# Lack of evidence Jesus existed. Do we typically have evidence of historical figures from that time? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 31, 2016, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155 "2016-05-31T07:49:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/121 "2016-06-02T18:00:12Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > None of the authors I mentioned, so far as we know, met Jesus; all their accounts are at second hand. (It’s possible that Q met Jesus, if only because we have no idea who Q was, but we have no reason to think that he did.) But none of our sources for Socrates ever met Socrates, and none of our sources for Alexander ever met Alexander. > > What’s significant about them is that they are independent of one another, so we have five people who all heard about Jesus, and not from one another. And they are all writing within the lifetimes of Jesus’ contemporaries. And we can’t say anything like that about Socrates or Alexander. Hence, Jesus is better attested. Well, John the Gospel writer met Jesus. Plato met Socrates. Or made him up. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/122 "2016-06-02T18:07:08Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > The brief and passing mention in Josephus is widely thought to be added by a religious editor later. > > On the contrary, it’s pretty obvious that all gospels copied copiously, sometimes verbatim, from Mark and each other.. There are two (well kinda three, one is of John the Baptist)mentions. > **[Josephus on Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#James_the_brother_of_Jesus)** > > Flavius Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian who provided external information on some people and events found in the New Testament. Josephus was a general in Galilee, which is where Jesus ministered and people who knew him still lived; he dwelled near Jesus's hometown of Nazareth for a time, and kept contact with groups such as the Sanhedrin and Ananus II who were involved in the trials of Jesus and his brother James. The extant manuscripts of Josephus' book Antiquities of the Jew The... "\* Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: _…"_\* is not doubted by any reliable scholar. \*\* _"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared._" \*Of the three passages found in Josephus’ Antiquities, this passage, if authentic, would offer the most direct support for the crucifixion of Jesus. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[6][7][8][9][11] James Dunn states that there is “broad consensus” among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[10] Among other things, the authenticity of this passage would help make sense of the later reference in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 where Josephus refers to the stoning of “James the brother of Jesus”. A number of scholars argue that the reference to Jesus in this later passage as “the aforementioned Christ” relates to the earlier reference in the Testimonium\* **John** did not copy, and that Gospel is generally considered to come from that Apostle. Perhaps not directly. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/123 "2016-06-02T18:13:20Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Finally we have John. He’s writing later than any of the others, but he doesn’t appear to draw on any of them and may not have known about them. The text does not claim to have been written by an eye-witness. Religious tradition says that he was an eye-witness - the apostle John - but the weight of scholarly opinion rejects this. Most likely the text is based on an oral tradition, which may originate with the apostle John. On this view, the text is produced by the community of John’s followers, either late in John’s life or after his death. > . Not quite, in fact the weight of scholarly opinion now say that that Gospel came from Johns followers in Ephesus. There’s little doubt they took his reminiscences and assembled that Gospel. How much of it is Johns words is another thing altogether- some scholars think most of it is. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/124 "2016-06-02T18:36:31Z")
There’s another big difference between Smith/Moroni or Hubbard/Xenu and Paul/Jesus, beside the inconvenient fact that communities of Jesus-followers predate Paul’s letters: as far as I know, neither Moroni nor Xenu are claimed to have appeared to anyone else. Smith and Hubbard never appealed to other witnesses to verify their stories. On the other hand, Paul names witnesses who were still alive to corroborate his story. If Jesus was made up, it would have required a much larger conspiracy than just Smith or Hubbard working by themselves. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/125 "2016-06-02T21:05:05Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Richard Carrier described the correct process for determining historicity in great detail in [Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus](http://astore.amazon.com/supportcarrier-20/detail/1616145595), both explaining why the consensus is often based on an incorrect process and how to do it right. Some folks might wonder exactly why that is “the correct process”. Arbitrary decree tends not be very convincing. My father is a professional historian with over 30 books and 100 articles on his CV. I’m fairly sure that he’s never written anything that mentioned Bayes’ Theorem. I would doubt that any of his colleagues have written much of anything using Bayes’ Theorem either. I have read a fairly large