Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Discuss   (Up to OJB's Religious Stories Page)

Did Jesus Really Exist?

Most people just assume that Jesus existed in a form similar to what is described in the Bible. Some believe the literal word of what is there (even though it is contradictory in places) and others believe it minus the miracles and other religious aspects. Not many believe Jesus didn't exist at all. I used to be one who just assumed that Jesus did exist (minus the miracles, of course). However, after looking at the evidence I can now say this is highly doubtful. There is no reputable evidence of the existence of Jesus at all that I can find.

The stories in the Bible can't be taken seriously because they are biased and contradictory. The Bible is a religious text and can be shown to be wrong in numerous places. Clearly, nothing there can be described as objective evidence. I know that many of the places and some of the people described did exist, but the same applies to an historical novel. That proves nothing.

Another problem with the Bible is the contradictions in the different books where events are described differently - they can't all be true. Even if you believe the Bible is a genuine attempt to describe the truth, how can it be accurate? The four books describing Jesus' life were written by people who never met Jesus many years after the alleged events occurred. If Jesus was so great why did no one think to write about him at the time? Also, there are many other potential gospels which could have been chosen, which again are contradictory. The four we have today just happened to match the wishes of the early Catholic church.

There are other possible references to Jesus, but none stand up to any scrutiny. The most famous is probably Josephus. The two references didn't appear in the original version of the historian's work, and is clearly written in a different style from the rest of his material. Its generally accepted these are a forgery by later Christians. No doubt they were so desperate to prove there beliefs they felt the need to invent evidence. So, if anything, Josephus decreases the chance of Jesus being factual. If even this celebrated reference is a Christian lie, how can we take the others seriously?

Another well known reference is by Tacitus. This was never quoted before the fifteenth century, which is very suspicious. The only copy of Tacitus' Annals that existed then was made in the 8th century, and the original was written a century after the supposed events described. Obviously, this is highly debatable evidence at best, and completely irrelevant at worst.

From there on its all down hill. Yes, believe it or not, what I've already described is the best evidence!

Pliny the Younger mentions the new religion of Christianity in 110 AD, but he says nothing about the resurrection. This myth wasn't mentioned by non Christians until many years later. Also, he wasn't born until 20 years after Jesus' alleged death. Why did no one (that's right not one person) write about this remarkable person, Jesus, at the time?

The Babylonian Talmud, written in the 4th and 5th centuries AD, have confused accounts of two men, neither of which could be Jesus. And yes, this was written at least 200 years after the time of Christ. How accurate could it be, even if it did have genuine references to Christ?

Mara Bar-Serapion was a philosopher who wrote some time after 70 AD. His writings are controversial in that they refer to how the Jews executed their King. But wasn't it the Romans? Also, at the time, there were many other people with similar credentials to Jesus, so he could have been referring to anyone. Also, yet again, he wrote many years after the alleged events occurred.

Lucian, mentions Jesus in his second century writing, but his sources were Christian, and clearly biased. Also (I'm sure you're not surprised any more) he wrote many years after the supposed events occurred.

Phlegon of Tralles supposedly refers to an eclipse of the Sun at full Moon (this is impossible) which was supposed to link with darkness at the (alleged) crucifixion of Jesus. But the original work doesn't exist and we are only using secondary references to it. Many historians believe this is not authentic so its very weak evidence, at best.

Thallus is another writer who's works are lost, but are referred to by another writer. It also refers to the supposed darkness mentioned above. But there is major debate of the dating and other details of this work, and it can hardly be used as real evidence.

So you can see that the evidence is very uncertain, at best. If Jesus did half the things ascribed to him, and attracted the attention of crowds as described, there should be much better evidence. I'm not saying its impossible he existed in some form, but if he did, it was very different from the descriptions in the Bible. The best working hypothesis is to presume its all a myth!