Jesus' Historicity
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
That doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist—historians overwhelmingly conclude he did, based on the available evidence and comparisons to other ancient figures. Why is the lack of contemporary non-religious sources isn’t unusual, you may wonder? —> In antiquity, written records were rare, often lost, and biased toward elites like emperors or generals. Most people from that era—including teachers, philosophers, and rebels—lack firsthand contemporary accounts. For example: Socrates (died 399 BCE): No writings from his lifetime survive; everything we know comes from his students Plato and Xenophon, written decades later. Alexander the Great (died 323 BCE): Contemporary writers existed, but none of their works survive; our main sources are from centuries later, like Arrian (2nd century CE). Spartacus (died 71 BCE): No contemporary records at all; details come from later Roman historians like Plutarch (1st-2nd century CE). Even Julius Caesar (died 44 BCE): While he wrote his own accounts, many details rely on later biographies, and some claims (like his famous campaigns) lack direct corroboration from enemies or neutrals.  Historians accept these figures as real because the cumulative evidence (later writings, archaeological hints, cultural impact) points to a historical core, even if details are embellished. The same logic applies to Jesus: absence of perfect evidence isn’t evidence of absence, especially for a lower-class Galilean preacher in a remote Roman province. Christian Sources (Closest to Contemporaries) Paul’s Letters (written ~50-60 CE): Paul, a Jewish convert to Christianity, never met Jesus but knew his brother James and disciple Peter personally (Galatians 1:18-19). He references Jesus’ teachings (e.g., on divorce), last supper, crucifixion under Roman authority, and resurrection claims. These are within 20-30 years of Jesus’ death—earlier than many sources for other figures.  Gospels (Mark ~70 CE; Matthew/Luke ~80-90 CE; John ~90-100 CE): These draw from oral traditions and earlier written sources (like the hypothetical “Q” document). They include “embarrassing” details unlikely to be invented, like Jesus’ baptism (implying he needed repentance) or his cry of abandonment on the cross.  Non-Christian Sources (Independent Corroboration) These come from Jewish and Roman writers who had no stake in promoting Christianity. They’re later but reference Jesus as a historical figure: Josephus (Jewish historian, ~93 CE): In Antiquities of the Jews, he calls Jesus a “wise man” who performed “startling deeds,” was crucified by Pilate on Jewish leaders’ accusations, and had followers who believed he rose from the dead. A shorter passage mentions James as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” While parts may have Christian interpolations, scholars agree the core references are authentic.   Tacitus (Roman historian, ~116 CE): In Annals, he describes “Christus” executed under Pilate during Tiberius’ reign, noting his followers (Christians) were persecuted by Nero. This is a hostile source confirming basic facts.  Pliny the Younger (Roman governor, ~112 CE): In a letter to Emperor Trajan, he reports Christians worshiping “Christus” as a god and meeting to honor him.  Others like Suetonius (~120 CE) mention disturbances caused by “Chrestus” (likely Jesus) among Jews in Rome, and Lucian of Samosata (~166 CE) mocks Christians for following a crucified “sophist.”  These align on key points: Jesus was a real Jewish teacher executed by Romans around 30 CE, founding a persistent movement. The vast majority of experts—including non-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman (agnostic), Paula Fredriksen (Jewish), and others—affirm a historical Jesus existed as a Jewish apocalyptic preacher baptized by John, who gathered disciples and was crucified. Mythicism is a minority view, often compared to denying the Holocaust or moon landing in academic circles—interesting but not credible due to overreliance on silence and ignoring how movements like Christianity arise from real events. If you like being a peer of Holocaust deniers, and moon landing deniers, then by all means, continue with denial of the existence of Jesus Christ as a man who walked the earth. |
Anonymous
Overreach by assuming silence = invention. Cumulative evidence (Paul’s contacts + independent attestations + oral-to-written Gospels) makes a historical Jesus (~95–99% scholarly agreement) far likelier than myth. |
Anonymous
Plenty of biblical scholars are not believers, neither are most academic historians and classicists. I know this site is a bizarre hotbed of Jesus Mythicism, but among people who study the first century that's a position on par with vaccine and climate change skeptics. You can find some people, but they're rare. It was more popular 150 years ago. This discussion on /r/academicbiblical tries to count them and comes up with four. https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/xfo7q8/how_serious_are_jesus_mythism_taken/ That's also NOT a Christian subreddit. Tim O'Neil who comes up with the number of four is an atheist. He's written extensively about mythicism: https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/ and is worth a read if you're genuinely interested. |
Anonymous
