“Despite numerous historians living in the Mediterranean during that era, not one documented a man named Jesus who performed miracles and rose from the dead.”
This is Zeitgeist’s opening salvo against the historical Jesus. The film claims that the ancient historical record is silent about Jesus, that references to “Christus” prove nothing because it’s a title rather than a name, and that the Josephus passages are proven forgeries.
If true, Christianity’s foundation would be exposed as fraud. No historical Jesus means no historical crucifixion, no historical resurrection, no historical basis for the faith.
The claim sounds devastating. It’s also rejected by virtually every ancient historian and New Testament scholar who has examined the evidence—including scholars who are atheists, agnostics, and critics of Christianity.
Let’s examine why.
The Argument from Silence
The first claim is that “not one” historian documented Jesus during his lifetime. This is technically true and completely misleading.
What We Should Expect
The argument assumes that if Jesus existed, we should have contemporary documentation—records from people who lived during his ministry, writing about him at the time.
This expectation reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how ancient documentation worked.
Consider Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect who governed Judea from 26–36 CE. He’s one of the most significant political figures in the region during this period. Yet we possess:
- No writings by Pilate himself
- No Roman administrative records mentioning him from his decade in office
- No contemporary literary references to his daily governance
Everything we know about Pilate comes from later sources: Josephus (writing in the 90s CE), Philo (writing in the 40s CE), the Gospels, and a single inscription discovered in 1961.
If the Roman governor of Judea left no contemporary literary footprint, why would we expect one from an itinerant Jewish teacher from rural Galilee?
The Literacy Problem
First-century Palestine was a predominantly oral culture. Most people couldn’t read or write. Those who could were typically scribes, priests, or elites. They wrote about events that mattered to the literate classes—political upheavals, imperial decrees, major military campaigns.
A wandering preacher gathering peasant followers in a backwater province wouldn’t register on this radar. Jesus minted no coins, commanded no armies, held no political office. He operated entirely outside the institutions that generated written records.
Maurice Casey calls the expectation of contemporary documentation for Jesus the “low context fallacy”—imposing modern assumptions about constant record-keeping onto an ancient society where oral tradition was primary and writing was reserved for elite concerns.
What We Do Have
The absence of contemporary documentation for Jesus puts him in the same category as virtually every non-elite figure from antiquity. What matters is what documentation emerges within a reasonable timeframe.
For Jesus, we have:
- Paul’s letters (c. 50–60 CE): Written within 20–30 years of Jesus’ death by someone who knew Jesus’ disciples personally
- The Gospels (c. 70–100 CE): Multiple independent accounts written within living memory
- Josephus (c. 93 CE): Jewish historian writing in Rome
- Tacitus (c. 115 CE): Roman historian with access to imperial records
- Pliny the Younger (c. 112 CE): Roman governor describing Christian practices
This is actually remarkable attestation for a first-century figure of Jesus’ social class. Most people from antiquity left no trace whatsoever.
The Roman Sources
Zeitgeist dismisses the Roman historians because they refer to “Christus” rather than using a personal name. This objection misunderstands both Roman naming conventions and what the sources actually say.
Tacitus (c. 115 CE)
The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (Book 15, Chapter 44), describes Nero’s persecution of Christians following the great fire of Rome in 64 CE:
“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome…”
Several things are significant here:
Historical specificity. Tacitus doesn’t just mention “Christus” vaguely. He places the execution under a specific emperor (Tiberius), by a specific official (Pontius Pilate), in a specific region (Judaea). This is precise historical reporting.
Hostile witness. Tacitus despised Christianity, calling it a “mischievous superstition” and “evil.” He had no motive to fabricate evidence supporting its founder’s existence. His testimony is what historians call a “hostile witness”—someone whose bias runs against the claim they’re confirming.
Independence from Christian sources. Tacitus would not have read the Gospels. As a Roman aristocrat and senator, he would have considered Christian texts beneath his notice. His information likely came from Roman administrative records or informed hearsay. He even uses the term “procurator” for Pilate’s rank—a technically correct identification that some Christian sources got wrong.
The “title” objection fails. Yes, “Christus” is a title (Greek translation of “Messiah”). But Tacitus treats it as a name and links it to a real execution. The objection is like saying we can’t trust sources that call Octavian “Augustus” because that’s a title, not a birth name. Roman historians routinely used titles as names.