number of history books in my day and have never encountered any historian using Bayes’ Theorem to argue for or against the historicity of anything. Bayes’ Theorem is a mathematical formula that gives the probability of one event, based on the probability of other events. Self-evidently, it can only be used in cases where there are numerical probabilities. Probability is defined numerically for events such as flipping a coin or drawing a card from a deck. In those cases, there are a known number of outcomes, all equally likely, and one outcome is chosen randomly. This allows the calculation of a number of the probability of an event. For a question of whether a particular ancient figure existed, or anything like that, there is no numerical probability. There is no definition of probability for such a case. Without numerical probabilities, Bayes’ Theorem cannot be used. It’s like saying that you’ve used Chi-Square tests to determine that Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare’s plays. What on earth would it even mean? ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/126 "2016-06-02T21:29:31Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Some folks might wonder exactly why that is “the correct process”. Arbitrary decree tends not be very convincing. My father is a professional historian with over 30 books and 100 articles on his CV. I’m fairly sure that he’s never written anything that mentioned Bayes’ Theorem. I would doubt that any of his colleagues have written much of anything using Bayes’ Theorem either. I have read a fairly large number of history books in my day and have never encountered any historian using Bayes’ Theorem to argue for or against the historicity of anything. It sounds like you are critiquing the book without even reading it. Publishing a full book to make a case isn’t exactly “arbitrary decree”, and is isn’t really fair to complain that the case isn’t convincing without giving it full consideration. Carrier makes a compelling case that whether or not a historian is explicitly applying Bayes’ Theorem, they must consider prior probabilities when evaluating evidence. Essentially if you are not considering the probability that the evidence would exist if a given hypothesis were true vs. the probability that the evidence would exist if the hypothesis is false, you are not using a sound methodology for evaluating the truth of your hypothesis. That is the essence of Bayes Theorem. ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/127 "2016-06-02T21:35:57Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Richard Carrier described the correct process for determining historicity in great detail in [Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus](http://astore.amazon.com/supportcarrier-20/detail/1616145595), both explaining why the consensus is often based on an incorrect process and how to do it right. Your link didn’t work. Here’s another: [Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus](http://www.amazon.com/Proving-History-Bayess-Theorem-Historical/product-reviews/1616145595/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&showViewpoints=0) I note several detailed critical reviews by mathematicians whose critique boils down to, “when it comes to probability, Carrier’s flat wrong.” I suggest that perhaps Carrier has not, perhaps, described the correct process. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/128 "2016-06-02T21:38:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Bayes’ Theorem is a mathematical formula that gives the probability of one event, based on the probability of other events. Self-evidently, it can only be used in cases where there are numerical probabilities. And to clarify, Carrier doesn’t say that a sound methodology requires numeric probabilities, only that the probability of the two events are compared. Bayes theorem just provides an easy way to formally perform that comparison. For example, he claims that if there is a compelling case that a certain piece of evidence would be equally likely whether or not a hypothesis were true then that particular piece of evidence can’t be used to evaluate the truth of that hypothesis. He shows cases where other historians use un-sound methodologies when evaluating such evidence. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/129 "2016-06-02T21:50:33Z")
> [@TSBG](#): > > I note several detailed critical reviews by mathematicians whose critique boils down to, “when it comes to probability, Carrier’s flat wrong.” I suggest that perhaps Carrier has not, perhaps, described the correct process. Many readers of the book, including the pre-publication scholarly reviewers of his work do think he described the correct process. Could you find the most compelling critique that supports the claim that he is flat wrong and quote it here? ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/130 "2016-06-02T22:18:12Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > I never said it wasn’t a minority position. I said it wasn’t on the level of the anti-vaxxers or climate change denialists. The peer-reviewed scholarly research for the anti-vax position has been thoroughly debunked. Likewise any climate change denialist research. That just isn’t true about the published mythicist position. On the contrary, the published research has pointed out major flaws in the methodologies that have historically supported the historicity position. [IT’S OFFICIAL: WE CAN NOW DOUBT JESUS’ HISTORICAL EXISTENCE](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1477175616000117) by Raphael Lataster might help as well: > [@](#): > > With the assistance of historian Richard Carrier, I have just published _Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists_ (2015), as a spiritual sequel to my earlier _There Was No Jesus, There Is No God_ (2013). Unsurprisingly, I argue that – with the Christ of Faith already dismissed by mainstream secular scholars – it is very reasonable to doubt Jesus’ historical existence. The basic premise of the book is to examine the arguments of four scholars who have recently published significant works about this controversial issue. (The article, for pay, is just a summary of the evidence presented in detail in the book.) ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/131 "2016-06-02T23:38:04Z")
