Did Jesus Exist? An Alternate Approach

jesus_calls_610x300Did Jesus exist?

Discussions of this subject often begin by looking at references to Jesus in early Christian sources.

Either that or they look for references to Jesus in early non-Christian sources.

But there’s another way of looking at the question that is often ignored . . .

 

The Standard Approach

Jesus is obviously mentioned in early Christian sources, such as the gospels, the other writings of the New Testament, and the works of the early Church fathers.

Because these are Christian sources, though, their evidence is sometimes discounted, and so an appeal is made to references in early non-Christian sources that mention Jesus.

He is mentioned, for example, in the writings of a number of Roman writers who lived in the early 100s. He’s also mentioned, somewhat more controversially, in the writings of the first century Jewish historian, Josephus.

But an objection is sometimes made to these sources as well: It is suggested that they don’t represent independent evidence for the existence of Jesus, because the authors in question only know about Jesus from what they have learned from Christians.

In some cases, this may be true. In other cases, it may not be true. Some of these authors may have had access to records that conveyed information about Jesus independent of the Christian movement.

But suppose that they didn’t. Suppose that all of the information presented in these sources is ultimately derived from Christian sources.

This does not leave us at an impasse, because there is another approach to the question that we can take.

 

References to Christianity

Instead of looking, in the first instance, for references to Jesus, we can look at references to the Christian movement itself and see what we can learn about it.

Of course, the same sources that refer to Jesus tend to refer to the Christian movement. That means that we can quickly establish a number of quite early references to Christianity.

It is mentioned by:

  • Suetonius, writing around A.D. 121
  • Tacitus, writing around A.D. 116
  • Pliny the Younger, writing in A.D. 110 or 111
  • The Emperor Trajan, writing back to Pliny in A.D. 110 or 111
  • And Josephus, writing around A.D. 93

The inclusion of Josephus in this list is not dependent on the famous Testimonium Flavianum found in his Antiquities 18:3:3.

Even setting aside that reference, which is partially corrupted, Josephus elsewhere refers to Jesus having followers (noting that he “was called Christ”) in a passage for which we have no evidence of manuscript corruption (Antiquities 20:9:1).

We thus have multiple references for the existence of a Christian movement that date to the end of the first century and the beginning of the second.

 

Geographical Spread

These same references indicate a considerable geographical spread for the movement.

Josephus is writing about events in Judaea, which other sources also indicate was the origin point of the movement.

But Suetonius and Tacitus write about the movement existing at Rome as well.

And Pliny the Younger indicates that it was widespread in Bithynia (in modern northern Turkey).

 

A Recent Movement

Another notable fact about the Christian movement is that it was of recent origin.

This is something also indicated by the same sources, who place its origin in the first century.

Josephus links Jesus to his “brother” James, who died in A.D. 62 (Antiquities 20:9:1).

Pliny is at a loss for how to deal with this religious movement, which is so new that the way to deal with its members is still in the process of being established (Letters 96).

Suetonius specifically says that Christians were a new movement (The Twelve Caesars: Nero 16).

And Tacitus says that Jesus was “executed during the rule of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate” (Annals 15:44).

All of this points to a first century date for the origin of the movement.

 

The Christians Agree

The earliest Christian sources agree with all this. They acknowledge that Christianity began in the first century.

This is significant, because it would not be in the early Christians’ interests to claim this.

Newness is not, on balance, a desirable trait in promoting a religion.

It is much easier to promote a religion if you can claim antiquity for it.

That’s why even religions of indisputably recent origin—including Scientology, Mormonism, and the New Age movement—invariably link themselves to some form of supposed ancient wisdom.

And the early Christians did this, pointing the origins of their movement in Judaism.

They pointed to this as a way of offsetting the fact that their movement had its particular origin just a few years earlier.

We can thus take their testimony of a recent origin as credible, for if the Christian movement had been older, they would have claimed that it was older.

 

Narrowing the Range

We can narrow the range of Christian origins further, though.

Pliny indicates that some of the people he interviewed had been Christians as many as twenty years previously. Working backward from when he was writing, that would suggest Christians in Bithynia by A.D. 90.

Tacitus and Suetonius both speak of Christians being in Rome during the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68), and Suetonius possibly alludes to them being there during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54; see The Twelve Caesars: Claudius 25).

When we turn to Christian sources, we find Luke indicating that John the Baptist began his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1), which is most naturally taken as a reference to A.D. 28.

This is significant because all four of the gospels indicate that the Christian movement began after the ministry of John the Baptist had begun.

 

A Rapidly Spreading Movement

These sources thus allow us to discern a portrait of a rapidly spreading movement.

