For two thousand years, Christians have worshiped Jesus as both divine savior and historical teacher. The Gospels place him firmly in time and space: a carpenter’s son from Nazareth who preached in Galilee and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Yet if we peel back the layers of tradition and examine the earliest sources with a critical lens, a different picture emerges. In the beginning, Jesus appears not as a humble craftsman turned prophet, but as a cosmic savior figure, revealed through visions and scripture. Only later did this mythic Christ become clothed in earthly biography, transforming myth into man.
Is there evidence for a historical Jesus?
One of the most striking problems in the quest for the historical Jesus is the lack of named, contemporary eyewitnesses. None of the disciples left behind writings that can be reliably traced to them. The Gospels, often read as eyewitness testimony, are in fact anonymous works, later attributed to “Matthew,” “Mark,” “Luke,” and “John” in the second century. Nowhere in the texts do the authors identify themselves, and the internal evidence suggests they were written in Greek-speaking communities far removed from the events they describe. Even within the Gospels, no one is named as an eyewitness to Jesus’ words and deeds, and no author claims to have personally seen him. Outside the New Testament, no contemporary Jewish or Roman observer records the ministry, trial, or crucifixion of Jesus. This absence of direct testimony leaves scholars and skeptics alike to conclude that the “historical Jesus” rests on layers of later tradition rather than on documented witnesses.
Gospels Were Written After Paul’s 7 Authentic
Modern scholarship is nearly unanimous that Paul’s letters predate the Gospels by decades. The authentic Pauline epistles are generally dated to the 50s CE, within twenty years of the supposed death of Jesus. By contrast, the earliest Gospel, Mark, is usually placed around 70 CE, with Matthew and Luke in the 80s–90s, and John near the end of the first century or later. Paul never quotes from or alludes to any written Gospel, nor does he recount Jesus’ parables, miracles, or Galilean ministry. His Christ is a heavenly figure revealed through visions and scripture, not a recently remembered teacher. The silence of Paul regarding the Gospel traditions—despite his prolific writings and disputes—suggests the narrative biographies of Jesus did not yet exist in his time. Only later, as the movement spread and required a historical anchor, did communities compose the Gospel stories we know today.
Gospel Copying with Added Agenda
Scholars generally agree that Mark was the first Gospel written, around 70 CE, with Matthew and Luke following later. The Synoptic Problem shows that Matthew and Luke often copy Mark’s sequence and wording but alter details: Matthew emphasizes prophecy for a Jewish audience, while Luke adjusts the narrative for gentile-friendly interpretations.
The Gospel of John appears much later, likely near the end of the first century, and its narrative emphasizes Jesus’ divinity more strongly than the Synoptics. John reshapes earlier traditions to communicate a theological agenda, portraying Jesus explicitly as a cosmic, divine figure rather than a historical teacher.
Together, these patterns suggest that the Gospels were constructed to instruct and inspire communities, tailored to different audiences, rather than preserving eyewitness history.
Gospels: Theology not Biography
The canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are primarily theological narratives rather than historical biographies. Written decades after the events they describe, they reflect the beliefs, concerns, and doctrinal agendas of early Christian communities more than eyewitness testimony. For example, the nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke contradict each other: Matthew describes the Magi visiting in a house and the family fleeing to Egypt, while Luke depicts shepherds visiting a manger and no flight occurs. The Gospel narratives of the crucifixion also conflict: in Mark, Jesus is abandoned by all disciples, whereas in John, certain disciples are present at the foot of the cross. Miraculous elements, such as walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, and the resurrection itself, serve theological purposes by demonstrating Jesus’ divine authority rather than providing verifiable historical events. Symbolic structures pervade the texts, such as the selection of twelve disciples mirroring the twelve tribes of Israel, or the forty days Jesus spends in the wilderness echoing Israel’s forty years in the desert. Even the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, with its extensive moral and ethical instruction, reads more as a structured theological treatise than a literal historical speech. From a mythicist perspective, these examples show that the Gospels were constructed to communicate religious truths, encourage faith, and unify communities, not to provide an accurate biography of a historical figure. Their inconsistencies, symbolic frameworks, and theological emphases align closely with hagiographic and allegorical literary practices common in the ancient world.
Jesus’ Quotes Greek Shows Had No Knowledge of The Hebrew
In several passages, the Gospels attribute to Jesus quotations from the Hebrew scriptures that align more closely with the Septuagint (Greek translation) than with the original Hebrew text. A notable example is found in Matthew 15:8–9 and Mark 7:6–7, where Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for honoring God with their lips while their hearts are far from Him. The wording of this quotation mirrors the phrasing of the Septuagint version of Jeremiah 7:22–23 and 9:25–26, rather than the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The Greek text emphasizes “vain worship” and teaching “human precepts as doctrines,” concepts that are less explicit in the Hebrew original.
