Jesus didn't exist (well at least not the one from the bible)

The Historicity of the New Testament By Carlos Morales


The authenticity and historical validity of the Christian Holy Scriptures has rarely been questioned due to the sacred position it has been endowed. By protecting the text from scholarly criticism, as the Church has done for millennia, the New Testament scriptures have “…bypassed rational argumentation by cultivating superstitious fears” (Price 10). As Christianity remains prominent, emphasis on misconceptions of biblical accounts, as well as the validity of those texts, is necessary in the quest for knowledge. From the Letters from Paul to the Gospel of John, the New Testament is riddled with historical inaccuracies, contradictions, and without regard to the time-space continuum.



When delving into New Testament text, the verisimilitude of sources comes to a forefront. Although many believers assume that the writers of biblical scripture actually met a physical living Jesus, the first writings of the messiah are dated to at least forty years after he existed (Price 39) with later gospels dating back to 200 C.E. As if these convoluted dates were not discrediting enough, the first writings (which were by Saul of Tarsus) of a man referring to Christ, a generic name meaning messiah, did not refer to him as Jesus or a living human being (New Oxford Annotated Bible, Heb. 4:8). Saul never mentioned the Virgin Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, baptizing Christ, the miracles of Christ, the Last Supper, nor any of the supposed words of Christ. The historical validity of the New Testament is yet again questionable as the man responsible for the perpetuation of Christianity, Saul of Tarsus, was never recorded in any document excepting Acts of the Apostles (O’Connor 19). Although one may assume that such an influential individual, who became the chief Roman officer of Jerusalem, would be recorded in Jewish Rabbinic or Roman text, there is no mention of Saul of Tarsus outside of the New Testament (O’Connor 19). The gospels following Saul/Paul (after his legendary conversion) must be called into question, for he is popularly credited for the first recording of Christ, and the source for the first Gospel as the general public knows it.

As aforementioned, the writings of a man named Jesus were not recorded until over forty years after the alleged date of Jesus’ death. The first was written by Mark—although the Gospels were originally anonymous—and it introduces Jesus Christ as the Son of Man, healer, exorcist, and savior (“Gospel of Mark”). The next gospel, according to the Two Source Theory (“Two Source Theory”), was written by Matthew. However, Matthew added missionary restrictions while opening up evangelist missions to all people, while also fixing Mark’s portrait of Peter, which would put Matthew dating as far back as the mid-second century (Price 33). Consequently, Luke’s gospels date before Matthew, around 140 C.E. while Catholic redaction’s push it back to the second century (Price 33); causing much confusion as to whether Mathew or Luke came first. To add on to the questionable verisimilitude of Luke’s text, biblical scholars have also contended that both of Luke’s books were written by different people (“The Gospel of Luke”). The last gospel was written by John, which borrowed heavily from Luke, while adding speeches by Jesus (“Gospel of John”). John’s gospels must have come after Luke, which questions the validity of Jesus’ speeches, because John’s books were not written until hundreds of years after Jesus’ death (“Gospel of John”). Once more, many of the gospels remain inconsistent about events and settings surrounding the Jesus story.

The question of the various Gospels consistency is one of great debate. Is salvation by faith alone? Does God repent? Does God love everyone? The answer to all these questions varies from gospel to gospel, and in many cases there are inner contradictions within a gospel (Wells). These inconsistencies make it near impossible to decipher what Jesus did or did not do or say because each gospel claims something new or different from another. Once more, the locations and events in the bible differ from historical records of the time (Stein).

Historical records during the time of the messiah, outside the Bible, have no mention of Jesus. Tacitus, Josephus, nor any other historian during Roman time has any recording of Jesus Christ that has not been proven fraudulent (Stein). Although historians at the time recorded every mundane detail in Roman and Jewish life—from trials to the amount of seeds planted—there is no evidence that can be found for a man who: walked on water, cured the sick, claimed to be the son of God, was crucified, and rose from the dead three days later (Stein). Also, Nazareth did not exist as a town during Jesus’ nativity (Price 53).The two times when Jesus is supposed to be tied in with Roman history—either the mythical slaughter of the innocent in Exodus, or the preposterous claim that Jewish supreme council would meet on Passover eve—have no historical backing outside the new testament (Stein).

When considering the sources of the gospels, their inconsistencies, and the historical records of the time, it is abundantly clear that the historical content of the New Testament is little more than myth. As Christianity remains a dominant political, cultural, and religious force, scholarly attempts to analyze the most important documents of the life of Jesus Christ are necessary in the quest for knowledge and the understanding of history. Work Cited"Gospel of John." Early Christian Writing. 2001. 27 July 2007 <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html>."Gospel of Luke." Early Christian Writing. 2001. 27 July 2007 <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html>."Gospel of Mark." Wikipedia. 18 July 2007. WikiMedia, Foundation. 27 July 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark>.O'connor, Jerome M. Paul: His Story. New Ed ed. Oxford, UP, 2006.Price, Robert M. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003.Stein, Ph.d., Gordon. "The Jesus of History: a Reply to Josh McDowel." Infidels. 1982. Center for Inquiry. 27 July 2007 <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml>.The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Heb. 4-8. 3rd ed. Oxford UP, 2001.“Two Source Theory.” ." Wikipedia. 16 July 2007. WikiMedia, Foundation. 27 July 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_source_theory>.Wells, Steve, comp. "Contradictions in the Bible." Skeptics Annotated Bible. 1999. 27 July 2007 <http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html>.