Did Jesus Exist?

Great Debates
81

Not by me. I’m skeptical of anything like details of his personality or lovelife, whether he really cared that much for his horse, etc. I’m not skeptical of his conquests, but I’d not just glibly believe historic accounts of the actual battles.

As to your link - I’m not doubting the existence of historical personages mentioned, or that the gospel authors would get details of the setting right sometimes, especially for things I’d call “set dressing” like Temple notices or pools in Jerusalem that were still extant in their time.

But come on - Mary Martha and Lazarus? Weak sauce. Even the link acknowledges these were common names. Someone *possibly *from Cyrene called Simon had his son buried in Jerusalem? And? Oh, Nicodemus was a real name? That’s nice. So what? So was Yeshua. Hardly makes a case for Historical Jesus, does it? Especially if the Gospels are written after the fact - I would *expect *them to get names and places and even some events right - that’s kind of how mythmaking works. Of course, this ignores all the events they don’t get right (Slaughter of the Innocents, anyone?) or the details they get plain wrong (like merging the dating of the census and Herod’s reign) and you’d *expect *them to get wrong, because they are historical, not contemporary, details like common Jewish names and extant pools and the only recently-destroyed Temple.

The “Jesus Boat”? What is that evidence for, exactly? That there really were boats on the the Sea of G.? Who the hell disputes that? Nor do I dispute that crucifixion happened to people.

And the jury is *definitely *still out on Nazareth’s existence as a town before the 2nd C C.E., despite what your link asserts.

And, of course, it’s the lack of evidence that makes it for me. No mention by Philo, no contemporary mention* at all* - not even of the eclipses or zombies, never mind the crowds following him all over the place. *No *material evidence, but plenty of fake or irrelevant evidence over the centuries - enough True Cross bits to build a second Ark, the Shroud, the Ossuary. The Holy Land must be the most excavated little patch on Earth, but yet, not a scrap of *relevant *material evidence.

82

A couple of years ago I started but DNF an extremely detailed book on Alexander’s campaigns. Unlike Alex, I didn’t get much past the Granicus, but even WRT that battle, my recollection is that there were 2 or 3 versions which were wholly inconsistent with each other. I recalled - JT says incorrectly and may well be correct - that at least one of the versions was contemporaneous. The author was trying to ferret out what could be concluded from the evidence that existed.

Went into a little more detail than I was interested in. But an eye-opener to me as to the difficulty of accurately representing even major past events.

83

A question that has stood since at least 2002. No wonder today’s thread looked familiar.

Back then it was argued that there is a lack of reliable qualified evidence for the existence of Jesus. If you are willing to accept loose standards of historical evidence (like centuries old nth-hand hearsay), then it is possible to hang arguments for the existence of a historical Jesus on suspect references. The problem is there exists not a single shred of contemporary evidence for Jesus, and this seems to bother some people, who will strenuously try to discredit all such claims using a number of dodgy tactics. The evidence cited in support of a historical Jesus invariably turns out to be hearsay (like several of the writers already cited here) or propaganda (not intended in a disparaging sense) or apologies or simply inapplicable.

My arguments on the topic are outlined in this post and this one. They were never successfully challenged. A few other posters, like clairobscur, provided some very interesting details on this topic.

84

In order to find a historical analogue to Jesus, you would have to find a person from the ancient world who was relatively obscure during his or her lifetime, but subsequently became world-famous after their death.

This is a relatively small category, most of the famous people I can think of offhand were famous during their lifetime, and so have more in the way of actual contemporary accounts, monumental graves, and even (in the case of famous generals and statesmen) associated archaeological evidence.

Myself, I’m of the opinion that the question isn’t really all that important: I think it is more probable than not that an actual, historic ‘rebel rabbi’ of some sort inspired the Jesus-movement (and there were certainly plenty of real rebel rabbis of various sorts agitating in Judea at that time); some of the sayings attributed to him may, or may not, be his - no way of telling; but the important aspect of Christianity is not the “historical” Jesus and what he may have said and done, but rather that he died and rose from the dead, that he was both god and man. That surely is beyond the realm of historical analysis - it is purely a matter of faith (and I have none, and regard this as pure mythology myself).

Even if we found indisputable proof that a real Jesus lived and died as depicted in the gospels, it would make no difference.

85

I diagree. I’m not saying I would become a convert. But it would make some difference to me. If there were indisputable evidence that christianity were based on at least something other than what seems most likely to be fiction propagated by charismatic people, I’d give it more respect.

If you can’t even clearly prove that the guy existed - what impresses me as the belief system’s clearest objective evidence - then I personally don’t see any reason to treat ANY of it as anything other than make-believe. No more or less convincing than John Smith conveniently getting a message from the Angel Moroni telling him polygamy is all right after he happens to get the hots for another woman! :stuck_out_tongue:

86

I don’t see why.

After all, John Smith was an undoubted historical person, as was Mohammed. Does that make Mormonism or Islam more attractive than Christianity?

