Background
The documentary ‘Caesar’s Messiah’ centres on the claims of Joseph Atwell that the Flavian dynasty of Caesars invented Jesus, wrote the gospels, and created the Christian religion. I’m not really concerned about the claims regarding the formation of the Christian religion, or in its assertions that Rome had political interests in the formation of Christianity. What interests me are the documentary’s claims that not even the historical Jewish Jesus existed. That is what I am going to address in this article.
Most of this article is taken up with evidence for Yeshua’s existence. To read my observations on the documentary, ’Caesar’s Messiah’, go to the end of this article (the last 12 blocks of text).
Through inductive reasoning, I personally use a particular chain of logic to provide evidence that Yeshua existed:
- James and his brother Shimon existed, and they led the community of the Way (James: 30-62 CE, Shimon: 62-109CE)
- The Jewish Community of the Way itself existed
- Paul of Tarsus attests to the existence of both James and the community he led, even though it would have been in his own best interests to deny their existence (they were likely too well known in his time to deny them)
- If the Community of the Way existed, someone must have founded that community (if James had faked or made up Yeshua’s existence, people around him would have spoken up and kicked up a fuss about it)
- The Gospel-writers were not native speakers of Aramaic, and yet there are a number of underlying Aramaisms scattered throughout the Greek gospels
- There are a number of notable mistranslations of Aramaic in the gospels
- There is a unifying linguistic and oratorial style behind the Jewish sayings and parables in the gospels (that is, once all the sayings and narratives of obvious non-Jewish origin are removed)
- Detailed analysis of this style suggests a single, Jewish, Aramaic-speaking originator and personality behind these sayings and parables
This article will use these approaches to show that, while there is no direct historical written evidence that Yeshua existed (nothing beyond the New Testament itself), there is nevertheless plenty of probabilistic, indirect evidence that he existed.
Some thoughts before viewing the Documentary, Caesar’s Messiah
There are 2 things we can say immediately with what we already know, before looking at the video:
that the Paullist Christian idea of ’Jesus Christ’ never existed, but the historical person of Yeshua the Jewish prophet did exist.
One can also say that:
there is a discernible, single personality behind the aphorisms and parables of Yeshua in the Synoptic gospels (discerned through linguistic analytical disciplines such as Stylistics or Stylometry).
Massorite Talmidaism focuses entirely on the prophetic mission and ethical teachings of Yeshua (this is the deliberate focus, for example, of the Sefer Yeshua, and why it does not really contain many biographical details so typical of the gospels). There are certainly some traditional biographical details which can be assumed as being true, suggested by the content and general milieu of his teaching, but our theology does not fall apart if any of them cannot be absolutely proven. There is little to nothing we can prove with absolute 100% certainty about Yeshua, other than that he died before James became leader, and before the time of Paul’s ministry.
It is true that there is no written evidence of Yeshua outside of the New Testament, but there is evidence of Yeshua’s cousins on his father’s side, James (’Jacob the Pious’) and his full-brother Simeon (’Symeon of Jerusalem’), the sons of Clophas and Miryam. James’s and Simeon’s father Clophas, and Yeshua’s father Joseph, were brothers.
James and Simeon were the first two leaders of the Jewish community of Yeshua’s Jewish followers, and there is evidence of this (see below). They led a Jewish religious community, and that community existed. Paul was at odds with this community, he says so in his letters, and no one doubts that Paul existed. We can therefore assume that the Jewish community of the Way existed. With that, we can then assume that someone founded this community of the Way – likely Yeshua; people at that time would easily have discerned if James were making up the existence of his deceased cousin. Although there is no direct evidence of Yeshua existing, there is very good indirect evidence of his existence, by a process of logical analytical steps proceeding backwards to him.
Christian apologists do not use this chain of evidence, because it invites uncomfortable questions about who James was, why his Jewish community was at odds with Paul, and why James, not Peter, was the head of the Community of the Way.