Your claim that “plenty of scholars now” are making well-reasoned arguments against the historical existence of Jesus doesn’t align with the current state of academic scholarship as of late 2025. While there are a few voices raising doubts—mostly from independent or adjunct scholars, or those on the fringes of biblical studies—these represent a tiny minority, and their work is overwhelmingly critiqued or ignored by mainstream experts. The “Christ myth theory” (the idea that Jesus is entirely mythical) remains a fringe position, with no significant shift in consensus over the past decade. I’ll break this down with the latest data, including recent publications, to show why the pro-historicity view holds firm. As of 2025, virtually all professional historians, classicists, and New Testament scholars (across Christian, Jewish, atheist, and agnostic backgrounds) affirm that a historical Jesus existed as a 1st-century Jewish preacher who was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate. This is based on cumulative evidence like early Christian writings (e.g., Paul’s letters ~50–60 CE), independent non-Christian attestations (e.g., Josephus ~93 CE, Tacitus ~116 CE), and the rapid emergence of a messianic movement in a Jewish context. There are not “plenty,” nor do they sway the academy—their output is sparse, self-published or niche, and routinely receives negative reviews for methodological flaws (e.g., overreliance on silence, speculative parallels to pagan myths). Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history, Columbia, 2008): The most active proponent. His 2014 book On the Historicity of Jesus used Bayesian probability to argue doubt is warranted. He published The Obsolete Paradigm of a Historical Jesus in 2025, surveying post-2014 studies and calling for scholarship to drop the historicity assumption. Carrier maintains a list of ~20 “qualified scholars” who take mythicism “seriously” (e.g., as plausible), but many are adjuncts, retirees, or non-specialists like philosophers. His work is critiqued for cherry-picking data and ignoring oral tradition evidence (e.g., in Vigiliae Christianae responses). Raphael Lataster (PhD candidate, University of Sydney, completed ~2019): A lecturer in religious studies. His 2019 book Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (peer-reviewed but niche) argues evidence “doesn’t add up.” His 2014 op-eds in The Conversation and Washington Post drew widespread scholarly backlash for oversimplifying sources like Josephus.  No major follow-up in 2025; his work is cited in mythicist bibliographies but dismissed in consensus reviews. Robert M. Price (two PhDs in theology/NT, but not in a tenure-track history role): A former minister turned atheist podcaster. His 2000 book The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems and 2018 Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed recycle 19th-century ideas (e.g., gospel midrash from OT). Active online (e.g., r/AcademicBiblical discussions), but peers like Daniel Gullotta (2017 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus) call it “bizarre” and footnote-worthy at best. Paul George (2020 book On Christian Origins, UWA student thesis)—argues Christianity arose without a single founder; not peer-reviewed widely. Hermann Detering (2011–2017 self-published German works)—claims non-Christian references are forgeries; fringe even among mythicists. A 2023 bibliography (The Christ Myth Theory: A Bibliography from 1970 to the Present) lists ~300 sources, but most are popular books, blogs, or repeats; only ~10–15 from credentialed academics since 2010, none shifting consensus. Virtually no scholar working in the field doubts the historical existence of Jesus. Mythicism fails basic evidential tests. Mythicism thrives online (e.g., r/skeptic threads, atheist YouTube) due to viral articles like “Five Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed” (2014), but academia hasn’t budged. Why mythicists aren’t influencing academia and scholarship?—> Peer Review Gaps: Mythicist books often skip rigorous review or get panned (e.g., Lataster’s “negative reviews”). Internet Echo Chambers: Popularized by non-experts like David Fitzgerald (Nailed, 2010), but scholars compare it to Holocaust denial—intriguing but evidentially weak. No New Evidence: 2025 updates (e.g., Carrier’s book) rehash old arguments without overturning sources like Paul’s references to Jesus’ brother James. If “plenty” means “a vocal few on podcasts,” sure—but in journals like Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, it’s crickets for mythicism. Consensus requires broad agreement among tenured experts; this ain’t it. The evidence for a historical Jesus is probabilistic, like for Socrates or Hannibal—strong enough for ~99% of specialists. |
Anonymous
|
Richard Carrier, a historian with a PhD in ancient history from Columbia University (2008), is best known for his advocacy of the “Christ myth theory”—the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was a purely mythical figure, not a historical person. While he has credentials and has published peer-reviewed work on unrelated topics (e.g., ancient science), his mythicist arguments, especially in books like On the Historicity of Jesus (2014) and Jesus from Outer Space (2020), are widely regarded as fringe and flawed by mainstream scholars.
