# 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:** 6
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/101 "2013-10-30T12:14:10Z")
> [@deltasigma](#):
>
> Do we really know that for a fact?
I don’t think I understand what you’re asking. Are you asking whether we really know that people bought Scientology’s stories? Of course we know that–there are millions of Scientologists. But if that’s not what you’re asking, what are you asking?
ETA On googling it comes to seem unclear how many Scienologists there are. But anyway, the ones that exist, believe the stories.
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/102 "2013-10-30T12:17:34Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> No, the idea is that Peter and James weren’t talking about an earthly Jesus either. That notion (on this hypothesis) isn’t supposed to have arisen until later. Probably after Mark was written.
As pointed out, the Gospel of Mark is clearly presented as a historical biography of a person named Jesus Christ. Mark clearly knew that Jesus was person who lived in Palestine and Galilee around 30 A.D. and clearly knew that his audience knew that. To pretend that Mark and the community he lived in didn’t believe in an earthly Jesus is simply wrong.
---
### Author:  [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/103 "2013-10-30T12:36:46Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> I don’t think I understand what you’re asking. Are you asking whether we really know that people bought Scientology’s stories? Of course we know that–there are millions of Scientologists. But if that’s not what you’re asking, what are you asking?
>
> ETA On googling it comes to seem unclear how many Scienologists there are. But anyway, the ones that exist, believe the stories.
I was asking if they actually bought the Xenu, space alien-gensis rap. Or whatever that was about. I don’t know when all that was revealed. Maybe it was all ancient history and for some reason I just think it was some later revelation. IDK. But I had the very definite impression that people didn’t go in being presented with these ideas - quite the opposite.
---
### Author:  [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/104 "2013-10-30T12:40:22Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> As pointed out, the Gospel of Mark is clearly presented as a historical biography of a person named Jesus Christ. Mark clearly knew that Jesus was person who lived in Palestine and Galilee around 30 A.D. and clearly knew that his audience knew that. To pretend that Mark and the community he lived in didn’t believe in an earthly Jesus is simply wrong.
Yes. It wasn’t like Mark, even on the margins of the dating envelope, would be so far removed that there wouldn’t be some pretty direct links to people who knew Jesus and/or his disciples.
---
### Author:  [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/105 "2013-10-30T13:06:09Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#):
>
> I think you’re mistaken on that one. In a world with next to no communications other than people traveling from one place to another, and most people spending their entire lives within a few miles of where they were born, I’d guess you could easily make people up.
>
> Idaho borders my state, but if you told me that Charles Murphy (a name I just made up) was the governor of Idaho TODAY, I’d have to take your word for it, because I have no idea who the gov of Idaho is. If I cared, I could look it up on the internet, but if I only had access to first century technology, I can’t imagine any conceivable circumstance that would make me care enough to walk to Boise and find out.
>
> And if you were selling something that depended on on Murphy, and I happened to know somebody from Idaho, even then, how could I dispute you? My friend from Idaho may not have been there for several months; maybe Murphy was just elected. Even if I knew for a fact that the gov wasn’t Murphy, all I’d do about it is ignore your pitch. I’m not going to devote any time to following you around and telling people you’re wrong.
Hell, even today it isn’t hard to create someone many people believe to be a real person. General Mills gets calls all the time looking for Betty Crocker - who people are sure is a real person. Carolyne Keene, writer of Nancy Drew, is a collection of ghostwriters. Erin Hunter, writer of the children’s Warriors series (about a society of feral cats) is five people writing under one name (I’ve always thought that would be harder than just writing a book by yourself). We have the research tools at our fingertips to prove that these “people” are not “people” - but it isn’t hard to find people who firmly believe that the person exists. Loose the ample 20th and 21st century records (first century records weren’t ample before they were lost) and it would be pretty easy to believe that Carolyn Keene was a real person - after all, my mother’s generation grew up on her books.
---
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/106 "2013-10-30T13:08:14Z")
> [@clairobscur](#):
>
> Until the middle of the 2nd century at least, with Marcion, there were Christians who believed that Jesus was spiritual in nature.Besides, there were similarly earlier beliefs in an “angel-messiah”.
>
> So, the concept doesn’t seem implausible to me, even though the existence of a real preacher seems more likely.
If memory serves - the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ (puportedly written first hand by Thomas) is Gnostic in nature and it reads as though Jesus was only spiritual in nature.
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/107 "2013-10-30T13:14:25Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> As pointed out, the Gospel of Mark is clearly presented as a historical biography of a person named Jesus Christ. Mark clearly knew that Jesus was person who lived in Palestine and Galilee around 30 A.D. and clearly knew that his audience knew that. To pretend that Mark and the community he lived in didn’t believe in an earthly Jesus is simply wrong.
