Can we be sure about the historical authenticity of Jesus?

If Jesus was simply an imaginary figure, why are the four Evangelists sometimes so conflicting from one text to another? Should they have not given Jesus more of a consistent image, the same portrait so to speak, where the main concern was to avoid raising any suspicion?

If this Jesus had been invented to play the role of the saviour that Israel had been waiting for, why was he not portrayed as the hero of the end of time (there are several examples in the Bible)? Why make him a victim? Why doom his mission to failure?

If Jesus was to symbolise a radical reformer of Judaism, or even the creator of a new religion, why would the four Evangelists try so hard to fix his place in Judaism, and above all why would they endeavour to have him called the "King of the Jews" by his judges and executioners?

If Jesus were merely a work of fiction, an heroic character whose aim was to one day convert the mighty Roman Empire, why have him die on the cross, a form of execution that immediately pointed the finger of blame at the Romans? Why so many complications and contortions? Why so much perversity?

From the point of view of those who had to write the story of Jesus, these are precisely all the difficulties to overcome that plead in favour of the historical authenticity, especially the reminder of the crucifixion, a horrible and loathsome form of torture. Paradoxically, it is due to the fact that the Christian texts kept a trace of such embarrassing happenings that the very authenticity of Jesus, contrary to what the rationalists claim, is difficult to challenge - even though there is no positive proof. Let us not forget that the opponents of Christianity in the first few centuries, whether Jewish or pagan, never raised any questions about the existence of Jesus. They fought the doctrine of his disciples, who saw in him the Christ, the Messiah, even God incarnated, but they never contested the actual reality of his having existed.

Five different theories on the existence of Jesus

1) The traditionalist theory: for the conservative fringe group of Catholics and the fundamentalists, all that is recorded in the Gospels is absolutely authentic. These accounts are perfect historical documents, written by direct witnesses inspired by the Holy Ghost. Any discrepancies contained are only on the surface. This theory today is making a strong comeback, through publications with scientific pretensions from Christian researchers, such as Thiede.

2) The secularist theory: the Jesus depicted in the Gospels closely resembles the Jesus that existed in the 1st century AD, but certain more or less legendary details have been added (virginal birth, certain parables, the miracles, etc. - according to the authors' perspective, the Resurrection is or is not part of these details). This is the predominant theory today (Stanton, Duquesne,...) and is detailed as such in textbooks.

3) The cryptic theory: Jesus existed, but he was not at all the man represented by the Evangelists. According to the interpretations, he was a revolutionary, a millenarian Jew, a cutthroat, zealot, and so on. Such a point of view was shared by the ex-abbot Turmel, Eisler, Rougier, etc.

4) The minimalist theory: Jesus existed, but he cannot be depicted with such certainty nor his accomplishments described as they were, because the myth has completely overtaken the person. This is the option chosen by Loisy and Guignebert.

5) The mythicist's theory: Jesus did not exist. There are no convincing documents to prove his existence. The various interpretations given by the historicists add to the conjectures and merely complicate the problem. Several clues would suggest that Jesus is merely a myth, just like Mithra and Apollo, and is the result of a late theological elaboration. This trend has been dominated by the works of Couchoud, Alfaric, Las Vergnas, Fau and Ory.

The last three theories share the idea that the Gospels were written late and that their authors distorted the story. Their only point of divergence is the fact that some suggest Jesus is a deified man, whereas the others say that he is a humanised god.

The latest (false) proof of the existence of Jesus.

The real drama with Christianity is that 2 000 years on, Christians are still feverishly waiting to come across proof of Jesus' existence. The recent alert that heartened some believers turned out to be yet another hoax that will be added to the Church's long list of lies and fabrications.

In October 2002, André Lemaire, Dean of the EPHE College of Higher Education in France, made a sensational announcement of the discovery of inscriptions on a Jerusalem ossuary. The bone container apparently bore proof of the existence of Jesus in the form of an Aramean inscription: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". Therefore, the ossuary was to have contained the remains of Jesus' brother. Although some were ecstatic about the news, others (namely the Catholic hierarchy) were less than happy, since the existence of a brother of Jesus destroyed the dogma of Mary's virginity.