It apparently began in the Roman province of Judaea some time in or after A.D. 28.

It spread as far as Rome no later than A.D. 54-68 (and quite possibly earlier).

And it had spread to Bithynia no later than A.D. 90.

This portrait is derived from just a few sources. If we were to allow other first and second century sources to speak, it would be easy to show that the movement was in other places as well, including Syrian Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi, and many other locations.

What we see is thus a movement that went from not existing to being dramatically spread around the Roman world in just a few decades.

This tells us something important about the early Christian movement . . .

 

It Was Organized

Movements do not spread that way unless they are organized.

This was particularly the case in the ancient world, where travel was slow, difficult, dangerous, and often expensive.

The spread of Christianity was not an accident. It was the result of a deliberate strategy of evangelization that required significant organization.

This tells us something else . . .

 

It Had Leaders

Organization requires leaders. There have to be people organizing the movement and arranging for its message to spread.

The book of Romans expresses this need from a Christian viewpoint as follows:

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed?

And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard?

And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?

And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? [Rom. 10:13-15].

 

Developing Organization

Early Christian writings reveal quite a bit about how the Christian movement was organized and how its organization developed during the first century of its existence.

We see it quickly being organized into local groups known as churches.

These had local officers including bishops, priests, and deacons.

The churches themselves, though, tended to be planted, especially in the early days, by individuals known as apostles and evangelists.

The sources we have—including the documents of the New Testament, the writings of the early Church Fathers, and even spurious writings like the Gnostic gospels—indicate that the earliest work was done by those officials who were called “apostles.”

The Greek term for apostle—apostolos—conveys the idea of someone who has been sent, which raises a question . . .

 

Who Did the Sending?

Movements tend to have founders—especially highly organized movements.

Any time you have a sizeable, well-organized movement, there is often a single figure at its inception who played a key role in setting it up, developing its vision, and putting in place the leaders who carried it forward.

Even in movements that form when a number of similarly-minded movements come together and merge, there is usually a single figure who takes the prime leadership role.

So when we see Christianity as a geographically diverse organization that spread remarkably quickly and had leaders known as apostles (“sent ones”) founding local congregations, it’s only natural to look at the movement and ask whether it, too, had such a founding leader.

According to the early Christians, it did, and it is here that we encounter the figure of Jesus.

 

Jesus of Nazareth

The earliest accounts we have agree that Jesus of Nazareth founded the Christian movement, recruited and trained its earliest leaders, and then sent them out as his apostles.

This is simply what you would expect of an organization that displayed the sudden appearance and growth of the Christian movement, and there is no good reason to reject the movement’s own account of its origins on this point.

The sudden appearance and rapid growth of Christianity points to a level of organization and motivation that is most naturally explained by the movement having a single, recent, and charismatic founder.

 

Not Unique to Christianity

This reasoning does not apply just to Christianity. It also applies to other movements that suddenly appear and grow quickly.

For example, it applies to Islam.

Islam did not exist prior to the early A.D. 600s, and within the first 150 years of its existence it spread dramatically, ranging all the way through North Africa, to the Middle East, to India (with a European foothold in Portugal and Spain).

That kind of expansion required organization.

In Islam’s case, the organization was political and military, but it still pointed to the existence of a single, recent, charismatic founder—Muhammad—who established the movement, provided its vision, and gave it its early organization and motivation.

 

The Reality of Jesus

You would expect a movement that began and then spread far and wide in only a few decades to have a founder, and—absent very strong evidence to the contrary—it does not make sense to reject the movement’s claim about who its founder was.

From non-Christian sources alone, we could have predicted that Christianity likely had a founder who lived some time in the first half of the first century.

When we find Christian sources agreeing with this and identifying that founder as Jesus of Nazareth, we have reason to credit this claim and to conclude: Jesus of Nazareth existed.

What did Jesus mean when he said not to judge others? (10 things to know and share)

What did Jesus mean when he said not to judge others? Here are 10 things to know and share . . .
What did Jesus mean when he said not to judge others? Here are 10 things to know and share . . .

Jesus famously said, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

Today, some people use this to shut down conversations when the subject turns to sexual morality.

“Didn’t Jesus say not to judge others?” they ask. “Who are you to judge?”

Did Jesus mean his words to be used this way?

If not, what did he mean?

Here are 10 things to know and share . . .

 

1) Not a cover for immoral behavior in general

It’s clear that Jesus did not intend his words to be used as a cover for immoral behavior.

He did not mean them to be used as a conversation stopper to shut down attempts to admonish people engaged in immoral behavior.