The Gospel of John and the letters of Paul present the Christ of the Christian faith, which never existed – that part of the documentary’s claims I can agree with. The personality of that Christ is very different from the personality of the historical Yeshua of Nazareth. The Gospel of John and the letters of Paul are both irrelevant to Talmidis, who focus on the ethical teachings in the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), and on the Letter of James. John’s and Paul’s Christ is what never existed, so in that respect, the claims of the documentary and Joseph Atwell are credible.
A. Evidence for James
There are mentions of James the Just in:
1) Flavius Josephus (1st century CE), Source: Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, §1)
“And Ananus the high priest… assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them James the brother of Jesus, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”
2) Hegesippus (2nd century CE), preserved by Eusebius (Church History 2.23):
“After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, was made head of the Church at Jerusalem.”
3) Papias (early 2nd century CE), Fragment X attributed to Papias
refers to “James the bishop and apostle,” although the exact wording is fragmentary and survives only in later quotations
4) Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century CE)
Clement quotes from earlier sources (possibly Hegesippus) about James’s leadership and esteem in the early Jerusalem church.
Other Early Traditions
Various later Christian writers (Epiphanius, Jerome) preserve and quote traditions about James based on early sources now lost. Though these are later than the 2nd century, they often preserve excerpts or summaries of earlier testimonies.
These sources, taken together, provide extrabiblical historical evidence that James was:
- A real historical person,
- Most importantly, was leader of the Jerusalem community, and
- Recognised in the wider ancient world beyond the New Testament canon.
B. Evidence for Simeon son of Clophas (James’s full-brother)
Shimon bar Qlofas (a.k.a. Symeon of Jerusalem), was the full brother of James, and therefore the cousin of Yeshua (in Aramaic and Hebrew, there was no separate word for ’cousin’, and so your cousins were always referred to as your sisters and brothers).
- The earliest attestation is Hegesippus (2nd century) — now lost but preserved in quotations by later writers.
- Eusebius of Caesarea (early 4th century) clearly records Symeon’s succession after James and his martyrdom, explicitly quoting the early 2nd century Jewish-Christian historian Hegesippus
It is Christian church tradition preserved by early historians, not secular Roman or Jewish records.
The account is accepted by most ancient Christian historians as reflecting an early Jewish tradition about the Jerusalem community.
C. Paul’s evidence that the Jewish Community led by James existed
It would have been in Paul’s best interests to cover up the fact that the Jewish community of Yeshua’s followers existed, and that it was led by James. However, he does not – he never even tries. His own writings attest that he had contact with James and the Jewish community of Yeshua’s followers.
1. Galatians 1:18–19 — Paul meets James in Jerusalem
This is Paul’s earliest and most direct testimony.
“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.”
(Galatians 1:18–19)
What this establishes:
- James is a known, identifiable leader in Jerusalem.
- Paul treats him as a central authority figure, distinct from but alongside Cephas (Peter).
- This implies an organised Jerusalem community, not a scattered or purely mystical movement.
2. Galatians 2:1–10 — James as a recognised leader of the Jerusalem community
Paul explicitly names James as one of the recognised leaders.
“And from those who were supposed to be something… those leaders contributed nothing to me.
On the contrary… when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged as pillars, recognised the grace that had been given to me…”
(Galatians 2:6–9)
What this establishes:
- James is named first, suggesting seniority.
- He is one of the “pillars” of the Jerusalem community.
- There is a structured leadership body in Jerusalem.
- Paul recognises their authority while distinguishing his own mission.
3. Galatians 2:11–12 — James’s authority is such that it affects behaviour in Antioch
This passage shows James’s influence extending beyond Jerusalem.
“For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but after they came, he drew back…”
(Galatians 2:12)
What this establishes:
- James’s standing is such that he has his own representatives or emissaries.
- His position carries moral and communal authority.
- The Jerusalem community has recognisable norms and expectations.