Curious. I searched on this out of a curiousity. [This review on the math](https://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/a-mathematical-review-of-proving-history-by-richard-carrier/) by a person sympathetic is not encouraging that this is a good book or showing a good analysis > [@](#): > > Carrier joins that latter debate too, in what he describes as a “cheeky” unification of Bayesian and Frequentist interpretations, but what reads as a misunderstanding of what the differences between Bayesian and Frequentist statistics are. Describing what this means is beyond my scope here, but I raise it because it is illustrative of a tone of arrogance and condescension that I consistently perceived throughout the book. To use the word “cheeky” to describe his “solution” of this important problem in mathematical philosophy, suggests he is aware of his hubris. Perhaps cheeky indicates that his preposterous claim was made in jest. But given the lack of mathematical care demonstrated in the rest of the book, to me it came off as indicative of a Dunning-Kruger effect around mathematics. > > I had many other problems with the mathematics presented in the book, I felt there were severe errors with his arguments a fortiori (i.e. a kind of reasoning from inequalities — the probability is no greater than X); and his set-theoretic treatment of reference classes was likewise muddled (though in the latter case it coincidentally did not seem to result in incorrect conclusions). the review highlights many confusions in usage of terms, so it does not sound like it has show the proper analytical path, but sounds like it is using not well understood math to dress up a conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/132 "2016-06-02T23:38:13Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > It sounds like you are critiquing the book without even reading it. Publishing a full book to make a case isn’t exactly “arbitrary decree”, and is isn’t really fair to complain that the case isn’t convincing without giving it full consideration. I’ve read some of Carrier’s blog posts, and some sections of his books posted online, but not any entire books written by him. What I’ve read has been unimpressive, to put it mildly. First of all, Carrier’s writing tends to overflow with personal insults and innuendo, completely unworthy of anyone who wants to be seen as an academic. The snippets that you’ve already posted from him contain some examples, and there are countless others. [As the top review here puts it](http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ReviewCarrierOnHistoricity.htm): And if Carrier really is so objective and fair-minded, why does he have such a thin skin? Why does he accuse scholars who hold alternative views of low motives? Why does he constantly poison the well by inserting the adjective “fanatical” before the noun “believers?” (And doesn’t he have other pejoratives in his storehouse, just for the sake of variety?) Why react so heavy-handedly to criticism here on Amazon, including from myself? (“Don’t read him! He’s an apologist, and therefore dishonest! He lost a debate in Alabama!”)… It is almost as if Richard knows, at some level, that he has built an impressive house of cards, but that any breath of critical analysis might blow it all away. Secondly, it’s just a straightforward fact that he often says things that are untrue, or half true, or where he’s ignoring evidence that is fatal to his claims. The review that I linked to gives plenty of examples. Here’s another in-depth example of Carrier’s intellectual dishonesty: [http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/04/the-death-of-richard-carriers-dying-messiah/](http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/04/the-death-of-richard-carriers-dying-messiah/) . Carrier cites particular sources and claims they say something. Readers who check those sources find them saying something entirely different. It’s happened over and over again. Check the other threads linked to near the start of this thread. There are plenty of examples there. [This article](https://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/a-mathematical-review-of-proving-history-by-richard-carrier/) critiques the math in _Proving History_. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/133 "2016-06-02T23:46:45Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > We have more independent sources, and more surviving independent sources, for Jesus than we have for Alexander. 😕 Huh? We have surviving **coins** issued for Alexander. Surely coinage counts for something when we’re discussing whether an ancient ruler really existed or not. And there are contemporary inscriptions mentioning Alexander. The notion that we have “more sources” for Jesus than for Alexander only makes sense if you’re being quite restrictive about what counts as a “source”. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/134 "2016-06-03T00:55:33Z")
