Apicontent

Did Jesus Christ really exist, or is Christianity a legend built upon a fictitious character like Harry Potter?

For nearly two thousand years most of our world has considered Jesus a real man who had exceptional character, leadership and power over nature. But today some are saying he never existed.

The argument against Jesus’ existence, known as the Christ-myth theory, began seventeen centuries after Jesus is said to have walked the rocky hills of Judea.

In his early years as an atheist Oxford literary scholar, C. S. Lewis considered Jesus a myth, thinking all religions were simply inventions.¹

Years later, Lewis was sitting by the fire in an Oxford dorm room with a friend he called “the hardest boiled atheist of all the atheists I ever knew.” Suddenly his atheist friend blurted out, “The evidence for the historicity of the Gospels was really surprisingly good…It almost looks as if it had really happened once.”²

Lewis was stunned. His friend’s remark that there was real evidence for Jesus prompted Lewis to investigate the truth for himself. He writes about his search for truth about Jesus in his classic book Mere Christianity.

So, what evidence did Lewis’ atheist friend discover for Jesus Christ? And, what evidence persuaded Lewis to believe that Jesus really existed?

Ancient History Speaks

Let’s begin with a more foundational question: How can we distinguish a mythical character from a real person? For example, what evidence convinces historians that Alexander the Great was a real person? And does such evidence exist for Jesus? Let’s compare.

Both Alexander and Jesus were depicted as charismatic leaders. Both reportedly had brief careers, dying in their early thirties. Jesus is said to have been a man of peace who conquered by love; Alexander, a man of war, who vanquished enemy nations by the sword.

In 336 B.C. Alexander the Great became king of Macedonia. A military genius, this handsome, arrogant leader swept through villages, towns, and kingdoms of Greco-Persia until he ruled it all. It is said that he cried when there were no more worlds to conquer.

The history of Alexander is drawn from five ancient sources written 300 or more years after he died.³ Not one eyewitness account of Alexander exists today.

However, historians believe Alexander really existed, largely because the accounts of his life are confirmed by archaeology and his impact on history.

Likewise, to determine if Jesus was a real person, we need to seek evidence for his existence in the following areas:

1. Archaeology
2. Early non-Christian accounts
3. Early Christian accounts
4. Early New Testament manuscripts
5. Historical impact

Archaeology

The sands of time have buried many mysteries about Jesus that only recently have been brought to light.

Perhaps the most significant discoveries are several ancient manuscripts unearthed between the 18th and 20th centuries. We will look closer at these manuscripts in a later section.

Archaeologists have also discovered numerous places and relics that agree with the New Testament accounts of Jesus. Malcolm Muggeridge was a respected British journalist who considered Jesus a myth until he saw such evidence while on a BBC television assignment to Israel.

After visiting and reporting on the very places written about in the New Testament account of Jesus, Muggeridge wrote, “A certainty seized me about Jesus’ birth, ministry, and crucifixion…I became aware that there really had been a man, Jesus….”⁴

However, prior to the 20th century no tangible evidence existed for the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and the Jewish chief priest Joseph Caiaphas. Both men were central figures in the trial leading to the crucifixion of Christ. Skeptics cited this apparent lack of evidence for their existence as ammunition for their Christ-myth theory.

However, in 1961 archaeologists discovered a block of limestone inscribed with the name of “Pontius Pilate prefect of Judea.” And in 1990 archaeologists discovered an ossuary (bone box) with the inscription of Caiaphas. It has been verified by scholars as authentic “beyond a reasonable doubt.”⁵

Also, until 2009, there was no tangible evidence that Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth existed during his lifetime. Skeptics like Rene Salm regarded lack of evidence for 1^st century Nazareth as a deathblow to Christianity. In The Myth of Nazareth Salm wrote in 2006, “Celebrate, freethinkers.… Christianity as we know it may be finally coming to an end!”⁶

However, on December 21, 2009, archaeologists announced the discovery of 1^st century clay shards in Nazareth, confirming that this tiny hamlet existed during the time of Christ.

Although these archaeological finds don’t prove that Jesus lived there, they do support the Gospel accounts of his early life in Nazareth. Historians note that mounting evidence from archaeology confirms rather than contradicts the accounts of Jesus.”⁷

Early Non-Christian Accounts

Skeptics cite the “lack of secular history” for Jesus as evidence that he didn’t exist.

Yet there is very little documentation for any person from the time of Christ. Most ancient historical documents have been destroyed through the centuries, by wars, fires, and pillaging, or simply through weathering and deterioration.

According to E. M. Blaiklock, who has cataloged most of the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire, “practically nothing exists from the time of Christ”, even for great secular leaders such as Julius Caesar.⁸ Yet no historian questions Caesar’s existence.

And since he wasn’t a great political or military leader, New Testament scholar Darrell Bock notes, “It is amazing and significant that Jesus shows up at all in the sources we have.”⁹

So, who are these sources Bock mentions? Which early historians who wrote of Jesus did not have a Christian agenda? First, let’s look to Jesus’ enemies.