This is especially significant historically: Paul is not idealising James here — he is reporting a real tension, which strongly supports authenticity.
4. 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 — James as a recognised early witness to Yeshua
Here Paul cites an early tradition known to the movement.
“…that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time…Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.”
(1 Corinthians 15:5–7)
What this establishes:
- James is singled out as a key figure in the earliest strata of the movement.
- Paul assumes the Corinthians already know who James is, indicating his prominence.
- This presupposes an existing Jerusalem-centred community with recognised leaders.
5. Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem (Indirect Testimony)
While James is not named explicitly in these verses, the Jerusalem community’s existence is assumed repeatedly.
Examples:
- 1 Corinthians 16:1–3
- 2 Corinthians 8–9
- Romans 15:25–27
“At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem in a ministry to the saints.”
(Romans 15:25)
What this establishes:
- There is a defined community of “saints” in Jerusalem.
- Paul treats Jerusalem as a central, authoritative hub.
- This coheres with James’s leadership role described in Galatians.
Summary (Historical Significance of Paul’s testimony)
From the undisputed letters of Paul alone, we can say with confidence that:
- A Jewish community of Yeshua’s followers existed in Jerusalem.
- James was:
- Known personally to Paul,
- Recognised as a principal leader (“pillar”),
- Influential beyond Jerusalem,
- Active within Paul’s lifetime.
- Paul’s testimony is independent, early, and sometimes critical, which makes it especially valuable historically.
This is about as strong as historical evidence gets for the existence of a 1st-century movement of the Jewish followers of Yeshua.
Conclusions we can make
Very few people doubt that Paul existed. He gives first-hand witness testimony that he met James, therefore James existed. James was historically well-known as being the leader of the community of the Jewish Followers of Yeshua. He is widely known as the brother (or more likely, cousin) of Yeshua, the full brother of Shimon, son of Clophas and Miryam, who was the second leader of the community after James’s martyrdom.
1. James and Shimon existed; they led a community of Yeshua’s Jewish followers
2. The Community of the Way they led existed
3. Someone founded that community (likely Yeshua, son of Joseph and Miryam)
There is admittedly no direct evidence that Yeshua existed, but there is ample indirect evidence that leads back to an irresistible conclusion that Yeshua existed.
D. Dr Bart Ehrman’s Fields of Evidence for the Existence of the Historical Jesus
Bart Ehrman also argues that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a 1st-century Jewish preacher, and that this conclusion is well supported by standard historical methods, not by faith claims.
1. Early and Independent Written Sources
- Paul’s undisputed letters (c. 50–60 CE) refer to Jesus as a real person, born a Jew, executed, and having personally known family members (notably James).
- The Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) derive from multiple independent traditions, not a single source.
- These sources are too early, numerous, and independent to plausibly be invented wholesale.
2. Multiple Attestation
Jesus is independently attested in:
- Pauline letters
- Markan tradition
- Q material (sayings tradition)
- Johannine tradition
- Non-Christian sources (see below)
Independent agreement on core facts (existence, execution, role as teacher) strongly supports historicity.
3. Criterion of Embarrassment
Certain traditions are unlikely to have been invented, such as:
- Jesus being baptised by John (implying subordination)
- His execution by Roman crucifixion (a shameful death)
Ehrman argues that early followers would not invent details that undermined their message.
4. Contextual Credibility
Jesus fits well within:
- 1st-century Second Temple Jewish culture
- Apocalyptic Jewish preaching of the time
- Roman practices of suppressing perceived threats
There is no anachronism requiring a later invention.
5. Non-Christian Corroboration
Ehrman emphasises that hostile or neutral sources still confirm Jesus’s existence:
- Josephus (late 1st century): mentions Jesus and his execution
- Tacitus (early 2nd century): confirms execution under Pontius Pilate
These sources had no incentive to invent Jesus.
