Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
Few questions have caused more arguments at dinner tables, in university lecture halls, and in the comment sections of the internet than this one: Was Jesus of Nazareth a real person? Not the Son of God question, that is a whole separate conversation with its own several thousand years of debate. Just the baseline, historical, did-this-man-actually-exist question.
Because of all the relics, the Shroud of Turin, the Crown of Thorns, and the centuries of theological scholarship, the honest answer has always been: we are not entirely sure. Most historians believe he was real. But belief and proof are two very different things. And now there might be something worth paying attention to.
RELATED:
The debate on the existence of Jesus relents, but new historical evidence has come to light that is swaying people in one direction
Image credits: MART PRODUCTION / Pexels (not the actual photo)
A Roman historian wrote in 116AD about a man named Jesus and his following called ‘Chrestians’
The first historian worth knowing about is Tacitus, a Roman senator, lawyer, and one of the ancient world’s most respected chroniclers, born around 56 AD. In his text ‘Annals’, written around 116 AD, Tacitus made reference to a group called “Chrestians” who were being persecuted by Emperor Nero.
He wrote that the group had been founded by a man named “Christus,” who had been crucified during the reign of Emperor Tiberius on the orders of Pontius Pilate. Historians find this particularly compelling because Tacitus was not a fan. He described Christianity as “evil” and a “superstition.”
He had absolutely zero motivation to say anything favourable about Jesus or his followers, which means he had equally zero motivation to invent him. A hostile witness, as it turns out, is often the most credible kind.
Image credits: PlaceboPill / Magnific (not the actual photo)
Another author from 93AD wrote about the persecution of a man named James, who was reportedly the brother of Jesus
The second piece of evidence comes from Flavius Josephus, a Jewish aristocrat and historian born in Jerusalem in the decades after Jesus was said to have been crucified. His book ‘Jewish Antiquities’, written in 93 AD, also makes two separate references to Jesus.
The first discusses the termination of James, identified as “the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” This is a casual reference that implies Jesus was well-known enough that simply naming his brother was sufficient identification.
The second describes Jesus as a “wise man” and a teacher whom people followed gladly. Josephus was Jewish, not Christian, which again raises the question of why he would bother mentioning someone who never existed. The short answer, historians suggest, is that he probably would not.
Image credits: pvproductions / Magnific (not the actual photo)
Archaeologists also recently corroborated biblical texts by confirming that there was, in fact, a garden on Golgotha where the crucifixion would have happened
If ancient texts are not quite enough to convince you, archaeologists have also been doing some digging, literally. Researchers from Sapienza University of Rome have been excavating beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which sits on the traditional site of Jesus’s crucifixion and burial in Jerusalem and is one of the most visited and venerated sites in all of Christianity.
What they found in the sealed soil layers beneath the church floor is truly fascinating. Through archaeobotanical analysis, the team uncovered evidence of terrace planting beds, seeds, and soil composition dating to between 30 and 33 CE. Which is, rather specifically, the period in which Jesus is said to have been crucified.
The findings suggest that before the site became a tomb, it was a cultivated garden, a detail that aligns directly with the Gospel of John, which describes exactly that. A garden, near the tomb. The text described it. The soil confirmed it. For archaeologists, that kind of corroboration between a written account and physical evidence is quite a big deal.
Image credits: rawpixel.com / Magnific (not the actual photo)
Other biblical events have also been explained through archaeology and computer modelling technology
The mainstream academic consensus has long held that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Roman Judea and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. The question of divinity remains firmly in the territory of faith rather than archaeology, and no amount of soil sampling is going to settle that one.
But as a man who walked around, gathered followers, and was significant enough to be referenced by hostile Roman historians who had no reason to mention him? The evidence is stacking up in a direction that is hard to ignore.
Image credits: Stephanie LeBlanc / Unsplash (not the actual photo)
And it is worth noting that the Bible has a surprisingly decent track record in describing real places and phenomena, even if the supernatural framing around them tends to complicate matters.
Computer modelling and oceanographic research have identified a shallow sandbank in the Gulf of Suez that, under the right wind conditions, could theoretically be exposed long enough for people to cross, which would not be a bad natural explanation for the parting of the Red Sea.
Meanwhile, geological surveys of mountain formations in modern-day Iran, specifically around Mount Ararat and the surrounding region, have identified landscape features and ancient flood-deposit layers that some researchers have linked to the kind of catastrophic flooding described in the story of Noah.
