# Guys guys. I'm starting to stop thinking Jesus existed.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [October 29, 2013, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527 "2013-10-29T04:11:43Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/41 "2013-10-29T10:25:21Z")
> [@deltasigma](#):
>
> There was the minor inconvenience of Jerusalem being virtually leveled in 70AD in the first [Jewish-Roman War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War#Fall_of_Jerusalem). And then there were a [few tussles after that](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_wars) which didn’t really make it ideal for proselytizing. Just sayin’.
That was nearly 40 years after the most widely accepted date of the death of Jesus; long enough for most of his generation to be dead. But since you bring it up, the destruction of the Jewish Temple would seem to be an ideal time for people to try something new.
In any case, the environment was surely no worse than the Arabian Peninsula of Muhammad’s lifetime, where tribal wars and blood feuds went back beyond any written records, let alone living memory. Yet in less than a century, not only were the tribes united under Islam, but they were winning battles against the powerful Persian and Byzantine empires.
---
### Author:  [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/42 "2013-10-29T10:42:56Z")
There WAS a somewhat different attitude toward conflict though, right? And as to the 40 year gap, that’s easily explained by the fact that Christianity just never went over very well with the Jews. It too radical a departure from their traditional views of the Messiah.
The screwed up thing is that the message of Jesus wasn’t all that different from what [Hillel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder) preached barely a generation before. Only he didn’t claim to be the son of god and didn’t die broken, defeated and abandoned.
---
### Author:  [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/43 "2013-10-29T11:39:43Z")
Here’s my main argument: we have almost no evidence of ANYONE’s existence from those days, except for the top-level aristocracy and military leaders. (I’m doing this from memory, but my recollection is that there is only one reliable source that Pontius Pilate existed, and he was the governor!)
> [@deltasigma](#):
>
> There WAS a somewhat different attitude toward conflict though, right? And as to the 40 year gap, that’s easily explained by the fact that Christianity just never went over very well with the Jews. It too radical a departure from their traditional views of the Messiah.
Also remember that the first Christians never saw any reason to write things down. They thought Jesus would return any day now, the Kingdom of God would be established, why bother to write things down for posterity? Only after a few decades passed, when Jesus didn’t appear, was there a feeling that it should be written down as the first generation died out.
---
### Author:  [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/44 "2013-10-29T11:53:26Z")
> [@bdgr](#):
>
> [Did Jesus really exist? And what’s with the Shroud of Turin? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/518/did-jesus-really-exist-and-whats-with-the-shroud-of-turin)
>
> What Cecil had to say:
As I see it; the psalmist told the people(as least the Jewish men); "I said you are gods and sons of the most high. Then Jesus seems to back this up when accused of Blasphemy in John 10. It doesn’t sound to me like Jesus was thinking he was anymore God or a son of god, in the way people view it today.
---
### Author:  [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/45 "2013-10-29T12:17:52Z")
Totally off topic, and my apologies for that, but weren’t you a Christian a few years back Frylock? Maybe it’s because of my lack of sleep, but I could swear I discussed religion with you back in the day and you were a Christian (I can’t recall whether I was or not at that point).
---
### Author:  [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/46 "2013-10-29T13:17:58Z")
_ **How much non-Gospel evidence is there for John the Baptist?** _
Answering this might help calibrate, very roughly, how much historical evidence of Jesus to expect. (Of course that would assume John’s historicity.) (I asked this in a previous thread on the topic, but it wasn’t answered.)
BTW, three months ago I ordered _Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth_ by Reza Aslan. (It’s not yet arrived. Nevermind my pipeline’s ambagiousness.)
Had I realized the zealot is likely fictional, I might have saved the $16. 😉
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/47 "2013-10-29T13:22:39Z")
> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Totally off topic, and my apologies for that, but weren’t you a Christian a few years back Frylock? Maybe it’s because of my lack of sleep, but I could swear I discussed religion with you back in the day and you were a Christian (I can’t recall whether I was or not at that point).
Was? Who says I’m not still? 😉
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/48 "2013-10-29T13:24:33Z")
> [@deltasigma](#):
>
> I’m sure that you can read any number of prophetic texts pretty much any way you want.
I’m actually trying to talk about just what they literally say, rather than any interpretation of them into events from other times.
> [@](#):
>
> Hell, xtians have been doing for millenia. That’s not the point. The point is that if you talk to virtually any Jew they will tell you that the traditional interpretation of the Messiah is not and has never been what you propose.
It’s not really relevant what “virtually any Jew” today thinks the traditional interpretation has always been. How much does “virtually any Jew” know about what things were like in the first century?
