I am personally undecided either way, finding the arguments for him being a mythic figure quite persuasive, however I think on balance there probably was a historical figure who was later deified and mythologised. However, I disagree that this is proved by the historical sources cited by Cecil, who says:
'The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one “Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, although it says he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panther. ’
Tacitus may well have heard about Jesus from the Christians, so this brief reference, in the context of talking about Christians and who their founder was, doesn’t prove anything.
Josephus’ work is usually thought to have been tampered with (ie added to) by later Christian writers. This is most obvious in the famous ‘testimonium flavianum’ passage where he (a non-Christian Jew) is made to say that Jesus was the Messiah and performed miracles and rose from the dead etc. It is also possible the bit mentioned by Cecil (Josephus’ only other reference to Jesus in his substantial history of first century Palestine) originally referred to some other James and someone later decided to add ‘brother of Jesus, called Christ’ since Christian tradition has it James ‘the brother of the Lord’, was a leader of the very early church. See www.jesuspuzzle.com for more detail.
I don’t know much about the Talmud, but I doubt it mentions Jesus until long after his death, so it would be of doubtful help also.
A just recently listened to a set of lectures called “The Historical Jesus”, by UNC professor Bart D. Ehrman. (I’m not sure if I’m allowed to give the company I bought them through.) You might find them interesting.
At any rate, he brings up three sources independent of the Christian sources that refer to Jesus. One is Josephus. Ehrman rejects some of the text, but not all. One of the filters he applies to texts generally accepts texts that Christians would not want to perpetuate or create. Ehrman also discusses a passing mention by Pliny the Younger very early in the second century, besides the mention by Tacitus.
Ehrman’s conclusion is that Jesus existed and was probably a 1st century apocalypsist.
Thanks for that. Didn’t know about the PLiny reference, but again - it’s 2nd C ie probably after the gospels were written - and I doubt it says anything constituting proof of facts about Jesus’ life.
From what I’ve read on the net and elsewhere the debate about Josephus seems pretty insoluble - some say he probably said nothing about Jesus at all, others prefer to think that he said something but it was embellished etc. Josephus is important to the ‘historical Jesus’ debate becasue he is early - first C - and wrote about the history of 1st century Palestine - ie where Jesus lived. However for what it’s worth, I feel that eg the Jospehus’s narrative, on the page where he makes his most startling references to Jesus, makes much better sense if you simply take the passage out altogether. It is also apparently the case that no Christian writer in the 2nd or 3rd century referred to Josephus in support of their beliefs about Jesus, which as he was well-known, they might have been expected to do if he really did write about him and describe him as the Messiah/Christ etc.
Having said that I personally agree he did probably exist and, as you said, preached a message of ‘repent for the end is nigh’, as it were. He believed God was about to establish his ‘Kingdom’ on Earth at any moment (not a belief that was exclusive to Jesus, as is seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Since eg it seems likely Josephus did not mention him, and no other writer of the period thought him worth a mention, I would guess he had quite a small impact in his lifetime, centred around the rural area near Lake Galilee, as the Jesus scholar Geza Vermes has said in his recent books. Vermes also points out the synoptic gospels suggests a short teaching career of perhaps less than a year, since eg only one Passover feast is mentioned in them. The tradition of three years’ teaching is worked out from references in John, taken to be the latest of the gospels by most scholars (possibly c. 100AD)
You shouldn’t forget that the epistles are much closer to the time of the death of Jesus. While they make no attempt at being biographical, their existence would be dependent on his existence.
I don’t find it surprising that Josephus is not mentioned by early Christians. After all, the case could be made that, as the only survivor and most likely leader of a Jewish rebellion, I would think a fair number of Jews (including the early Christians) might have Josephus was a cowardly weasel. It is not hard to believe that Josephus made a reference to Jesus, which was later expanded.
Well, here is one interesting thing to think about- for a while there, the Roman Empire was doing it’s very very best to stamp out Christianity. Yet, at no time did they claim that Jesus did not actually exist. While there were still dudes alive that had met people that had met Jesus- that claim wasn’t brought forward. In fact, it wasn’t brought forward until comparitively recently.
Now, the Romans kept good records. True, the records of the Governorship of Pontius Pilate and his correspsodence with Rome could all have been destroyed early. But then again- we have no evidence that they were.