6. Rejection of Mythicist Theories
Ehrman argues that claims Jesus was invented as a myth:
- Ignore how ancient myth-making actually worked
- Fail to explain early Galilean/Judean Jewish references
- Require implausible, coordinated conspiracies across hostile groups
He stresses that virtually all professional historians of antiquity, religious or not, accept Jesus’s existence.
Ehrman’s Core Conclusion
Jesus existed as a historical Jewish teacher who was executed by the Romans.
Later theological interpretations developed, but they all presuppose a real person, not a mythical invention.
E. Linguistic evidence from the Aphorisms and Parables in the Synoptic Gospels
There are three main groups of evidence that the original speaker of the sayings and parables in the synoptic gospels spoke Aramaic. This is because there are a number of underlying Aramaisms used.
It is also evident that the writers of the gospels were not native speakers of Aramaic; however, the sayings of Yeshua have a number of genuine Semitic Aramaisms that would be difficult for such a non-Aramaic-speaker to forge.
When you look at these Aramaisms, you can see that some Aramaic words were mistranslated – again, a mistake that would be difficult for a non-Aramaic speaker to forge
Using the analytical study discipline of Stylistics and Stylometry, you can see that the style of language in most of Yeshua’s sayings and parables is consistent with just one person, across the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), while the biographical details of that ’Christ’ has been taken from a multiple number of persons
Aramaisms are features in the Greek text that reflect:
- underlying Aramaic vocabulary
- Semitic syntax or idiom
- or direct transliterations of Aramaic words and phrases
Their presence strongly suggests that some Gospel traditions originated in an Aramaic-speaking Galilean/Judean Jewish environment, consistent with the historical setting of Yeshua.
1. Direct Aramaic Words Preserved in Greek
The Gospels sometimes retain Aramaic words verbatim, followed by Greek translation, indicating they were remembered as originally spoken.
Key Examples
- Talitha koum – “Little girl, get up”
Mark 5:41 - Ephphatha – “Be opened”
Mark 7:34 - Abba – “Father”
Mark 14:36 - Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani – “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Mark 15:34 - Cephas (Keifa) – Aramaic for “rock”
John 1:42; cf. Galatians 2:9
Reference:
- Joachim Jeremias, The Aramaic Background of the Gospels; see also An Aramaic Approach to Gospels and Acts (Matthew Black, 1966)
2. Semitic Syntax Beneath Greek Style
Many Gospel sayings make better sense when translated back into Aramaic, suggesting Greek is a translation layer.
Examples
- Frequent use of parataxis (“and… and… and…”)
→ typical of Semitic narrative style
(especially Mark) - Awkward Greek constructions reflecting Aramaic word order
📚 References:
- Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts
- C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament
3. Aramaic Idioms Literally Rendered into Greek
Some sayings are Greek calques of Aramaic idioms.
Examples
- “Son of Man” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου)
← Aramaic bar nash(a)
Used idiomatically in Aramaic, awkward in Greek - “Bind and loose” (Matt 16:19; 18:18)
← Aramaic rabbinic legal terminology - “Amen, I say to you”
← Aramaic discourse marker unusual in Greek
📚 References:
- Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew
- Maurice Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel
4. Poetic Parallelism Typical of Semitic Speech
Many sayings attributed to Yeshua display Hebrew–Aramaic poetic parallelism, not Greek rhetorical forms.
Example
“The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.”
(Mark 2:27)
This structure fits Semitic wisdom teaching.
📚 Reference:
- James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered
5. Proper Names and Place Names Are Aramaic
Many personal and geographical names are adaptations of Aramaic or Hebrew, not fully Greek:
- Yeshua (Jesus)
- Ya‘aqov (James)
- Yosef
- Kefar Nahum (Capernaum)
- Bethsaida, Bethany
📚 Reference:
- R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
Scholarly Conclusion
Mainstream scholarship agrees that:
- The earliest Jesus traditions circulated in Aramaic
- The Gospels preserve linguistic fossils from that Aramaic stage
- This strongly supports Yeshua as a historical Jewish teacher in Galilee and Judea
These Aramaisms are difficult to explain if the traditions were later Greek inventions.
