Let’s try to keep this from going into the BBQ Pit. I didn’t think it belonged in General Questions. I in no way mean to insult, question or belittle the beliefs of anyone by asking this question.
I have met a lot of people who swear that Jesus lived, said the things he is supposed to have said, and died the way he was supposed to have died. There is absolutely no doubt in their minds.
So was Jesus a historical figure, and if he was, how do we know? What undeniable scientific or other evidence is there that he ever really existed? And you can’t say “because the Bible tells us so” because the New Testament was written long after Jesus was supposedly crucified and the Bible is not generally considered a historically factual document.
I realize that Jesus lived a long time ago, but there were highly sophisticated civilizations in the Middle East long before Jesus was supposed to have been born. We know a lot about the Pharaohs, but they were kings/gods and lots of people wrote about them. By comparison, Jesus lived in a relative backwater of the Middle East, but I assume there are extemporaneous writings from that time. Do they mention Jesus specifically and the miracles he performed? Is there some birth record somewhere with his name on it? As famous as he must have been during his lifetime performing miracles it would be strange for there not be a lot written about him specifically. Of course, he would have been but one of the many messiahs walking around at that time.
Josephus’ history of the Jews has a mention that probably refers to Jesus. There’s also a mention in the Talmud of a man who is likely to have been Jesus. And of course, the Gospels were written for some reason; the odds are decent they were written about an actual human being.
So no, we don’t know for certain. But it seems pretty likely.
Are you familiar with Doctors Bart Ehrman (an atheist historian who nevertheless believes the gospels were built around a historical Jesus) and Richard Carrier (an atheist historian who has made a career out of arguing in favor of the “mythicist” position)? They’re both fairly prolific with their YouTube videos (as far as historians go, anyway), in addition to their written works.
Ehrman’s videos (a lot of them tread the same ground) would be the ones most likely to offer an answer for why the consensus among historians is what it is. Carrier would, of course, dispute his points (either in questioning the veracity of the documents, their interpretation, or their significance in establishing a historical basis for early beliefs). The arguments seem to hinge around (off the top of my head):
The consensus is that at least a few of the letters supposed to have been written by Paul are authentic to the decade or so after Christ’s purported death, and one of those generally accepted as authentic letters speaks of a meeting with “James, the brother of Jesus.” Most take that to mean a brother in the literal sense, but then Carrier et. al would tend to argue it’s more in a metaphorical sense, as we might say that a monk or nun is a brother/sister of the lord today.
While Paul never claims to have met Jesus in the flesh (at least not in the same way the other Apostles did) in his generally accepted as authentic letters, he was, again, writing from fairly soon after the death of Jesus (compared to other works) and historians think that the timespan from the death of Jesus to the appearance of Paul and his letters is too brief for a myth to have formed from whole cloth.
There are some parts of the canonical gospels that are unflattering, and so historians consider that evidence of their veracity. Why would they make up the story of a Jesus in Mark who doesn’t seem at all happy with his fate and cries out as if forsaken? Compared to the later John, for instance, where Jesus is unambiguously aware of his purpose and totally cool with dying for the sins of all mankind.
There’s a line or two in Josephus (and I do mean a line or two) that mentions early Christians and (unlike all the other lines in Josephus about early Christians and Christ) may not have been forged later Christian scholars. But, much like the letters of Paul, the best that gets you is evidence that there was a cult of Christ followers within maybe three decades of Jesus’ death, relying on the same assumptions that a cult of followers “couldn’t possibly” have sprung up from whole cloth so quickly if there wasn’t a historical Jesus for them to base their beliefs on.
You might also try the Wikipedia page on the historicity of Jesus if you haven’t already.
The Gospels have to be true. If they weren’t, nobody would have believed them.
I mean, in your wildest imagination, can you see someone saying things that can easily be proved wrong, and yet having millions of people believe him?
I’ll concede that we have a big advantage over mostly illiterate first-century peasants. Today, everyone is literate, and can research facts with a few mouse clicks, and can even call up video of almost any event they’re interested in, so there’s no way anyone could gaslight a significant percentage of people.
But don’t sell first-century people short. While it may be true that most people living in Corinth or Rome knew next to nothing about Israel or Jewish prophecy, and no way to confirm or deny any stories about what might have happened in Israel several decades earlier, they had good old-fashioned horse sense. There’s just no way that liars could have gotten a sizeable following.
Well, Quite a few of the Apostles lived for some time after the Crucifixion. And they didnt really all agree- John went off and did his own thing. Peter did go to Rome and founded the Church, etc. Were they all part of a conspiracy? And of course John wrote about Jesus (or dictated to his followers).
Josephus mentions Jesus twice. Unfortunately , one mention was definitely edited by some overly pious monk. However, experts are sure it originally did mention Jesus. The other mention is a offhand one, when James, the Brother of Jesus is stoned to death. Experts say yes, that one is legit.
Tacitus mentions Jesus offhand. etc.
