RedHanded - ShortHand: Did Jesus Exist?

Episode Date: March 31, 2026

Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah, Emmanuel, King of Kings, and probably the most widely recognisable figure in human history. So why do so many people believe in the ultimate sacrilege: that he never even existed?We take a look through all the evidence we have of a historical Jesus, bridge the gap between circumstance and scripture, and go on a journey to find the Gospel truth. This is the ShortHand.--Patreon - Ad-free & Bonus EpisodesYouTube - Full-length Video EpisodesTikTok / Instagram

You're better internet? Cox internet, of 300 megas, has the velocities rapid and confiables that you're doing, perfect for streaming and gaming and to work from only $45 dollars

when you're going to addergues mobile. Incluja equipment of Wi-Fi and guarantee of price of two years in your plan. No, you know, Cepter,

Cogh, RectualsMobile, Gigonlimited, guarantee of pressure, no, including, impuces, and cars, velocity of data

mobile, is reduced after 20 gigas a month. Hello. Hello. Welcome, my brothers and sisters, in Christ. We are here today to talk to you about Jesus.

Knock, knock. Ding dong. Have you heard of Jesus? The Messiah, the Lamb of God, Emmanuel, Saviour, King of Kings. One of the most recognisable faces and well-known figures in human history. Perhaps the number one. This man is so widely celebrated. In fact, there are more than two and a half billion Christians

that ground their life's beliefs in his teachings. And for those billions, it could not be more important that God sent his only son to earth to suffer on the cross, die for our sins, and in doing so, give the rest of us eternal life. In recent years, some Christians have started to accept that some parts of Jesus' life, as told in the Bible, are probably not totally true. And that's when you don't include the Gospels that were left out where he kills dragons.

Oh, fun. Yeah, that's why we don't know anything about his life until he's 33, is because he was just like bopping around. Killing dragons. Killing dragons. Oh. But in the past few centuries, a growing movement has gone through the history books and taken it one step further.

And their conclusion is the ultimate sacrilege. Not only that Jesus didn't perform miracles, not only that he wasn't the son of God. They say that he never even existed. A recent survey by the Church of England revealed that 40% of adults in England didn't believe that Jesus was a real historical figure. So what evidence is there of the most famous man of all time? Was he a random, a random, itinerant preacher in Galilee, who's followed, has got so carried away with his magic tricks that they've started a whole thing. Or was he just a figment of his supporters imagination, a symbol cooked up decades later to legitimise

a growing religious sect? It's time to get to the gospel truth. This is the short hand. The first very, very important thing to point out here is that no one knows for sure. Good ass covering, getting it in early, managing some expectations. History is always guesswork. For any historical event from Egyptian death rights to the Great Fire of London, you're gathering all the evidence you can to build the most likely picture of what happened. Anyone who was actually there is obviously long dead. No, long dead when the gospels were written as well. You're relying on a patchwork of fragments of mostly very biased accounts.

And there's no real way to definitively tell fact from fiction. In fact, the vast majority of human history is totally undocumented. entire civilizations have risen and fallen and left absolutely no trace at all. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, just ask Graham Hancock. And then with Jesus, we have to be even more specific. Because today, we're not really asking whether a miracle working, water, walking, 5,000 feeding, temple sacking, fig tree, zapping, son of God, really walked the earth and died for our sins. The question is, is there reliable evidence that a man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in Palestine about 2,000 years ago, preached about Galilee, and drew a loyal following for his teachings? Some would say a big, fat no. First and foremost, his name was never Jesus. His name was Yeshua Bar Joseph, and he was a carpenter if he existed at all.

Anyway, for my money, I will be amazed if I am convinced otherwise. I think that Yeshua Bar Joseph probably existed. I would even buy that he was crucified by the Romans. The end. Done. We'll see you next week. Anyway, right, the movement to prove that Jesus was a fraud started in the 19th century. And they organised their argument around three main positions.