Jewish Historians

The Jews had the most to gain by denying Jesus’ existence. But they always regarded him as real.  In his book, Skeptics Answered, D. James Kennedy observes, “Several Jewish writings refer to Jesus as a real person whom they opposed.”¹⁰

Noted 1^st century Jewish historian (who eventually wrote for Rome), Flavius Josephus, documented the existence of James as, “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”¹¹ If Jesus wasn’t a real person why wouldn’t Josephus have said so? On the contrary, Josephus confirms his existence.

In another somewhat controversial passage, Josephus speaks more extensively of Jesus.¹²

At this time there was a man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and he died. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was thought to be the Messiah.¹³

Although his words about the resurrection are in dispute, Josephus’ confirmation here of Jesus’ existence is widely accepted by scholars.¹⁵

Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines writes, “Even the most bitter opponents of Christianity never expressed any doubt as to Jesus having really lived.”¹⁶

World historian Will Durant notes that no Jew or Gentile from the 1^st century ever denied the existence of Jesus.¹⁴

Roman Historians

Early Roman historians wrote primarily of events and people important to their empire. Since Jesus wasn’t of immediate importance to the political or military affairs of Rome, very little Roman history referenced him. However, two important Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, do acknowledge Jesus as a real person.

Tacitus (AD 55-120), the greatest early Roman historian, wrote that Christus (Greek for Christ) had lived during the reign of Tiberius and “suffered under Pontius Pilate, that Jesus’ teachings had already spread to Rome; and that Christians were considered criminals and tortured in a variety of ways, including crucifixion.”¹⁵

Suetonius (AD 69-130) wrote of “Chrestus” as an instigator. Most scholars believe this is a reference to Christ. Suetonius also wrote of Christians having been persecuted by Nero in AD 64.¹⁶

Roman Officials 

Prior to Emperor Constantine, Christians were considered enemies of Rome because of their worship of Jesus as Lord rather than Caesar. The following Roman government officials, including two Caesars, wrote letters from that perspective, mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.¹⁷

• Pliny the Younger was an imperial magistrate under Emperor Trajan. In AD 112, Pliny wrote to Trajan of his attempts to force Christians to renounce Christ, whom they “worshiped as a god.”
• Emperor Trajan (AD 56-117) wrote letters mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.
• Emperor Hadrian (AD 76-136) wrote about Christians as followers of Jesus.

Pagan Sources

Several early pagan writers briefly mention Jesus or Christians prior to the end of the 2^nd century. These include Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion and Lucian of Samosate.¹⁸ Thallus’ remarks about Jesus were written in AD 52, about twenty years after Christ.

In total, nine early non-Christian secular writers mention Jesus as a real person within 150 years of his death. Interestingly, that is the same number of secular writers who mention Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor during Jesus’ time. If we were to consider Christian and non-Christian sources, there are forty-two who mention Jesus, compared to just ten for Tiberius.¹⁹

Historical Facts about Jesus

These early non-Christian sources provide the following facts about Jesus Christ:

• Jesus was from Nazareth.
• Jesus lived a wise and virtuous life.
• Jesus was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king.
• Jesus was believed by his disciples to have died and risen from the dead three days later.
• Jesus’ enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats.
• Jesus’ disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading as far as Rome.
• Jesus’ disciples lived moral lives and worshiped Christ as God.

This general outline of Jesus’ life agrees perfectly with the New Testament.

Gary Habermas notes, “In total, about one-third of these non-Christian sources date from the first century; a majority originate no later than the mid-second century.”²⁰ According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus.”²¹

Early Christian Accounts

Early Christians wrote thousands of letters, sermons and commentaries about Jesus. Also, creeds which speak of Jesus and his resurrection from the dead, appeared as early as five years after his crucifixion.²²

These letters, sermons, and commentaries, confirm most New Testament details about Jesus, including his crucifixion and resurrection.²³

Incredibly, over 36,000 complete or partial such writings have been discovered, some from the first century.²⁴ These non-biblical writings could reconstruct the entire New Testament except for a few verses.

Each of these authors writes of Jesus as a real person. Skeptics called, “Christ-mythers,” disregard these accounts as biased. But the question they must answer is: How could a mythical Jesus have so much written about him from so many different sources within a few decades of his life?

The New Testament

Some skeptics dismiss the New Testament as evidence for Jesus, calling it “biased.” However, even most non-Christian historians consider ancient New Testament manuscripts as solid evidence for Jesus’ existence. Cambridge historian Michael Grant, an atheist, argues that the New Testament should be considered as evidence in the same way as other ancient history. He concedes,

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.²⁵

The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) are the primary accounts of Jesus’ life and words. Luke begins his Gospel with these words to Theophilus: “Since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus.”²⁶

Noted archaeologist Sir William Ramsay originally rejected Luke’s historical account of Jesus. However, he later changed his opinion, acknowledging,

Luke is a historian of the first rank.… This author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.… Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.²⁷

As noted previously, the earliest accounts about Alexander were written 300 years after he died. But how close to the life of Jesus were the Gospels written? Would eyewitnesses to Jesus have still been alive, or was there enough time for a legend to have developed?

In the 1830s, German skeptical scholars argued that the New Testament was written in the 3rd century, much too late to have been written by Jesus’ apostles. This late estimation fueled the Jesus-myth theory.