If the records were extant-(or if any Romans serving in Judea- or even their sons or trainees) and the records showed no record of one Jesus being executed- you think that the Romans would have brought it up. But they didn’t.
Oh sure- discount Miracles all you want. Point out inconsistencies and perhaps even paradoxes in the NT. Say that they turned a man into a Myth- a simple wandering teacher into the Messiah. Sure. But as Cecil said- there wasn’t enough time- on both ends- to make up a wholly mythic Jesus. Start too early and you run into “but Iwas there, that didn’t happen!”. And- Christianity started around 50 AD, or even earlier- so there were plenty of dudes alive only 20 years after the crucifixion. Did any say “Hey, there was no such guy!”? No.
There were plenty of holy men, messiahs, and prophets around that time. No need to make one up out of whole cloth. In fact- it is simply impossible that it was so done in a mere 20 years. There was a Jesus- a man- who was executed around his 3oth year, and who for a while was a wandering holy man and 'rabbi". That much is certain. If you want to say that the miracles were all made up- go ahead.
This seems like a very weird argument. People can make up stories in much less time than that, espcially when they are borrowing from earlier myths. Dionysus was said to have been killed and brought back from the dead, and was honored in festivities where people symbollically drank of his blood and ate of his flesh. The same goes for a number of other figures.
If you’d look around the world today you’d see some myths get made up in a manner of months or weeks. Any argument based upon the idea that it happened too fast is rather silly, in my opinion.
I disagree, Dan. It would be really odd for people to risk their lives for a completely mythic figure, who supposedly existed just a couple of decades earlier in the amazingly organized Roman society. Especially since there are aspects of Jesus that were very counter to the prevailing culture. E.g., that the Messiah died. While the Jewish subgroups, such as the Essenes and the Pharisees, believed different things about the Messiah, none believed that he would be a poor rabbi that would be executed. There were other Messiah claimants wandering around in that time period. Their execution was considered proof that they weren’t the Messiah. Who, then, would make up his execution? (And the epistles, written within a few decades of his execution, do mention it.)
For such counterculture concepts to arise in short order, someone must have been the source. The simplest solution is that Jesus did exist. Taught stuff enough different from that of the authorities to get in trouble, and then was executed.
FYI, there was a debate a few decades ago as to whether Alexander the Great actually existed. If the existence of one of the greatest conquerors in history, whose inner circle wrote extensive texts, could be doubted, then definitive proof of Jesus’ existence (or the Bhudda’s, or Socrates, or …) will probably never come.
Sure Dan. But did they say that Dionysus was “killed right over there, on that hill, in public, ordered so by the Government- who had a rather public discussion of it, too- not two decades ago”? Did they say that Dionysus “came through the gates of Athens right there, and thousands greeted him publicly, just about 20 years ago”? Of course not. Because then someone would say- “but, but- I was there, and nothing like that happened” or “odd that our public records show nothing of that execution”.
When a religion is made up- either nothing occurs in Public, or it occurs so far in the past that no one can be expected to confirm or deny it. Usually- it *starts *with the Holy Book. It took Xianity some 30-40 years to come up with theirs. Why?- well, it wasn’t needed as everyone involved either was “there”- or had direct contact with someone who was.
Well… sorta. It depends on what standards you use. Compared to the Etruscans, Greeks, Persians, Medes, Gauls, Goths and Visigoths, yeah, the Romans kept very good records. But compared to what we’re used to today: not even close. They certainly didn’t keep records about petty criminals who were executed, why bother? In fact, there’s almost no record (aside from the New Testament books) that Pontius Pilate existed – and he was the governor. (I’m working from memory here, I think we have only one Roman document that mentions him.)
So, be very careful about drawing conclusions from the absence of evidence.
I’m not saying Josephus might not have said something about Jesus, that was embellished, but looking at the passage in question it’s hard to say what was originally there, and it does read better without it.
