Was Jesus a real historical person?

Most historians, believers or not, agree that Jesus existed

Among scholars who study the ancient world, the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is the settled majority view, and it is not held only by Christians. The best-known recent defense of it came from Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, whose 2012 book Did Jesus Exist? set out the historical case [2]. Ehrman describes himself as an agnostic with atheist leanings and says he has no stake in promoting Christianity [1]. He calls the view that Jesus existed one held by "virtually every expert on the planet" [1].

Ehrman also says that consensus can be wrong, and that it is evidence, not a show of hands, that decides the matter for a historian [1]. So it is worth looking at what that evidence is.

Roman and Jewish writers mention him

Several writers outside the church refer to Jesus or his followers within roughly a century of his lifetime. None of them was a follower, and that is part of their value.

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who lived from about AD 37 to about AD 100, mentions Jesus twice in his Jewish Antiquities [3]. The longer passage, in Book 18, is known as the Testimonium Flavianum. Lester Grabbe, emeritus professor of Hebrew Bible and early Judaism at the University of Hull, summarizes three positions on it. A few scholars defend it as written, some reject it as a complete fabrication, and the vast majority think Josephus did mention Jesus but that Christian copyists later reworked the passage [3]. The surviving Greek text says flatly that Jesus was the Christ, while the version known to Jerome says he was believed to be the Christ, and Grabbe judges the second wording more likely to be Josephus's own [3]. His proposed reconstruction draws on later versions of the passage preserved by Agapius and Michael the Syrian, and he presents it as probable rather than certain [3].

The shorter passage, in Book 20, describes the high priest Ananus bringing before a council "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Whiston translation) [4]. Most scholars accept this reference as authentic [3].

The Roman historian Tacitus, in Annals 15.44, explains the name of the Christians by saying that Christus "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius" (Church and Brodribb translation), at the hands of Pontius Pilate, whom Tacitus calls procurator [5]. An inscription found at Caesarea in 1961 gives Pilate's own title as prefect of Judea [11]. Grabbe notes that Tacitus wrote this almost a century after Jesus' death, but that he often had good sources, possibly including Senate records, and that the passage deserves to be taken seriously [3].

Pliny the Younger wrote to the emperor Trajan in about AD 110 to ask how to deal with Christians (Letters 10.96) [3]. Grabbe calls it the first non-Christian writing to give substantial information about Christians, while noting that it describes the believers of Pliny's own day and adds nothing about the historical Jesus himself [3]. His conclusion from Tacitus and Josephus, which appear to be independent of each other, is that it is very likely such a person existed and was known as the founder of the Christian movement [3].

Paul's letters are the earliest Christian writings

The oldest Christian documents that survive are not the Gospels but the letters of Paul. Britannica describes them as the earliest surviving Christian texts, with the first appearing in about AD 50, and notes that scholars accept 7 of the 13 letters under his name as entirely authentic [6]. Ehrman points out that these letters were written about 20 years after the lifetime of Jesus, and, on his reckoning, that Paul became a follower of Jesus within a year or two of his death [2]. Paul himself writes that on a visit to Jerusalem he saw none of the other apostles "save James the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:19, KJV). For a historian, that places a surviving witness to the early movement within about two decades of the events.

How historians weigh the sources

Historians test individual reports about Jesus with a set of tools often called the criteria of authenticity. These include multiple attestation (is a saying or event reported by independent sources), embarrassment (would early Christians have invented something awkward for them), dissimilarity, and coherence with material already judged reliable [7]. The criteria have been debated among scholars themselves. A 2012 volume edited by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne questioned how well they work, and Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary, reviewing it, noted that most of its contributors still did not call for abandoning them [7].

These tools are used to decide which details about Jesus are most secure. The question of whether he existed at all is answered more simply, by the convergence of early Christian and non-Christian sources described above.

What history can show and what belongs to faith

History can establish that Jesus lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate [3] [5], but some of the most important Christian claims about him lie beyond what historical method can test. The resurrection is the clearest case. Ehrman argues that historians can study what early Christians believed and why, but that they "cannot establish or disprove a miracle" [8]. On his view, the conclusion that God raised Jesus belongs to faith rather than to historical analysis [8].

Christian teaching frames the matter differently. The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the resurrection a real event whose manifestations were historically verified, and adds that it remains at the heart of the mystery of faith as something that transcends and surpasses history [9]. From different starting points, both statements treat faith in the resurrection as more than a historical conclusion.

A minority argues that Jesus never existed

A small number of writers, often called mythicists, argue that Jesus was not a historical person at all. Raphael Lataster, then teaching in studies in religion at the University of Sydney, argued in 2014 that the case for a historical Jesus is weaker than usually assumed [10]. He pointed out that Josephus and Tacitus were born after Jesus' death and may have relied on Christian informants, questioned whether the criteria of embarrassment and multiple attestation can be applied reliably, and discussed Richard Carrier's theory that belief began with a purely heavenly figure later placed in history [10]. Lataster himself concluded that agnosticism on the question seemed appropriate [10].

Mainstream scholarship has not been persuaded. Ehrman observes that professional scholars largely set this literature aside, and that its authors are mostly not New Testament specialists holding posts at mainstream institutions [1]. The mythicist case remains a minority position, and among those who answer it on the evidence are scholars, such as Ehrman, who are not Christians [1].

What this means for the reader

Jesus of Nazareth is accepted as a real historical person by nearly all specialists, including many who do not share Christian faith, on the strength of Paul's early letters and of Jewish and Roman writers such as Josephus and Tacitus. Who he was, and whether he rose from the dead, are questions history can inform but cannot finally settle, and each reader meets those questions personally.