The first position being that you can. cannot trust the New Testament. Using the Bible as any kind of actual historical evidence is bonkers and anti-academic. It's like using Netflix to prove the existence of Squid Game. The second position is that Jesus is barely mentioned anywhere. There are no non-Christian references to Jesus until decades after he supposedly died. There are zero eyewitness accounts, despite there being a lot of people writing stuff down at the time, and historians like Seneca the Elder and the Younger wrote all sorts of stuff about first century Judea

without mentioning Jesus of Nazareth at all not once. And then the third position is that even those texts that do mention Jesus later on don't have much in them in the way of evidence and are far too dependent on Christian sources to be reliable. So let's take a look at what they are talking about. Well, as far as physical archaeological proof, well, there's not much. Artifacts like the Shroud of Turin, or any of the hundreds of cups claimed to be the Holy Grail,

aren't taken particularly seriously by historians. So the best bet is hitting the books, looking at any mentions from Christian, Jewish, and Roman writers from around that time. And the first place to look is the place where the vast majority of our information about Jesus' life comes from. The Bible. Okay, yes, we know. The Bible was written by believers at least 20 years after Jesus's death. And they had a big theological narrative to push. So we take the details with a big pillar of salt. But it's not nothing, and we'll explain why. The very earliest writing to mention Jesus at all was the epistles of St. Paul, believed to have been written about 20 years after Jesus died, about 50 CE. The epistles do mention Jesus more than 200 times.

And Paul doesn't hold back calling Jesus the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation, in him, all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell. And the epistles are big on big reverend statements like that, but thin on details. Barely anything about Jesus' life, his stories, or his sayings. There are no parables, no miracles, and no origin story. But Paul does mention meeting several people who knew Jesus personally, including Jesus's brother, James. And if you didn't know that Jesus has siblings, now you do. Let's move on to the Gospels.

These are the main accounts of Jesus' life in the Bible. Everything from the virgin birth in a manger, through the wayward teen years, not really that much of them, miracles, prophecies, and then the execution on the cross to save humanity at 33. The Gospels are Christian books for Christians, but there is a reason that most historians these days still take them as important sources in the argument that Jesus did actually exist. And that's mainly because they sound like they were written then. Events that happen in and around the stories in the Gospels accurately match up

with other accounts of going on in Palestine at the time, and that is a big tick for historians. Another big pillar of the Jesus definitely existed camp is actually one we're not totally sold on. Pretty much every historian who argues for the existence of Jesus says a version of this same argument. They say that if Christians were to invent a mythical hero story to center their entire new religion around,

why make it so embarrassing? I'll explain. Early Christians were not exactly popular in the first few centuries, especially with those Romans. And here on the face of it, was their elevator pitch for why everyone should join their holy ranks? So, say historians, why include stories of Jesus's failure to perform some miracles, or why he got some prophecies wrong?

Why include his moments of bitterness and doubt? Why include fallible apostles who undermine each other for a shot at a higher position in the afterlife, and then flee right after Jesus' arrest? Why would they have their golden boy, son of God, highest of the high, left to die like a criminal and picked at by birds. Honorable deaths were, after all, a pretty big deal at the time. So many reasons. Am I going to edge myself or am I going to blow my load now?

I'll edge. So, embarrassing as that all may seem. It is demonstrably a great story that had been told several times before by lots of other religious sects. it is the most widely shared story of all time. So it's not impossible to imagine that Christians made their Messiah human on purpose. It's actually the whole point. You can have an infallible God. They already do. He's up there.

The whole point of Jesus being literally the son of man is that he's fallible just like you and me. And his apostles are fallible just like you and me. it's this connection between us and the Almighty. Like, I am the vine, you are the branches. Like, it's to bring him down to our level. So there is a perfectly good reason for making Jesus imperfect. That's why he's there. Yeah, and I also feel like for the crucifixion to be in any way emotional,

to be in any way powerful, he has to be akin to man. Otherwise, if it's just a God getting crucified, then who cares? It's like he could just be like, I can't feel anything. Do you know what I mean? It's like it has to be. He has to be of us as well as the divine for him to matter. And everybody doubts their faith. So that it's actually a very sophisticated way to write a narrative.