From a mythicist perspective, this suggests that the Gospel authors were shaping Jesus’ words theologically in Greek, rather than preserving a verbatim record of historical speech. The alignment with the Septuagint indicates a concern with communicating theological meaning to a Greek-speaking audience, using scripture as a framework to teach moral and doctrinal lessons. This supports the broader argument that the Gospels are theological constructions, designed to instruct and unify early Christian communities, rather than accurate biographical accounts of a historical figure.
The Gospels, written between 70–100 CE, come decades after Jesus’ supposed death. They are anonymous, later attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Far from neutral biographies, they are theological narratives built to fulfill scripture.
Examples of literary borrowing:
- Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes mirrors Elisha’s feeding miracle (2 Kings 4:42–44).
- The Passion story echoes Psalm 22 (“They divide my clothes among them, and for my clothing they cast lots”).
- Matthew has Jesus escape to Egypt, deliberately echoing Hosea 11:1: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
Robert M. Price observes in Deconstructing Jesus (2000):
“The Gospel narratives are haggadic midrash, weaving Old Testament texts into new stories to give flesh to the Christ of faith.”
This suggests the Gospels did not record remembered history, but rather mythologized scripture.
Paul’s Jesus: A Heavenly Christ Without History
The earliest Christian writings are not the Gospels but the letters of Paul, dated around 50–60 CE. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. Instead, he claims to know him through visions and revelation:
“For I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:12)
What is striking is what Paul does not say. Across his authentic letters:
- No mention of Jesus’ miracles.
- No Bethlehem, no Nazareth, no Mary or Joseph.
- No Sermon on the Mount, no parables.
- No trial before Pilate.
As Earl Doherty notes in The Jesus Puzzle (1999):
“Paul’s Christ is a divine being revealed through scripture and vision. His silence on the human Jesus is not ignorance — it is theology.”
Paul’s only “biographical” detail comes in Galatians 1:19, where he claims to have met “James, the brother of the Lord.” Mythicists argue this could mean a spiritual kinship title, not a literal blood relative.
Pagan Parallels: A Familiar Pattern
Christian apologists often downplay similarities with pagan religion, but mythicists see a recurring pattern. Long before Christianity, Mediterranean cults featured gods who died and rose for the salvation of followers: Osiris, Attis, Dionysus, Mithras.
Richard Carrier in On the Historicity of Jesus (2014) argues:
“The Christian savior is best understood as one more example of a widespread religious trend — the mythical dying-and-rising god, adapted into a Jewish context.”
Thus, Christianity’s novelty was not in inventing a savior god, but in localizing him within Jewish apocalyptic expectations.
External Evidence: Forgeries and Influences of Followers
When investigating the life of Jesus, historians often distinguish between internal evidence (the New Testament texts themselves) and external evidence references to Jesus from independent, non-Christian sources. Yet for those skeptical of his historicity, this so-called external evidence poses more questions than answers. We will see how many of the passages often cited whether referring ambiguously to “followers of Chrestus” or are believed by many scholars to be interpolations or outright forgeries. On closer scrutiny, every proposed source carries significant problems that make it unreliable as historical proof.
Josephus and the out of place Scribal Insertion
One of the most commonly cited “non-Christian” witnesses to Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing in the 90s CE. In Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3, later manuscripts contain the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, a paragraph that portrays Jesus as a miracle-worker, proclaims him to be the Christ, and even mentions his resurrection. This cannot be authentic. Josephus was a devout Jew and Pharisee, loyal to Jewish tradition and writing for a Roman audience. It is inconceivable that he would openly declare Jesus “the Christ”precisely the confession that defined the Christian sect Josephus elsewhere ignores. The text has been tampered with.
The evidence comes from early church writers themselves. Origen (3rd century), who read Josephus extensively, openly states that Josephus “did not accept Jesus as Christ” (Contra Celsum 1.47; Commentary on Matthew 10.17). Origen refers to Josephus’ mention of James, but never to any glowing passage about Jesus as Messiah or miracle-worker. If the Testimonium had existed in Origen’s manuscripts, he would have seized upon it. The first writer to quote the embellished version we now possess is Eusebius (4th century, Ecclesiastical History 1.11), a figure widely recognized for his willingness to “improve” sources in defense of the faith. The timing makes the origin of the interpolation clear: the text was doctored by Christian scribes between Origen and Eusebius.