Looking at my comments on Mark/Homer in this thread, I think I sound a bit more irrationally exuberant about the possibility than I actually am. Let me clarify. It’s not that I’m convinced Mark imitated Homer. It’s that I know this is an idea that’s taken seriously among mainstream scholars. Not that they all believe it, but that when one of them proposed it, some said “no way,” others said “meh, maybe” and others said “I’m not convinced but this is really insightful and may be right.” And from my point of view here on the non-expert ground, what that means is at best I ought to withhold judgment. MacDonald is making arguments that look good to me, and other scholars of his caliber don’t dismiss him out of hand. So for all I know, he’s right. (And for all I know, he’s not, but that’s not relevant to my reasoning here.)
If for all I know, Mark imitates Homer (and also, for all I know, Mark _also_ retells OT stories), then for all I can tell, Mark is intentional fiction. This adds to the impetus to “stop thinking” Jesus was real. Again–not to start thinking Jesus wasn’t real, but to stop thinking he was. I hope you see the distinction.
---
### Author:  [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/108 "2013-10-30T13:21:16Z")
> [@simster](#):
>
> If memory serves - the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ (puportedly written first hand by Thomas) is Gnostic in nature and it reads as though Jesus was only spiritual in nature.
I could be wrong about this, but I think the argument for an early date for Thomas was the fact that it was just a collection of sayings with no structure or narrative. But otherwise I think it’s solidly gnostic.
If IIRC the gnostic movement developed in Egypt, or at least that was the area where it seemed to have the strongest base. The point is that I don’t think there are many scholars that would argue for an early date for the gnostic movement and by ‘early’ I mean something nearly contemporaneous with the original disciples.
---
### Author:  [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/109 "2013-10-30T13:23:44Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> And none of the early mentions of Jesus - Jewish, Christian, or Roman - refer to him as a made-up story. They all accept the idea that he was real while disputing what he said and did.
These were credulous times. If only 1% of the population was literate at the time, why waste time writing rare and expensive manuscripts for such a story back then? What would be gained from that, and who would desire to read about such a story? When writing about Homer, Thor, Zeus, and a long list of gods, I can’t imagine manuscripts being found during this time that would have made an effort to write about how any of these were made up either.
At some point, as Christianity started to gain more and more steam, throughout a good part of its history it was probably best to keep to keep your doubts to yourself.
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/110 "2013-10-30T14:04:27Z")
> [@Satan's Spawn](#):
>
> I don’t believe Jesus really existed, as a secular man or otherwise. And I don’t buy into the argument that since people 50 years or so later thought he was real, then he must have been real. Supposed contemporaries of Prester John thought _he_ was real. More likely, the Jesus myth was perpetuated by the ancient version of evangelist scammers who were simply creating a religion for their own nefarious purposes.
>
> I would have to see some hard documentation to believe otherwise, and there just isn’t any.
Prester John _was_ real - or at least, the name was identified with and partly inspired by real people 😉 - Nestorian Christian Central Asian leaders.
> [@](#):
>
> Otto’s account appears to be a muddled version of real events. In 1141, the Kara-Khitan Khanate under Yelü Dashi defeated the Seljuk Turks near Samarkand. The Seljuks ruled over Persia at the time and were the most powerful force in the Muslim world, and the defeat at Samarkand weakened them substantially. The Kara-Khitan at the time were Buddhists and not Christian, and there is no reason to suppose Yelü Dashi was ever called Prester John.[15] However, several vassals of the Kara-Khitan practiced Nestorian Christianity, which may have contributed to the legend,[16] as well as the possibility that the Europeans, who were unfamiliar with the concept of Buddhism, assumed that the leader must have been Christian.[17] Whatever the case may be, the defeat encouraged the Crusaders and inspired a notion of deliverance from the East, and it is possible Otto recorded Hugh’s confused report to prevent complacency in the Crusade’s European backers; according to his account no help could be expected from a powerful Eastern king.[18]
Later, the term was associated with Ghengis Khan’s foster-father (and then his enemy), Toghrul.
> [@](#):
>
> The historical figure behind these accounts, Toghrul, was in fact a Nestorian Christian monarch defeated by Genghis. He had fostered the future Khan after the death of his father Yesugei and was one of his early allies, but the two had a falling out. After Toghrul rejected a proposal to wed his son and daughter to Genghis’ children, the rift between them grew until war broke out in 1203. Genghis captured Sorghaghtani Beki, daughter of Toghrul’ brother Jaqa Gambu, and married her to his son Tolui; they had several children, including Möngke, Kublai, Hulagu, and Ariq Böke.