It would be so easy to be like, he's the perfect man. He can't do anything wrong and he's super divine. And like everything he says is like perfectly true and correct all of the time. It is a far more sophisticated story to tell it in this way. Quite. And I think, yeah, that's why it's, it's. Whether you believe it or not, it's why it's so enduring. But apparently, that is not the take that most historians take.

The argument seems to be that from the Bible, there is good enough-ish historical context for the existence of Jesus, and he's an unlikely hero who doesn't sound perfect enough to be made up. But even if we did align with that argument, it's not enough on its own. What we really need is evidence from people who had no vested interest in spreading the story of Christ, and there are a few of them. The first non-Christian to mention Jesus is Flavius Josephus. He was a Jewish historian writing just after 90 AD.

He'd actually been a pretty high-ranking general on the side of the Jews, in a big bloody war against the Romans. But when the Jews were forced to surrender, Josephus had a trick up his sleeve. When he came before the head of the Roman forces, he made a prophecy. And what do you know? That Roman general was destined to become the Emperor of Rome. Liking this new prophecy very much, the general spared Josephus' life. The point is, by the time Josephus became a historian of the Roman Empire,

he had two motivations, trying to stay in favor with the Romans, and trying to explain and defend the Jewish people to a Roman audience that was already bitterly prejudice against them. For both reasons, Josephus really had nothing to gain by playing the Jesus story. So, what did he actually have to say? Well, in all of his writings, he mentions Jesus but twice, and it's quite nice about him, having said that.

We know that one mention was later tinkered with and juzed up by early Christian scholars to make Jesus more glitzy and powerful, but historians mostly think it has some validity still. The Corbett, believed to have been written by Josephus, goes like this. About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of startling deeds and was a preacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks.

Due to an accusation made by the leading men among the Jews, Pilate had condemned him to be crucified, and those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for. him. Part of the reason historians think this first mention is a legitimate one is because the second reference is actually very run-of-the-mill. It refers back to Jesus in a way that suggests he'd been mentioned before, and doesn't really add that much, just mentioning James, the brother of Jesus, Jesus, the so-called Christ. The other big important reference to JC comes from Tacitus. Publius, Cornelius Tacitus was a pretty high-ranking politician and writer, who

is today regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians. Writing in about 116 AD, he calls Christianity a mischievous superstition and an abomination. He also details some pretty gruesome punishments on Christians over the years, saying mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumined. when daylight had expired. So Tacitus and his fellow Romans were not big fans of Christianity, but he does say that Christians got their name from Christus,

who was executed at the hands of Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. And that matches up with the story in the Gospels. Pilot was the Roman prefect in charge of Judea at the time. Jesus is said to have died, and Tiberius was also the Roman Emperor at that same time. But Christ wasn't his surname. Christ means the anointed one. It's not even like of Nazareth.

It's a completely different word. But there they are, two big mentions, Josephus and Tacitus. There are more scattered ones. The Stoic philosopher Mara Bar Serapion believed to be writing about 80 to 90 AD asks the question, What did the Jews have to gain from executing their wise king? which is widely believed to refer to Jesus, the king of the Jews. I'll tell you.

There is so much in the Old Testament, which is shared by Judaism and also Islam, of this being willing to sacrifice your son to God. Like Isaac and the goat up the Mount, like, you know, it happens many times in the Old Testament where followers of this Judeo-Christian God are expected to prove their loyalty by murdering their soul. sons. It happens over and over again. So I don't think I'm like, well, why would they kill it? Like, it's all the way through the book, all the way through. Well, even if you didn't know anything

about these religions and you just had that put to you as a concept, the concept in and of itself just speaks to what you said, the ultimate sacrifice, right? At that time, killing your own firstborn son. Like, yeah. Well, it doesn't feel like a bizarre concept that somebody pulled out of nowhere. No, sacrifice is very pagan and everyone was pagan. Yeah. And what do you think everyone was doing before there was Judaism, Christianity and Islam and everything else? Spoilers, we're still doing it. Child sacrifice.

