Jesus Christ – Accidental Prophet?

A Look for the Man behind the God

Oct 20, 2009

Is it true that the mass prevalence of Christian tradition is testimony enough that its founder actually existed?

Reduced to its simplest, allaying for now the supernatural aspects of the story, the question is - Did Jesus Christ exist on earth as a man? For this to be substantiated he must, as with any figure from our distant histories, be placed in a verifiable context. His deeds and actions can well have been diluted by bias but here the sole question is did he live, breath and die at all. Who, from his epoch, could have confirmed his existence via eye witness testimony, what remains of his possessions or writings, what historical record of the period directly aligns him with other known established figures?

A Jesus of Flesh and Blood

Much is made when questioning the validity of an historical Jesus that little to nothing is referenced within surviving records of the day. It is proposed that if this man had been as depicted; able to amass huge crowds, possess exceptional curative skills, to himself be crucified and rise from the dead then wouldn’t these deeds have at least deserved passing mention?

This is countered by a belief that Jesus garnered little importance during his lifetime; it was only after death that his mortal life became retrospectively significant. This of course throws much, if not all of the non-Christian reference material into the realm of hearsay. It violates what is an essential step in securely anchoring the Jesus figure historically; eye witness testimony. Even this would not categorically establish the man – how many varying statements do we have of the Kennedy assassination for example? But it would give us a starting point, a more than probable flesh and blood character; divinity unknown.

Non – Christian Mention

Tacitus - Proponents of Christianity point to a mention of ‘Christus’ in the annals of Roman historian, Tacitus (Book XV, Sec. 44). Even more alluring is reference to his subsequent crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, then procurator of Judea. It is thought that this passage was written around 109 C.E., obviously many years after the events in question. Therefore the source material must be considered the retelling of a story already told many times over.

Josephus – Josephus Flavius was an eminent Jewish historian, who made references to Jesus in his famous Antiquities (93 C.E). These writings are considered the earliest non-Christian mention of the events but, as with Tacitus, were written well after the supposed crucifixion. There is also contention that the work was doctored; perhaps to present a more ‘Christian’ Christ.

Some counter that the writings of Josephus appeared at a time when Christianity was in its infancy; in which case this then minor cult would not have had the necessary power to ‘rewrite’ history. Of course this would entirely depend on when, and by whom the Antiquities were altered.

The Gospels - Mark, Matthew, Luke and John

These canonical Gospels are considered by many followers of Christianity as definitive accounts of the events. The four volumes were distilled from numerous others in antiquity as the most representative of Christian teachings. It is not known what happened to those who did not make the grade; heretic, non compliant with fledgling church doctrine or forgeries - we may never know. But, to accept these writings as authoritative one must in turn believe these early church fathers to be men of unshakable integrity; unbiased chroniclers with little but truth at heart.

‘Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia.’

– ‘Against Heresies’ 3.1.1. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, Early Church Historian.

'All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions'.

- Mason, Steve. Professor of classics, history and religious studies; York University, Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000)

It is unfortunate that none of the original manuscripts from which the texts were taken has survived. This makes it impossible to gauge how much they have been altered or even added too.

The Historical Validity of Faith

So, in absence of a tomb, true relics or eye witness testimony from his life time people invariably revert to viewing the gospel Jesus. To believe in him as a man means having total ‘faith’ in what has been written. This may seem a redundant statement to Christians but it is a leap for those trying to find the man from outside the realm of religion – no matter what their personal beliefs.

It has rightly been said that the gospel texts should be treated as any other historical documents. They are indeed an intriguing glimpse into the distant past, but are they true histories? Do they speak of actual events or are they merely parables and reflections of much older stories? Whatever the case do they, or any so far discovered writings, place Jesus firmly in his place and time? If faith is left from the equation then it seems the existence of Jesus, the man is still far from conclusive.

Resources:

Sources:

The copyright of the article Jesus Christ – Accidental Prophet? in Middle Eastern History is owned by Hari Navarro. Permission to republish Jesus Christ – Accidental Prophet? in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.