> **[Prester John | Mongol Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John#Mongol_Empire)**
>
> In 1221, Jacques de Vitry, Bishop of Acre, returned from the disastrous Fifth Crusade with good news: King David of India, the son or grandson of Prester John, had mobilized his armies against the Saracens. He had already conquered Persia, then under the Khwarazmian Empire's control, and was moving on towards Baghdad as well. This descendant of the great king who had defeated the Seljuks in 1141 planned to reconquer and rebuild Jerusalem.
> Controversial Soviet historian and ethnologist Lev Gumil...
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/111 "2013-10-30T14:05:31Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> On further checking, once I got the google result that was _this very thread_ without having encountered anything legitimate, I gave up. 😉 You’re right about this one AFAICT.
No prob - this sort of thing is rife when talking about the writings of early Rabbis.
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/112 "2013-10-30T14:23:23Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> I misremembered. It’s something scholars are divided about. Sorry to not have an online cite, and I don’t claim to have read this myself, but apparently in the book _A Translator’s Handbook for 1 Corinthians,_ on page 46, the author even opines that _most_ NT scholars think it refers to spiritual entities.
Well, your entire argument hinges on the assumption that virtually all New Testament scholars are wrong about virtually everything. It’s rather odd, then, that you’d appeal to a majority of such scholars. In your OP, you said that you formed your opinions by actually reading the New Testament, so let’s look at the passage in question.
The Greek word _archon_ quite definitely means ‘king’ or ‘ruler’. It is used throughout the New Testament to refer to various authority figures, and used similarly by contemporary writers. It could also be used to refer to “the prince [archon] of demons”, but if used without the modifier, the default assumption is that it refers to a human ruler. I know of no instance where any author simply said _archon_ and assumed, by itself, that readers would interpret it as a demon. The burden of proof is clearly on those who argue that it refers to a non-human.
Then put the verse in its context. If we read 1 Corinthians, we see that after a standard greeting, Paul starts a lengthy comparison between the wisdom possessed by Christians which is regarded as foolishness by the world, and the false wisdom of worldy humans. (His use of phrases such as _toutou aion_ and _anthropinos_ makes it clear that the false wisdom being criticized is that of human beings.) As part of this criticism, he attacks the “princes of this world” in 2:6, then reminds us in 2:8 that those same “princes of this world” were the ones who crucified Jesus. Demons are not mentioned anywhere in this passage; it is entirely about a contrast between two groups of human beings. So to me, the argument that 2:8 is referring to demons looks like clutching at straws.
There is another passage in which Paul mentions that Jesus was killed by humans as well: 1 Thess 2:14-5. (Doherty and Carrier have to argue that this passage is inauthentic, being inserted into the text by a later scribe. But there’s no manuscript that lacks these verses and no serious textual reason to accept this claim.)
For what it’s worth, I looked up the 1 Cor 2 passage in my copy of The Oxford Annotated Bible, which is as mainstream as it gets. It interprets the passage straightforwardly as referring to human rulers.
---
### Author:  [@Arete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arete)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/113 "2013-10-30T14:32:04Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying that since records are sketchy, but we have remarkable numbers of records of Jesus, Jesus probably existed? Or that since records are sketchy, and our record of Jesus is not particularly more sketchy than that for other famous figures, Jesus probably existed? Or are you saying that since records are sketchy, including records of Jesus, there’s no reason to think he existed?
The second. That if one does not believe that Jesus existed because we only have a few surviving sources, then to be consistent one should take the same view on almost everyone else we know of from Greco-Roman history.
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/114 "2013-10-30T14:39:39Z")
> [@Arete](#):
>
> The second. That if one does not believe that Jesus existed because we only have a few surviving sources, then to be consistent one should take the same view on almost everyone else we know of from Greco-Roman history.
In addition, you would have to hypothesize some other founder.
My own opinion is that, stripped of the miracles, there is nothing particularly unusual about the life-story of Jesus as a historical figure. Preachers on millenial themes were not unknown in his day and age, and that one would fall afoul of the Romans and get excecuted after causing a disturbance in Jerusalem - a notorious hot-spot - is hardly remarkable. The Romans probably executed troublesome Jewish preachers for causing disturbances reasonably regularly.
So why not a historical Jesus?
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/115 "2013-10-30T14:42:29Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> Well, your entire argument hinges on the assumption that virtually all New Testament scholars are wrong about virtually everything.
This statement is false.
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/116 "2013-10-30T14:43:29Z")
> [@Arete](#):
>
> The second. That if one does not believe that Jesus existed because we only have a few surviving sources,
I’m not aware of anyone in this thread making that argument.
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/117 "2013-10-30T14:44:42Z")
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> In addition, you would have to hypothesize some other founder.
