Resolved: Jesus did not exist

Great Debates
1

So I’ll start by commenting on probably the singular most popular assertion made by christians when it comes to mythological figures/events in the bible, and that is what I call the “Kernel of truth”. Essentially what it boils down to is this: If there is some fragment of possible truth to a particular story, no matter how different from the written account, no matter how far removed, then it cannot be dismissed as a myth. The reality, however is that no one really believes this, not even they.

An example of such an argument can always be found when a discussion on the Exodus arises. It goes something like this: the evidence for the Exodus as a myth is produced. There being no large jewish slave population in Egypt, for example, or the fact that jews as a culturally distinct group didn’t even exist yet, or the absolute lack of evidece for a mass migration from Egypt into canaan, or that none of the military campaigns described in the bible after the exodus happenned as described, or at all, etc, etc, etc. Sure! Someone then exclaims, BUT you can’t prove that there isn’t some tiny, possible, tinnie winnie kernel of truth to the story! So there! Ha! I win!

But who cares? Again, not even the people who bring about this silly argument do. Do they really care that the exodus stemmed from say a vague cultural memory of events far removed and not at all as described in the bible (Hyksos expulsion) or say the boast of a drunken pastoralist? The answer is no. They only care if the story is EXACTLY as described in the bible, otherwise, what does it matter? If the truth is that a handful of caananites made it back from a drunken party at ye old egyptian pub one night with a few slave girls in hand, would christian really care? Would they go: Aha! I told you there was SOME truth to the story. Slaves, exited egypt. Told ya so! No. They wouldn’t.

And this is where I start to bring the discusison over to Jesus. So, what does the question: Did Jesus exist, really mean? I think that to Christians, what it means is: was the person described in the gospels of the new testament a historical figure that lived and died as described. And the answer is no. Right of the bat, on the stories of his birth there are demonstrable errors, contradictions and complete fabrications that require we CHANGE the meaning of the question in order to change the answer from a no to, well, something else. There was no killing of the infants, no census, nevermind one that required you to move away from your land and holdings, etc. So in order to continue we would have to change the question’s meaning from: did Jesus as described in the gospels really exist (the answer already is no), to did a historical person who comes close to that described in the gospels really exist?

And so we start to whittle down on this question as more archeology and historical analysis is put on the table, but what do we have in the end?

I postulate that the final question to which we can give a most definitive “maybe” or perhaps a more sure-footed “slightly more likely than not” is about someone so far removed from what the Gospels describe that it doesn’t matter! Certainly not to the ones holding the gospels as some sort of historical accurate rendition of events. Of course, it does matter in a scholarly way. It would be interesting to know that the Jesus describe was partially based on say a particular couple of messianic prophets out of the bunch one could find on every corner of Jerusalem, for example.

So what say you? How close would a historical Jesus have to come to the Gospels, for you to say “more likely than not”? How far apart before you said: “He did not exist”?

2

In The Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus, several years after having survived the crucifixion and married Mary Magdalene and started a family, meets St. Paul, in a marketplace preaching about the resurrected Christ. Jesus confronts him: "I’m Jesus, and I didn’t die!" Paul replies, “So what? If you’re Jesus, you’re not the Jesus I’m talking about. People need God, and I’m giving them that! You know, I’m glad I met you, so now I can start forgetting you.”

3

I would say that to qualify as a “Historical Jesus,” a figure would have to, at a minimum, have taught at least some of what is attributed to him in the Gospels (particularly in the Q material) and been crucified under Pilate. A real preacher named Jesus who taught an apocalyptic message and who was crucified for causing a disruption at the Temple during Passover would satisfy me as being enough to qualify as “the real Jesus.” I could perhaps even be persuaded toa ccept less.

While the evidence for a historical Jesus is small (essentially, Josephus, Tactitus and Paul’s reference to James as “the bother of the Lord”), I also don’t think we can conclude that no historical figure could have inspired the mythos at all. I still think it’s more likely than not that one did (I base this on core of independently attributed sayings and the criterion of embarassment regarding the crucifixion). I do not think this figure would likely have much in common with the character of Christian iconography and myth, but would meet the bare minimum to qualify as “the real Jesus.”

4

Ok, I can accept that, and I agree with you. For me, someone who meets your criteria would also fit the description of “historical Jesus”. But that definition does NOT match up (as you also mention) with the Gospels very well, if at all, and I would be surprised if it satisfied any Christian.

Hell I’d be surprised if it was just ONE Messianic Prophet who caused a ruckus and got executed by the Romans. I’m sure there were many. But that possibility does not in any way bolster the case for a historical Jesus as defined by Christians. Again, OUR definition does not matter to them. And it is NOT what they mean when they ask the question: Did Jesus exist? Or Did the Exodus occur? Their definition is vastly different.