Even the shorter reference in Antiquities 20.9.1, which describes the death of “James, the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,” is not part of Josephus’ original text. The phrase “who is called Christ” is widely recognized by scholars as a Christian gloss inserted into the manuscript tradition.
Several factors indicate that it is out of place for Josephus’ style and purpose: Josephus was a meticulous Jewish historian who generally avoided theological titles and rarely framed historical figures in explicitly religious terms. He mentioned many men named “James” and “Jesus” both common names in first-century Judea without any indication of divine or messianic status. The passage reads as a historical account of a high-profile execution, yet the sudden insertion of “who is called Christ” interrupts the narrative flow and introduces Christian theological terminology inconsistent with Josephus’ usual neutral, descriptive style. Furthermore, early manuscript evidence omits the phrase, reinforcing the view that it was added by later Christian copyists to retroactively link James to Jesus of the Gospels. Without this interpolated phrase, the text refers simply to a man named James, and the connection to Jesus emerges only through the later Christian addition.
In both cases, what is presented as Josephus’ testimony is in fact Christian forgery layered onto a Jewish historian’s work. Rather than offering independent confirmation of Jesus, Josephus is evidence of how later Christian copyists reshaped history to manufacture credibility for their faith.
Conclusively, the 10th-century Agapius manuscript, an Arabic translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, does not contain the phrase “who was called Christ,” referring to James simply as “the brother of Jesus, whose name was James.” Irrefutable evidence, the title was a later Christian addition, supporting the view that the passage does not independently attest to a historical Jesus but reflects a scribal insertion to link James to the Christian narrative.
Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger:
Followers Not of a Ministry of Jesus
One of the major issues with these widely cited Roman sources is that they document Christianity as a movement rather than providing independent evidence of Jesus’ life.
- Tacitus (Annals 15.44): writing 80 years after supposed events references Christians being punished under Nero and notes that they follow a Chrestus put to death by Pontius Pilotus, but our earliest is from the 11th century preserved by Christian monks and gets the title of Pilotus wrong as procurator instead of prefect. He appears to be reporting what Christians believed regarding the execution.
- Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, Claudius 25): Mentions disturbances caused by “Chrestus” in Rome, but the account centers on social unrest and provides no details about a Galilean preacher or historical deeds. The identity of “Chrestus” is uncertain, making the passage unreliable as proof of Jesus.
- Pliny the Younger (Letters to Trajan, c. 112 CE): Describes Christians worshiping Christ as a god. While informative about early Christian practices, Pliny knows nothing about Jesus’ life, ministry, or death; he only observes the behavior of adherents.
In all three cases, the texts attest to the existence of followers and a religious movement rather than offering independent confirmation of a historical Jesus. These are not contemporary references as they are generations later appear to be influenced by Christian beliefs. This evidence is mediated through the lens of his adherents.
Pliny the Elder’s Silence Shows No Early Following in Jerusalem
Comparing Pliny the Younger with Pliny the Elder highlights a striking problem for historicists. Pliny the Elder (c. 23–79 CE) wrote extensively about Asia Minor, Jewish communities, and notable figures, yet makes no mention of Jesus, his ministry, or any Galilean preacher. Decades later, Pliny the Younger only records Christians worshiping “Christ” as a deity, without any knowledge of his life or actions. If Jesus had been a historical figure, Pliny the Elder would have had ample reason to notice him. His silence, contrasted with the later, abstract references of Pliny the Younger, supports the mythicist view that Jesus was not a real person but a legendary figure around whom a religious movement later formed.
Mainstream historians point to Josephus and Tacitus as independent confirmations of Jesus’ existence. But the problems are well known:As Robert Price puts it:
“No pagan historian or contemporary source knows of Jesus. What they know, they know from Christians.”
The Talmud’s “Yeshu” is 100 years too Early
The Babylonian Talmud mentions a figure named Yeshu in a few scattered places, but the details don’t fit the Jesus of the Gospels. In Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47a, Yeshu is described as a student of Rabbi Joshua ben Perachiah, who lived in the 1st century BCE a full century too early. The stories place him in Egypt, under rabbis Jesus could never have known, and depict him as leading Israel astray through sorcery, not as a Galilean teacher. In Sanhedrin 43a, it says, “On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu,” which some see as a crucifixion parallel. But in Jewish legal language, “hanging” meant suspension after stoning or another form of execution, not Roman crucifixion.
It is well documented Rabbi Joshua ben Perachiah lived around 100 BCE based on rabbinic texts that place him in the first generation of Tannaim, historical records of the Hasmonean dynasty’s timeline, and his connections to other well dated figures like Rabbi Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Rabbi Akiva.