None of this proves that God parted the sea or that a man built a boat and saved every animal on Earth. But it does suggest that the stories in the Bible, however embellished over millennia of retelling, may have had their roots in real events experienced by real people. Which, when you think about it, is how most stories start.
Are these historical mentions enough to make you change your mind on whether Jesus was real or not? Share your stance in the comments!
But the debate continues amongst commenters as they still want proof of his divinity, saying it’s not his existence that is in question
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Image credits: www.facebook.com
Poll Question
Total votes ·
Thanks! Check out the results:
Total votes ·
Newsletter
Subscribe to Access
Exclusive Polls
By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!
What do you think ?
Ace 5 days ago (edited)
Not a lot of point in reading this, it's long been accepted by most historians that there was a real person, or possibly several, with a name/s something like those used in the early texts, around that time. The Life of Brian is probably a quite accurate account of the revolutionary, prophecy-based, politics of the time. "Judean peoples' front? Splitters!"
David Paterson 5 days ago
True. But I hadn't been aware that the well known story of Nero persecuting Christians comes from Tacitus. Tacitus and Suetonius are well known to be unreliable when it comes to discussing Nero. As for the two references in Josephus, at least one of those was added later in a different hand.
Load More Replies...
john doe 5 days ago
Nothing new. I find it interesting that historians move the goal posts for Christianity so much. Normaly historians won't accept things as historically true without ample primary source documentation. There are no primary sources for the existence of Jesus Christ, and this is another non primary source of his existence. I have a degree in history and I asked once why Jesus's is so widely accepted in the history community despite there not being any primary source. The answer was religious bias from researchers. I take the stance that there is no way to know if Jesus was a real historical figure. He is likely an amalgamation of many different individuals claiming to be the Jewish Messiah during the early days of roman occupation in Israel. This is a well documented fact that there were possibly hundreds of individuals making this claim around that tumultuous point in history. It was a big part of the roman government to show these men to be frauds, many were crucified.
43Duckies 5 days ago
I am very curious about what criteria you have for "primary sources". It kind of sounds like your definition excludes any ancient texts that aren't *personally* written down by an individual who *personally* witnessed something. This eliminates ALL texts which record things which had previously been passed down verbally, as well as anything someone wrote down based on another person's description of what *they* saw. Actual trained historians do consider those things to be "primary" sources (which just means something written down for the first time, rather than copied, quoted, or summarized from other texts), although they, using their critical thinking skills, still take anything from those sources with a grain of salt (just as they do anything written down personally by a direct witness, because faulty memories and biased descriptions are always a possibility!).
Load More Replies...
Ace 5 days ago (edited)
Not a lot of point in reading this, it's long been accepted by most historians that there was a real person, or possibly several, with a name/s something like those used in the early texts, around that time. The Life of Brian is probably a quite accurate account of the revolutionary, prophecy-based, politics of the time. "Judean peoples' front? Splitters!"
David Paterson 5 days ago
True. But I hadn't been aware that the well known story of Nero persecuting Christians comes from Tacitus. Tacitus and Suetonius are well known to be unreliable when it comes to discussing Nero. As for the two references in Josephus, at least one of those was added later in a different hand.
Load More Replies... john doe 5 days ago
Nothing new. I find it interesting that historians move the goal posts for Christianity so much. Normaly historians won't accept things as historically true without ample primary source documentation. There are no primary sources for the existence of Jesus Christ, and this is another non primary source of his existence. I have a degree in history and I asked once why Jesus's is so widely accepted in the history community despite there not being any primary source. The answer was religious bias from researchers. I take the stance that there is no way to know if Jesus was a real historical figure. He is likely an amalgamation of many different individuals claiming to be the Jewish Messiah during the early days of roman occupation in Israel. This is a well documented fact that there were possibly hundreds of individuals making this claim around that tumultuous point in history. It was a big part of the roman government to show these men to be frauds, many were crucified.
43Duckies 5 days ago
I am very curious about what criteria you have for "primary sources". It kind of sounds like your definition excludes any ancient texts that aren't *personally* written down by an individual who *personally* witnessed something. This eliminates ALL texts which record things which had previously been passed down verbally, as well as anything someone wrote down based on another person's description of what *they* saw. Actual trained historians do consider those things to be "primary" sources (which just means something written down for the first time, rather than copied, quoted, or summarized from other texts), although they, using their critical thinking skills, still take anything from those sources with a grain of salt (just as they do anything written down personally by a direct witness, because faulty memories and biased descriptions are always a possibility!).
Load More Replies...
Related on Bored Panda
17
42