Rejection by Consensus: Virtually no tenured experts in biblical studies, classics, or ancient history endorse his views. As ancient historian Marko Marina notes, Carrier’s mythicism “has not won any supporters from critical scholars” due to a “lack of positive evidences from primary sources.” Similarly, Wikipedia’s entry on Carrier (updated November 2025) states that his interpretations “have not been accepted within academic scholarship” and are “considered fringe.” Scholars across ideologies (Christian, Jewish, atheist) affirm a historical Jesus based on cumulative evidence like Paul’s letters and Josephus; Carrier’s position is often compared to pseudohistory, akin to young-earth creationism in biology. Flawed Methodology: Carrier relies heavily on Bayesian probability to estimate Jesus’ non-existence at odds of 1-in-3 to 1-in-12,000, but critics call this “unnecessarily complicated and uninviting,” “tenuous,” and “problematic and unpersuasive.” For instance, in a 2017 review in Relegere, Daniel N. Gullotta praises the book’s rigor but faults its “lack of evidence, strained readings, and troublesome assumptions,” including cherry-picking data and ignoring counter-evidence like Paul’s references to Jesus’ earthly family (e.g., brother James in Galatians 1:19). Simon Gathercole (Cambridge) argues in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (2018) that Carrier’s reading of Paul as describing a “cosmic” rather than historical Jesus is contradicted by the texts’ details of Jesus’ human life and death. Ideological Bias Over Evidence: Marina accuses Carrier of being “guided by his ideological agenda, not by serious historical work,” prioritizing atheism-fueled skepticism over balanced analysis. Bart Ehrman (agnostic scholar) has called Carrier’s work “full of errors,” “sloppy,” and “irresponsible” in a 2022 blog response, noting it misinforms the public by dismissing standard sources (e.g., Tacitus, Josephus) as forgeries without sufficient proof. In Reddit’s r/AcademicBiblical (2023 thread), experts like those reviewing On the Historicity emphasize that Carrier misrepresents scholarly support for mythicism, inflating a handful of fringe voices (e.g., Robert M. Price) into a “growing trend.” Cherry-Picking and Ignoring Broader Scholarship: Carrier often relies on outdated or amateur sources (e.g., 19th-century mythicists) while dismissing recent work on oral traditions or the “criterion of embarrassment” (e.g., Jesus’ baptism implying sinfulness, unlikely to be invented). A 2024 analysis on The Secular Frontier critiques his denial of the Q source (early sayings of Jesus) as essential to his theory, arguing it fails “verse by verse” against evidence like 1 Thessalonians 2:14–15 (Jews killing Jesus, presupposing historicity). Tim O’Neill, a history blogger, notes in r/samharris (2023) that mythicism persists not due to evidence but because “it’s a bad idea backed by weak arguments,” with Carrier having “wasted his life” defending it. Beyond academics, Carrier faces widespread criticism for his behavior, which has alienated peers and damaged mythicism’s credibility: Combative and Abusive Online Presence: Described as “combative, petty, and vindictive,” Carrier’s blogs and social media (e.g., Freethought Blogs) feature personal attacks, calling critics “incompetent,” “hack,” or “arrogantly dogmatic.” A 2017 Vridar blog post calls him an “embarrassment to mythicism,” arguing his “unseemly behavior… negates anything else he might bring to the table” and wastes “limited bandwidth” in debates. In r/DebateReligion (2018), users note his theories are “laughed at in academia” partly due to this toxicity. Controversies and Isolation: In 2016–2017, Carrier was accused of sexual harassment by multiple women in atheist/skeptic circles, leading to his resignation from the Atheist Community of Austin and bans from conferences. While he denies wrongdoing and claims defamation, it contributed to his status as a “persona non grata.” Recent X posts (e.g., November 2025) mock him as a “pathetic excuse of a scholar” or tie his views to unrelated rants (e.g., on immigration in a debate clip). Even fellow mythicists distance themselves; in a 2022 review of Varieties of Jesus Mythicism, Carrier critiques the anthology for including “amateur contributions employing dubious claims,” highlighting internal divisions. Lack of Institutional Support: Despite his PhD, Carrier is an independent scholar without a tenure-track position, partly attributed to his reputation. r/AcademicBiblical (2022) threads question if he’s made mythicism “more seriously” taken—consensus: no, it just became “dead air” for dismissal as “bonkers.” Carrier exemplifies the mythicist side’s weaknesses: innovative but evidentially thin arguments, propped up by polemic rather than peer acceptance. |
