The Jesus of History and 'the Bible is Myth'

What you'll learn

Explain why the overwhelming consensus of historians, including sceptics, is that Jesus existed
Cite and explain the key extra-biblical sources: Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny
Refute 'copycat god' claims about Horus and Mithras and defend the Gospels as ancient biography

Mythicism vs the scholarly consensus

Mythicism is the view that Jesus never existed as a historical person and was invented from myths. It is popular online, through films like Zeitgeist (2007) and writers such as Richard Carrier (On the Historicity of Jesus) and Robert M. Price. Your secular friend may have absorbed it from a meme.

In academic history it is a fringe position. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar and a well-known critic of Christianity, wrote Did Jesus Exist? (2012) specifically to rebut mythicism. He concludes that Jesus certainly existed and that virtually every expert in the field agrees. This is powerful: you are not appealing to Christian scholars but to a sceptic.

Most historians also accept that Jesus was baptised by John, gathered disciples, was known as a teacher and healer, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and that his followers soon after sincerely claimed he had appeared to them alive. The debate is not whether Jesus lived, but who he was.

Why is Bart Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist? especially useful when talking with a mythicist?Show answer

Ehrman is an agnostic and a well-known critic of Christianity, yet he wrote the book specifically to rebut mythicism. He concludes Jesus certainly existed and that virtually every expert agrees. So you are not appealing to Christian scholars but to a sceptic, and the real debate becomes not whether Jesus lived but who he was.

Ehrman is an agnostic critic
Rebuts mythicism
Virtually all experts agree
Question is who, not whether

Extra-biblical sources

Within about a century of Jesus, several non-Christian writers mention him. None of them were friendly to Christianity, which makes them valuable.

Tacitus, Roman historian, Annals 15.44 (written about AD 116). Describing Nero blaming Christians for the fire of Rome in AD 64, he says their name came from Christus, who suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate. Tacitus calls Christianity a 'pernicious superstition', so he is no Christian forger.
Josephus, Jewish historian, Antiquities 20.9.1 (about AD 93). He records that the high priest Ananus had 'the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James' stoned. Almost all scholars accept this passage as authentic.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3, the 'Testimonium Flavianum'. This longer passage calls Jesus a wise man who did surprising deeds and was crucified by Pilate. Most scholars think a Christian scribe added some phrases (such as 'he was the Christ'), but that a core original reference to Jesus remains. Be honest about this: do not overclaim.
Pliny the Younger, Roman governor, Letters 10.96 to Emperor Trajan (about AD 112). He describes Christians meeting on a fixed day before dawn and singing a hymn to Christ 'as to a god'. This shows early worship of Jesus as divine, not a later invention.

Which non-Christian sources show that Jesus was known and worshipped early, and why does their hostility make them valuable?Show answer

Tacitus (Annals 15.44, about AD 116) says Christus suffered the extreme penalty under Pontius Pilate in Tiberius's reign, and calls Christianity a 'pernicious superstition'. Pliny the Younger (about AD 112) describes Christians singing a hymn to Christ 'as to a god', showing early worship of Jesus as divine. Because none of these writers was friendly to Christianity, they cannot be dismissed as Christian forgers.

Tacitus: executed under Pilate
Pliny: hymn to Christ as to a god
Hostile, so not forgers

What is the difference between the two Josephus passages, and how should you speak honestly about them?Show answer

Antiquities 20.9.1 mentions 'the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James', and almost all scholars accept it as authentic. The Testimonium Flavianum (18.3.3) is longer, and most scholars think a Christian scribe added some phrases, though a core original reference to Jesus remains. Be honest about the additions and do not overclaim.

20.9.1: James, brother of Jesus
Almost universally accepted
18.3.3 has Christian additions
Authentic core; do not overclaim

The Gospels as ancient biography

Some people treat the Gospels as fairy tales. But genre matters. Richard Burridge, in What Are the Gospels? (first published 1992), compared the Gospels with Greco-Roman biographies (bioi) such as those by Plutarch, Suetonius and Tacitus. He concluded the Gospels belong to the same genre. This view is now widely accepted in New Testament scholarship.