The existence of a “historical Jesus” is basically an irrelevance. Again, it isn’t as if the basic story (rabbi in Judea inspires small group of followers, is claimed to be messiah, runs afoul of the authorities, is executed) is at all unlikely in that time and place. There were plenty of real radicals running about, getting in trouble with the authorities, and being executed. Many of them “historical personages”, the most famous of the lot in his own lifetime being not Jesus, but Simeon Bar Khokba. He was certainly “real”.

The difference beyween Jesus and the rest of the would-be messiahs is not that they existed and he didn’t, but rather that the claims made about his nature differed. Simeon was proclaimed the Messiah because he appeared to be fulfilling messianic conditions - i.e., creating a kingdom of the Jews here on earth. Roman armies stamped out his kingdom and in so doing proved he wasn’t the messiah. The Christians, faced with an exactly similar failure (their “messiah” being executed like a common criminal) turned the story around and made his failure into a success - by redefining it.

That redefinition, not the historical Jesus (if any) is the “important bit” of Christianity. If the Christian messiah resembled the Jewish notion than yes, his actual existance (and success) would be the important bit - no earthly kingdom of righteousness, no messiah.

87

Well, different people differ. I view John Smith as similar to Paul - or L. Ron Hubbard. No reason to consider them anything other than self-interested snake-oil salesmen.

As to the existence of Jesus, personally I would find more attractive a flimsy fabric woven upon one truth, as opposed to something that no evidence shows to be anything other than constructed out of whole cloth. But that’s just me.

Still wouldn’t make me believe, but would make me think believers somewhat less silly.

88

I’m not a Christian in the slightest, but in terms of historical fact I suspect that the story of Jesus was more or less true as far as it goes (man preaches, collects small following, agitates, kets excecuted). In the Jewish historical context, having a would-be “messiah” executed as a criminal around that time is (a) not uncommon and (b) considered as conclusive proof that he’s not the messiah.

It’s a most unlikely source for a ‘workable’ messiah: the ignominious death as a common criminal is not in line with Jewish notions of successful messiah-dom. If the story was invented out of whole cloth, it seems to me that the inventers would have invented a messiah a little more acceptable and in line with existing Jewish opinion.

It is not the life of Jesus, but rather the interpretation of that life by his followers, that makes Christianity.

There is nothing particularly extraordinary about the Romans executing Jewish rabble-rousers; they did that with abandon. What is extraordinary, is that the followers of this particular one were able to construct an attractive mythology after the fact that made the death of this one into a significant event. It may be the case he didn’t really exist - there is certainly no contemporary proof of it - but if I was betting on it, I’d bet that he did; and in any event, it is the myth and not the man that is significant.

89

You are probably right. And it has been years since I did any serious soul searching WRT to relative merits of various magical mindsets.

I guess where I’m coming from is that I find it so incredible that so many folk are happy to accept as true so many unproveable and irrational specifics when they lack even concrete evidence of the one thing that COULD have been documented. I have a lot more respect for someone who simply believes there is “something” “other”, than the average churchgoer who believes in some intricate fary tale - and gets emotional about someone choosing a myth which differs from theirs in some small detail or another…

90

There is clear evidence that the early Christian movement existed. Given that, I find it far more likely that the person whom that movement proclaimed, revered, and presumed to follow actually existed, than that he was “constructed out of whole cloth” by someone within a relatively short time of the period he was supposed to have lived and taught.

91

Within approximately the same amount of time, we can presently observe that an “early Scientologist movement” exists, no? So you believe it to be far more likely …

IMO, you don’t need to look solely to religion for any number of instances where charismatic persons were able to very quickly get large numbers of people to firmly believe total bullshit. We have countless examples of humans intentionally pushing scams, and being successful. We all agree that such things happen, and we can understand how and why they do. Is this at least possible WRT early christianity? Especially when the alternative requires blind faith and a suspension of reason?

92

Yes, but do you deny that those charismatic persons themselves existed? If we’re still talking about the existence of Jesus, Scientology is a bad parallel, since as far as I know it doesn’t proclaim the existence of any fictional human being.

93

WRT christianity, the charismatic persons would be Paul and his successors, perhaps the authors of the gospels (if we wish to believe them anything other than one version of a long-standing folklore. Not Jesus or his supposed dad.

I’m no expert on Scientology. What little I once knew I’ve forgotten. But I thought they believed in some BS about spaceships and other supernatural stuff.

But even if we forget Scientology, LDS today is where Christianity would have been in the 2d century or so. So, did the Angel Moroni exist?

On edit: Xenu - check. Thetans - check. Sounds at least as reasonable as the Christian creation story, eternal souls, etc.

94

How would they go about doing that? To be the messaih you have to have run the romans out of Israel, or something similar, right? I think that claiming that such had happened would have been a hard sell to the locals of the time.

And personally I don’t think that “man preaches, collects small following, agitates, gets excecuted” is enough to qualify as a historical Jesus - as you said such types were a dime a dozen. To count as Jesus to me, the actions and sayings and parables attributed to him must have actually been his - or at least a significant percentage of them must have. Even if we allow the miracles to have been overhyped, there are still a number of sermons and the like that pretty much define the character of Jesus the person. If those were invented by other authors and retconned into Jesus, then Jesus is a construct in the same way Santa Claus is - by literally the same method of creation, in fact.

