The Case For Christ's Existence
CRISIS Magazine Special e-Report
March 31, 2006
**********************************************
Dear Friend,
In my last e-Letter, I told you about Luigi Cascioli, an Italian
atheist who brought a stunning lawsuit against a local priest.
According to Cascioli, in claiming that Jesus was born of Mary and
lived in ancient Palestine, the priest was perpetuating a falsehood.
You see, Cascioli insists that Jesus never actually existed.
As crazy as that sounds (and if you're like me, it sounds plenty
crazy), the Italian isn't alone in taking that position. In fact, the
same claim is being argued in "The God Who Wasn't There," a
feature-length documentary appearing now in theaters across the
country.
While the vast majority of historians -- both Christian and
non-Christian -- roundly reject the notion, it nevertheless appears
to be making a move into the mainstream.
Sure, few people take Cascioli's claims seriously right now. But
that could change. If I told you 5 years ago that a good percentage
of Americans in 2006 would believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene
and had kids, you'd have laughed me out of the room. But now, with
the Da Vinci Code craze, it's no longer a laughing matter.
You get the picture.
So with that in mind, I want to give you a brief summary of the
evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed and walked the
earth.
But before I get to it, I need to make one important point...
When we look at the historical documents, we don't have to believe
them inspired to consider them reliable. An atheist can hold that the
Gospel of Mark is evidence of Jesus' existence without believing that
the gospel is inspired. (We believe Abraham Lincoln existed, even
though we don't consider the Gettysburg Address inspired by God.)
So, in demonstrating Jesus' earthly existence, we do not need to
prove that the Bible is inspired.
Enough. Let's begin.
THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE
The first and clearest evidence of Jesus' existence is found in the
collected writings of the New Testament. Several of the documents
were penned by eyewitnesses (Peter, Matthew, and John). Others, like
the Gospels of Luke and Mark, were written by those who were
themselves in the company of eyewitnesses.
[Note: The Gospels of Matthew and Mark were actually anonymous. We
attribute authorship to those individuals because of early Christian
writings that agree they were the authors. But this point doesn't
actually affect our case, insofar as the gospels claim first- or
secondhand knowledge of Jesus, regardless of their authors.]
This fact allows only two alternatives: Either the writers were
lying about Jesus' existence, or they were not. Given the length of
time they claim they knew Him (three years or so), they could not
have been merely mistaken or hallucinating.
What possible reason could they have had for lying about Jesus?
Well, maybe they wanted the fame and fortune that comes from an
association with a great figure. That would surely be a motivation.
Unfortunately for the critics who hold to that position, the facts
show otherwise.
Certainly, Matthew, Peter, Paul, and John had some measure of
celebrity... but it was the wrong kind. They were hunted by both
Roman and Jewish authorities... both groups eager to capture the
leaders of the new Christian movement. And of course, those who were
caught and refused to renounce their faith in Christ were executed.
If in fact this had all been an enormous swindle, why didn't Peter,
Paul, or the other martyred apostles recant? Why would they have died
willingly for what they knew to be a lie? It's all fun and games
until the torture begins.
The most reasonable explanation is that they knew their claims were
true and could not renounce them, even to save their own lives.
But there's another bit of evidence in the Biblical record...
If Jesus was simply a hoax foisted on the ancient world by the wily
apostles, you'd expect to find the New Testament authors describing
His activities in vague terms. After all, when you're trying to
formulate a lie, you don't give yourself too many opportunities to
slip up.
In point of fact, the writers did quite the opposite. Not only did
they describe Jesus' travels and activities, but they frequently gave
specific details... like the time and place of his visits to various
towns, and the names of those who were there.
One of the greatest examples of this was his entrance into Jerusalem
shortly before his public crucifixion. The gospel writers described
the vast crowds present at the event. Surely, if what they say was
true, very few of Jerusalem's citizens would have been unaware of the
self-proclaimed Messiah executed in their midst.
Now, obviously, after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70
AD, the citizens were scattered. Nevertheless, many remained in the
area and would have been readily available to contradict the
Christian claims. So, why did no-one -- including the Roman and
Jewish officials -- criticize the gospels on this point? It wouldn't
have been difficult... simply one or two of Jerusalem's residents
stepping forward and saying, "I was there that Passover week, and
none of that happened. There was no Jesus of Nazareth."
And what about Cana... or Capernaum... or Nazareth... or Bethlehem?
These were not bustling cities where a prophet might get lost among
the crowds. And yet the gospels describe Jesus' (often miraculous)
presence in each. Why didn't any of the citizens of those small
communities come forward to refute the Christians' claims?
And another thing...
If Jesus' life and ministry was an elaborate hoax created by the
apostles, then why didn't they do a better job of it?
Consider the story: The Son of God was an uneducated carpenter born
in a backwater town. His followers never missed an opportunity to
bungle whatever they were doing... from misunderstanding what Jesus
was saying to running in fear when their master was arrested.
Finally, the Messiah is crucified -- suffering a form of execution
that the Jewish people considered particularly humiliating. And to
top it all off, when Jesus rises from the dead, His first witnesses
are women (who were not deemed reliable sources in the Jewish courts
of the day).
So, if the apostles created the Jesus story, why didn't they smooth
out the rough edges (and make themselves look better in the
process)?