In fact, Jesus himself did rather a lot of admonishing regarding proper moral conduct.

That is, in fact, the subject of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), in which the saying occurs.

 

2) Not even a cover for sexual misbehavior

Jesus had quite a bit to say about sexual immortality as well—noting, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount that even being mentally unfaithful was a sin:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart [Matt. 5:27-28].

 

3) Not a prohibition on admonishing others

Jesus did also not intend his words to be used to stop others from admonishing others when they are committing sinful behavior.

Jesus himself told his ministers:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you [Matt. 28:19-20].

That would include teaching his commands regarding sexual morality.

Also, admonishing sinners is a spiritual work of mercy that we are to engage in:

My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins [Jas. 5:19-20].

 

4) Not an endorsement of moral relativism

Taking Jesus’ teaching out of context, one might try to use it as a pretext for moral relativism—the idea that all moral judgments regarding the conduct of others are to be suspended and each person is to be allowed to define what is morally good for himself.

This is clearly ruled out by what we’ve already seen regarding Jesus’ own teaching on morality and on the need to proclaim them to others.

We do not define moral truth for ourselves. Moral relativism is a false position that is incompatible with the Christian faith.

It is also incompatible with itself. Like all forms of relativism, it is self-contradictory.

If it is wrong to make moral judgments regarding the behavior of others then it would be wrong to judge others for judging!

So what did Jesus mean?

KEEP READING.

14 things you need to know about the new book Zealot

What should you think of the new book Zealot? Here are 14 things to know and share.
What should you think of the new book Zealot? Here are 14 things to know and share.

There’s a new best-seller out there which claims to give us “the real story” on Jesus.

It’s called Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, and it is one in a long line of books challenging the portrait of Jesus given in the gospels.

The author is giving interviews in the major media, promoting his book, and people are asking questions about it and how to respond.

Here are 14 things to know and share . . .

 

1) What is Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth?

It is a book authored by Reza Aslan and published by Random House in July of 2013.

With the power of the Random House marketing machine behind it, the book quickly shot to the top of Amazon’s bestseller list.

The book is billed as a biography of Jesus of Nazareth.

In keeping with Aslan’s creative writing background (see below), much of it is written in a casual, narrative style that does not stop to cite sources, mount arguments, or consider alternative viewpoints.

It reads rather a lot like historical fiction, with Aslan inviting us to imagine the colors of the curtain of the Jerusalem temple, how scene at the temple would have sounded, and even how it would have smelled (rather putrid, according to Aslan).

 

2) Who is Reza Aslan?

Aslan is an associate professor of creative writing at the University of California Riverside. He lives in Hollywood.

He was born in Tehran, Iran but raised in the San Francisco Bay Area.

His family background is Muslim, though not devout.

He himself experienced a conversion to Christianity in his teens but later lost his faith.

He has a doctorate in the sociology of religions from the University of California Santa Barbara.

 

3) Is Aslan trying to hide his Muslim background?

He has been accused of doing so in television interviews, but this seems unfounded.

He certainly does not hide it in the book. In fact, there is an “Author’s Note” at the beginning of Zealot that explains his religious background very forthrightly.

Aslan’s Muslim background is not very relevant to the views he proposes in Zealot, and given the dynamics of TV interviews, it wouldn’t make sense for Aslan to discuss this unless he were specifically asked about it.

 

4) Is Aslan giving us a Muslim re-reading of Jesus?

KEEP READING.

Paradoxical symbols in the Book of Revelation (7 things to know and share!)

The book of Revelation depicts Jesus with a sword issuing from his mouth. What does this mean? And what should we make of the other paradoxical symbols in Revelation?
The book of Revelation depicts Jesus with a sword issuing from his mouth. What does this mean? And what should we make of the other paradoxical symbols in Revelation?

Revelation contains many symbols. Some of them are easy to understand, some are hard, and some are just paradoxical.

Ironically, the paradoxical ones can be particularly easy to figure out.

Here’s what you should know . . .

 

1. What Is a Paradoxical Symbol?

A paradoxical symbol, as I am using the term, is one in which Revelation symbolizes something in a surprising at–at first glance–contradictory way. It involves a reversal of expectations.

These symbols often involve two statements, the first of which sets up certain expectations on the part of the reader and the second which reverses these expectations.

You can see them as a pair of two, seemingly contrary symbols that must be understood together to have a true picture of what is meant.

The best way to explain this is by looking at examples . . .

 

2. The Lion That Is a Lamb

In Revelation 5, one of the twenty-four elders in heaven comes to John, who is weeping because no one can open the scroll that reveals God’s will. The elder says:

“Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals” [Rev. 5:5].