Ancient biographies aimed to present a real person's life, character and teaching. They allowed some freedom in arrangement and wording (as Michael Licona has shown), but they were intended to report history, not myth. The Gospels are also full of verifiable detail: named people, places and rulers, such as Pilate, Caiaphas, Herod Antipas and the pool of Bethesda. Luke explicitly says he investigated eyewitness sources (Luke 1:1-4).

Compare the time gap: the earliest Gospels were written within about forty years of Jesus, and Paul's letters within about twenty. Our earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written centuries after his death, yet historians trust them for the basic facts.

What does it mean that the Gospels are ancient biography (bioi), and why does that matter for the claim that they are fairy tales?Show answer

Richard Burridge showed the Gospels belong to the same genre as Greco-Roman biographies by writers like Plutarch and Suetonius, a view now widely accepted. Ancient biographies allowed some freedom in arrangement and wording but aimed to report a real person's life, not myth. The Gospels are also full of checkable detail, such as Pilate, Caiaphas and the pool of Bethesda, and Luke says he investigated eyewitness sources (Luke 1:1-4).

Same genre as Greco-Roman bioi
Intended to report history
Some freedom in wording
Verifiable detail; Luke 1:1-4

Copycat gods: Horus and Mithras

The claim goes like this: Jesus' story was copied from pagan gods such as Horus or Mithras, who were supposedly born of a virgin on 25 December, had twelve disciples, died and rose after three days. These lists circulate widely but rarely cite primary sources. They trace back to nineteenth-century writers like Gerald Massey and Kersey Graves, and were revived by Zeitgeist.

Horus: in Egyptian myth, Isis conceives Horus after reassembling the body of the murdered Osiris. That is not a virgin birth. There are no twelve disciples, no crucifixion, and no resurrection of Horus in the sources. Mithras: the Roman Mithras cult is attested mainly from the late first century onward, after Christianity began. In its iconography Mithras is born from a rock, not a virgin, and is famous for slaying a bull. There is no evidence he died and rose. The 25 December date is not in the Gospels at all; it became the date of Christmas centuries later.

Teach your friend a method, not just answers: ask 'Which ancient source says that?' Real parallels are general (gods appear in many cultures), and the specific 'matches' fall apart under primary-source checking. Also note that the earliest Christians were Jews who despised pagan idolatry (1 Corinthians 8:4-6); they were the least likely people to borrow from pagan myth.

Which details of the Horus and Mithras 'parallels' fall apart when checked against the sources?Show answer

In Egyptian myth Isis conceives Horus after reassembling the murdered Osiris, which is not a virgin birth, and there are no twelve disciples, crucifixion or resurrection of Horus. Mithras is attested mainly from the late first century onward, is born from a rock and is famous for slaying a bull, with no evidence he died and rose. The 25 December date is not in the Gospels at all.

Horus: not a virgin birth
No disciples, cross or resurrection
Mithras: born from rock, later
25 December not in Gospels

What method should you teach a friend for handling copycat claims, and why were the first Christians unlikely borrowers?Show answer

Teach them to ask, 'Which ancient source says that?' Real parallels are only general, and the specific matches fall apart under primary-source checking; the lists trace back to nineteenth-century writers and Zeitgeist. The earliest Christians were Jews who despised pagan idolatry (1 Corinthians 8:4-6), so they were the least likely people to borrow from pagan myth.

Ask for the ancient source
Specific matches fall apart
Lists from 19th century and Zeitgeist
Jewish Christians despised idolatry

From history to the person

Once your friend accepts that Jesus lived and that the Gospels intend to report his life, the real question becomes unavoidable: what do we do with what he said and did? The minimal facts approach (Gary Habermas and Michael Licona) argues that facts granted by most scholars (Jesus' death by crucifixion, the disciples' belief that he appeared to them, and the conversions of the sceptics Paul and James), together with the empty tomb (strongly supported, though not as universally granted), are best explained by the resurrection. You studied that case in Foundations of Defence, Lesson 4; here it is the natural next step.