The solution came through on 18 June 2003 after tests were performed on the ossuary by the Israeli Department of Antiquities: the ossuary was authentic, but the inscriptions had been made recently, obviously with the aim of giving the object some religious connotation. It was therefore a hoax and the owner of the ossuary was suspected of being in on the whole affair. News of the hoax led to a sharp drop in the object's value - from a million dollars to... nothing. Finally on 21 July 2003, the owner of the object, who also happened to be an antique dealer, was arrested by the Israeli police. Odad Golan was accused of masterminding the hoax. Instruments used to perform this sort of fake, as well as various fakes in the process, were found at his home in Tel Aviv.

When was Jesus born?

Although Jesus was born to Mary, who apparently had remained a virgin and had been impregnated by the Holy Spirit, the authors of the Gospels saw fit to specify her relationship with Joseph, the carpenter. However, opinions are divided as to Joseph's father: Matthew and John confirm that it was Jacob, whereas Luke claims that his name was Heli. As for Mark, he does not make any mention of it. Matthew and Luke are quick to reproduce the full family tree as far as King David... but with a different number of generations: 27 according to Matthew and 42 according to Luke.
If we are to believe Matthew, Jesus was born in Herod's time, who reigned until -4. Luke is more specific on the subject by mentioning the census of the Roman Empire while Quirinus was governor of Syria. This places the birth in the year 6, some 9 years later. Luke gives two indications of Jesus' age (2:42 and 3:23), which means that in the 15th year of Tiberius' reign (in 29), Jesus was aged between 12 and 30, which corresponds to his being born between -2 and -17. The star that guided the Three Wise Men is no help in determining the year of birth, because it is more likely some form of mystical delirium than a real astronomical event.

Where was Jesus born?

The Evangelist Mark would lead us to believe that Jesus was born in Nazareth, in Galilee, but Matthew and Luke place him in Bethlehem, in Judea.

Nazareth theory: is Jesus not called the "Nazarene"? But the adjective Nazarene, which is meant to signify a "man from the village of Nazareth", stems from a mistranslation by compilers involved at a later stage in the works. "Of Nazareth" or "Nazarethan" translates into Greek as Nazarethenos, Nazarethanos or Nazarethaios, and not Nazarenos, Nazoraios or even Nazarenos, as can be found in the Gospels. If there were a mistranslation, then it would be exceptional. The "Nazarene" is definitely more closely related to the Hebrew nazir, which means "the holy one" or "the hallowed one". It is aggravating for Nazareth, as no author from the 1st century, including the Jews, mentions the name of the town. It only appears in texts at the end of the 2nd century.

Bethlehem theory: so Jesus was born in Bethlehem, was he? It is not as simple as that. Once again, it is tempting to wonder if the authors, in accordance with their traditions, did not look directly for the answer to their question in the prophetic texts. Micah has the information that the Saviour will be born in Bethlehem ("But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel"). Let us not forget that the town in question is the one in which David was to have received the royal unction - a rich symbol. We know that pagans on the outskirts of Bethlehem were already celebrating the birth of the God of cereals, Tammuz (Adonis). Like Hermes, Dionysos, Mithra and Zeus, the Phoenician god was born in a cave - another symbol, of Mother Earth, the universal womb - furthermore, that is also how we represent the nativity scene, popularised in the 13th century by St Francis of Assisi, to which the tradition added the ox and the donkey to confirm a prophecy of Isaiah neglected by the Evangelists. The first Christian communities therefore invested this site with the desire to take over a holy place.

Not only is it impossible to decide in favour of either theory, but both appear just as unlikely. A mistranslation, an outlandish myth tagged onto Jesus' life, justification of ancient prophecies after the fact: just some of the signs that raise our suspicions.