This draws on symbolism from the book of Genesis where Israel’s son Judah is described as a “young lion” (Genesis 49:9).

The added specification of “the Root of David” makes it clear that the elder is referring to Jesus, the Messiah, who was both from the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David.

We are told that the lion “has conquered,” enabling him to open the scroll.

Based on what John has been told, he (and the reader) could expect him to turn and see Jesus depicted in the form of a lion, a violent, deadly beast who “has conquered”—possibly with bloody claws and fangs.

But when he turns, John sees something very different:

And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth [Rev. 5:6].

Instead of a conquering lion, John sees a lamb that is “standing, as though it had been slain.”

It is not a powerful, ravening predator with dripping claws and fangs but a weak, vulnerable prey animal that has been mortally wounded.

And yet it stands. This represents Jesus’ resurrection (the Lamb stands) in spite of the fact that he was crucified (“had been slain”).

Here we have a paradox–a juxtaposition of two seemingly contradictory symbols:

  • The Lion: The dangerous predator that conquers (overcomes its prey)
  • The Lamb: The vulnerable prey that is slain (overcome by its conquerors)

To fully understand this symbolism, we have to embrace both images.

It is true that Jesus is a Lion from the tribe of Judah. He has conquered.

But the way he has done these things is surprising and involves a reversal of expectations: He has conquered by assuming a position of vulnerability, by serving as the Lamb, and being slain–and raised again to stand despite this.

This is not the only symbol in Revelation of this type.

 

3. White Robes That Should Be Red

KEEP READING.

Are We Re-Crucifying Jesus in the Mass?

Are we re-crucifying Christ at every Mass?
Are we re-crucifying Christ at every Mass?

Anti-Catholics often charge that Catholics “re-crucify” Jesus through the sacrifice of the Mass.

If we were, that would be a problem, because the Bible repeatedly indicates that Jesus suffered and died “once for all.”

What’s really going on here?

How should we understand the relationship of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross?

 

Question from a Reader

Some time ago, I got the following question from a reader:

You know the way non-Catholics always say we are re-doing the crucifixion at every Mass.

I want to say, “No, we’re re-doing the Last Supper (as He said to do).”

At the Last Supper, Christ is pre-presenting the Calvary sacrifice, so if they could participate in it ahead of time, why can’t we participate in it after that time?

So my question is: Is it accurate to say that the Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper, rather than of the crucifixion?

There’s a sense in which it’s a re-enactment of both, but I think the reader is on to something here. The way a current Mass re-enacts the two is not the same.

 

Last Supper, Crucifixion, Mass Today

To flesh out the idea, we need to consider the relationship between three events:

·      The Last Supper (a.k.a. The First Mass)

·      The Crucifixion

·      Any particular Mass being held today

Obviously, all three of these are related to each other, but the nature of the relationship differs.

The Masses (the first one and contemporary ones) make present the sacrifice of the Cross in a special sense.

 

The Catechism Speaks

KEEP READING.

Is Jesus Based on the Pagan Deity Horus?

Was Jesus based on the pagan deity Horus?

Some people claim that, a long time ago, there was a god.

This god was born of a virgin on December 25th.

He was baptized.

He had twelve disciples.

He healed the sick and raised the dead.

But he was betrayed and crucified, and on the third day he was raised from the dead.

And according to the people who claim this, this god was not Jesus Christ.

Instead, he was the god Horus.

And, since Horus was worshipped before Jesus Christ, they claim that Jesus Christ is just a rip off of the god Horus.

Are they right?

That’s what we look at in this episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast.

If you’re reading the blog by email, click here to watch the video or listen to the audio-only version.

Use the links below to listen to or download the audio version.

What Now?

If you like the information I’ve presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.

He has a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

Hidden Pyramids of the Bible!

There’s a very interesting thing that the authors of the Bible do.

It’s a technique they use, and it’s very subtle.

Most of the time, we readers miss it.

In fact, most people have never heard of it at all.

But it’s real, and it can give us important clues about the meaning of Bible passages.

Here’s the startling truth about . . . the hidden pyramids of the Bible!

 

It’s Called What?

Sometimes the Bible uses a little-known literary form that most people have never heard of.

It’s called chiasmus.

Whatever does that mean?

We begin to get a glimmer when we consider the origin of the name.

It’s from the Greek letter Chi, which looks like the English letter X.

In a Chi—or an X—there are two lines that cross each other. If you consider just the bottom half of the letter, they form a peak.

One line goes up to the peak and the other descends down.

Like a pyramid.

