To judge by some very recent controversies, you might think that scholars are bitterly divided over this question. But in reality, that Jesus really existed is a mundane and rarely contested fact of history. As Bart Ehrman, an agnostic scholar who is widely regarded as an expert on New Testament documents, writes, “The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet.”
When skeptics ask, “Is there evidence for Jesus?” they usually mean “Is there non-biblical evidence for Jesus?” Their question betrays the hidden assumption that the Bible does not count as “historical evidence.” But why should we rule out the Bible as evidence that Jesus existed?
Some critics will say that the Bible is biased text that contains stories of miracles, which means it’s unreliable as history. But such criteria would make it virtually impossible to do any ancient history, since ancient historians were also biased, and many of them (such as Tacitus or Herodotus) also recorded miracle stories. Yet modern historians don’t discard ancient accounts of history but investigate them and critically examine their historical content. And even if skeptics were determined to dismiss the historical reliability of the Gospels, we could use the principles of historical inquiry to come to the conclusion that Jesus existed by examining another biblical source: the letters of St. Paul.
Sometime in the early A.D. 30s, Paul underwent a conversion: from persecutor of the fledgling Church to an apostle who went on to write several letters defending and clarifying Christian theology. His authorship of major New Testament epistles such as Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians is well established even among skeptical scholars. In those letters Paul makes it clear that the Jesus he believed in was a man who was descended from David (Rom. 1:1-3), was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), had a last supper with his disciples (1 Cor. 11:26), was crucified and rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:3-7).
Paul was able to corroborate this information because he met the disciples of Jesus; he recorded that meeting in Galatians 1:18-19. In fact, the Greek word that Paul uses to describe this discussion with the apostles about Jesus is historesai, from which we get the word “history.” In that passage, Paul describes a personal meeting he had in Jerusalem with Peter and James, the latter of whom he described as “the brother of the Lord.” If Jesus had been a mere legend, then surely one of his alleged relatives, not to mention his chief apostle, would have known it.
Some of those who deny that Jesus existed claim that “brother of the Lord” does not mean that James was Jesus’ flesh-and-blood relative, (The Greek word can mean brother, cousin, or another close relative.) but rather a spiritual “brother”—just as today Christians will call each other “brother” and “sister.” But if that is what Paul meant, then why isn’t Peter also described that way? Moreover, why is James called the brother of the Lord as opposed to a brother? Other critics claim that James was really the leader of a pre-existing Jewish monastic group called “the brothers of the Lord.” But we have no corroborating evidence that such a group existed in Jerusalem at that time.
Instead, a fair reading of Paul’s letters shows that he believed Jesus was a real person and since he met the apostles who actually knew Jesus during his ministry, we have a great piece of evidence for the existence of Jesus.
The world has Catholic questions—lots of them.
Some of them, like this one for instance, require a detailed explanation. But once you have the answers, think about how much better you can defend your Faith!
In this first volume of The Big Book of Catholic Answers, you will find solid, helpful replies to over 250 questions about the object of the Catholic faith: the substance of what we believe about God, salvation history, faith and reason, the mysteries of the doctrines of the creed, divine revelation in the Bible and Sacred Tradition, and more.