5

Slightly tangential, but perhaps of interest, are Cecil’s comments: Did Jesus Really Exist and …, just FYI. And Staff Reports: Who killed Jesus? mentions some of the obvious (and not so obvious) contradictions between historical reality and the gospel accounts. And this one covers the supposed census of Augustus.

My personal take: I have no personal problem with “grain of truth” as formation of myth. Remember that Troy was considered wholly fable, until ruins were discovered that match pretty well with the history and economy of the time. Does that mean that the god Ares was actually wounded? Or that the Greeks used the famous horse subterfuge? No, certainly not. But it does mean that investigation of historical “kernals of truth” can lead to expansion of our knowledge of the long ago.

Similarly, rejecting the gospels as wholly imaginative means that we are cutting off the possibilities of further investigation. Assuming that there might have been an historical person (preacher, perhaps? maybe a skilled healer?) allows further investigation that may help us learn more about those times.

6

I agree here, but I think that if there was evidence that there definitively was a guy name Jesus and he did X or Y as described (even vaguely) in the Bible, then the other ‘facts’ about that guy would be ignored. Meaning, let’s say it was a historic certainty that Jesus was crucified. Nothing else in the Gospels could be confirmed and there was evidence that most of it was just outright made up (or the evidence pointed that way). My guess is that some (not all) Christians would latch onto the historicity evidence and then conclude that the rest of the evidence was shrouded in doubt.

7

I’m not sure why you’re hanging on the Exodus if the question is about Jesus. :stuck_out_tongue:

As a Christian, though possibly not a very good one, I’d content myself with the knowledge that there was a Yeshua ben Yusuf who, as you say, caused a ruckus and was crucified for it. I’d also be calm about not finding evidence of that apart from the writings in which he is already mentioned. A lot – a LOT – of the Bible is probably allegory. If it’s a historical document, it’s not a very good one. My understanding is that most theologians – not necessarily Christian or Jewish or Muslim, not necessarily devout, just most people who make a real study of the subject – believe that the stories, while they may have a grain of truth, are mostly allegorical or mythological answers to questions of “How did the shells get on top of that mountain?” or “Why did Cohen get sick when he ate that pig?”

I think that Christ may have been a man who was divinely inspired, which I’m aware makes me a bit of a heretic (I can’t remember which of the old heresies this is – Arian was the opposite, wasn’t it? That Jesus was entirely divine and not at all human?). It still makes for a beautiful story and one I will believe. I’m aware my belief is perhaps not entirely rational. Fine by me.

8

Even your kernel of truth standard is too high, for believers. They don’t mind if there is no truth at all, the myth suffices. They are willing to believe a completely made up story, fiction is good enough for them. Suspension of disbelief = faith.

bold added

9

That’s not what we’d say, but since your purpose was to insult and not to argue or inform, I see no evidence that you added anything to the discussion or ever will.

I simply have Faith that you can improve. :smiley:

10

If you’re using Little Plastic Ninja as support for your thesis, keep in mind that he self-identified as a heretical and possibly not very good Christian. The standard, orthodox Christian belief is that Jesus absolutely did exist, and that it matters that he did.
I find it much easier to explain the existence of the New Testament writings (many of which were produced and circulated within the lifetimes of people who could have been there) and of the early Church, if Jesus actually existed.

11

People who could have been where? If there was no Jesus, what would they have witnessed?
The Gospels were written between 40-70 years after the alleged crucifixion, were written outside Palestine to a gentile audience in a gentile language and were known only obscurely for decades. These books were not available in every Barnes and Noble but were copied and distributed among small congregations and read aloud in meetings (and it would have taken an estimated average of ten years or so for the boks to become at all widely copied or distributed after they were written). The odds are small that any Jewish, Palestinian survivors contemperaneous with Jesus would have found their way into one of these congregations, tried to refute anything or would have been listened to if they tried, but if the issue is purely whether or not Jesus existed, how was anyone supposed to have been able to refute that anyway? How could they have known or proven that somebody did NOT exist 50-80 years ago?

Even if you want to cite Paul, he gave virtually no biographical details about Jesus, and it would still not be possible for anyone to prove some obscure, rural preacher never existed. How would they prove a negative?

12

By the way, another rather circular argument I sometimes see used to support HJ is that “40 years isn’t long enough to create a mythological Jesus?” 40 years after what? If there was no Jesus, then there was no crucifixion event and c. 30 CE is not a necessary starting point.

13

The belief that Jesus was entirely human was Adoptionism (this is the Christology closest to the Jewish conception of the Messiah). The belief that he was entirely divine was Docetism. See here. Arianism was the doctrine that Jesus was a divine being, but a lesser one – he did not always exist, he was created by, and therefore distinct from and inferior to, God the Father. Most surviving versions of Christianity are Trinitarian – Christ has two natures, human and divine (Dante used a griffin to symbolize him in the Purgatorio), in one person, making up one of the three eternal and coequal persons of the Trinity. Someday, if you’re really good, I’ll tell you about Monosophytism and Monotheletism.