>
> My own opinion is that, stripped of the miracles, there is nothing particularly unusual about the life-story of Jesus as a historical figure. Preachers on millenial themes were not unknown in his day and age, and that one would fall afoul of the Romans and get excecuted after causing a disturbance in Jerusalem - a notorious hot-spot - is hardly remarkable. The Romans probably executed troublesome Jewish preachers for causing disturbances reasonably regularly.
>
> So why not a historical Jesus?
The relevance of these observations is unclear, as none of the arguments I’ve related in this thread have relied on an idea that the mainstream position posits anything unusual.
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/118 "2013-10-30T14:52:13Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> The relevance of these observations is unclear, as none of the arguments I’ve related in this thread have relied on an idea that the mainstream position posits anything unusual.
Occam’s Razor.
We have a situation where there is no direct evidence for the existence of someone named Jesus who is alleged to be the inspiration for this religion.
However, he’s not unique in that. There is very little evidence for the existence of anyone living at that time,even guys who, in their own day, were significantly powerful (for example, Pontus Pilate - there is one contemporary inscription that refers to him ant that is it).
So, on the balance of probabilities, do we believe or disbelieve he really existed?
Factors in favour of belief that he did:
1. Someone or something inspired the religion. If not someone named Jesus, then what?
2. Stripped of the miraculous, the story of Jesus “fits” reasonably well with its time and place.
3. Whether he really existed or not, you would be very unlikely to have any tangible evidence of this. So absence of evidence is _really_ not evidence of absence in this case.
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/119 "2013-10-30T14:55:08Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> I know of no instance where any author simply said _archon_ and assumed, by itself, that readers would interpret it as a demon.
The phrase is “rulers of this age.” That term “age” is fraught with spiritualized connotations.
> [@](#):
>
> Then put the verse in its context. If we read 1 Corinthians, we see that after a standard greeting, Paul starts a lengthy comparison between the wisdom possessed by Christians which is regarded as foolishness by the world, and the false wisdom of worldy humans. (His use of phrases such as _toutou aion_ and _anthropinos_ makes it clear that the false wisdom being criticized is that of human beings.) As part of this criticism, he attacks the “princes of this world” in 2:6,
Focus in on 2:5 and 2:6. At 2:5 he’s dispensing with “human wisdom.” It reads to me as an end to a rhetorical unit–the last part of a passage in which he’s saying human wisdom is bad. This is not unrelated to what comes next, but at 2:6 he seems to be moving on to something else. If this isn’t so, then he’s being strangely repetitive, and the change of phrasing is unaccounted for. He seems at 2:6 to be relating “human wisdom” to something else, namely, the “wisdom of the age.” And as I said above, that word “age” is fraught with cosmic connotations. That the next verse begins to talk about things foreordained and hidden before time began (or whatever it exactly says) seems to confirm this impression–that from 2:5 to 2:6, the subject has been changed. (To something related, to be sure. But changed nonetheless–in the direction of things more cosmic. My immediate impression is that he’s now trying to talk about the realities “behind” the “human wisdom” spoken of before.)
> [@](#):
>
> There is another passage in which Paul mentions that Jesus was killed by humans as well: 1 Thess 2:14-5. (Doherty and Carrier have to argue that this passage is inauthentic, being inserted into the text by a later scribe. But there’s no manuscript that lacks these verses and no serious textual reason to accept this claim.)
I have the impression that calling this an interpolation is not particularly controversial. I’ve had that impression about this passage since long before reading the stuff I’ve mentioned in this thread. I’ll have to look it up again though.
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [October 30, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527/120 "2013-10-30T14:58:31Z")
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> Occam’s Razor.
>
> We have a situation where there is no direct evidence for the existence of someone named Jesus who is alleged to be the inspiration for this religion.
>
> However, he’s not unique in that. There is very little evidence for the existence of anyone living at that time,even guys who, in their own day, were significantly powerful (for example, Pontus Pilate - there is one contemporary inscription that refers to him ant that is it).
>
> So, on the balance of probabilities, do we believe or disbelieve he really existed?
>
> Factors in favour of belief that he did:
>
> 1. Someone or something inspired the religion. If not someone named Jesus, then what?
>
> 2. Stripped of the miraculous, the story of Jesus “fits” reasonably well with its time and place.
>
> 3. Whether he really existed or not, you would be very unlikely to have any tangible evidence of this. So absence of evidence is _really_ not evidence of absence in this case.
You are giving an argument against an argument from silence, but not a positive argument for Jesus’s existence. I don’t _think_ what I’ve said in this thread amounts to an argument for silence. (I do think there are arguments from silence in this area that are worth talking about, but I don’t think I’ve given any of them in this thread.) Since I haven’t given an argument from silence, yet you’re refuting an argument from silence, your remarks still seem irrelevant tbh.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527.md?page=5)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-guys-im-starting-to-stop-thinking-jesus-existed/672527.md?page=7)