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/49 "2013-10-29T13:37:50Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> The OT tradition is against me? I am really surprised to read that. Daniel 9 says specifically that the messiah (heck it’s even “Christ” in the Septuagint) will be killed. Isaiah 52-53 also say this, as mentioned above. Wisdom 2 doesn’t refer explicitly to a messiah, but does describe the way that a pure man of God will be humiliated and killed. We don’t have any records contemporary with Jesus of jews saying that the messiah will be humiliated and killed, but we also don’t have much in the way of records of what various Jewish sects were saying about the messiah at all. (In other words, we know of the existence numerous jewish sects at the time, and know that we do not know what many of them said about the Messiah). So the lack of a record of such a teaching contemporary with Jesus is far from conclusive of the claim that “Jews at that time wouldn’t think the messiah would suffer and die.” Moreover, we have numerous OT passages which either say outright, or clearly imply, that the messiah or a salvific figure or a godly man whom God will glorify will, first, be humiliated and killed. Some of these writings (Daniel and Wisdom) are not that far away from the first century. So to say jews wouldn’t teach this seems unsupported.
The prophecy in Daniel “fits” the leaders of the various Jewish Revolts far better than it does Jesus. The prophecy refers to a prince who fortifies Jerusalem (a moat or protective trench is specifically mentioned) but who is defeated and killed - and the killer is himself eventually destroyed.
After that destruction will come the millenium where justice rules [well, THAT part didn’t happen!].
> [@](#):
>
> 20 I was still confessing my sins and those of all Israel to the Lord my God, and I was praying for the good of his holy mountain,[e] 21 when Gabriel suddenly came flying in at the time of the evening sacrifice. This was the same Gabriel I had seen in my vision, 22 and he explained:
>
> Daniel, I am here to help you understand the vision. 23 God thinks highly of you, and at the very moment you started praying, I was sent to give you the answer. 24 God has decided that for seventy weeks,[f] your people and your holy city must suffer as the price of their sins. Then evil will disappear, and justice will rule forever; the visions and words of the prophets will come true, and a most holy place will be dedicated.[g]
>
> 25 You need to realize that from the command to rebuild Jerusalem until the coming of the Chosen Leader,[h] it will be seven weeks and another sixty-two weeks.\* Streets will be built in Jerusalem, and a trench will be dug around the city for protection, but these will be difficult times.[j] 26 At the end of the sixty-two weeks,[k] the Chosen Leader[l] will be killed and left with nothing.[m]
>
> A foreign ruler and his army will sweep down like a mighty flood, leaving both the city and the temple in ruins, and war and destruction will continue until the end, just as God has decided. 27 For one week[n] this foreigner[o] will make a firm agreement with many people, and halfway through this week,[p] he will end all sacrifices and offerings. Then the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction will be put there. And it will stay there until the time God has decided to destroy this one who destroys.
The “suffering servant” in Isaiah 53 is pretty clearly the people of Israel itself - personified for poetic effect. If you read the verse as a whole, ALL of the stuff above Isaiah 53:13 is about the sufferings of the people in Babylonian captivity. The structure is: the people of Jerusalem are suffering in Babylonian captivity; but there is good news - the suffering will end; the ‘suffering servant’ has suffered horribly, but will be redeemed in great honour. All of which refers to the Jews as a people, although at one point they are personified as “Jerusalem” and another as the “suffering servant”.
Both verses can be reverse-engineered to shoehorn in references to a Jesus-like suffering messiah, and indeed Christians have done so; but it is a severly strained reading. The more obvious readings are that they have to do with specifically Jewish themes, unsurprisingly, as they were written both for and by Jews.
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/50 "2013-10-29T14:55:37Z")
Hi **Frylock** ,
You’ve certainly given as a thorough and well-written OP, and are much more intelligent than most of the folks who show up to tell us that Jesus didn’t exist. That said, much of what you write is simply wrong.
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> Okay so of course are a very few passages in Paul that seem a little out of place on this reading, to be sure. (Very few.) For example, references to Christ being of the seed of Abraham and David, and being born of a woman. This might suggest that he’s talking about a historical figure. But not necessarily. Many ahistorical figures (i.e. figures of mythology, whether concieved of as fictional or, by believers, as real but “celestial” or “heavenly”) were born of an (also mythical/celestial/heavenly) woman. The reference to the seed of Abraham and David is harder to understand if the figure being referred to isn’t historical. But these references seem out of place in the larger context described above if read as plainly stating that Jesus was a human being on earth. And it’s not impossible that a spiritual/celestial/heavenly/whatever figure could be referred to as being of the “seed of David.” Paul uses the phrase “according to the flesh” to modify the claim that Christ is of the seed of David, and this phrase doesn’t seem clearly to mean “in earthly flesh.” (Apparently that idea would normally be expressed by some other phrase. I don’t remember what I read about that though, sorry.)