Anyway, then we've got Pliny, a high-ranking Roman who served as a governor in Turkey. He had no love for the Christians either, criticizing them for their pig-headed obstinacy. But he still notes that Christians were shepherds. shipped their Christ as a God. And then there were the writings of early Jewish rabbis who referred to Jesus as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. And all of these mentions were just a few decades in after Jesus supposedly died. And I suppose you could argue especially for the Roman scholars like Pliny.

If they, decades later, had an inkling that there had never been a Jesus at all and all they're trying to do is subjugate these Christians, why would they not write that if he wasn't real? surely their attitude would have been you're worshipping a fake God and not even that you're worshipping somebody who didn't even exist yes so what do the naysayers say

believers in the Jesus myth theory just say that these mentions are way too late most are written decades after Jesus's death all are written decades after Jesus is death some up to a century later that's generations with only written records

to go by and there were written records of basically everything. Even Tacitus and Josephus could be repeating the story told to them by Christians. Disbelievers in the historical Jesus figure also point out just how much the Gospels and other early Christian writings contradict each other on pretty important details of Jesus' life. But despite all that, we've got some good news. There's a pretty rock-solid consensus among most modern history. historians that Jesus existed, because at the end of the day, it's just not that hard to believe.

History is all about probabilities. In fact, Pontius Pilate himself, one of the most important figures in the entire region at the time, has only a tiny bit more evidence supporting his existence than Jesus is. So it really would be a phenomenal coup to have real archaeological evidence of such a provincial preacher that lived over 2,000 years ago. Pretty much all of Jesus's followers at the time would have been illiterate. So there wasn't anyone following Jesus around, writing down all of his best quotes and making memes out of them. So if you look at the story of Jesus's life,

the only thing we might expect to see would be a record of his execution, references to his followers and notes on his legacy. And we do have those, but I think that can be quite misleading because, unfortunately for me, TikTok can smell my Catholicism and has served me a bunch of people being like people, weird Christian women who was one of them that was like, well, if the Bible was written by men,

then why are the first people to see Jesus after his resurrection to all women? I'm like, they didn't write it down. They couldn't fucking write, babes. Like, you can't just be like, anyway, she in particular really fucks me off. But it's, yes, it is true that many of the people around him would have been illiterate, I don't believe it is as watertight an argument as it is sort of entertained to be, because it's not like nobody could read and write at that time.

And when they say record of execution, they don't have, I Pontius Pilate 2-day, said Barabbas could go, and then I washed my hands of all of it, blah, blah, blah, time stamp. That doesn't exist. There is not a written record of Yeshua Bar Joseph being crucified. However, there is a reference written almost 100 years later. It's not quite the same as saying we have a record of his execution. So I think we do need to be careful there because I think when you hear that,

you assume that it's like, you know, third right level data collection being done, which just isn't true. Also, you'll hear people say, well, the census, when he's born, where, bitch, where? anyway some people consider that a lot of what Jesus said lasted as well not word for word but messages and ideals

that were kept and repeated and embellished oral history was all anyone could do because I don't know if you can fucking read them right I do think it's much more likely that St Peter had quite a lot more to do with it anyway

if you strip away any claims of Jesus's importance or his theological significance or his ability to perform miracles, you have a man called Yashir al-Bar Joseph, Jesus of Nazareth, who lived in Palestine, was born about one C.E., wandered around Galilee, preaching, and gained a collection of close followers before being executed by Pontius Pilate for troublemaking. And that, I could believe, I could. What I take issue with is people saying that there is written historical evidence that that definitely happened because their justice, I'm sure. So while we're at it, Which historical figures do we have good evidence for?

