History’s Troubling Silence About Jesus

Published by Minnesota Atheists on

By Lee Salisbury

How many people have never heard about Jesus of Nazareth? Of course everybody has heard of Jesus. The bible tells us his fame spread throughout the lands of Palestine and Syria. This is the god-man / savior of the world who performed miracles only a God could perform: He turned water into wine; fed thousands with a few pieces of bread and fish; walked on water; stilled the raging storm; healed the blind, the deaf, the infirm, the withered hand and the demon-possessed; and raised the dead. His moral teachings are said to surpass anything ever taught.

Rejected by his own Jewish people, the Romans brutally crucified him. But, that didn’t stop Jesus. At his crucifixion the bible tells us the heavens and earth affirmed his deity, causing a three hour eclipse of the sun over all the earth, an earthquake causing Jerusalem’s temple curtain to be split in two, and graves were opened with many Jewish saints resurrected and appearing to the people in Jerusalem. Within three days, the Son of God, defeated Satan the prince of darkness, rose from the dead, appeared to his disciples, then ascended into heaven. How can anybody not love such a story and want to believe it?

The problem sincere, objective-minded inquirers of history have with this astounding story is why the historical record is virtually silent about the Jesus of Nazareth story in the writings of non-Christian Jewish, Greek, and Roman writers. Certainly news of such events, if true, would have spread throughout the Mediterranean world. Yet, the surviving writings of some 35 to 40 independent observers of the first one hundred years following the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus give virtually no confirmation. These authors were respected, well-traveled, articulate, thinkers and observers, the philosophers, poets, moralists, historians of that era. Some of the most prominent figures who make no mention of Jesus are:


4BCE – 65CE Rome’s most prominent writer on ethics, philosophy, morals, natural scientist who tracked eclipses & quakes; the alleged correspondence between Paul and Seneca was later exposed as fraudulent.

Pliny the Elder

23-79 CE Natural History 37 books on natural events such as earthquakes, eclipse and healing.


39-96CE authored Instituio Oratio 12 books on morals and virtue.


55-135CE, former slave who became a recognized moralist, philosopher and wrote about the “brotherhood of man” and the importance of helping the poor and oppressed.


38-103CE Poet, wrote epic poems about human foibles and the diverse characters of Roman Empire


55 – 127 CE Rome’s most powerful satirical poet, wrote about injustice and tragedy in Roman gov’t


46 – 119 CE Greek, traveled Rome to Alexandria, wrote Moralia on morals and ethics.

1st Century Jewish authors of great significance are:


15 BCE – 50 CE of Alexandria, a Hellenized, Jewish theologian-philosopher, and intimately acquainted with Jerusalem because of family ties. He wrote extensively on the Jewish religion and coming Jewish Messiah years before the epistles and a generation before the gospels were written. Compare Philo’s writings recorded by Origin to John’s Gospel or Paul’s Epistle:

God and His Word are one < > In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God Jn 1:1

The Word is the first-born Son of God < > The Word is the only begotten from the Father Jn 1:14

God created the world thru His Word < > All things came into being through Him Jn 1:3

God holds all things together thru His Word < > In Him all things hold together Col 1:17

God draws people through the Messiah < > The Father…draws him Jn 6:44; I will draw all men to myself Jn 12:32

The Word is the fountain…drink that stream for eternal life < > The water I give…a well of water…eternal life Jn 4:14

The Word dwells in and walks among us/in us < > the Word…and dwelt among us Jn 1:14, Christ lives in me Gal 2:20

The Word is appointed judge < > The Father committed all judgment to the Son Jn 5:22

Without divine grace, immortality is impossible < > By grace you are saved, it is the gift of God Eph 2:8

God sharpened His Word, divider of all things < > The Word of God, sharper .. two-edged sword..divides s/s Heb 4:12

God is a Trinity

Jews who sin will go to hell, Gentiles who come to God will be saved and go to heaven,

God’s Son, the Word procures forgiveness < > In whom we have redemption…even the forgiveness of sin Col 1:14 Is the likeness of Philo’s writings to the bible — coincidence or plagiarism? Yet, Philo, a Jew in nearby Alexandria, whose writings corresponded so closely with Paul’s epistles and the Gospel of John, who was a contemporary of Jesus,never once mentioned anybody namedJesus,nor any miracle working Messiah crucified and resurrected in Jerusalem, nor an eclipse, an earthquake, or graves opening with resurrected Jewish saints walking the streets of Jerusalem. How could Philo have never heard of Jesus? Philo’s total silence about a historical Messiah named Jesus is deafening!