Anonymous
[twitter]
“Just stories” is exactly how we know almost every non-emperor figure from antiquity. -Socrates: no contemporary documents, only “stories” from Plato and Xenophon 10–40 years later. -Hannibal: no Carthaginian records survive, only “stories” from Roman enemies 50–150 years later. -Apollonius of Tyana: miracle-working philosopher, one primary biography written 150 years after his death. Nobody in classics or ancient history calls these people “mythical” on that basis. Jesus has more and earlier attestation than most 1st-century Jews. -Within 20–30 years: multiple letters from Paul (undisputed: Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon) that casually mention Jesus was born as a human, of a woman, descended from David, had a brother named James (whom Paul met), taught specific things, was crucified under Roman authority. -Within 40–60 years: Mark’s gospel (used by Matthew and Luke). -Within 60–80 years: a Jewish historian (Josephus) twice mentions Jesus and his brother James. That timeline beats almost every comparable figure from the Roman provinces. The “stories” contain details early Christians had no reason to invent and every reason to suppress (historians call this the criterion of embarrassment): -Jesus baptized by John (implies he was John’s subordinate and needed repentance). -Denied by his own disciples. - Crucified (a shameful, cursed death in both Roman and Jewish eyes). -Family thought he was crazy (Mark 3:21). People making up a hero do not write these things. Independent, hostile sources confirm the basic outline -Josephus (Jewish, ~93 CE): Jesus executed by Pilate, brother named James, followers still exist. -Tacitus (Roman, ~116 CE): “Christus” executed under Pontius Pilate in Judea, source of the Christian movement. These are not Christians repeating their own stories; these are outsiders who had zero interest in promoting Christianity. A real movement exploded in Jerusalem within months of the supposed events Thousands of Jews suddenly start worshipping a crucified criminal as the Messiah — in the same city where he was publicly executed. That doesn’t happen with a purely mythical figure. It requires a real, recent, traumatic event that needs explaining. So no, it’s not “no evidence, just stories.” It’s multiple, early, independent sources — some hostile — that align on a core set of facts, using the exact same kinds of evidence historians use for everyone else in antiquity. If you reject that evidence for Jesus, you has to reject the existence of Socrates, Hannibal, Boudicca, Arminius, and dozens of other ancient figures on the exact same grounds. And literally no professional historian does that. That’s the problem with the “no evidence, just stories” line. It’s not skepticism. It’s a double standard. |
Anonymous
| I don't care if an ancient a guy named Jesus existed or not. He was certainly not the son of God, because there is no God. |
Anonymous
You just moved the goalposts — and accidentally conceded the entire debate. When you say “they think he most likely existed,” you are now admitting: 1. The overwhelming majority of qualified experts (historians, classicists, biblical scholars — Christian, Jewish, atheist, agnostic) conclude that Jesus existed. 2. This isn’t a 50/50 split or a lively controversy. It’s a 99-to-1 consensus (closer to 999-to-1 if you count only people who actually publish peer-reviewed work in the relevant fields). 3. The people who say “most likely not” are a tiny handful of outsiders (Carrier, Price, Lataster, a couple of bloggers) who are routinely dismissed or ignored in academic literature. Cool — so you finally agree that the expert consensus is that Jesus existed, and the people who deny it are a fringe minority with no significant support in universities or peer-reviewed journals. Welcome to the 99 % side of the room. The historicity of Jesus is as settled as any question in ancient history gets. |
Anonymous
[img]
Whether a 1st-century Jewish preacher named Yeshua existed is a historical question — and the answer is yes, with the same level of certainty we have for Socrates or Hillel or any other figure from that period. Whether he was the Son of God, born of a virgin, rose from the dead, etc., is a separate theological/philosophical claim — and on that one, reasonable people (including many biblical scholars) disagree, and many of us are right there with you: no gods, no miracles, no resurrection. The historical Jesus and the divine Christ are two different topics. The first is settled history. The second is faith (or the lack of it). Glad we got there. |
Anonymous
And what evidence is there for God? You know, Jesus's Dad. |
Anonymous
I like the Buddha too |
Anonymous