F. Evidence that the Writers of the Gospels themselves were not native speakers of Aramaic
Here is a concise, scholarly summary of the main evidence within the Gospels themselves that their authors were not native speakers of Aramaic, even though they clearly drew on Aramaic-speaking traditions.
1. Incorrect or Awkward Aramaic Transliterations
Several Aramaic phrases are imperfectly rendered, suggesting the writers were copying sounds or traditions, not writing from native fluency.
Key Examples
- “Talitha koum” (Mark 5:41)
Grammatically, a native Aramaic speaker addressing a girl would more likely use talitha qumi. - “Eloi, Eloi” (Mark 15:34)
This mixes Aramaic (Eloi) with a form closer to Hebrew (Eli), suggesting uncertainty. - “our daily bread” or “our bread of the morrow” from the ‘Our Father’ (supposedly reading as Galilean Aramaic, לעמן דמערא laʽman dėmaʽrā). This could be a misreading of the Galilean Aramaic, לעמן דמרעא laʽman dėmerʽā, “our bread, which is from the earth“, so giving a poetic parallel to the 1st line, “Our Father, which is in heaven”
- confusion between garbā (leper) and garrabā (jar-merchant) in Mk 14:3 (Yeshua goes for a meal at the house of ‘Simon the Leper‘). Both words would be written as גרבא in Aramaic, without vowels; only a native-speaker would have known the difference.
- inability to understand the Aramaic idiom, ‘to have a good eye’ and ‘to have a bad eye’. In Mt 6:22-23 and Lk 11:34, both writers fail to understand the Aramaic idioms, thinking they literally have something to do with the health of one’s eyes. In reality, ‘to have a good eye’ means, ‘to be generous’, and ‘to have a bad eye’ means, ‘to be selfish’.
📚 References:
- Maurice Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel
- Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts
- Shmuel Parzal, The Original Our Father in Aramaic
2. Misunderstandings of Aramaic Idioms
Some Gospel passages show that Aramaic expressions were misunderstood or overly literalised when rendered in Greek.
Examples
- “Son of Man”
In Aramaic (bar nasha), this can mean simply “a human being” or be context-dependent, or used as a humble way of referring to oneself, or as an oblique way of referring to someone else.
The Gospels often treat it as a fixed title, which likely reflects Greek theological development rather than native Aramaic usage.
📚 References:
- Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew
- James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered
3. Greek Wordplay That Does Not Work in Aramaic
Some Gospel passages rely on Greek linguistic features that would not function in Aramaic, suggesting composition in Greek, not translation by native Aramaic speakers.
Example
- Peter / petra (Matt 16:18)
The wordplay works in Greek but not naturally in Aramaic, where Kepha would be used consistently.
📚 Reference:
- Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament
4. Errors in Galilean/Judean Geography and Customs
Some Gospel writers show limited familiarity with local Judean or Galilean practices, which would be suspiciously unusual for native Aramaic-speaking Galileans and Judeans.
Examples
- Mark’s occasional confusion of locations or travel sequences
- Overgeneralised explanations of Jewish customs (e.g. Mark 7:3–4), written as if for outsiders
📚 References:
- E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief
- R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (critical discussion)
5. Septuagint-Based Quotations of Scripture
When quoting the Hebrew Bible, the Gospels almost always follow the Greek Septuagint, even where it diverges from the Hebrew/Aramaic sense.
This suggests:
- Authors were Greek-literate
- Not primarily thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic
📚 Reference:
- Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
Scholarly Consensus (in Brief)
Most scholars conclude:
- Jesus and his earliest followers spoke Aramaic
- The Gospel traditions originated in Aramaic oral settings
- The Gospel authors themselves wrote in Greek and were not native Aramaic speakers (even Matthew), though some may have had limited knowledge of it
This fits well with a diaspora-facing movement, translating Galilean traditions for a wider Greek-speaking audience.