However, manuscript copies discovered in the 19th and 20th centuries by archaeologists proved these New Testament accounts of Jesus were written much earlier.

The renowned archaeologist, William Albright, dated all the New Testament books “between about AD 50 and AD 75.”²⁸  John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge dates all New Testament books by AD 40-65. Such early dating means they were written when eyewitnesses were alive, much too early for a myth or legend to develop.²⁹

In his search for the truth about Jesus, C. S. Lewis wrote,

Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that…the Gospels are…not legends. I have read a great deal of legend, and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing.³⁰

In further support of Jesus’ existence, the quantity of manuscripts for the New Testament is enormous. Over 24,000 complete or partial manuscript copies of its books exist, putting it far above all other ancient documents.³¹

No other ancient historical person, religious or secular, is backed up by as much documentation as is Jesus Christ. Historian Paul Johnson remarks,

If we consider that Tacitus, for example, survives in only one medieval manuscript, the quantity of early New Testament manuscripts is remarkable.³²

(For more on the reliability of the New Testament, see page 36, “Are the Gospel Accounts of Jesus True?)

Historical Impact

Myths have little, if any, impact on history. The historian Thomas Carlyle said, “The history of the world is but the biography of great men.”³³

There is no nation or regime which owes its foundation or heritage to a mythological person or so-called—“god”.

But what has been the impact of Jesus Christ?

The average Roman citizen didn’t feel his impact until many years after his death. Jesus marshalled no army. He wrote no books and changed no laws. The Jewish leaders and Roman Caesars had hoped to wipe out his memory, and it appeared they would succeed.

Today, all we see of ancient Rome is ruins. Caesar’s mighty legions and the pomp of Roman imperial power have faded into oblivion. Yet how is Jesus remembered today? What is his enduring influence? Let’s summarize:

• More books have been written about Jesus than about any other person in history.
• Free nations have used his words as the bedrock of their governments. According to Durant, “The triumph of Christ was the beginning of democracy.”³⁴
• His Sermon on the Mount established a new paradigm in ethics and morals.
• Schools, hospitals, and humanitarian works have been founded in his name. Over 100 great universities — including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, and Oxford – were begun by his followers.³⁵
• The elevated role of women in Western culture traces its roots back to Jesus. (Women in Jesus’ day were considered inferior and virtual nonpersons until his teaching was followed.)
• Slavery was abolished in Britain and America due to Jesus’ teaching that each human life is valuable.

Amazingly, Jesus made all of this impact as a result of just a three-year period of public ministry. When noted author and world historian H. G. Wells—a non-Christian—was asked who has left the greatest legacy on history, he replied, “By this test Jesus stands first.”³⁶

Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan writes of him,

Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries… It is from his birth that most of the human race dates its calendars, it is by his name that millions curse and in his name that millions pray.³⁷

If Jesus didn’t exist, one must wonder how a myth could so alter history.

Myth vs. Reality

Whereas mythical gods are depicted as superheroes living out human fantasies and lusts, the Gospels portray Jesus as a man of humility, compassion and impeccable moral character. His followers present him as a real person for whom they willingly gave their lives.

The non-Christian scientist Albert Einstein stated, “No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.…No man can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful.”³⁸

After investigating the Christ-myth theory, the great world historian Will Durant concluded that, unlike the gods of mythology, Jesus was a real person.³⁹

New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce concludes, “Some writers may toy with the fancy of a ‘Christ-myth,’ but they do not do so on the grounds of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the ‘Christ-myth’ theories.”⁴⁰

And, finally, from a non-Christian historian, Atheist historian Michael Grant writes, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.”⁴¹

Here Was a Man

So, do historians believe Jesus was a man or a myth?

Historians regard both Alexander the Great and Jesus Christ as real. Yet the manuscript evidence for Jesus is far greater and centuries closer to his life than the writings for Alexander are to his. Furthermore, the historical impact of Jesus Christ far exceeds that of Alexander.

British historian Paul Johnson states that all serious scholars acknowledge Jesus as real.⁴²

Perhaps the non-Christian world historian H. G. Wells put it the best regarding Jesus Christ’s existence:

Here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented.⁴³

---

Endnotes

Have you ever met a man who is the focus of attention wherever he goes? Some mysterious, indefinable characteristic sets him apart from all other men.

Well, that’s the way it was two thousand years ago with Jesus Christ.

Jesus’ greatness was obvious to all those who saw and heard him. And while most great people eventually fade into history books, Jesus is still the focus of thousands of books and endless media controversy. And much of that controversy centers on the radical claims Jesus made about himself—claims that astounded both his followers and his adversaries.

Jesus’ unique claims caused him to be viewed as a threat by both the Roman authorities and the Jewish hierarchy. Although he was an outsider with no credentials or political powerbase, within three years, Jesus changed the world for the next 20 centuries. Other moral and religious leaders have left an impact on our world—but nothing like that unknown carpenter’s son from Nazareth.

What was it about Jesus Christ that made the difference? Was he merely a great man, or something more?

Some believe Jesus was merely a great moral teacher; others believe he was simply the leader of the world’s greatest religion. But many believe something far more. Christians believe that God actually visited us in human form. And they believe the evidence backs that up.