Even more telling, these references of Yeshu a common spelling of Yeshua were written down between the 3rd and 5th centuries CE, long after Christianity had spread. By then, rabbis weren’t preserving memories of the real Jesus but creating polemical counter stories to challenge Christian claims. With the wrong century, wrong teachers, wrong punishment, and sources compiled far too late, the Talmud’s “Yeshu” traditions don’t give us historical evidence for Jesus they give us insight into Jewish-Christian conflict centuries after the fact.
Mystery and Savior Cults in First-Century Palestine
First-century Palestine was a religiously diverse and syncretic environment, where numerous mystery religions and savior cults flourished alongside traditional Judaism. These movements often centered on a divine or semi-divine figure who offered salvation, immortality, or secret knowledge to followers. Examples included localized cults venerating figures like Osiris, Dionysus, or Mithras, as well as various Jewish messianic movements that anticipated a deliverer to rescue Israel from oppression.
The cultural and religious context of the time shows that the idea of a dying-and-rising savior or miracle-working messiah was widespread and familiar to the population. Many of these cults were highly ritualized, promising personal transformation and communal belonging, and they often spread rapidly across urban centers and trade routes in the eastern Mediterranean. This milieu provides a plausible background for the emergence of a legendary savior figure like Jesus, without requiring him to have existed as a historical person.
The prevalence of such movements demonstrates that stories of divine or semi-divine redeemers were a common cultural motif, making it unsurprising that a Jewish savior figure could emerge in myth rather than history. Early Christian narratives could easily have drawn on these existing motifs to construct the story of Jesus, synthesizing themes familiar to contemporary audiences.
Jesus as Cosmic Savior and Hellenistic Moral Ideals
In the earliest Christian writings, especially Paul’s letters, Jesus may have been conceived more as a heavenly, cosmic figure than as a historical teacher. Passages like Colossians 1:15–17 describe him as present in all creation, “in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,” while Philippians 2:9–11 portrays him exalted over every name in heaven and on earth. Some scholars have proposed that these depictions reflect an original conception of Jesus as a spiritual or celestial being, whose existence transcended earthly life.
This idea aligns with Hellenistic Greek cosmology and philosophy, where the heavens were seen as ordered, rational, and connected to divine or moral principles. Philosophers such as Plato and the Stoics described the universe as a harmonious system guided by reason or logos. Ethical ideals emphasized by these thinkers—such as reciprocity, moral virtue, and care for others are mirrored in Jesus’ teachings, for example, the Beatitudes and the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated.
Some scholars have also noted correlations between Jesus’ parables and Aesop’s fables, suggesting that early Christian authors may have drawn on familiar storytelling forms to convey moral lessons. Like Aesop’s fables, the parables are concise, symbolic, and designed to teach ethical principles through easily understood narratives. This literary strategy, combined with cosmic and philosophical framing, may have helped early audiences perceive Jesus as a universal moral and spiritual exemplar, rather than a strictly historical figure.
From this perspective, the earthly life of Jesus described in the Gospels may have been a later narrative development, adding biography to a pre-existing celestial figure. Miracles, trials, and parables could have been constructed to illustrate ethical and theological principles in a relatable, humanized form, while his original identity remained rooted in the heavens and aligned with universal moral ideals and narrative techniques familiar to Greek-speaking audiences.
Homeric and Greek Moral Influence on the Gospel of Mark
Mark, the first Gospel by several decades, may have been crafted for a Greek-speaking audience steeped in Hellenistic culture. At the time, Homer’s epics—the Iliad and the Odyssey—would have been widely known, providing a shared literary and moral framework. The Gospel’s episodic storytelling, heroic narrative patterns, and ethical lessons suggest it may have drawn on these familiar cultural touchstones, as well as broader Greek philosophical ideals, including Platonic ethics such as the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated.
Jesus’ journey, from confrontations with religious authorities to the Passion, may mirror the trials of epic heroes like Odysseus, demonstrating courage, wisdom, and moral virtue. The disciples’ repeated misunderstandings may reflect Homeric companions whose loyalty and comprehension are tested, highlighting lessons about moral discernment and ethical behavior. Narrative features such as abrupt transitions, compressed storytelling, and symbolic numbers, like the twelve disciples, may also reflect Greek literary and philosophical conventions designed to convey moral and theological instruction.
Taken together, these features suggest that Mark’s Gospel may have been crafted as a moral and literary narrative for a Hellenistic audience, embedding heroic patterns from epic literature and ethical ideals from Greek philosophy to communicate lessons about virtue, justice, and communal responsibility, rather than serving as a strict historical biography.
