Jesus and the Son of God: a Theological Title, Not a Historical Reality

The idea that Jesus was the Son of God in a literal sense is one of the foundations of traditional Christianity. However, when historical sources, biblical texts, and the cultural context of the time are carefully examined, this claim appears to be a later theological construction rather than a demonstrable historical fact.

Jesus Never Clearly Presents Himself as God

In the canonical Gospels, Jesus never explicitly and unequivocally claims to be God. His words, when analyzed within the Jewish context of the first century, fit within the tradition of prophets and spiritual teachers rather than that of an incarnate deity. The title “Son of God,” in the Jewish world, did not imply divine nature but was often used symbolically to refer to individuals especially close to God—such as kings, prophets, or even the people of Israel as a whole.

Only in later texts, such as the Gospel of John, does a higher Christology emerge, clearly indicating a theological development rather than a direct eyewitness account of historical events.

A crucial point that is often overlooked is that none of the Gospels was written by a direct witness to Jesus’ life. The Gospels are anonymous, lack precise dates, and were written decades after the events they describe. Mark, the earliest Gospel, was likely composed around 70 CE, when most alleged eyewitnesses were already deceased.

Matthew, Luke, and John are not autobiographical accounts but theological works based on oral traditions, reinterpretations, and adaptations intended for different communities. This makes the Gospels sources of faith rather than impartial historical chronicles.

The apocryphal Gospels, excluded from the official canon, clearly show how diverse and unsettled early views of Jesus were. Some portray him as a wisdom teacher, others as a purely spiritual being, and still others as an enlightened man but not divine.

The exclusion of these texts was not due to their “falsehood,” but to their incompatibility with the doctrine the Church was gradually constructing. The selection of the canonical Gospels was an act of theological authority, not a neutral decision based on historical criteria.

The transformation of Jesus from a Jewish preacher into the Son of God and eventually into God himself was a gradual process. Early Christian communities held widely differing beliefs. Only over time—especially through the intervention of religious and political authorities—did a single, dogmatic vision prevail.

The deification of Jesus also responded to cultural needs: in the Roman and Hellenistic world, the figure of the god-man was already familiar and facilitated the spread of the Christian message.

In light of these considerations, the idea that Jesus was truly the Son of God does not rest on solid historical foundations, but on theological interpretations developed over time. The absence of direct witnesses, the non-historical nature of the Gospels, the contradictions among the texts, and the arbitrary exclusion of apocryphal writings all suggest that the divine image of Jesus is the result of doctrinal construction rather than a verifiable fact.

Belief is a personal choice, but from a rational and historical perspective, Jesus appears far more as a charismatic Jewish preacher than as an incarnate deity.