And that’s what a chiasmus is like, only with words or blocks of texts instead of lines.

A chiasmus is a sequence of elements that can be divided into two halves, with the second half being a mirror image of the first, like steps leading up one side of a pyramid and down the other.

A simple example of a chiasmus is Jesus statement that the “first will be last, and the last first” (Matt. 19:30), which has an A-B-B’-A’ structure.

What’s surprising is now a knowledge of chasmus can unlock the meaning of certain portions of the Bible.

Here's a video I did on the subject . . . 

What Now?

If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.

If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.

He has a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

How can Jesus’ death save people who died before his time?

On the Cross, Jesus offered his life as a sacrifice to make it possible for us to be saved.
But what about the people who lived before he made that sacrifice?

How can they be saved? How did his death relate to them?

Let’s take a look at that . . .

 

An Outstanding Question

Recently, I blogged about the general question of how salvation works before and after the time of Christ, but we didn’t answer all the questions a person might have.

One outstanding question is how Jesus’ sacrifice could apply to people before it was even made.

Scripture gives us some interesting possibilities . . .

 

“From the Foundation of the World”?

One image that some have looked to is found in Revelation 13:8, where in some translations we read a description of Jesus as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

If this is the way that the passage is to be understood, it would seem to teach that Jesus’ sacrifice is available to people no matter when they lived in history.

In other words, although Jesus was slain in A.D. 33, from God’s eternal perspective, that sacrifice has been available “from the foundation of the world” and thus able to save anyone in world history.

 

Is This the Right Interpretation?

Although it’s theologically true that Christ’s sacrifice can save anyone in world history, that doesn’t mean that this is what the passage intends to say.

There is another–better–way to look at the passage.

KEEP READING.

Was James, not Peter, the head of the Church after Jesus?

Was St. James the Just the leader of the early Church--or was St. Peter?
Was St. James the Just the leader of the early Church–or was St. Peter?

Some claim that it was James, not Peter, who was the leader of the early Church after the time of Christ.

What evidence can they provide for this claim?

And what evidence is there against it?

 

Which James?

“James” was a common name in first century Judea, and there were several men named James who are mentioned in the New Testament.

Unfortunately, precisely how many Jameses there are many is not clear.

They are described different ways, and it is not clear whether a James described in one passage is the same as the James mentioned in another.

The James who assumed a prominent leadership role in the Jerusalem church after the time of Christ is known as “the brother of the Lord.”

This James is sometimes identified with James the son of Alphaeus, who is also identified with James “the Less.”

However, Benedict XVI noted:

Among experts, the question of the identity of these two figures with the same name, James son of Alphaeus and James “the brother of the Lord”, is disputed [General Audience, Jun. 28, 2006].

Regardless of how this issue is to be settled, there is one James in the New Testament who is clearly not the one in question—James the son of Zebedee, because he was martyred quickly (Acts 12:1-2).

Advocates of the “James not Peter” viewpoint have two major texts that they can appeal to, and neither is very good.

 

The Galatians 2 Argument

KEEP READING.

How Does Forgiveness Work Before and After Christ?

If Jesus died on the cross in A.D. 33 and made forgiveness possible, how does that apply to people who lived before or after this event? (Like us!)
If Jesus died on the cross in A.D. 33 and made forgiveness possible, how does that apply to people who lived before or after this event? (Like us!)

Jesus died on the Cross so that people could be forgiven their sins.

But if he died in A.D. 33, what about all the people who lived and died before that time? Were their sins forgiven?

And if their sins were forgiven, does that mean Jesus’ sacrifice applies to all of history?

If so, does that mean that we’ve been forgiven for all of our sins—past, present, and future—so that we don’t need to go to confession?

How does this all work?

Here’s the story . . .

 

The Bottom Line

It may seem unusual to put the bottom line at the top of a post, but I generally find it better to state things in a straightforward, literal manner and only then (if necessary) use analogies to help clarify them.

So here’s are the literal facts:

1) Jesus’ death on the Cross made it possible for all human beings to be forgiven of their sins, regardless of whether they lived before, during, or after his time.

2) In order to appropriate that forgiveness, people have to repent and turn to God. When they do so, God forgives them, regardless of when in history they lived.

3) During this life, people have free will, so if they un-repent (backslide, fall from grace, commit mortal sin) then they have committed new sins that are not (at that moment) forgiven.

4) In order to be forgiven of these new sins, they need to once more repent and turn to God. Then they will be forgiven of the new sins they committed.

 

Forgiveness B.C.

Suppose there is a person living in 800 B.C. Let’s call him King Bob.

KEEP READING.