Justus of Tiberius

was a 1st Century Jewish writer. The writings of Justus of Tiberius have been lost, but Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople 878-886 CE wrote Bibleotheca in which he reviewed the writings of Justus of Tiberius. Photius records “of the advent of Christ, of the things that befell him one way or another, or of the miracles that he performed, (Justus) makes absolutely no mention”. Justus’ home was Tiberius in Galilee (Jn 6:23). Justus’ writing preceded Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews 93CE, so it is probable he lived and wrote during or immediately after the alleged era of Jesus, yet remarkably “makes absolutely no mention of him”.


37-103CE a Jerusalem born Pharisee, living in Rome wrote History of the Jews, 79CE and Antiquities of the Jews,93CE. Christian apologists (defenders of the faith) consider Josephus’ Jesus testimony the one sure non-Christian evidence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth. This Jesus Testimony is found in Josephus’, Antiquities of the Jews. Contrary to those Christian apologists, the Jesus testimony is considered by many scholars including the Encyclopedia Britannica’s scholars as an insertion by later Christian copyists. This Jesus testimony states: Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Why is this Jesus testimony considered a later fraudulent insertion?

1. Josephus was a Pharisee. Only a Christian would call Jesus the Christ. Josephus would have had to renounce his pharisaical beliefs to say Jesus was the Christ. Josephus died a pharisee.

2. Josephus writing style is to write chapter upon chapter about the most insignificant people and events. The Jesus testimony consists of four sentences. Why would Josephus’ Christ (the Jewish Messiah) deserve only four sentences?

3. The paragraphs before and after the Jesus testimony describe Romans killing Jews. The paragraph following the Jesus testimony begins “About the same time another sad calamity put the Jews in disorder“. Would “another sad calamity” refer to the appearing of the “doer of wonderful works” or Romans killing Jews? Such a negative statement is clearly out of context. It is indicative of a later insertion.

4. Finally, and most convincing had Josephus actually written the Jesus testimony, church fathers in the following 200 years would surely refer to it in fending off critics of Jesus’ being just another myth. But, not once does Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or Origen ever refer to Josephus’ Jesus testimony. We know Origen read Josephus because Origen’s writings criticize Josephus for attributing the destruction of Jerusalem to the killing of James. The church fathers made no reference to Josephus’ alleged Jesus testimony because it was not in Josephus’ writing.

Not only does the Jesus Testimony appear fraudulent, but Josephus’ historical accounts both contradict and omit other New Testament bible stories:

1. According to the bible John the Baptist was killed about 30 CE at the beginning of Jesus ministry. In Josephus, John the Baptist is killed by Herod when Herod is at war with King Aertus of Arabia in 34 – 37 CE.

2. Josephus makes no reference to: the celebration of Pentecost in Jerusalem when allegedly devote Jews of every nation gathered and all received the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in new tongues; a Jewish fisherman Peter who is head apostle of the new church; a fellow pharisee named Saul of Tarsus who becomes the apostle Paul, or of the church’s alleged explosive growth throughout Palestine, Alexandria, Greece, or Josephus’ city of residence Rome. Peter and Paul’s alleged martyrdoms in Rome about 60 CE is unknown to Josephus. It bears noting that Christian apologists so determined to rely on the veracity of Josephus’ Jesus testimony excuse his later oversights. Is it probable, as the Encyclopedia Britannica asserts that Christian copyists distorted truth by inserting the Jesus testimony? Eusebius (265-339 CE), acknowledged as “Father of Church History” was the Emperor Constantine’s overseer of doctrine. Eusebius’ states in his Evangelical Demonstration, “Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness.” (Book III., p.124) Eusebius’ concern for historical truth is demonstrated in his The Preparation of the Gospel published by Baker House (a Christian publisher) on page 619 “it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such treatment”. Eusebius, one of the most influential Christians in church history, condoned fraud as a tool to promote Christianity! The probability of Constantine’s Christianity being a product of fraud is directly related to the desperate need of evidence to support a historical Jesus. Without Josephus’ alleged “Jesus Testimony” there is no first century non-Christian confirmation of a historical Jesus, a devastating blow to the historicity of the Jesus story.