End with Jesus himself. As Peter said, 'we did not follow cleverly devised myths' but were eyewitnesses (2 Peter 1:16). The Christian faith stands or falls on history (1 Corinthians 15:14-17). That is not a weakness; it is an invitation to investigate.

A further point: dying-and-rising myths are about seasonal cycles of nature, set in a timeless mythical past. The Gospels are set in a specific time and place, under named rulers ('in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar', Luke 3:1), and centre on a public execution by Rome. That is the opposite of myth's style. C.S. Lewis, a scholar of ancient literature, observed that the Gospels do not read like legends at all.

Summarise the minimal facts approach in your own words.Show answer

Gary Habermas and Michael Licona start from facts granted by most scholars: Jesus' death by crucifixion, the disciples' belief that he appeared to them, and the conversions of the sceptics Paul and James. Adding the empty tomb, which is strongly supported though not as universally granted, they argue these are best explained by the resurrection. Once Jesus' existence is accepted, this is the natural next step.

Facts most scholars grant
Crucifixion, appearances, Paul and James
Empty tomb strongly supported
Best explained by resurrection

How do the Gospels differ in style from dying-and-rising myths? Which text shows this?Show answer

Dying-and-rising myths are about seasonal cycles of nature, set in a timeless mythical past. The Gospels are set in a specific time and place under named rulers, as in Luke 3:1, 'in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar', and centre on a public Roman execution. Peter also insists 'we did not follow cleverly devised myths' but were eyewitnesses (2 Peter 1:16).

Myths: seasonal, timeless past
Gospels: dated, named rulers
Luke 3:1
2 Peter 1:16: eyewitnesses

In their own words

“There is no reliable contemporary evidence that Jesus existed. He is a mythical figure assembled from earlier dying-and-rising god stories.” (Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus (2014); Robert M. Price)

“The story of Jesus was copied from Horus and Mithras, who were born of virgins on 25 December, had twelve disciples, died and rose again.” (Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007); Kersey Graves, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (1875))

“The Gospels were written decades later by anonymous authors who never met Jesus, so they are religious propaganda, not history.” (Common sceptical view; compare Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted (2009))

“The Bible is a collection of Bronze Age myths and legends, no more historical than the Iliad.” (Common New Atheist rhetoric; compare Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great (2007))

Key texts

Luke 1:1-4: Luke states his historical method: investigating eyewitness sources to write an orderly account. Use it to show the Gospels aim at history.
2 Peter 1:16: 'We did not follow cleverly devised myths' but were eyewitnesses. The apostles themselves rejected the myth category.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8: An early creed listing named witnesses to the risen Christ, dated by most scholars to within a few years of the crucifixion.
1 Corinthians 15:14-17: If Christ is not raised, faith is futile. Christianity is falsifiable by history, unlike myth.
John 19:35: The eyewitness 'has borne witness' and 'his testimony is true'. The Gospel presents itself as testimony.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6: Early Jewish Christians rejected pagan gods outright, making borrowing from pagan myth implausible.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“There's no contemporary evidence for Jesus. Nobody wrote about him during his lifetime.”Show a response

That's true of almost everyone in the ancient world except emperors, and even some of them. We have no contemporary writings about many figures whose existence nobody doubts. For Jesus, we have Paul's letters within about twenty years, four biographies within roughly forty to seventy years, and references by hostile non-Christian writers like Josephus and Tacitus within a century. By ancient standards that is excellent evidence. That's why Bart Ehrman, an agnostic who is no friend of Christian belief, wrote a whole book arguing that Jesus certainly existed and that virtually all scholars agree. If you reject Jesus on these grounds, you'd have to reject most of ancient history too.

