Was Jesus a Real Person or a Myth?

A recent letter to the editor of the Winston-Salem Journal challenged the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth.  He claimed no contemporary historian mentioned Jesus. Additionally, he asserted the gospel records were written much later by men who could not possibly have been eyewitnesses.  The writer’s conclusion was that no real evidence exists for the reality of Jesus’ existence.  Was the skeptic right?  The following will examine the evidence.

First, why did no contemporary Roman, Greek, or other historian write about Jesus?  Ed Wharton makes the observation:

Palestine of the first century has been referred to as an unimportant frontier province in the Roman Empire.  Those provincial governors assigned to that region of the world were often thought to have received hardship posts.  Too, those who wrote the history of Rome were in the upper strata of Roman society and usually had a personal dislike of Orientals, disapproved of their religions and looked upon their superstitions as very un-Roman  (Ed Wharton, Christianity, A Clear Case of History, page 5.

This does not mean there is no evidence for Jesus from sources other than Christian writers.  The first evidence comes from one Thallus, a Samaritan, who wrote as a Roman historian in Rome about 52 A. D.  His original writings are lost but quotes found in other’s writings are in existence. Thallus wrote to discredit the darkness that occurred during Jesus’ crucifixion crediting it to an eclipse.  Now why would a Samaritan want to discredit an event in the life of a mythical person?

Tactitus, a Roman historian, wrote in his Annals that Nero blamed Christians for the burning of Rome.  He wrote about Jesus as follows: “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate...”  The Annals And The Histories, 15:44, from Britannica Great Books, Volume 15, page 168).

The Jews also provide evidence for Jesus’ existence.  The Talmud contains many references to one “Jesus of Nazareth” which are very unfriendly; but serve as evidence for the reality of His existence.  Josephus, the Jewish historian, also comments on Jesus.

What about the reliability of the gospel accounts?    They clearly claim Jesus was a real person.  Can we believe them?  Wharton makes the observation that if the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all we had, it should be sufficient. he wrote; “It is stated in the Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem) that the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have written of Jesus’ life is convincing proof of his reality” (Wharton, page 13).

Wharton also includes the comments of H. G. Wells and Will Durant. Commenting on Wells, Wharton wrote:

He “felt compelled to say of Jesus, ‘Here is a man.  This part of the tale could not have been invented.’ ”  Will Durant wrote, ‘That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and an appealing personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.’ ”   (Wharton, page 13).

As to the claim that the writers could not have been eyewitnesses for they wrote in the Second Century, the evidence proves the opposite.  Luke wrote both Luke and Acts. An investigation into his historical references proved him one hundred percent accurate in the details.  A manuscript fragment housed in a museum of the book of Matthew is believed to date from about 50 A. D. This date for Matthew’s book certainly would allow for him to serve as an eyewitness.

—Denny