G. The Linguistic and Oratorial Style of the Sayings and Parables
This is a scholarly, evidence-based summary of how analysis of the linguistic and oratorial style of the Gospel sayings and parables leads many scholars to argue for a single originating teacher, plausibly Yeshua, rather than a collection of unrelated community inventions.
I’ll keep this focused on style and rhetoric, not theology.
1. A Highly Consistent, Single, Teaching-Voice Across Independent Sources
Scholars note that the same distinctive teaching style appears across:
- Mark
- Q material (Matthew/Luke overlap)
- Special Matthew and Luke material
- Some Johannine sayings (in adapted form)
Despite different authors and editors, the sayings attributed to Yeshua share a single, recognisable, originating voice.
📚 Reference:
- James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered
2. Characteristic Semitic Poetic Forms
The sayings and parables consistently employ Semitic rhetorical techniques, not Greek ones.
Recurrent Features
- Parallelism (synonymous, antithetic)
- Chiasm
- Binary contrasts (light/dark, rich/poor, insiders/outsiders)
- Rhythmic balance suitable for oral transmission
These features recur with remarkable regularity.
📚 References:
- Robert Lowth (foundational work on Hebrew parallelism)
- N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God
3. Striking Use of Paradox and Reversal
A distinctive hallmark of Yeshua’s sayings is moral and social reversal:
“The last will be first, and the first last.”
“Whoever loses his life will save it.”
“Love your enemies.”
This consistent paradoxical logic appears across multiple traditions.
Scholars argue that paradox functions as a personal rhetorical fingerprint, not a community accident.
📚 Reference:
- John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus
4. Compact Aphorisms with Memorable Economy
Yeshua’s sayings are often:
- Extremely short
- Self-contained
- Memorable
- Easily transmissible orally
This aphoristic compression is unusually consistent across the Synoptic gospels.
Communities tend to expand teachings and make them longer; compression points to an originating teacher.
📚 Reference:
- Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew
5. A Distinctive Parable Style Unlike the Rabbinic Mashal (Parable/Allegory)
While later rabbis used parables, Yeshua’s parables have a unique profile:
Distinctive Features
- Drawn from ordinary Galilean peasant life
- Often end without moral explanation (they often do not need one)
- Frequently provoke and challenge rather than clarify or prove
- Emphasise divine generosity over legal balance
Scholars note this combination of style is internally consistent and not mirrored in other known teachers of the period.
📚 References:
- Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus
- Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable
6. Consistent Ethical Centre
Across sayings and parables, a coherent ethical vision emerges:
- Radical mercy
- Non-retaliation
- Care for the poor
- Internalisation of Torah ethics
- Critique of performative piety
The same ethical gravity anchors diverse material.
📚 Reference:
- E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus
7. Stable Core Despite Theological Development
Even where later theology reshapes narratives, scholars find a stable stylistic core:
- Later Christological framing differs widely
- The sayings style remains consistent
This suggests sayings were received, not invented, by later communities.
📚 Reference:
- Dale C. Allison Jr., Constructing Jesus
Scholarly Synthesis
From linguistic and oratorial analysis, scholars argue that:
- The sayings form a coherent stylistic corpus
- They exhibit consistent rhetorical habits
- They reflect oral genius, not committee composition
- The material points to a single originating Jewish teacher
This does not require theological claims — only historical ones.
In terms close to our own Talmidi framework:
What scholars see is:
- A Galilean Jewish voice
- Speaking in Aramaic oral forms
- Teaching an ethic of covenantal mercy
- Later translated, edited, and theologised — but not stylistically invented
My thoughts after watching the documentary, ‘Caesar’s Messiah’
The arguments of the documentary depend on the viewer not being at all knowledgeable about the history, culture or politics of that period. I can also say that they only present evidence that agrees with their argument, and deliberately ignore any details that prove them wrong (this is known as ’cognitive bias’, where a person subconsciously or consciously chooses to ignore evidence that proves them wrong, and only accepts evidence that proves them right).