As for the comment about it being impossible to make up claims about a historical Jesus in a few decades, that’s one reason I tend to the idea he did exist - as a wandering preacher figure. Ditto for the fact the epistles are so early etc… However it remains true that the letters of Paul say almost nothing about the historical Jesus, an odd omissioon even accepting the fact Paul never knew him personally. Also it could be said to be peculiar that he lumps together his own experience of meeting Jesus in a vision/mystical experience with other people’s sightings of the ‘risen Christ’ after the crucifixion - did he beleive Jesus had literally come back from the dead in a solid body (as later claimed in the gospels), or not?? The Jesus Puzzle website argues learnedly that Paul may have believed in a ‘Heavenly’ Jesus who never though was alive on Earth at all (apparently according to early Gnostic type philosophies around at the time there were various Heavens, from lower ones to higher, and Jesus could have been said to have ‘died’/been crucified in a lower Heaven, not on Earth). I find that a bit far-fetched though. However it is true Paul is a fairly poor ‘historcian’ of the human Jesus. And when you come to the gospels it is almost impossible, IMO, to sepatet fact from fiction, although scholars try. I have heard it said, eg, hardly any teachings attributed to Jesus are original - they can be found in other Jewish rabbinical sources, Greek philosophy, the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls etc - and many of his miracles have also been attributed to other deities, heroes and holy men.
The idea of a dying and rising Messiah might possibly have derived from the 'suffering servent ’ concept in Isiah 53 (though this might help to exaplain how Christian theology developed its interpretations of Jesus, as opposed to ‘proving’ he didn;t exist in the first place).
I find the idea anyone questioned the existance of Alexander the Great ?? Cerainly a great deal better attested than the historical existance of Jesus, I would have said!! For a start he founded about 20 cities named after himself!
As for people who deny Shakespeare wrote his plays , I think they are nuts. He was a well-known figure of his time and commented on in plenty of contemporary texts and eg mourned in verse by at least one well-known poet after he died.
Not all that odd. He was a Christian writing for Christians; he didn’t need to go into what everyone already knew. That’s why the Gospels were written later – when the need became evident.
I have read much about the lack of mention in contemporary historical writtings of Jesus (other than the suspect one’s mentioned) but also a couple of other points in the same vein.
First, there is no support for a census in Joseph’s home town of Bethlehem that would require his traveling there with a expectant wife. As stated before, we do have extensive records of dates and such from the Romans. It is however, necessary to fit into John’s tying Jesus’ history to Hebrew prophecy.
Second, the leading historians of the time never mention King Herod’s killing of hundreds of innocent children. Even though Josephus was no fan of Herod and wrote negative things about him. Seems this would have rated a note or two.
Third, although we have always heard the “Jesus of Nazereth” phrase, there is nothing to support any place by that name. It appears on no maps or in any writtings of the time before or after outside of the Bible.
Last, IIRC, there is documentation of Pontus Pilate’s military history and his studying under one of Rome’s most ruthless Generals who later lead a bloody coup to become the new caesar. This has led support for doubters of the caring and sensitive man portrayed in the NT.
No, not those particular details, but they had similar stories of where he was killed and reborn, and people not only heard about it happening in thier lifetimes but participated in the rituals and swore it happened as an historical fact.
The people wishing to believe the case for Jesus’ historical significance are making arguments based upon ignorance of other religious traditions of the time.
Just pop over to the Mormon threads to see examples of people swearing up and down within 20 years of a religions’ start that certain specific things happened that very likely never really did… or, more importantly for this discussion, people claiming that other people claimed Jesus was real.
If the people arguing for the so-called proven historical existence of Jesus used the same number and kinds of references to other debates, then unicorns, werewolves, and all sorts of other things really existed, because those have far greater documentation and support from far more people than this whole Jesus thing. The people who insist Jesus really existed instead of admitting that maybe he did or did not are doing so out of cultural bias and not out of actual logic.
“Caring and sensitive?” Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! He was a ham-handed arriviste struggling not to have reports of Yet Another Riot on his watch sent on to the Emperor.
Then there is the fact Herod (who allegedly ordered the massacere of the innocents) died in 4BC but LUke says the census which required Mary and Joseph to go to Bethlehem was when Quirinius was governor of Judea and apparently this would have been 6AD.
I also have read, eg there is no proof the Romans required everyone to travel to their ancestral home town for censuses (and no evidence of a census of the ‘whole world’ ordered by Caesar Augustus for that matter - Luke 2), and supposedly no evidence that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus (though I can’t see how they can be sure). From a Christian narrative point it was important to have Jesus born in Bethlehem by some means or other because it was connceted with king David and there was a prophecy the Messiah would be born there.