Pliny the Younger (c. 112 CE)
Pliny was governor of Bithynia-Pontus (modern Turkey) and wrote to Emperor Trajan asking how to handle Christians. His letter (Epistle 10.96) describes their practices:
“They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god…”
This confirms:
- An established movement existed by 112 CE
- They worshipped Christ “as a god”
- They had fixed practices and meeting times
Pliny doesn’t prove Jesus’ biography, but he proves the movement’s existence and its devotion to a historical founder within 80 years of Jesus’ death. This contradicts the idea that Christianity was invented later.
Suetonius (c. 121 CE)
Suetonius, in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars, mentions that Emperor Claudius “expelled the Jews from Rome because they were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.”
Scholars debate whether “Chrestus” refers to Christ (a common misspelling) or someone else. But if it does refer to Christ, it indicates that disputes about Jesus were causing unrest in the Roman Jewish community as early as the 40s CE—within 15 years of the crucifixion.
The Jewish Source: Josephus
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote his Antiquities of the Jews around 93 CE. He mentions Jesus twice. Zeitgeist claims these passages are “proven forgeries.”
This is a gross oversimplification that no serious scholar accepts.
The Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities 18.63-64)
The first passage reads (in its current form):
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
Scholars universally agree that this passage has been edited by later Christian copyists. Phrases like “if indeed one ought to call him a man,” “He was the Christ,” and the resurrection reference are almost certainly insertions. Josephus was not a Christian; he would not have written these confessional statements.
But interpolation is not forgery.
The scholarly consensus—held by experts like John P. Meier, Geza Vermes, and even skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman—is that the passage contains an authentic core that was later embellished.
Evidence for an authentic core:
-
Josephan vocabulary. The passage uses phrases characteristic of Josephus, not early Christians. Calling Jesus a “wise man” (sophos anēr) echoes how Josephus describes Solomon and Daniel. Calling his miracles “surprising deeds” (paradoxa) is Josephan phrasing; Christians typically used more exalted language.
-
Neutral tone. Once the obvious Christian additions are removed, what remains is matter-of-fact historical reporting, exactly what we’d expect from Josephus discussing a figure he considered a failed messianic pretender.
-
Arabic manuscript evidence. A 10th-century Arabic version of the passage (quoted by Agapius) lacks the most obviously Christian elements, suggesting an earlier, less edited form.
The reconstructed core reads something like:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
This is exactly what we’d expect a non-Christian Jewish historian to write: acknowledgment of a teacher and wonder-worker who attracted followers, was executed by Pilate, and founded a movement that persisted.
The James Passage (Antiquities 20.200)
The second Josephus reference is even more significant—and Zeitgeist ignores it entirely.
In describing events of 62 CE, Josephus mentions the execution of James:
“…he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”
This passage is almost universally accepted as authentic by scholars. Here’s why:
-
It’s incidental. The passage isn’t about Jesus; it’s about the high priest Ananus and his abuse of power. Jesus is mentioned only to identify which James is being discussed. This casual reference is exactly what we’d expect from authentic historical writing.
-
“Who was called Christ” is neutral. Josephus doesn’t affirm that Jesus was the Christ; he reports that others called him that. This distinguishes it from the Christian additions to the Testimonium.
-
No Christian would invent it. The passage focuses on James’s death, not on glorifying Jesus. It contains nothing theologically useful for Christians.
The implication is decisive: Jesus had a brother named James who was executed in Jerusalem in 62 CE. This anchors Jesus in history. You cannot have a biological brother of a mythical solar deity executed in a specific city in a specific year. The James passage alone refutes the mythicist hypothesis.
The Earliest Christian Source: Paul
Zeitgeist relies heavily on the claim that early Christian writings lack historical detail about Jesus. This is simply false.
Paul wrote his letters in the 50s CE—within 20–25 years of Jesus’ death and decades before the Gospels. He provides incidental historical details that confirm Jesus was a real person:
Biographical facts Paul mentions:
- Jesus was born of a woman (Galatians 4:4)
- Jesus was born under the Jewish law (Galatians 4:4)
- Jesus was a descendant of David (Romans 1:3)
- Jesus had brothers, including one named James (Galatians 1:19, 1 Corinthians 9:5)
- Jesus had twelve disciples (1 Corinthians 15:5)
- Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper on the night he was betrayed (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)
- Jesus was crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2, Galatians 3:1, Philippians 2:8)
Personal connections:
- Paul met Peter (Cephas) and James “the Lord’s brother” in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18-19)
- Paul knew the apostles who had accompanied Jesus during his ministry (Galatians 2:9)
This is crucial: Paul personally knew people who had known Jesus. He met Jesus’ brother. He spent time with Jesus’ closest disciple. His letters were written while these eyewitnesses were still alive and could contradict him if he misrepresented the facts.