After carefully examining Jesus’ life and words, former Oxford scholar and skeptic, C. S. Lewis, came to a startling conclusion about him that altered the course of his life. So, who is the real Jesus? Many will answer that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but nothing more. As we take a deeper look at the world’s most controversial person, we begin by asking: could Jesus have been merely a great moral teacher?

Great Moral Teacher?

Even those from other religions acknowledge that Jesus was a great moral teacher. Indian leader, Mahatma Gandhi, spoke highly of Jesus’ righteous life and profound words.¹ Likewise, Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner wrote,

It is universally admitted … that Christ taught the purest and sublimest ethics … which throws the moral precepts and maxims of the wisest men of antiquity far into the shade.²

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount has been called the most superlative teaching of human ethics ever uttered by an individual. In fact, much of what we know today as “equal rights” is largely the result of Jesus’ teaching. Historian Will Durant, a non-Christian, said of Jesus that,

…he lived and struggled unremittingly for ‘equal rights’; in modern times he would have been sent to Siberia. ‘He that is greatest among you, let him be your servant’—this is the inversion of all political wisdom, of all sanity.³

Many, like Gandhi, have tried to separate Jesus’ teaching on ethics from his claims about himself, believing that he was simply a great man who taught lofty moral principles.

But if Jesus falsely claimed to be God, he couldn’t have been a good moral teacher. Before we look at what Jesus claimed, we need to examine the possibility that he was simply a great religious leader?

Great Religious Leader?

Surprisingly, Jesus never claimed to be a religious leader. He never got into religious politics or pushed an ambitious agenda, and he ministered almost entirely outside the established religious framework.

When one compares Jesus with the other great religious leaders, a remarkable distinction emerges. All other religions provide instruction for a way of living. But only Jesus offers deliverance, forgiveness for sin, and personal life transformation through faith in him. Jesus’ teaching message was simply “Come to me” or “Follow me” or “Obey me.” Also, Jesus made it clear that his primary mission was to forgive sins, something only God could do.

And that leads us to the question of what Jesus really did claim for himself; specifically, did Jesus claim to be God?

Did Jesus Claim to Be God?

In The World’s Great Religions, Huston Smith observed that of all great religious leaders, only Jesus claimed to be divine.⁴

What is it that convinces many scholars that Jesus claimed to be God? Author, John Piper explains that Jesus claimed power which uniquely belonged to God. He cites a few of Jesus’ radical claims,

…Jesus’ friends and enemies were staggered again and again by what he said and did. He would be walking down the road, seemingly like any other man, then turn and say something like, ‘Before Abraham was, I am.’ Or ‘If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.’

Or, very calmly, after being accused of blasphemy, he would say, ‘The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.’ To the dead he might simply say, ‘Come forth,’ or ‘Rise up.’ And they would obey. To the storms on the sea he would say, ‘Be still.’ And to a loaf of bread he would say, ‘Become a thousand meals.’ And it was done immediately.⁵

But what did Jesus really mean by such statements? Is it possible Jesus was merely a prophet like Moses or Elijah, or Daniel? Even his enemies acknowledged that no prophet ever spoke like Jesus (John 7:46).

The Gospels reveal that Jesus claimed to be someone more than a prophet. No other prophet had made such claims about himself; in fact, no other prophet ever put himself in God’s place.

Although Jesus never explicitly said, “I am God,” He also never said, “I am a man,” or “I am a prophet.” Yet Jesus was undoubtedly human, and his followers considered him a prophet like Moses and Elijah.

In fact, Jesus’ statements about himself contradict the notion that he was simply a great man or a prophet.

• On more than one occasion, Jesus referred to himself as God’s Son.
• He told Philip, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father” (John 14:9).
• He said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).

So, the question is: “Was Jesus claiming to be the Hebrew God who created the universe?”

Did Jesus Claim to Be the God of Abraham & Moses?

In the Hebrew Scriptures, when Moses asked God his name at the burning bush, God answered, “I AM (Yahweh).” God was revealing to Moses that he is the one and only God who is outside of time and has always existed.

Since the time of Moses, no practicing Jew would ever refer to himself or anyone else by “I AM” (Yahweh). The name was holy and revered exclusively for God. Yet Jesus referred to himself as “I am,” when telling the Pharisees, “Before Abraham was, I am.”

As a result, Jesus’ “I AM” claims infuriated the Jewish leaders. One time, for example, some leaders explained to Jesus why they were trying to kill him: “Because you, a mere man, have made yourself God.”⁶

These Old Testament scholars knew exactly what Jesus was saying—he was claiming to be God, the Creator of the universe. It is only this claim that would have brought the accusation of blasphemy. To read into the text that Jesus claimed to be God is clearly warranted, not simply by his words, but also by their reaction to those words. Former atheist C. S. Lewis explains the shock Jesus’ claim had on the Jewish leaders:

Then comes the real shock,among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time.⁷

To Lewis, Jesus’ claims were simply too radical and profound to have been made by an ordinary teacher or religious leader (For a more in-depth look at Jesus’ claim to deity, see Appendix page 82, Did Jesus claim to be God?).

What Kind of God?

Some have argued that Jesus was only claiming to be part of God. But the idea that we are all part of God, and that within us is the seed of divinity, is simply not a possible meaning for Jesus’ words and actions.