There a number of statements in the documentary which are false:
— “The Romans completely destroyed the Jewish towns of the Galilee” – no they did not. There were indeed some towns that were destroyed, and many Jews were killed. However, most Jewish villages and towns survived, and most Galilean Jews survived; they were overrun and taken over by the Roman forces. It was Judea that was almost completely destroyed (Jewish refugees fled to the Galilee, which became the refuge of Jewish people after the war)
— “The Romans destroyed and wiped out all alternative accounts” – no they didn’t. The Talmud contains a lot of harrowing anti-Roman accounts of the Jewish-Roman war. The Jewish parts of the Book of Revelation are also anti-Roman.
— the documentary portrays the term ’good news’ as a purely Roman invention – it wasn’t. It actually was invented 700 years previously by the prophet Isaiah.
— they claim that the Greek word Iesous (Jesus) means ’Saviour’ in Greek – it doesn’t. It is a Greek form of the Aramaic Yeshua, which in turn is an alteration of the Hebrew Yehoshua: ‘YHVH saves’
— that the term ’son of man’ was invented by the Romans – no it wasn’t. ’Son of Man’ is the normal Hebrew and Aramaic way of saying, ’human being’ (in Daniel 7:13, the verse means, “As I watched in my night visions, behold, I saw one like a human being coming on the clouds of heaven”. It was the Enochians who then turned this ’son of man’ figure into a messiah in the 3rd century BCE, not the Romans)
— the documentary creates the impression that all Jews were violent, militant messianists – they were not. There were many Jews, especially the poor, who just wanted to feed their families and stay alive. The Pharisees also did not want to get involved in any uprising against the Romans
What the Documentary Ignores
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – that is a very basic rule of historical research; you look at other indirect evidence. It is true that there is no historical evidence that Yeshua existed, but that doesn’t mean that he did not exist. ’Jesus Christ’ did not exist, and I think that is shown in the documentary, but they don’t address evidence for the existence of the leaders of the Community of the Way, or the very existence of such a Jewish community, which in turn suggest that someone founded that community.
There may be very good reasons for Yeshua to have deliberately kept out of the spotlight, which ended up with him not being mentioned by anyone at the time – to fulfill his mission to the ordinary people, in order to spread his message in secret, for example. Yeshua never goes to any of the big cities in the Galilee, such as Sepphoris, which is very notable – there must have been a very good reason for him avoiding big cities, maybe to avoid Romans noticing him? In the Clementine Literature, when describing the 2 decades leading up to the Jewish-Roman War, the Jewish community of Yeshua’s followers deliberately stays outside of any pro-messianic and anti-Roman conflict simply in order to survive.
The documentary also gives the impression that all Jews wanted the overthrow of the Romans, and that no Jews could possibly have been pacifists, this is also not true. The Pharisees are known to have not wanted to antagonise the Romans, because the Romans had a known reputation for wiping out in their entirety any people who opposed them, and the Pharisees did not want this to happen to the Jewish people. This may also have been a reason for Yeshua not wanting to rise up against the Romans – for reasons of common sense: to preserve the Jewish people. You don’t have to be a submissive, pacifist slave of Rome to see that or do that. The Galilee survived (I believe, because of Yeshua’s work there), while Judea was destroyed.
My takeaway is that I agree that the figure of ’Jesus Christ’ is probably a composite of many different figures, and therefore did not exist. It is also probable that the Romans had some hand in the pro-Roman tone of the New Testament (but that’s probably down to the pro-Roman Paul too). However, for the reasons I stated above, I have no doubt that the Jewish prophet Yeshua existed. The documentary relied heavily ONLY on evidence they agreed with, and completely ignored evidence that disagrees with them (particularly in things concerning Jewish culture and politics).