Motivations of Greek Writers: Galvanizing Against Rome
Greek and Hellenistic writers living under Roman occupation often had strong incentives to craft narratives that highlighted resistance to Roman authority or criticized imperial oppression. During the period of the First Temple’s destruction (586 BCE) and the later Roman occupation of Judea in the first century CE, authors could use historical or legendary figures as vehicles for political commentary, framing stories in ways that would resonate with a population frustrated by foreign domination.
For a Greek-speaking or Hellenistic audience, embedding a figure like a Jewish “savior” or reformer into a narrative allowed writers to symbolically oppose Roman authority while remaining cloaked in historical or legendary disguise. These narratives could appeal to civic pride, moral outrage, and the desire for divine justice, galvanizing readers emotionally and culturally against the occupying forces. The figure in question, whether based on memory, myth, or invention serves less as a strict historical report and more as a literary and political tool, designed to inspire resistance or moral reflection.
This context suggests that some early accounts of Jesus may have been crafted not to document a historical individual, but rather to construct a symbolic figure of righteous opposition, providing a rallying point for Jewish or proto-Christian identity under Roman rule and allowing Greek-speaking or Hellenistic audiences to engage with a narrative of resistance, moral outrage, and divine justice that resonated emotionally and culturally while remaining safely framed in literary or legendary form.
From Myth to Man
The developmental pattern is clear:
- Paul (50s CE): Christ is a cosmic savior revealed through visions and scripture.
- Gospels (70–100 CE): Narrative biographies emerge, crafting a Galilean preacher who fulfills scripture.
- Church Fathers (2nd–4th centuries): Harmonization of contradictions, elevation of the Gospels to sacred history, establishment of orthodoxy.
What began as myth evolved into memory. The Christ of faith became the Jesus of history.
No Convincing Evidence of Historicity
When examined critically, Jesus appears less as a historical person and more as a mythical and theological figure. Paul’s letters describe a heavenly Christ, not a recent Galilean teacher. The Gospels, written decades later, are anonymous works blending Jewish scripture, Hellenistic moral ideals, and Greek literary motifs. External sources like Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny confirm only the existence of followers, not Jesus himself. In a culture rich with savior cults and legendary figures, early Christians may have constructed Jesus as a cosmic and moral exemplar to teach faith, ethics, and resistance, long before historical biography was added.
Conclusion
The mythicist case does not “disprove” Jesus any more than it disproves Romulus or Hercules. Rather, it highlights that the evidence for Jesus is late, theological, and shaped by editorial agendas. Mark, the first Gospel, was adapted by Matthew and Luke for Jewish and gentile audiences, while John emphasized divinity. These narratives built on Paul’s cosmic savior letters, with the earliest Christians knowing a heavenly Christ. Only decades later was he recast as a Galilean carpenter and preacher, integrating Greek moral fables and epic motifs to instruct and inspire communities.
As Richard Carrier concludes:
“We must weigh probabilities. And on balance, the evidence makes more sense if Christianity began with a mythical Christ, only later historicized, than with a forgotten Galilean nobody later deified.” (On the Historicity of Jesus, 2014)
Article References
- Allegro, John M. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth. Westbridge Books, 1979.
- Bauer, Bruno. Critique of the Gospel History of the Synoptics. 1850.
- Brodie, Thomas L. Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery. Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012.
- Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014.
- Casey, Maurice. Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching. T&T Clark, 2010.
- Cribiore, Raffaella. Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Society of Biblical Literature, 2001.
- Dillon, John. The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. Cornell University Press, 1996.
- Doherty, Earl. The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999.
- Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Eerdmans, 2003.
- Fredriksen, Paula. From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus. Yale University Press, 2000.
- Freke, Timothy, and Peter Gandy. The Jesus Mysteries: Was the “Original Jesus” a Pagan God? Three Rivers Press, 1999.
- Grant, Robert M. Greek Apocalyptic. Westminster Press, 1988.
- Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament: History, Culture, and Religion. Walter de Gruyter, 2014.
- Lataster, Raphael. Questioning the Historicity of Jesus. Brill, 2019.
- Long, A.A. Stoic Studies. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
- MacDonald, Dennis R. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. Yale University Press, 2000.
- Montagna, Pauline. Christ Mythicism: A Theology for a Rational World. Medium, 2024.
- Nielsen, Ditlef. The Old Arabian Moon Religion and the Mosaic Tradition. Karl Trübner, 1904.
- Ory, Georges. An Analysis of Christian Origins. Secular Society Limited, 1961.
- Price, Robert M. The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems. American Atheist Press, 2011.
- Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Fortress Press, 1985.
- Segal, Alan F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. Yale University Press, 1990.
- Wells, George A. Did Jesus Exist? Prometheus Books, 1975.