Note that the ancient Romans kept good records (which 99.999% of which have been destroyed) and when the Christian cult started up, all they had to do is just show that the records show no such Crucifixion. They didnt do so. Why not? Well, becuase their records showed he did, and enuf people were around that had met Him in the flesh that the Romans would have gotten the horselaugh.
In fact, no one had any doubts about Jesus being real until fairly recently.
Note that some of the skeptics said that Pontius Pilate was also made up, but we found the Pilate stone in 1961 and they shut up about that. (There’s almost no record of Pilate either, that’s how little of the ancient Roman records we have- and Pilate is by far the BEST attested governor of Judaea!) We dont even know when Pilate was born or died, and Pilate was fairly important. So, we wouldnt expect much for records of a backwoods preacher.
I don’t believe that is the consensus among historians at all (that the apostle John had anything at all to do with the gospel called John, which is almost universally accepted as being the last of the canonical gospels written).
You think they kept records of every two-bit, rag-wearing, apocalyptic cult-leading would-be-Messiah they nailed to a cross or otherwise disposed of?
To sum it up, I think you’re overplaying your hand. While I grudgingly accept the historical consensus on the historicity of Jesus in the same way I do for other historical matters, I think the portions above represent how the claims of theologians and devoted Christians with a clear bias towards not only historicity, but divinity, taint the discussion of Christ as a historical figure.
Quite the opposite, in fact - it’s my understanding that none of the Gospels were written by the people they’re now named for. Considering the degree to which they disagree on fundamental details like the circumstances of Jesus’ birth, the crucifixion, and the resurrection, it’s pretty clear that they’re all secondhand sources at best.
I’m personally of the opinion that Jesus was a quasi-mythical Jewish culture hero, much like King Arthur or Robin Hood, who may have been inspired by several self-proclaimed messiahs and martyrs over the course of centuries, and that the various stories about him coalesced into a somewhat-coherent apocalyptic narrative in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple.
Was there a Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate?Yes. Was he a successful healer and preacher?Yes, almost certainly. Did he walk on water and change water into wine?No. Was there some mystery about his corpse going missing?Maybe.
As for the proof that the Gospels refer to a historic Jesus of Nazareth rather than a fictional character, it’s mostly a matter of deduction and circumstantial evidence. Josephus’ two mentions of Jesus are the main exception. (Citation please on the Talmud mention; I thought that was about a different Jesus.)
In any case, even if there was a real, definable Jesus, that still leaves you a million miles away from being able to claim he was in any way supernatural or the son of a god.
This is weirdly naive. A cult can have multiple founders and many followers, but we should not take either as evidence of the “truthiness” of the cult’s beliefs. R.L Hubbard’s talks about thetans in his writings. Does that mean thetans are real?
Just in case you don’t have a tongue firmly planted in a cheek, let me mention an example of, uh, old-fashioned horse sense from the New Testament.
We’re told — and let’s momentarily grant, for the sake of argument, that all of the following is true — that Joseph marries Mary, and learns that she’s pregnant and the kid isn’t his, and reacts accordingly. But then an angel appears to him and tells him stuff, and, gosh, an ANGEL! Oh, WOW! He reacts by taking the angel’s message to heart, which is the story that others have taken to heart: that of course Joseph would’ve reacted that way if an angel appeared to him!
If the New Testament is to be believed, that is how first-century types reacted if an angel appeared unto them. If the story is to make any sense at all, then right at the start in Matthew 1 we should look at Joseph’s reaction and say, yeah, I figure that’s how a guy back then would react if an angel appeared to him…
…in a dream. The whole point of this story is that first-century types react to an angel appearing in a dream as if an angel had appeared, y’know, for real.
Turn the question around. Pick anyone from that long ago, and ask what evidence we have of their existence. Then throw out any evidence that came from their followers, and ask the question again. Like, do we have any evidence of the existence of Julius Caesar, other than what came from his followers?
Either you end up concluding that Jesus existed, or that nobody at all existed two thousand years ago.
The British professor G. A. Wells has practically made a career out of doubting the existence of a historical Jesus, using the same sorts of arguments. He’s written a string of books on the topic (one of which is starkly titled Did Jesus Exist?). even if you don’t agree with him, he’s worth reading, because he makes the case very clearly, with his supporting texts. He also draws parallels to other “wonder workers” of the time, such as Apollonius of Tyana. Did Apollonius really exist? Maybe not, but it’s far, far more likely that Julius Caesar did.
There is very little in the way of reliable evidence that an individual named Jesus lived around the right time. But, as noted, there is alack of quality contemporaneous corroboration of many famous historical figures. So fine, some guy named Jesus probably existed - one of countless rabble rousing preachers at the time.
But there is NO credible reason to believe there was anything mystical about him. To the contrary, there are many likely explanations for his followers and their successors to make up and spread various stories about him.
The truly influential person is whoever had the bright idea of hiding the body!
Really questionable example. A history of the Jews, written by a Jew, with one off-hand sentence mentioning “BTW, there was this guy Jesus who was our prophesied Messiah made incarnate.” So that is either 1.) the biggest case of burying the lede in history or 2.) something added much later by a Christian.