The only reasonable answer is a simple one: They reported what
happened.
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE
The New Testament isn't the only collection of writings by the early
Christians. In fact, the first- and second-century believers appear
to have been a fairly prolific bunch... though only a fraction of
their writings have survived the centuries.
Nevertheless, we do have the Didache -- a collection of Christian
teachings and practices (written, quite possibly, around the year
70); 1 Clement, an epistle from the Roman church to the church in
Corinth (written around 90); the Shepherd of Hermas, an apocalyptic
work written from Rome (around the end of the first century); and the
Letters of Ignatius (penned around 107).
While none of the authors (presumably) were firsthand witnesses of
Christ, they knew those who were. But more to the point, their
writings show no awareness of the claim that Jesus was a myth.
You see, if this were all merely a hoax, we would reasonably expect
some mention of that from the first-century critics. Obviously, if
Jesus never existed, then that would be the most powerful (and
popular) charge leveled against the early Church. Yet there is no
sign of this at all. Rather, critics claimed that Christians were
pagans... or cannibals... or that Jesus was some kind of magician.
So... if Jesus never existed, why didn't any of the energetic
critics point that out?
THE NON-CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE
Interestingly enough, there's also evidence for Christ's existence
in non-Christian sources.
For example, the noted Roman historian Tacitus mentions Jesus in his
"Annals" (written in the early second century). In reference to the
contemporary rumors that the emperor Nero had started the great Roman
fire and then blamed the Christians, the writer notes:
"To suppress the rumor, [Nero] falsely charged with the guilt, and
punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus,
the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate,
procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious
superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through
Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome
also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the
world find their center and become popular."
While Tacitus gets the name wrong -- referring to Jesus by His title
instead of His actual name -- the historian has no question about His
actual existence.
But an even clearer and more relevant reference to Jesus can be
found in the "Jewish Antiquities" of Flavius Josephus, the renowned
Jewish historian of the first century.
In a much-disputed passage, he writes:
"About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one
may call him a man. For he was the doer of incredible things, and the
teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to
himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the
accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned him to
death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved him
still remained faithful to him. For on the third day he again
appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other
marvelous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the
present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after
him has not ceased."
The vast majority of scholars agree that a later Christian editor
added much of the devotional material concerning Jesus. Obviously, as
a Jew, Josephus would never have referred to Jesus as "the Christ,"
or talked about His resurrection as fact. Nevertheless, while these
sections are clearly later additions, most agree that the core
reference to Jesus is sound.
Most likely, the original text looked something like this:
"About this time lived Jesus... He attracted to himself many Jews
and many of the Gentiles... On the accusation of the leading men of
our people, Pilate condemned him to death upon the cross;
nevertheless those who had previously loved him still remained
faithful to him... And to the present day the race of those who call
themselves Christians after him has not ceased."
This is much more in keeping with Josephus' style and background,
and is generally accepted in scholarship today. (Granted, the
original likely had some critical commentary on Jesus' claims.)
Interestingly enough, there's another, much shorter reference to
Jesus in Josephus' work. At one point, the historian mentions "James,
the brother of Jesus called the Christ." Unlike the longer passage,
this reference is generally accepted as it stands.
CASE CLOSED
Like so many debunked-yet-popular theories, the claim that Jesus
never existed becomes popular every few generations. But repetition
doesn't make it true. The fact is, no truly objective inquirer can
take this theory seriously. There's no evidence at all for it, and a
mountain of evidence against it.
Obviously, there's a certain school of critics who think the easiest
way to destroy Christianity is to attack it at its historical
foundation. Ironically enough, the only way they can do that is by
dispensing with the standards and principles of sound historical
research.
I'll talk to you soon,
Brian
P.S. If you want more information on this controversy, here are two
excellent articles for you to check out.
1. This a detailed summary piece that ends with a brilliant
challenge for the critics to prove -- using their own criteria --
that Hannibal the Great actually existed:
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
2. Another first-rate piece that not only provides a detailed,
big-picture look at the question, but also has several helpful side
articles:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
*** HOW TO FIND REAL HAPPINESS BY IGNORING THE SELF-HELP BOOKS ***
What if everything you've been told about happiness is wrong? The
self-help movement has turned the subject into a billion-dollar
industry.
And yet, those who follow the advice of the feel-good gurus will
actually be farther from real happiness than they were before.
Get the facts here:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/truth.htm
(Cut and paste into your web browser if the link doesn't work.)
**************************************************************
To subscribe to the FREE CRISIS Magazine e-Letter, and get the
latest
news, views, and responses to current issues, send an e-mail to
e-letter@crisismagazine.com and
write "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject
line.
**************************************************************
To learn more about CRISIS Magazine, visit
http://www.crisismagazine.com/subscribe.htm
**************************************************************
If you no longer wish to receive the CRISIS e-Letter, please send an
e-mail to mail@crisismagazine.com
and write "CANCEL" in the subject
line.
**************************************************************
To change your e-mail address, please send an e-mail to
mail@crisismagazine.com with
"ADDRESS CHANGE" in the subject line.
Please make sure to tell us your old and new e-mail addresses, so we
can
make the change.
**************************************************************
Please forward this letter to anyone you think might benefit from
it.