The mythicist claim requires us to believe that Paul invented a fictional Jesus while simultaneously corresponding with that fictional person’s brother. This is historically absurd.
The Scholarly Consensus
The claim that Jesus didn’t exist is called “mythicism.” It’s worth understanding how this position is regarded in mainstream scholarship.
Bart Ehrman, agnostic New Testament scholar and author of books critical of Christianity, wrote an entire book (Did Jesus Exist?) refuting mythicism:
“The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet.”
Maurice Casey, secular scholar of Judaism and early Christianity:
“The evidence that Jesus existed is so strong that mythicists have to argue against the fundamental principles of historical research.”
Michael Grant, classical historian and atheist:
“To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory.”
R. Joseph Hoffmann, historical Jesus scholar and religious skeptic, describes mythicism as “no longer528 even528 respectable528 in scholarly528 circles.”
This isn’t a case of Christian scholars defending their faith. Atheist and agnostic historians who have no theological stake in Jesus’ existence overwhelmingly conclude that he existed. The evidence—Roman, Jewish, and Christian sources converging on the same basic facts—is simply too strong.
Why Mythicism Fails
The mythicist position, as advocated by Zeitgeist, fails for several reasons:
Hyper-Skepticism
The standards of evidence mythicism demands would erase most figures from ancient history. If we dismiss Tacitus because he uses “Christus” instead of “Jesus,” we should dismiss sources that call Octavian “Augustus.” If we reject Josephus because some phrases were added later, we should reject most ancient manuscripts that show evidence of scribal editing.
Mythicism applies a uniquely rigorous standard to Jesus that it would never apply to Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or any other ancient figure.
Explaining the Movement
If Jesus never existed, how did Christianity begin?
The movement emerged in Jerusalem within years of the supposed crucifixion. It was led by people who claimed to have known Jesus personally. It spread despite offering no political power, no economic benefit, and considerable social cost (including martyrdom).
The mythicist must explain how a fictional character accumulated disciples, a brother, a specific biography, and a movement that exploded across the Mediterranean—all within living memory of events that never happened.
The Brother Problem
James, the brother of Jesus, was a leader of the Jerusalem church. Paul met him. Josephus records his execution. He was a known figure in the early movement.
If Jesus was mythical, who was James’s brother? The existence of a biological sibling anchors Jesus in history in a way that no amount of skepticism can dissolve.
Conclusion
Zeitgeist’s claim that there’s “no historical evidence” for Jesus fails on every count:
The argument from silence is invalid. We have no contemporary documentation for most ancient figures, including Roman governors. The expectation of such documentation for a Galilean peasant teacher reflects modern assumptions, not ancient realities.
The Roman sources are genuine. Tacitus provides specific historical details—execution under Tiberius by Pontius Pilate in Judaea. The “Christus is just a title” objection is a non-sequitur that ignores Roman naming conventions.
Josephus is not a forgery. The Testimonium Flavianum was edited by later Christians, but it contains an authentic core in Josephan style. The James passage is almost universally accepted as genuine and provides decisive evidence for Jesus’ historicity.
Paul’s letters are early. Writing within 25 years of Jesus’ death, Paul knew people who had known Jesus personally, including his brother. This anchors Jesus in history.
Scholars agree. The existence of Jesus is accepted by virtually every historian who has examined the evidence, including atheists and agnostics with no theological investment in the conclusion.
The mythicist position isn’t serious scholarship. It’s conspiracy theory dressed in academic language—requiring us to dismiss standard historical methods, reject the conclusions of experts across theological lines, and believe that a fictional character’s brother was executed in Jerusalem within living memory of events that never happened.
Jesus existed. The evidence is clear. The question isn’t whether he lived but what to make of his life.
Author’s Note (2026): This article was originally written in 2013 but was never published at the time. Prior to publication in 2026, it has been carefully reviewed and updated to ensure that historical references, scholarly claims, and source material are accurate, current, and properly represented.