Jesus taught that he is God in the way the Jews understood God and the way the Hebrew Scriptures portrayed God, not in the way the New Age movement understands God. Neither Jesus nor his audience had been weaned on Star Wars, and so when they spoke of God, they were not speaking of cosmic forces.

Lewis explains,

Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God….

But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world, who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else.

And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.⁸

Although there are still people who believe Jesus was just a great moral teacher, Lewis argued that such a belief defies logic. He writes,

I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say.⁹

In his quest for truth, Lewis knew that he could not have it both ways with the identity of Jesus. Either Jesus was who he claimed to be—God in the flesh—or his claims were false. And if they were false, Jesus could not be a great moral teacher. He would either be lying intentionally, or he would be a lunatic with a God complex.

Could Jesus Have Been Lying?

Having dismissed the possibility that Jesus was merely a great moral teacher, Lewis concluded he was either lying, or he was a self-deluded lunatic—or he was who he claimed to be—the Son of God.

If Jesus was lying, the question we must deal with is: What could possibly motivate Jesus to live his entire life as a lie? He taught that God was opposed to lying and hypocrisy, so he wouldn’t have been doing it to please his Father. He certainly didn’t lie for his followers’ benefit, since all but one were martyred rather than renouncing his Lordship.

Do historians believe Jesus lied? Scholars have scrutinized Jesus’ words and life to see if there is any evidence of a defect in his moral character. In fact, even the most ardent skeptics are stunned by Jesus’ moral and ethical purity.

According to historian Philip Schaff, there is no evidence, either in church history or in secular history that Jesus lied about anything. Schaff argued,

How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could a deceitful, selfish, depraved man have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality?¹⁰

To go with the option of liar is in direct contradiction to everything Jesus taught, lived, and died for. To most scholars, it just doesn’t make sense. Yet, to deny Jesus’ claims, one must come up with some explanation. And if Jesus’ claims are not true, and he wasn’t lying, the only option remaining is that he must have been self-deceived.

Could Jesus Have Been Self-Deceived?

Lewis considered this option carefully. He deduced that if Jesus’ claims weren’t true, then he must have been insane. Lewis reasons that someone who claimed to be God would not be a great moral teacher.

He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell.¹¹

Most who have studied Jesus’ life and words acknowledge him as extremely rational—the opposite of someone self-deceived. Although his own life was filled with immorality and personal skepticism, the renowned French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) acknowledged Jesus’ superior character and presence of mind, stating,

When Plato describes his imaginary righteous man…he describes exactly the character of Christ. …If the life and death of Socrates are those of a philosopher, the life and death of Jesus Christ are those of a God.¹²

The claims of Jesus Christ force us to choose. As Lewis stated, we cannot put Jesus in the category of being just a great religious leader or good moral teacher. Neither does the evidence support him being a liar or madman.  This former skeptic challenges us to make up our own minds about Jesus, stating,

You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.¹³

In Mere Christianity, Lewis explores the options regarding the identity of Jesus, concluding that he is exactly who he claimed to be. His careful examination of the life and words of Jesus led this great literary genius to renounce his former atheism and become a committed Christian.

The greatest question in human history is, “Who is the real Jesus Christ?”  Lewis and countless others have concluded that God visited our planet in human form.

In the next chapter we will examine the historical and textual evidence demonstrating the overwhelming reliability of the New Testament.

---

Endnotes

We have seen that leading historians unanimously accept the fact that Jesus was a real person who has significantly impacted our world.

Nevertheless, countless conspiracy theories have attacked the New Testament teaching of his deity. Perhaps the most widely believed conspiracy theory has been postulated by Dan Brown in his fictional novel, The Da Vinci Code.

The Da Vinci Code is not to be ignored as a fictional plot. Its premise, that Jesus Christ has been reinvented by the church for political purposes, attacks the very foundation of Christianity. Its author, Dan Brown, has stated on national TV that, even though the plot is fictional, he believes its account of Jesus’ identity is true. So, what is the truth? Let’s take a look.

• Was Jesus’ deity invented by Constantine and the church?
• Were the original records of Jesus destroyed?
• Do recently discovered manuscripts tell the truth about Jesus?
• Did Jesus have a secret marriage with Mary Magdalene?

Several of Brown’s assertions regarding JesusChrist’s identity try to persuade the reader of a conspiracy. For example, the fictional scholar in the book states:

Nobody is saying Christ was a fraud or denying that He walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives. All we are saying is that Constantine took advantage of Christ’s substantial influence and importance. And in doing so, he shaped the face of Christianity as we know it today.¹

The Da Vinci Code book has sold over 80 million copies and has been watched by millions more in a blockbuster movie starring Tom Hanks. Although the plot is fictional, it has convinced many readers that its theme of a Jesus conspiracy is actually true.

The Jesus Conspiracy

Brown’s fictional plot begins with the murder of a French museum curator named Jacques Sauniere. A scholarly Harvard professor and a beautiful French cryptologist are commissioned to decipher a message left by the curator before his death.

The message turns out to reveal the most profound conspiracy in the history of humankind: a cover-up of the true message of Jesus Christ by a secret arm of the Roman Catholic Church called Opus Dei.