The question of whether God exists is one of the most profound and debated in human history, spanning philosophy, theology, science, and personal experience. There is no empirical, universally agreed-upon proof or disproof—it’s not like verifying a scientific fact or historical event. You claim there is no God? To defend it you would need to show that every possible definition of ‘God’ contains a formal contradiction or is otherwise impossible. Most philosophers (theist and atheist alike) agree that a logically coherent concept of God is possible, even if they think it’s unlikely to be actual. So the strong claim that there is no God is very hard to prove and is held by only a minority of professional philosophers of religion. Atheism is a reasonable conclusion many people reach, but it is not the settled, slam-dunk result of evidence the way heliocentrism or evolution are. Declaring ‘there is no God’ in this strong sense is more like saying ‘string theory is definitely false’ or ‘libertarian free will is impossible’ — it’s a substantive philosophical position, not an obvious truth everyone is obliged to accept. |
Anonymous
There is no proof for God in the way there is proof for gravity or that 2 + 2 = 4. There are arguments (cosmological, fine-tuning, moral, etc.), some of them pretty sophisticated, but none of them are universally accepted as conclusive. Reasonable, educated people look at the same evidence and arguments and still land on both sides. I’m not here to convince you. You asked for proof; I’m just telling you the actual state of play: there isn’t any proof that settles the question once and for all. That’s why billions of people believe and billions don’t, and the philosophers are still arguing about it after 2,500 years. Believe whatever you find most reasonable. It’s your call, not mine. |
Anonymous
We have significantly more, earlier, and diverse historical evidence for Jesus than for the Buddha. Jesus: We have multiple independent sources (some hostile) within one generation, plus archaeological corroboration of key figures and places. Buddha: We have one internal tradition written down centuries after his death, plus third-century BCE royal inscriptions that treat him as a known figure (roughly the same time-gap as Tacitus is to Jesus). By every normal historical criterion—earliness, number of sources, independence, and hostile corroboration—Jesus has dramatically stronger and earlier attestation than the Buddha. Most scholars accept both men existed, but if you demanded the same level of evidence for the Buddha that some skeptics demand for Jesus, the Buddha’s historicity would be far more uncertain. |
Anonymous
|
Time gap to earliest detailed sources:
Jesus of Nazareth (~4 BCE – 30/33 CE): 20–40 years (Paul’s genuine letters 50–60 CE → Mark ~70 CE) Siddhārtha Gautama (the Buddha) (~480–400 BCE or slightly later) 200–400 years (earliest Pali Canon texts written down ~1st c. BCE – 1st c. CE; oral before that) Number of independent sources within first 100 years: JC: At least 8–10 (Paul, Mark, Q source, Matthew, Luke-Acts, Hebrews, John, Josephus ×2, Tacitus, possibly Clement, Ignatius) B: Essentially one tradition (early Buddhist community) that split into schools; no truly independent non-Buddhist attestation in the first few centuries Non-follower / hostile references: JC: Yes – Josephus (Jewish, ~93 CE), Tacitus (Roman, ~116 CE), Pliny the Younger (~112 CE), possibly Suetonius B: None in surviving records for ~400–500 years Archaeological corroboration: JC: Pilate inscription (1961), Caiaphas ossuary, 1st-century Nazareth, crucified skeletons B: Ashokan pillars (3rd c. BCE) mention the Buddha by name and title, Lumbini pillar, but nothing contemporary with his life References to family / contemporaries: JC: Brother James, John the Baptist, Pilate, Caiaphas all mentioned within 20–80 years B: No contemporary or near-contemporary mention of parents, wife Yaśodharā, son Rāhula, or disciples by outsiders Scholarly consensus on historicity: JC: near universal, 99+% B: Also near-universal, but with much larger chronological gap and thinner early evidence Jesus: We have multiple independent sources (some hostile) within one generation, plus archaeological corroboration of key figures and places. Buddha: We have one internal tradition written down centuries after his death, plus third-century BCE royal inscriptions that treat him as a known figure (roughly the same time-gap as Tacitus is to Jesus). By every normal historical criterion—earliness, number of sources, independence, and hostile corroboration—Jesus has dramatically stronger and earlier attestation than the Buddha. Most scholars accept both men existed, but if you demanded the same level of evidence for the Buddha that some skeptics demand for Jesus, the Buddha’s historicity would be far more uncertain. |