In this post, I will address each of Tarico’s five reasons and demonstrate that they fail to make the case.

No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

My first response is, what kind of “secular” evidence would she expect if Jesus existed? I think she meant pagan in her claim as there was no such thing as secular in the ancient world. She cites Ehrman in reference to the lack of birth records or trial transcripts. I would like to ask, what ancient figures do we have those things for? Her post makes it sound like we have tons of pagan reports of what happened in first century Galilee and Judea and somehow Jesus is missing. The Romans were not all that interested in Jewish religious leaders. There is no reason to expect that they would write about it. They only became interested when Christianity began to grow and that is when we see Suentonius, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger.

The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

In this Tarico is referring to the lack of details about Jesus’ earthly life by Paul. The problem here is that Paul did not write any biographies of Jesus. Paul wrote letters to specific churches dealing with specific situations. He only wrote what was needed to address the situation and did not include random Jesus trivia to show how much he knew. Having said that, Paul does show some knowledge of the historical Jesus. This includes his Davidic heritage, certain teachings, the last supper, his betrayal and crucifixion. For more information on Paul and Jesus, see this article I wrote.

Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.

The Gospels do not need to be first-hand reports to be historically valuable. That is not how historiography works. But is there any indication of first-hand witnesses in the New Testament? It seems that that the Beloved Disciple claimed to be a witness and the writer of that testimony. “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:24 ESV) I would also recommend that people look into the work that Richard Bauckham has done on this subject. I will note that Tarico says there are six Pauline letters that are accepted as authentic but it is really seven.

The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.

What are these contradictions? Tarico seems to take it for granted that it is obvious, although she does not mention the Easter stories. Tarico is obviously unaware of how ancients wrote history and biography. There is a certain amount variation among accounts that is acceptable. Compare how Josephus describes the same events in both Antiquities and War. Look at how different Roman writers talk about the emperors. The variations in these accounts are far greater than what we find in the Gospels. Variation in details does not disqualify a text from being historically valuable.

Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

Are there different interpretations of who Jesus was? Definitely. The question is, are there various interpretations of other historical figures as well. Absolutely. History is about taking the historical facts that we have and trying to make sense of how they fit together. If you brought all of the scholars together that she refers to, they would find significant amounts agreement in terms of what Jesus said and did.

Did Jesus exist? Almost every historian and biblical scholar would agree that Jesus is a historical person. The problem with articles such as this is that a different historical method is being used for Jesus than for other ancient figures. This must always be kept in mind.

To read our last article on the historical Jesus, click here.