Before his death, the curator claimed to have evidence that could disprove the deity of Christ. Although (according to the plot) the Church tried for centuries to suppress the evidence, great thinkers and artists have planted clues everywhere: in paintings such as the Mona Lisa and Last Supper by da Vinci, in the architecture of cathedrals, even in Disney cartoons. The book’s sensational claims are these:

• The Roman emperor Constantine conspired to deify Jesus Christ by personally selecting the books of the New Testament.
• The Gnostic gospels were banned by men to suppress women.
• Jesus and Mary Magdalene were secretly married and had a child.
• Thousands of secret documents disprove key points of Christianity.

Brown reveals his conspiracy through the book’s fictional expert, British royal historian Sir Leigh Teabing. Presented as a wise old scholar, Teabing reveals to cryptologist Sophie Neveu that at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 “many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon,” including the deity of Jesus.

“Until that moment in history,” he says, “Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.”

Neveu is shocked. “Not the Son of God?” she asks.

Teabing explains: “Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.”

“Hold on,” she exclaimed. “You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?”

“A relatively close vote at that,” Teabing tells the stunned cryptologist.²

So, according to Teabing, Jesus was not regarded as God until the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, when the real records of Jesus were allegedly banned and destroyed. Thus, according to The Da Vinci Code conspiracy theory, the entire foundation of Christianity rests upon a lie.

The Da Vinci Code has sold its story so well that many readers think its plot is factual rather than fictional. For example, one reader concluded, “If it were not true it could not have been published!” Another reader said he would “never set foot in a church again.” A reviewer of the book praised it for its “impeccable research.”³ Pretty convincing for a fictional work.

Although The Da Vinci Code is fictional, it does base much of its premise upon actual events (the Council of Nicaea), actual people (Constantine and Arius), and actual documents (the Gnostic gospels). If we are to get to the bottom of the conspiracy, our investigation must be to address Brown’s accusations and separate fact from fiction.

Constantine And Christianity

In the centuries prior to Constantine’s reign over the Roman Empire Christians had been severely persecuted—even martyred— because they worshiped Jesus rather than Caesar. Yet, the church grew through persecution, and when Constantine became Emperor in AD 306, over 10% of the Roman Empire were Christians.

Although Constantine wasn’t a Christian when he became Emperor, six years later he claimed to have seen a bright image of a cross in the sky inscribed with the words “Conquer by this.” Inspired by this vision, he marched into battle under the sign of the cross and embraced Christianity.

Constantine’s apparent conversion to Christianity was a watershed in church history. Under his reign, Rome became a Christian empire. For the first time in nearly 300 years, it was relatively safe to be a Christian.

No longer were Christians persecuted for their faith. Constantine then sought to unify his Eastern and Western Empires, which had been badly divided by schisms, sects, and cults, centering primarily on the issue of Jesus Christ’s identity.

These are some of the kernels of truth in The Da Vinci Code, and kernels of truth are a prerequisite for any successful conspiracy theory. But the book’s plot turns Constantine into a conspirator. So, let’s address a key question raised by Brown’s theory: did Constantine invent the Christian doctrine of Jesus’ deity?

Deifying Jesus?

To answer Brown’s accusation, we must first determine what Christians in general believed before Constantine ever convened the council at Nicaea.

According to ancient manuscripts, Christians had been worshiping Jesus as God since the 1^st century. But in the 4^th century, Arius, a church leader from the east, launched a campaign to defend God’s oneness. He taught that Jesus was a specially created being, higher than the angels, but not God.

Athanasius and most church leaders, on the other hand, were convinced that Jesus was—as the New Testament eyewitnesses claimed— God in the flesh.

Constantine wanted to settle the dispute, hoping to bring peace to his empire, uniting the east and west divisions. Therefore, in AD 325 he convened more than 300 bishops at Nicaea (now part of Turkey) from throughout the Christian world.

The crucial question is, did the early church think Jesus was the Creator or merely a creation—Son of God or merely son of a carpenter? To answer that question they looked to what the apostles believed and taught. So, what did the apostles teach about Jesus?

From their very first recorded statements, the apostles regarded Jesus as God. About 30 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul wrote the Philippians that Jesus was God in human form (Philippians 2:6-7, NLT). And John, a close eyewitness, confirms Jesus’ divinity in the following passage:

In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he didn’t make. Life itself was in him…So the Word became human and lived here on earth among us (John 1: 1-4, 14, NLT).

This passage from John 1, has been discovered in an ancient manuscript, a copy of the original, carbon-dated at AD 175-225. Earlier fragments from John’s Gospel have also been discovered, proving that Jesus was clearly spoken of as God over a hundred years before Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea (See Appendix page 92, “Did the Apostles Believe Jesus is God?”).

This forensic manuscript evidence contradicts The Da Vinci Code’s claim that Jesus’ deity was a 4^th century invention. But what does history tell us about the Council of Nicaea? Brown asserts in his book, through Teabing, that the majority of bishops at Nicaea overruled Arius’s belief that Jesus was a “mortal prophet” and adopted the doctrine of Jesus’ deity by a “relatively close vote.” True or false?