I mean, you recall the Monty Python movie “Life of Brian”, right? If we allow Jesus to claim existence based on the mimimalist criteria you mention, then Brian is Jesus; he meets all the criteria.

95

If Jesus did not exist, someone had to have invented him out of whole cloth—but that someone could not have been Paul, as there already was a Christian movement before Paul came along. (He was involved in persecuting the early Christians, before his Damascus Road experience.)

96

Of course. I apologize for using Paul’s name as shorthand for the origin point, tho I thought from him on christianity grew quickly, distancing itself from its many massianic competitors. As my wife said once, Jesus was not as influential as whoever it was who got the bright idea to hide his body! :stuck_out_tongue:

97

Simon Bar Kokhba achieved it, one century later. For three years.

There have been numerous “Jew friendly” messiah claimants over the centuries; the one thing they all have in common is that they are all, eventually, exposed as frauds - because being a failure = not the messiah.

The genius of the early Christians was turning the inevitable unmasking of Jesus as a failure (betrayed and abandoned by his followers, dying a horrible and ignominious death) into a success. That’s the important “retconning”, not making up sermons about the meek and mild - Jesus may have said that and he may not, but it is hardly that unusual or remarkable.

Almost none of the dialogue later associated with ancient figures in writings concerning them, even those famous in their own lifetimes, is provably “theirs”. For example, Heroditous freely recounts lengthy dialogues for such characters as Darius, king of Persia; it is highly unlikely Darius ever said what Heroditous claims he said.

Does that mean that Darius is like Santa Claus? That even though he provably existed, since we don’t know the details of what he said (or rather what we do know, may not really be his) he has no ‘reality’?

Naturally, whether or not “Jesus exists” depends on what you define as “Jesus”. To Christians, “Jesus” was a man who is also son of God. To historians, I would argue, “Jesus” is a man whose followers later formed an important sect. Whether or not he said any of the sermons attributed to him cannot be known (any more than whether Darius actually argued with other Persian aristocrats about whether monarchy was the best form of government), but in any event it isn’t the content of those sermons that is the important part of Christianity - it is the fact that Jesus rose from the dead and was the son of God.

I say that more likely than not Jesus, a man whose followers later formed an important sect, probably existed, though there is no corroborating proof. Jesus the man who rose from the dead and was the son of God did not in my opinion exist, any more than Zeus or Santa Claus - if I thought he did, I’d be a Christian myself. Whether any of the sermons attributed to Jesus were his cannot be proven either way, for lack of evidence; and in any event, in terms of history it isn’t all that important, since it was not the content of the sermons that is the important point for Christianity as a religion.

Sure, if the followers of Brian later formed a sect as important as that of Jesus, he’d be the same as Jesus.

98

Well, this meme that 95% of the populace was illiterate is untrue- but it depends on what you mean by “literate”. Certainly nearly everyone (outside a scribe or scholar) was what we’d call today “functionally illiterate”. It was remarked in amazement that Ceasar could -all by himself- read a letter straight through without puzzling/sounding his way through it at least once first. Thus, by the modern definition of fully literate, even most of the Roman Senate would be “functionally illiterate”.:dubious:

The ubiquitous occurance of graffiti in the Roman period shows clearly that the common man could read- at least a little.

"Historic forms of graffiti have helped gain understanding into the lifestyles and languages of past cultures. Errors in spelling and grammar in this graffiti offer insight into the degree of literacy in Roman times and provide clues on the pronunciation of spoken Latin. Examples are CIL IV, 7838: Vettium Firmum / aed[ilem] quactiliar[ii] [sic] rog[ant]. Here, “qu” is pronounced “co.” The 83 pieces of graffiti found at CIL IV, 4706-85 are evidence of the ability to read and write at levels of society where literacy might not be expected. The graffiti appear on a peristyle which was being remodeled at the time of the eruption of Vesuvius by the architect Crescens. The graffiti was left by both the foreman and his workers. The brothel at CIL VII, 12, 18-20 contains over 120 pieces of graffiti, some of which were the work of the prostitutes and their clients. The gladiatorial academy at CIL IV, 4397 was scrawled with graffiti left by the gladiator Celadus Crescens (Suspirium puellarum Celadus thraex: “Celadus the Thracian makes the girls sigh.”)"

Now today, if we think of someone working his way through a comic books slowly, his lips sounding out the words and so forth, we would agree he is “illiterate” but of course we add “functionally” to that.

Thus, thinking that Jesus could work his way through a few Biblical passages- helped a great deal by rote memory- is reasonable, but also hardly a belief that Jesus would be considered “literate” today. Certainly, it’s doubtful in the extreme that Jesus was a scribe, even though he is called a “rabbi” by some.

99

What does Roman literacy have to do with Palestinian literacy at the time?

100

Note that until 1961 we had no evidence (other than the Gospels and Josephus, and a couple of offhand mentions else where) of the existence of **Pontius Pilate, **a moderately important Roman politician. Nothing he wrote, no first hand accounts, nothing. If there was nothing solid to show Pontius Pilate existed, why would we expect there to be any evidence of Jesus?