Early 2nd Century Non-Christian Roman writers with references to a Christ, Chrestos or Christians are:

Pliny the Younger

61-113CE Governor of Bithynia In a letter in 112CE asking Emperor Trajan about prosecuting Christians who “met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as to a god.” Some eighty years after Calvary, somebody was worshiping a Christ (Hebrew equivalent for Messiah)! But, nothing is said as to whether this Christ was Jesus, a teacher and miracle working man who was crucified and resurrected in Judea or just another of the many mythic Christ’s of pagan mystery religions. Even Jesus allegedly said there would be many false Christs, so Pliny’s statement lends little if any credence for Jesus of Nazareth historicity.


69 – 122 CE Lives of the Emperors , a history of 11 emperors; writing in 120 about Emperor Claudius 41-54CE who “expelled from Rome the Jews who under the influence of Chrestus, did not cease to cause unrest.” Who is Chrestus? No mention of Jesus. Is this Chrestus a Jewish agitator, one of many false Messiah’s or a mythic Christ? This statement proves nothing for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.


56 -120 CE noted Roman historian, in his Annuals 14-68 CE Book 15, chapter 44 written about 115CE gives the first non-Christian reference to Christ as a man executed in Judea by Pontius Pilate. The pagan Tacitus states “Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate.” Scholars point out several reasons to suspect this statement was not from Tacitus or any Roman records, but instead a later insertion in Tacitus’ Annuals. #1. Pilate is referred to as “procurator” which is appropriate in Tacitus’ day, but in Pilate’s day the correct title was “prefect”. #2. If Tacitus obtained his information from Roman records, the records would have referred to a Jesus son of Joseph or Jesus of Nazareth, not Christ. The word Christ is a title not a name and strongly suggests the Tacitus quote was a later insertion based on Christian tradition. #3 If Tacitus’s comment was written in the early 2nd Century, why didn’t later church fathers who all sought to find proofs for Jesus historicity such as Tertullian, Clement, Origen, even Eusebius (Father of Church History) once quote Tacitus? #4 Tacitus is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the 15th Century. This quotations inaccuracy and lack of use strongly suggest it is a later insertion by an anxious apologist.

The clear and indisputable fact is 80 to 100 years is a suspiciously long time after alleged events of such magnitude for such minimal credible written recognition . Further, the brevity and scarceness of substantive fact in these three writings relative to the claim that this was about a miracle working Jewish Messiah named Jesus who was God in human flesh, crucified, and resurrected clearly calls into question the credibility of these writings.

Rabbinic literature

This would logically be the one final inquiry for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible’s New Testament alleges Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish prophesy for the Messiah, having been crucified on Passover Day. On that day allegedly Jerusalem had an earthquake, its temple veil was split in two, there was an eclipse of the sun, Jesus is resurrected, even resurrected Jewish saints walked the streets of Jerusalem. A few days later on the Day of Pentecost Jews gathered from every nation to witness the Holy Ghost descending with tongues of fire, and the Christian church growth exploded with both Jewish and Gentile converts, signs and miracles being unleashed in abundance. In 70 CE Jerusalem is besieged by the Roman army and Israel as a nation is destroyed and dispersed. Regardless of Rabbinic rejection of Jesus as Messiah, the historical impact of events surrounding Jesus would logically be noted in Israel’s Talmudic commentaries known as the Midrash. Jewish oral traditions and history recorded in the Midrash were updated and given final form by Rabbi Jehudah ha-Qadosh around 220 CE. Quoting Frank Zindler’s The Jesus The Jews Never Knew ” Remarkably, not a single early rabbinic source so much as hints at the events of a 1st Century false Messiah, of the events alleged surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, or for that matter of anyone identifiable with the Jesus of Christianity.”