The historical record reveals that only two of the 318 bishops dissented, one of them being Arius himself. Whereas Arius believed that the Father alone was God, and that Jesus was his supreme creation, the council overwhelmingly concluded that Jesus and the Father were of the same divine essence, condemning Arius as a heretic. The nearly unanimous vote only confirmed what the apostles had taught.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were deemed to be distinct, coexistent, coeternal Persons, but one God. This doctrine of one God in three Persons became known as the Nicene Creed, which is the central core of the Christian Faith and its trinitarian doctrine.

From the first days of the Christian church, Jesus was regarded as far more than a mere man, and most of his followers worshiped him as Lord-the Creator of the universe. So, how could Constantine have invented the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity if the church had regarded Jesus as God for more than 200 years? The Da Vinci Code doesn’t address this question.

Firing On the Canon

The Da Vinci Code also states that Constantine suppressed all documents about Jesus other than those found in our current New Testament canon.

The early church fathers were committed to preserving the writings of the original apostles, eliminating those that were fraudulent or questionable. This preservation of the original New Testament documents (canon) is recognized by the church as authentic eyewitness reports of the apostles.

However, in the book, Brown asserts that the New Testament accounts were altered by Constantine and the bishops to reinvent Jesus. Another key element of The Da Vinci Code conspiracy is that the four New Testament Gospels were cherry-picked from a total of “more than 80 gospels,” most of which were supposedly suppressed by Constantine.⁵ 

There are two central issues here, and we need to address both. The first is whether Constantine altered or biased the selection of the New Testament books. The second is whether he barred documents that should have been included in the Bible.

Regarding the first issue, letters and documents written by 2^nd century church leaders and heretics alike confirm the wide usage of the New Testament books nearly 200 years before Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea.

So, if the New Testament was already widely in use 200 years before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, how could the emperor have invented or altered it? By that time the church was widespread and encompassed millions of believers, all of whom were familiar with and trusted the traditional New Testament accounts.

In his book The Da Vinci Deception, an analysis of The Da Vinci Code, New Testament scholar Dr. Erwin Lutzer sets the record straight about the New Testament’s authenticity,

Constantine did not decide which books would be in the canon; indeed, the topic of the canon did not even come up at the Council of Nicaea. By that time the early church was reading a canon of books it had determined was the Word of God two hundred years earlier.⁶

Although the official canon was still years from being finalized, the New Testament of today was deemed authentic more than two centuries before Nicaea.

Why the Gnostic Gospels Were Excluded

This brings us to our second issue; why were these mysterious Gnostic gospels destroyed and excluded from the New Testament? In Brown’s book, Teabing asserts that the Gnostic writings were eliminated from 50 authorized Bibles commissioned by Constantine at the council. He excitedly tells Neveu:

Because Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history. …

Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.⁷

Are these Gnostic writings the real history of Jesus Christ? Let’s take a deeper look to see if we can separate truth from fiction.

The Gnostic gospels name comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “knowledge.” These people thought they had secret, special knowledge hidden from ordinary people.

The Gnostic writings date from the 2^nd to the 4^th century, at least a hundred years after Christ. Therefore, they couldn’t have been written by eyewitnesses. In comparison, the New Testament writings date from the mid to late 1^st century while eyewitnesses would still have been living.

Of the 52 Gnostic writings, only five are actually listed as gospels. As we shall see, these so-called gospels are markedly different from the New Testament Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

As Christianity spread, the Gnostics mixed some doctrines and elements of Christianity into their beliefs, morphing Gnosticism into a counterfeit Christianity. However, for their system of thought to fit with Christianity, Jesus needed to be reinvented, stripped of both his humanity and his absolute deity.

In The Oxford History of Christianity John McManners wrote of the Gnostics’ mixture of Christian and mythical beliefs.

Gnosticism was (and still is) a theosophy with many ingredients. Occultism and oriental mysticism became fused with astrology and magic. … They collected sayings of Jesus shaped to fit their own interpretation (as in the Gospel of Thomas), and offered their adherents an alternative or rival form of Christianity.⁸

Early Critics

Contrary to Brown’s assertions, it was not Constantine who branded the Gnostic beliefs as heretical; it was the apostles themselves. A mild strain of the philosophy was already growing in the 1^st century just decades after the death of Jesus. The apostles, in their teaching and writings, went to great lengths to condemn these beliefs as being opposed to the truth of Jesus, to whom they were eyewitnesses.

Check out, for example, what the apostle John wrote near the end of the 1^st century:

Who is the great liar? The one who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Such people are antichrists, for they have denied the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22).

Following the apostles’ teaching, the early church leaders unanimously condemned the Gnostics as a cult. Church father Irenaeus, writing 140 years before the Council of Nicaea, confirmed that Gnostics were condemned by the church as heretics. He also rejected their “gospels.” However, referring to the four New Testament Gospels, he said, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.⁹

Christian theologian Origen wrote this in the early 3^rd century, more than a hundred years before Nicaea:

I know a certain gospel which is called “The Gospel according to Thomas” and a “Gospel according to Matthias,” and many others have we read—lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine they possess some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the church has recognized, which is that only four gospels should be accepted.¹⁰

There we have it in the words of a highly regarded early church leader. The Gnostics were recognized as a non-Christian cult well before the Council of Nicaea. But there’s more evidence calling into question claims made in The Da Vinci Code.