In the intellectual world that Paul existed in, there was a clear division between the spiritual realm and the physical, earthly realm. When referring to the spiritual realm, people would used the Greek phrase _kata pneuma_; when referring to the physical realm, they would use the phrase _kata sarx_. There is no ambiguity about this; anyone who used the phrase _kata sarx_ was trying to be very clear about the fact that they were speaking about something dealing with earthly life and life of the flesh, as opposed to spiritual. And what does Paul use to describe Jesus? He uses “_kata sarx_”, so therefore we know that Paul believed that Jesus was an earthly human being. ([Cite](http://www.bede.org.uk/price7.htm))
Moreover, there are many other passages in which Paul uses the phrase _kata sarx_: Romans 8:3-6, Romans 4:1, Galatians 4:22-29, just to name a few. In all of these, it is abundantly clear that Paul used the phrase exactly as others used it, to unambiguously indicate physical, in-the-flesh descent. In Romans 9, Paul specifically says that Jesus was descended in the flesh in exactly the same way that normal people are: “…my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh…”
There is absolutely no rational way to interpret what Paul writes on this matter as saying anything other than that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood human being.
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/51 "2013-10-29T15:07:44Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> But we do know that the heavenly realms were often considered to have tiers–and that the lower tiers were more “fleshly.” And Christ is spoken as lowering himself from where God is. It would seem plausible that “according to the flesh” doesn’t mean Jesus was on Earth, but rather, that he was in a low heavenly tier, close enough to the earthly realm that realities corresponding to facts about earthly descent could correspond to realities in that lower tier in some way. (This recalls the then-current notion a celestial man who is a model for earthly man, where aspects of earthly men correspond imperfectly to attributes of the celestial man.)
Not really. What you’re referring to here is neo-Platonist philosophy. And it’s certainly true that neo-Platonist ideas were traveling in the Roman world during the first century; no one would dispute that.
But to claim that Paul himself was a neo-Platonist, and thus that all of Paul’s references to the earthly, in-the-flesh life of Christ are really references to Christ living in a lower tier of a neo-Platonist Heaven? That’s completely off the wall; it has no relation to mainstream interpretation of Paul’s letters, nor even to more modern and liberal interpretations. It’s a desperate excuse that folks like Carrier and Doherty use to dismiss the many passages in Paul that are obviously fatal to their argument.
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/52 "2013-10-29T15:28:15Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> I have also read more mainstream liberal scholars who do believe in a historical Jesus, but I have not been able to find any of these mainstream scholars dealing with Carrier’s criticisms. (Carrier’s not the only one to bring up such criticisms, but I can’t find responses to this style of criticism anywhere. I’d love to have something pointed out to me.)
_[Lord of Legend:Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma](http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Legend-Wrestling-Jesus-Dilemma/dp/1608999548/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383059896&sr=8-1&keywords=Lord+or+Legend%3A+Wrestling+with+the+Jesus+Dilemma)_, by Greg Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy. It’s a fairly common book that’s probably available in your local public library. _[The Historical Reliability of the Gosepls](http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-Gospels-Craig-Blomberg/dp/0830828079/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383060171&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Historical+Reliability+of+the+Gospels)_, by Craig Blomberg, is more academic and devoted to the overall topic of gospel accuracy, not merely on arguing that Jesus existed. Frankly very few scholars will write books arguing that Jesus existed for the same reason that very few 20th-century historians will write books arguing that the Holocaust happened. What’s the point in writing a book to prove something that nearly all serious thinkers accept?
There are also online resources. James Hannam, a professional historian, has collected articles about the existence of Jesus [here](http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm).
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/53 "2013-10-29T15:31:51Z")
I haven’t said Paul was a neo-Platonist. What I have said could be construed, maybe, as a suggestion that some neo-Platonist ideas had something to do with how Paul thought about things. That hardly seems implausible.
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/54 "2013-10-29T15:33:38Z")
Both of the books you linked to appear, from summaries, to be using the tools of textual and historical criticism which I’ve seen effectively criticized by this new crop of ahistoricists. What I’m hoping to find is a response to those criticisms.
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/55 "2013-10-29T15:54:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> There is absolutely no rational way to interpret what Paul writes on this matter as saying anything other than that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood human being.