14

That’s a good point that I hadn’t considered until now.

I also wonder where they get this information. It seems to me that 40 years is plenty enough time.

15

Personally, I don’t see how anything but Adoptionism can be squared with Jesus’ reply to the rich young man who asked, “Good master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus: “Wherefore callest thou me good? One there is Who is good.” (He then tells him to give all his possessions to the poor, and about the camel and the eye of the needle and God and Mammon.)

16

Hey, I’m a Christian and more old school than Little Plastic Ninja, so I’ll answer. I believe that the Gospels are accurate. Not completely perfect to the last word. They contain obvious mistakes, though I find that the mistakes most commonly cited as evidence against them are often not mistakes, but there are mistakes. For instance mark 2:25-6 incorrectly lists Abiathar as the high priest when David at the bread in the Temple. And to these mistakes I reply, so what? Would that cause me to re-evaluate what I believe about Jesus, any more than I should re-evaluate George Washington upon learning that the cherry tree story is false? These mistakes well known through Christian history and mentioned and addressed by figures like Aquinas and Martin Luther; one can hardly expect them to be viewed as a bombshell these days.

I find Bible scholarship to be useful for a number of reasons. It has helped us to sort out several passages that weren’t in the original drafts of the gospels. It has helped us to understand the context of the gospels and thus get a better grasp of what Jesus and the Apostles truly meant. However, Bible scholarship has its limits, because to take part in it at major universities these days you are required to consider the manuscripts we have only from certain perspectives approved of in the academic community, and not consider the teachings of the Holy Spirit, Church tradition, or personal revelation. Hence I see Bible scholarship as useful but not the be-all and end-all of what I’ll believe concerning Jesus Christ.

Now on the issue of the scholarship itself, what I’ve read would convince me that the gospels are largely trustworthy, even absent personal revelation or any other source. So what have I read? The books that most shaped my view would be New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, The Case for Christ, The Historical Reliablity of the Gospels, and several of Dr. Bruce Metzger’s books on the text and the formation of the New Testament Canon. I am, of course, willing to read any argument from the other side. The one that’s most frequently recommended to me is Dr. Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus. I read it and it did more to reinforce my beliefs about the gospels than knock them down, since Ehrman demonstrates that only a very few words and phrases in the entire New Testament are in doubt in a meaningful way, and takes it for granted that outside those minor areas there is an accurate record of what Jesus said and did. If you have some other book that makes the case against Gospel reliability, I’d be happy to read it. On this board, however, my arguments have consisted mostly of endless back-and-forth with Diogenes the Cynic, and he virtually never provides cites to back up what he says. Moreover his arguments consist mostly of (1) repeating himself ad nauseum (2) starting posts with the words “I guarantee” as if a guarantee from an anonymous internet user meant anything (3) dismissing any source that he doesn’t agree with as an “idiot”, “crackpot”, “moron”, “woo books”, “bullshit”, etc… Hence he doesn’t convince me of his viewpoint very often.

On the dating of the Gospels, I lean towards them being written by 70 A.D., possibly excepting John. On the authorship, I believe that the attributed authors were associated with them. Whether they wrote directly or their oral reports were organized and embellished upon by others, I have no stance on. This page has a nice summary of the main reasons why I believe this. As it points out, Bible-bashers have a severe double standard for their approach to ancient texts. They’re willing to insist that the Gospels aren’t a source for the historical existence of Jesus because the Gospels were written 30-40 years after Jesus died, yet for other historical individuals such as the Buddha or Xenophanes they’ll happily accept texts, or even small fragments of writing, from centuries after the fact as proof that the person existed. Why the double standard?

17

Every time I’ve invited you to engage in a debate on the historical veracity of the Gospels, including their numerous (and significant) errors and contradictions, you’ve run away like a scalded cat. Would you like to start a separate thread on the matter? I assure you, I will provide ample citation.

ETA the “Case for” books are laughable jokes, by the way.

18

False. In this thread we had a nice, long debate until the moderator closed it. But hey, if you want to keep on saying things that are flatly untrue and easily shown to be untrue, you’re welcome to it. No skin off my teeth. As for your assurance that you’ll provide cites in a future thread, I’m afraid that I’m not too impressed by that, given how often you assure people of things that aren’t true. If you want to reverse that reputation you’re welcome to try right here, perhaps by quoting those passages in the Case for books that you think qualify them as “laughable jokes”.

19

Two men enter, one man leaves! TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES!

20

There’s no specific discussion of the errors and contradictions of the Gospels in that thread, and I think initiating that discussion here would be a hijack? Would you like to try to defend them as reliable history in another thread or not?