Who’s Sexist?

Brown suggests that one of the motives for Constantine’s alleged banning of the Gnostic writings was a desire to suppress women in the church. Ironically, it is the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas that demeans women. It concludes (supposedly quoting Peter) with this eye-popping statement: “Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life.”¹¹

In stark contrast, the Jesus of the biblical Gospels always treated women with dignity and respect. The New Testament writings have been foundational to attempts at raising women’s status. As the apostle Paul writes,

In Christ there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians-you are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28, NLT).

Mystery Authors

When it comes to the Gnostic gospels, just about every book carries the name of a New Testament character: the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Judas, and so on.

But since the Gnostic gospels are dated about 110 to 300 years after Christ, no credible scholar believes any of them could have been written by their namesakes. In James M. Robinson’s comprehensive The Nag Hammadi Library, we learn that the Gnostic gospels were written by “largely unrelated and anonymous authors.”¹² Dr. Darrell L. Bock, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote,

The bulk of this material is a few generations removed from the foundations of the Christian faith, a vital point to remember when assessing the contents.¹³

Biblical scholar Norman Geisler summarizes the case against including the Gnostic writings in the New Testament:

The Gnostic writings were not written by the apostles, but by men in the second century (and later) pretending to use apostolic authority to advance their own teachings. Today we call this fraud and forgery.¹⁴

Mrs. Jesus

The most provocative assertion of the Da Vinci conspiracy is that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a secret marriage, resulting in a child that perpetuated his bloodline. Furthermore, Mary Magdalene’s womb, carrying Jesus’ offspring, is presented in the book as the legendary Holy Grail, a secret closely held by a Catholic organization called the Priory of Sion. Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci were all cited in the book as members of this secret organization.

Romance. Scandal. Intrigue. Great stuff for a conspiracy theory. But is it true? Let’s look at what scholars say.

A Newsweek magazine article, that summarized leading scholars’ opinions, concluded that the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were secretly married has no historical basis.¹⁵ The proposal set forth in The Da Vinci Code is built primarily upon one solitary verse in the Gnostic Gospel of Philip that indicates Jesus and Mary were companions.

In the book, Teabing tries to build a case that the word for companion (koinonos) could mean spouse.¹⁶ But Teabing’s theory is not accepted by scholars.

There is also a single verse in the Gospel of Philip that says Jesus kissed Mary. Greeting friends with a kiss was common in the 1st century and had no sexual connotation. There is no historical document to confirm its theory that Jesus and Mary had a marital relationship. And since the Gospel of Philip is a forged document written 150-220 years after Christ by an unknown author, its statement about Jesus isn’t historically reliable.

The “Secret” Documents

But what about Teabing’s disclosure that “thousands of secret documents” prove that Christianity is a hoax? Could this be true?

If there were such documents, scholars opposed to Christianity would have a field day with them. Fraudulent writings that were rejected by the early church for heretical views are not secret, having been known about for centuries. No surprise there. They have never been considered part of the authentic writings of the apostles.

And if the book’s expert, Teabing, is referring to the apocryphal, or Gnostic Gospels, they are not secret, nor do they disprove Christianity. New Testament scholar Raymond Brown has said of the Gnostic gospels,

We learn not a single verifiable new fact about the historical Jesus’ ministry, and only a few new sayings that might possibly have been his.¹⁷

The historical evidence reveals that Jesus’ followers believed in his deity from the time of the resurrection and early church history. The true church never deviated from the eyewitness accounts recorded in the New Testament. And although conspiracy theories like The Da Vinci Code attack the validity of the New Testament, scholars deem it the most reliable of all ancient writings. As New Testament Historian F. F. Bruce explains,

There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.¹⁸

New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger revealed why the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas was not accepted by the early church:

It is not right to say that the Gospel of Thomas was excluded by some fiat on the part of a council: the right way to put it is, the Gospel of Thomas excluded itself! It did not harmonize with other testimony about Jesus that early Christians accepted as trustworthy.¹⁹

History’s Verdict

So, what are we to conclude regarding the various conspiracy theories about Jesus Christ? Karen King, professor of ecclesiastical history at Harvard, has written several books on the Gnostic gospels, including The Gospel of Mary of Magdala and What Is Gnosticism? King, though a strong advocate of Gnostic teaching, concluded, “These notions about the conspiracy theory … are all marginal ideas that have no historical basis.”²⁰

Despite the lack of historical evidence, conspiracy theories will still sell millions of books and set box office records. Scholars in related fields, some Christians and some with no faith at all, have disputed the claims of The Da Vinci Code. However, the easily swayed will still wonder; Could there be something to it after all?

But if you want to read the true accounts of Jesus Christ, then Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John tell us what the eyewitnesses saw, heard, and wrote.

And what the eyewitnesses wrote about was the most amazing person in the history of our planet: A man who healed the lame, deaf and blind, raised the dead, and defeated death. But the claim he made that led to his rejection and death was the same one that The Da Vinci Code attempts to refute—that God put on humanity to become our Savior.

In the next chapter we will examine the question: Is Jesus God.