Just as an example, does the existence of Alexandria count as evidence for the existence of Alexander? I could see that cutting both ways. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/135 "2016-06-03T01:16:52Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Curious. I searched on this out of a curiousity. > [This review on the math](https://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/a-mathematical-review-of-proving-history-by-richard-carrier/) by a person sympathetic is not encouraging that this is a good book or showing a good analysis > > the review highlights many confusions in usage of terms, so it does not sound like it has show the proper analytical path, but sounds like it is using not well understood math to dress up a conclusion. Curious if you also read [Carrier’s response](http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2616#more-2616) to that review. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/136 "2016-06-03T01:29:25Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Curious if you also read [Carrier’s response](http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2616#more-2616) to that review. Now I have and my opinion is lower of Carrier for it. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/137 "2016-06-03T01:33:02Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’ve read some of Carrier’s blog posts, and some sections of his books posted online, but not any entire books written by him. What I’ve read has been unimpressive, to put it mildly. Carrier responds to many of the reviews or other responses here: [List of Responses to Defenders of the Historicity of Jesus](http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/5730) > [@](#): > > Now that my new book On the Historicity of Jesus has finally become available, for convenience I will be collecting here links to all the responses I’ve published to defenders of the historicity of Jesus. So this article will be continually updated with new entries, and I will keep the order alphabetical by last name of the scholar responded to (when I know it). I have also sorted them into generic debates, and responses to my books specifically. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/138 "2016-06-03T01:34:19Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Now I have and my opinion is lower of Carrier for it. Well that is certainly a substantive response. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/139 "2016-06-03T01:54:40Z")
> [@Commodore](#): > > Jesus did exist, the name means Saviour and it’s truly a fact that he is. > > His name was Emmanuel and this means, God with us. > > Any true Israelite knows who Jesus is, just as Nathanael knew who he was directly because he was a true Israelite ! > > Jesus is a Prophet and not only that, but much more, the Son of God ! > > Jesus is … He’s also a Sagittarius. 🙂 The thing is, how much proof I necessary. Heck, we have a president who was born several years after me, and was born in the most document-happy and literate time and country in known history - and people still think the documentation of _his_ birth is insufficient. Every piece of the puzzle is an element of proof. When the preponderance of pieces point to a conclusion - there was a Jesus, he was a wandering preacher who was very persuasive, and he left behind followers who doubled down on his heritage big time… Josephus, for example - he made a point of writing about history of the Jewish people; so his point was NOT to write about Jesus, he was not a convert, and the majority of what he wrote was totally irrelevant to Christianity. The fact that he mentioned peripherally that there was a Jesus, and the passage was only somewhat embellished, is good evidence that the data is accurate. Not proof, mind you, but evidence. (Note Josephus also mentions other Messiahs, including several guerrilla liberation fighters - so he’s not concentrating on one religious character). The same goes for everything else. The preachings that resulted (eventually) in the gospels and epistles created Christian communities within 20 or 30 years of the (alleged) crucifixion. (Heck, Saul was chasing Jewish Christians to Damascus around 40AD or so…) Remember that in those days, the communities, particularly of dispersed Jews, was small. Also - many of those went back to Jerusalem as close to annually as they could, so there’s no doubt they were up to date on the local news there. A complete fabrication would be awkward to get away with. Whether Jesus performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. is a matter of faith for ohers who have faith - but I would think there’s pretty close to zero doubt there was a person named Jesus, and he did preach in Judea at that time, and as a troublemaker for the temple hierarchy, was executed as a threat to public order. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/140 "2016-06-03T01:54:57Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Well that is certainly a substantive response. Thanks. The post confrims what ITR said " writing tends to overflow with personal insults and innuendo, completely unworthy" it is the writing approach of the polemecist, not the analyst. Nor was it to me convincing about any of the substance. You seem quite impressed by him, it appears you like the polemics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155.md?page=8)