jesus. The historical proof of Jesus is just one of their many lies.
Roger
2014-04-18 22:14:36 UTC
there are actually quite a few historical references...hopefully someone can give them to you. Josephus comes to mind. The others I forget because they do not concern me. I believe what the bible teaches, I am not concerned about other evidence.
2014-04-18 22:13:52 UTC
You are shifting the burden of proof. Among Christians (of which there are apparently many at R&S) and well-respected theological scholars, there is no dispute that Jesus existed. The failure to accept His existence relies on a psychological averseness toward accepting the truth.
2014-04-18 22:19:46 UTC
On the walls of Kemet (known as Egypt).



His name is Heru (known as Horus)...lol



The bible is plagiarized and this empire we fall under is a continuation of Egypt/Rome wrapped in a separate package.
?
2014-04-18 22:12:21 UTC
I believe jesus existed more than god.
Tiger
2014-04-18 22:15:23 UTC
Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with “outside of the Bible.” We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels to the second century A.D., more than 100 years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.



It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.



Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:



The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).



Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”



Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).



Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.



The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.



Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.



Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.



Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.



In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).



There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.



MIMI
2014-04-18 22:13:57 UTC
There is none.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...