I agree that the “seed” and “according to the flesh” phrases are the most difficult to understand on the ahistoricist hypothesis. I’ll hopefully be able to follow up on the _kata sarx_ question in coming days or weeks.
---
### Author:  [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/56 "2013-10-29T16:38:56Z")
Frylock, you seem to be saying that Paul invented Jesus and that the gospel writers (starting with Mark) picked up that idea and fleshed it out.
If that were the case, wouldn’t we expect more evidence of Paul’s viewpoint and perspectives to be portrayed in the Gospels, especially the earlier ones? Yet the issues that Paul is so focused on - the themes of faith and grace, Jesus’ superceding the Law of Moses - are not the same themes that one finds in the book of Mark. In fact I can’t think of anything in Mark that seems to come out of Paul.
Even the author of Luke-Acts, who writes so much about Paul’s travels and sermons, does not always agree with Paul in certain details (such as his conversion experience).
What I’m saying is that it’s difficult to read Mark and come to the conclusion that it is a rehashing of Pauline theology. It seems very much to be an independent tradition, which lends credence to the idea of an actual historical source.
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/57 "2013-10-29T16:51:06Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> Then as you move forward in the chronology, you get to Mark. And what Mark has to say about Jesus looks exactly like a literary construction intended to teach what Jesus is about without nailing him down as an actual historical figure. Most of its pericopes seem to rework OT stories. It has very clear parallels to the Oddysey of all things. (Actual respected view taught by actual historians here.) It sets up a theme practically from the beginning of fictionalizing higher truths through parables. The story also has a clear theme of expectation-reversal that makes the whole thing read as fiction, not history much less biography.
>
> It’s not that Mark “can be read” as fiction–its that practically everything about it invites the reader to understand it as fiction.
First of all, regarding parallels between the Gospel of Mark and the _Odyssey_, that thesis comes from _The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark_, published in 2000. While the author of that book is a real scholar of early Christianity, the thesis is not by any means mainstream. Indeed the main flaw is fairly obvious. MacDonald claims that the Gospel of Mark was written to have parallels to Homer’s epics that were clear and obvious to the reader. If so, how is it that no one noticed this fact prior to 2000, if the parallels are so obvious? Most mainstream scholars do not believe that Mark borrowed from Homer or any other Pagan source.
Regarding your claim that Mark “looks exactly like a literary construction intended to teach what Jesus is about without nailing him down as an actual historical figure”, I have to say that to me it looks like the exact opposite. Mark does everything imaginable to represent Jesus as a real figure. The entire gospel of Mark clearly represents Jesus as a human being on earth, who appeared at specific locations on specific dates, spoke with specific other individuals, and did specific things. For instance, in chapter 15 Mark reports that on the way to the crucifixion, they met “Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus” and the soldiers forced him to carry the cross. There is no reason why Mark would bother naming both Simon of Cyrene and his sons, except to identify for his readers the real person who participated in the crucifixion, who was presumably still around when Mark wrote his gospel.
---
### Author:  [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/58 "2013-10-29T16:54:02Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> It’s not really relevant what “virtually any Jew” today thinks the traditional interpretation has always been. How much does “virtually any Jew” know about what things were like in the first century?
You seem to think a lot has changed in 2000 years. 🙂 Seriously though, while I’m sure there aren’t many modern Jews waiting for the Messiah, I doubt the traditional interpretation of the scripture has changed much over the millenia. \*\* Malthus \*\*mentions this indirectly in the next post in talking about the proper interpretation of Daniel. Sure you find plenty of prophetic references to suffering, but the traditional interpretation of these is NOT to associate these with the Messiah. That is a characteristically Christian approach to OT prophesy that you simply will not find any support for among Jewish scholars or in Jewish tradition.
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/59 "2013-10-29T17:18:14Z")
> [@Skammer](#):
>
> Frylock, you seem to be saying that Paul invented Jesus and that the gospel writers (starting with Mark) picked up that idea and fleshed it out.
No, I’ve said that Paul had a vision or a set of visions that led him to latch on to what Peter and James were doing in Jerusalem.
---
### Author:  [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)
#### Post date: [October 29, 2013, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/60 "2013-10-29T18:47:32Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> No, I’ve said that Paul had a vision or a set of visions that led him to latch on to what Peter and James were doing in Jerusalem.
So Peter and James were talking about Jesus in Jerusalem before Paul wrote his earliest epistles? Wouldn’t there still have been eyewitnesses around? There just doesn’t seem to be enough time to create the Jesus myth out of nothing.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527.md?page=4)