The Holy Land’s historic landmarks do not confirm the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

  Local monks, priests, and tour guides pointing Christian pilgrims (donations accepted) to the locations of events described in the Bible can hardly be considered as objective. Again paraphrasing portions of Zindler, Unbiased confirmation of these locations is severely lacking. Nazareth is not mentioned once in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Talmud mentions 63 Galilean towns, yet never mentions Nazareth. Josephus mentions 45 Galilean towns or villages, yet never once mentions Nazareth. Josephus does mention a Japha which is a suburb of present-day Nazareth. Lk 4:28-30 describes Nazareth having a synagogue and a “brow of a hill whereon their city was built” presumably steep enough to kill Jesus had they succeeded in throwing him over it. But, present-day Nazareth occupies a valley floor and the lower half of a hillside. There is no steep hill. Further, present-day Nazareth has no 1st Century synagogue ruins. Origen 182-254 CE who lived in Caesarea 30 miles from present-day Nazareth does not mention Nazareth. The first solid reference to Nazareth comes from Eusebius in the 4thNazareth did not come into existence until the 2nd Century. This historic evidence strongly suggests why no 1st Century non-Christian Roman, Greek, Jewish historian, or Rabbinic literature mentions a Jesus of Nazareth, i.e. there was no 1st Century Nazareth. Century. The best archaeological guest-i-mates are that

Time and space do not allow for discussion of other significant New Testament towns. The historical and archaeological evidence for 1st Century Capernaum (mentioned 16 times in the New Testament), Bethany, Bethpage, Bethabara, and Calvary, like Nazareth is equally unconvincing or even counter-indicative.

The mark of an objective, critical thinking mind is to seek contemporaneous independent confirmation of alleged facts. When the only available evidence of an event or product is, not only suspiciously questionable, but is what the event or product’s promoters want you to believe then “Buyer Beware”. The facts are that non-Christian Jewish, Greek, and Roman writers of the decades following the alleged events of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection are silent about any person named Jesus of Nazareth. Though the fair-minded critical thinker is always willing to consider further evidence, today 2,000 years later, Christianity has no more objective, contemporaneous unbiased evidence for the historicity of Jesus then for Zeus, Krishna, Dionysis, Horus, Mithra or any of the other mythical savior-gods of history.

Copyright 2004






JOSEPHUS COMPLETE WORKS translated by William Whiston, Ph.D.

THE JESUS PUZZLE by Earl Doherty

THE JESUS MYSTERIES by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy Was Jesus a myth historicized?

Lord Raglan studied all the myths and legends that influenced western civilization in his 1936 book entitled The Hero. His basic premise is that the mythical hero’s life involved specific acts of ritual drama in which the hero played specific roles. A quasi-boiler-plate plot always determined the character’s role. Eventually, myths of priest-kings outlived the ritual and became many myths and folktales from which we derive many legendary heroes such as Hercules, or Moses, or Robin Hood. http://www.tam-lin.org/abby/raglan.html

Today’s Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter continued this archetypal tradition of mythical characters. They affirm inherited patterns of thought derived from past collective experiences of humanity. Freud believed these archetypes to be present in our subconscious psyches. Thus, their popularity, as well as opposition from adherents of competing myths, continues today.

Raglan concludes there are at least twenty-two standard archetypal characteristics of this duplicated singular myth. The closer the legendary character fits these characteristics the less likely the hero is a historical personage. Historical persons dramatically differ from Raglan’s twenty-two characteristics which are as follows: 1. He is born of a virgin mother. 2. His father is a King. 3. The father has a unique relationship with the mother. 4. The circumstances of the child’s conception are unusual, often humble. 5. He is reputed to be the son of a god. 6. There is an attempt to kill the child/god shortly after birth. 7. He is spirited away, escaping a premature death. 8. The child is raised by foster parents in a far country. 9. We are told virtually nothing of his childhood years. 10. On reaching manhood, usually at age 30, he commences his mission in life. 11. He successfully overcomes the most severe trials and tests. 12. He marries a princess. 13. He is acknowledged as a king. 14. He rules. 15. He prescribes laws. 16. He loses favor with the Gods or his subjects. 17. He is forcibly driven from authority. 18. He meets with a violent death. 19. His death occurs on the top of a hill. 20. His children, if any, do not succeed him. 21. His body is not buried conventionally. 22. He has one or more holy resting places.

Lord Ragan counted the archetypal event of our most revered heroes. Alexander the Great received the most points for a historical personage, seven. Here is how some people you might have heard of scored.

Oedipus scores 21

Theseus scores 20 Moses scores 20

Dionysus scores 19 Jesus scores 19

Romulus scores 18

Perseus scores 18

Hercules scores 17

Llew Llaw Gyffes scores 17

Jason scores 15 Robin Hood scores 13

Pelops scores 13

Apollo scores 11

Following is Lord Raglan’s analysis of how to determine a historical versus a mythical character:

A score of six or less makes one a historical figure. This is not definite proof that the person existed, since most cartoon characters score low too.