Well, let's run down a quick scale. Up top we have Julius Caesar. And he gets a solid 9.9 on the Existometer. Like we said, we can't be totally sure of anything. But Julius Caesar is as close as you get. He wrote texts himself. He's immortalized in coins, statues and inscriptions. And there are a crazy number of sources that knew him personally

writing at the time. It's probably relevant to mention Muhammad here too. Muslims believe the Quran was revealed to Muhammad in about 600 AD and compiled very soon after his death. So Muhammad is a pretty safe bet too. He has multiple biographies and collections of his sayings compiled by people who say that they met him. And on top of that, there are plenty of non-Muslim references too. Multiple Christian sources, talk about a new Arab prophet, and a rising political movement tied to him. And very unlike Jesus, there's plenty of physical evidence of Mohammed's life too, including inscriptions, references on coins, etc. So no, we're not going to do a shorthand on whether Muhammad existed. Please, for the love of God, I would never

dare, don't fat what me. On the lower end of the scale, we have ancient Greek figures like Socrates and Homer. Socrates never wrote anything down himself, but because of references by his followers and his pupils, he certainly is believed to have been a real person. Homer, though, author of the Iliad and The Odyssey, depending on who you ask, jury's out. Scholars genuinely have no idea whether Homer was a single writer

or just a collective name for a long tradition of Bards. I don't care either way. No one's crusading over Homer, you know? I don't think it's as like as in. important. I also think it's like key to note that people living under Roman occupation in and around the time of Jesus were subjugated and you can see everywhere all over the world religions that pop up as resistance. And I don't think that makes it any more or less legitimate than if he really was, if he really did exist and walk on water. Like it's the same.

Absolutely. It was all just, if you strip it back to what it is, it was just tribal, right? It's like an act of resistance and then it becomes Christians versus Muslims, the Crusades. Christians versing themselves? Yeah, versus, you know, the Islamic colonization. They're fighting each other. It's like if you stripped away the religion and the man that they were following, whether he's divine or not, it's just tribal. Mm-hmm. And what about Budica or Spartacus? Only a few texts mention them, and they were all written decades later. Their stories are dramatic and obviously play into grand narratives of conquest. So compared to them, you could argue that the evidence Jesus existed is stronger. And then you can look at things like King Arthur.

We've done him before. But when it comes to the Existometer, he is a strong zero. Oh, I found a hike where you can go to where he's. He did some of his magic things, because I'm going to Wales over Easter. I'm going to go look at it. I'm going to go check it out. Why not? Why not?

I want to believe. Apparently, Arthur is supposed to have lived around 500 AD, but all the historical sources for events of that time don't mention him at all, despite him being the literal king of England. He is first referred to three or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. So yes. These days, the idea that Jesus never existed has lost quite a bit of steam. It's considered actually to be a pretty fringe theory.

Brian McCain, an archaeologist and history professor at Florida Atlantic University, says the following. I can think of no other example who fits into their time and place so well, but people say, doesn't exist. Eric Myers, an archaeologist, an emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University, says, I don't know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicist. of Jesus. Myers likens the Jesus myth theory to climate change denial. Well, he can meet me outside. We do not know whether Jesus healed the sick, raised Lazarus from the dead, walked on water, fed the 5,000, slayed any dragons. But most historians are fairly certain that Jesus of

Nazareth, a man, a carpenter, did exist. It is quite rare that we get such a definitive answer to a question in a shorthand title. So it's a win. So why do I feel so empty? Happy Easter. Which fun fact, I learned because there was a blood moon. The reason Easter moves every year, obviously it has to be Good Friday and then Easter Sunday, that makes sense.

But it's because Good Friday can never fall on a full moon with the potential of an eclipse because if there is a blood moon on Good Friday, I see. It's all game over. So the church quite helpfully moves it around every year, so we never have to deal with that eventuality. So much admin. And another fun fact for you guys,

this episode, if you're listening to it on the day of release, is going out on the 31st of March. It is the Tuesday before Easter weekend, and it's actually called Holy Tuesday or Fig Tuesday. I've never ever heard the words Fig Tuesday before, and it's called that because apparently that's when Jesus cursed the fig tree. I don't know what that's about either It's one of his lesser miracles

It gets skated over Sure, sure sure There's so many other There's so many other greatest hits there to cover Well I mean it is basically just a tantrum So it's a bit of an embarrassing one He's just a human After all

That's the point Exactly So that's it guys Have a beautiful Easter I'm going to spend it in Wales Looking for King Arthur The masses ended Go forth in peace

Absolutely Goodbye Bye