“Jesus is just a copy of Horus. Virgin birth, 25 December, twelve disciples, resurrection: it's all there.”Show a response

Can I ask which ancient Egyptian source says that? When you check the actual myths, the parallels vanish. Horus is conceived when Isis reassembles the dead Osiris, which is hardly a virgin birth. There are no twelve disciples, no crucifixion and no resurrection of Horus in the sources. The 25 December date isn't even in the Bible; it came centuries later. These lists come from nineteenth-century writers and the Zeitgeist film, not from Egyptologists. And the first Christians were monotheistic Jews who hated pagan religion; they'd be the last people to borrow from it. I'd genuinely encourage you to check the primary sources yourself.

“The Josephus passage about Jesus is a Christian forgery. Everyone knows that.”Show a response

There are actually two passages. The longer one, Antiquities 18.3.3, does show signs of Christian additions, and most scholars agree on that; I'm not going to pretend otherwise. But most also think there was an authentic core mentioning Jesus, a wise man crucified by Pilate. The second passage, Antiquities 20.9.1, mentions 'James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ', and almost all scholars, including sceptical ones, accept it as genuine. It's brief and matter-of-fact, not the kind of thing a Christian forger would write. So even on the most cautious reading, Josephus confirms Jesus was a known historical figure with a brother named James.

“The Gospels are anonymous religious propaganda written by people who never met Jesus.”Show a response

Two things. First, 'anonymous' doesn't mean 'unknown'. The early church consistently attributes the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and there are no rival attributions, which is striking. Second, having a religious purpose doesn't make something unhistorical. Every ancient historian had a purpose. Scholars like Richard Burridge have shown the Gospels match the genre of Greco-Roman biography, which aimed to describe real people. They're packed with checkable detail: rulers, places, customs, place names confirmed by archaeology. Luke tells us he investigated eyewitnesses. You don't have to accept them as Scripture to treat them as serious historical sources, and that's all I'm asking for now.

“Fine, Jesus existed. But he was just a wise Jewish teacher. The idea that he was God was invented much later, probably when Constantine took over the church.”Show a response

I'm glad we agree he existed; almost every historian does. But the evidence for early belief in his deity comes well before Constantine. Around AD 112, the Roman governor Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trajan that Christians met before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ 'as to a god'. That's two centuries before Constantine, from a hostile outsider. Paul's letters, the earliest written within about twenty years of Jesus, already speak of him in divine terms (Philippians 2:5-11). And the Gospels show his enemies understood his claims: he forgave sins and they called it blasphemy (Mark 2:5-12). So the question isn't when the church invented his divinity. It's what we make of a teacher whose earliest followers worshipped him.

“Tacitus wrote eighty years after Jesus. He was probably just repeating what Christians told him, so he's not independent evidence.”Show a response

That's a reasonable question to ask of any ancient source. But notice what Tacitus says and how he says it. He is a Roman historian writing about Nero blaming Christians for the fire of Rome, and he calls Christianity a 'pernicious superstition'. He isn't passing on Christian claims sympathetically; he treats the execution of Christus under Pontius Pilate as a plain fact explaining where the name came from. Even if some of his information ultimately came from Christians, it shows that by AD 116 this was accepted as known history in Rome. And Tacitus doesn't stand alone: Josephus mentions 'James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ', and Pliny describes Christians worshipping him. Several hostile sources agree, alongside Paul and the Gospels. By ancient standards, that's strong.

Written task

Someone posts on social media: 'Jesus never existed. He's just Horus rebranded and there's zero evidence outside the Bible.' Write a 250-350 word reply suitable for a public comment thread. Be accurate, concise and kind, and include at least two extra-biblical sources with correct references, a correction of the Horus claim, and a closing question that invites further conversation.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Cites at least two extra-biblical sources accurately (author, work and reference)
Represents scholarly consensus correctly, ideally noting that sceptical scholars agree
Corrects the Horus claim with specific, accurate details rather than general dismissal
Avoids overclaiming (e.g. is honest about the Testimonium)
Tone suits a public thread: brief, non-combative, ending with an inviting question