A score of more than seven clearly indicates the hero does not represent a historical account. This does not mean that the hero is totally fictitious. Rather it indicates that many aspects of the hero’s life have been replaced by archetypal fiction. The fact of Moses and Jesus’ high mythical archetypal scores demands that they are mythical, not historical. Are the Church Fathers Reliable Conduits Of Truth ? Bishop Eusebius, (Father of Church History) “in one of the most learned and elaborate works that antiquity has left us, of his Evangelical Preparation, Ch 32, Bk 12 bears for its title this scandalous proposition: ‘How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived’”

St. John Chrysostom, the “’Golden Mouthed,” in his work ‘On the Priesthood,’ has a curious panegyric on the clerical habit of telling lies—”Great is the force of deceit! provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention.”’

Cardinal Newman thus apologetically spoke: “The Greek Fathers thought that, when there was a justa causa, an untruth need not be a lie. … Now, as to the just cause, … the Greek Fathers make them such as these self-defense, charity, zeal for God’s honor, and the like.” (Newman, Apology for His Life, Appendix G, p. 345-6.)

The Great Latin Father St. Jerome (340-420) “To confute the opposer, now this argument is adduced and now that. One argues as one pleases, saying one thing while one means another. … Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris write at great length against Celsus and Porphyry…. Sometimes, it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is needful…….Of the Apostle Paul, St. Jerome says, “We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory,….. the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy— justifying the means by the result.”

Of Eusebius and the others St. Jerome says, that they “presume at the price of their soul to assert dogmatically whatever first comes into their head.” (Jerome, Epist. li, 7; id. p. 88). “There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation.” (Epist. lii, 8; p. 93)

“This toleration of evil [sic; i.e.:—the free discussion of Church doctrines and documents]—bore one good consequence: it allowed historical criticism to begin fair. There was need for a revision which is not yet complete, ranging over all that has been handed down from the Middle Ages under the style and title of the Fathers, the Councils, the Roman and other official, archives. In all these departments forgery and interpolations as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a great scale.” (Catholic Encyclopedia xii, 768)

“Many spurious books were forged in the earliest times of the Church, in the name of Christ and his apostles, which passed upon all the Fathers as genuine and divine through several successive ages.” (Middleton, Free Inquiry, Int. Disc. p. xcii; London, 1749.)

In his very notable History of Rationalism speaking of that Christian “epoch when faith and facts did not cultivate an acquaintance,” the same author, Lecky, thus describes the state of intellectual and moral obliquity into which the Church had forced even the ablest classes of society:   “During that gloomy period the only scholars in Europe were priest and monks, who conscientiously believed that no amount of falsehood was reprehensible which conduced to the edification of the people. … All their writings, and more especially their histories, became tissues of the wildest fables, so grotesque and at the same time so audacious, that they were the wonder of succeeding ages, And the very men who scattered these fictions broadcast over Christendom, taught at the same time that credulity was a virtue and skepticism a crime.” (Lecky, Hist. of Rationalism, i, 896.)

In the same work last quoted, Lecky again, speaking of what he terms “the pious frauds of theologians,” which, he shows were “systematized and raised to the dignity of a regular doctrine,” says of the pious Fathers: “The Fathers laid down as a distinct proposition that pious frauds were justifiable and even laudable, and if they had not laid this down they would nevertheless have practiced them as a necessary consequence of their doctrine of exclusive salvation. Immediately all ecclesiastical literature became tainted with a spirit of the most unblushing mendacity. Heathenism was to be combated, and therefore prophecies of Christ by Orpheus and the Sibyls— were forged, lying wonders were multiplied. … Heretics were to be convinced, and therefore interpolations of old writings or complete forgeries were habitually opposed to the forged Gospels. … The tendency … triumphed wherever the supreme importance of dogmas was held. Generation after generation it became more universal; it continued till the very sense of truth and the very love of truth seemed blotted out from the minds of men.” (Lecky, Rationalism in Europe, i, 396-7.)

Categories: Articles

Minnesota Atheists

Positive Atheism in Action Since 1991