I agree with this. To fabricate a fictional martyr would risk exposure of the fraud. And why bother to create a fiction anyway, when it’s thought that there were several real rabble-rousers crucified by Rome during that period?
Even if you disagree that the Gospels were written by the mid- 1st century, consider Josephus’ singling out for mention the 62 A.D. stoning execution of James, brother of Jesus.
Summary: If you insist on air-tight “proof” of Jesus’ existence you won’t find it – especially if you reject as evidence the contents of the New Testament and Josephus’ writings. But if you consider probability, I think a large majority of scholars accept that Jesus’ existence is far more likely than not.
But much of the argument is at cross-purposes. Many of the people who believe Jesus existed do not believe he walked on water or converted water into wine. What are we debating here?
BTW I still wonder: Do those who think Jesus was fictional also think John the Baptist was fictional?
The following is total hijack … but I didn’t start it.
I’m not sure why you posted this, unless you just want to irk those of us who remain open-minded about the authorship. Nobody disputes that there was a real person named William Shakespeare buried in the church chancel in Stratford under a gravestone that reads
Good friend for Jesus sake forbeare,
To dig the dust enclosed here.
Blessed be the man that spares these stones,
And cursed be he that moves my bones.
Just as some of us believe that Jesus existed but did not convert water into wine, so some acknowledge that William Shakespeare … Oh, just start a Pit thread if you insist on discussing this again.
No. I’m saying that if someone tells you a plausible story about a guy they know, it’s worth believing provisionally that the person exists until you get more evidence that the person was fictional. That’s what Occam’s razor is about.
We have writings about a person who was very influential to several early Christian writers, Paul especially. The stories about him are bullshit, clearly – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But the mere fact that he existed is not an extraordinary claim. So in my mind, that implies the default assumption is that he existed and the stories of his miracles were exaggerated or made up.
The fact that people wrote about him is evidence that he existed. Certainly that evidence could be wrong. It’s not very good evidence. People wrote about Harry Potter, too. But in the absence of evidence otherwise, and given that the writings about him were from a time before fiction as we know it existed, I think it’s fair to act as if he existed in some sense.
My point is one of expediency. We have no evidence Jesus the person is fictional. The mere fact that humans don’t come back from the dead is good evidence the stories are fabricated, but the subject of those stories could still be a real person, albeit not magical. And that, I feel, should be the default assumption until such a time as we dig up a page from Paul’s diary talking about how foolish everyone is for believing in a person he made up.
On the other hand, if you feel that the stories being bullshit is good evidence that the person was bullshit and made up too, I think that’s a legitimate stance, given that we don’t have much evidence either way. I"m just laying out my reasons for coming to a different conclusion.
Heh, just what I was thinking: troublemaking Jewish rabbis crucified by the Romans were hardly a rarity at that time … ! There is no real necessity to invent any.
The notion he (or indeed anyone) performed miracles and was the literal son of god - that’s a matter of faith, not history. Though once again, folks claiming to be miracle-workers were hardly unknown at the time.
It seems to me very probable that there actually was a trouble-making Jewish rabbi named “Yeshua” or something like it, who gained a following, and was executed by the Romans. Maybe he claimed to work miracles, maybe he actually “performed” some street-magician style (again, this would not have been unprecedented), maybe that was just invented after his death … we will never know.
1- Yes, there is the standard version of Peter Parker/Spider man, then there are alternate versions. Just like there are the Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Apocrypha. And the Book of Mormon.
I’m not sure you point about standard vs non standard version really means anything.
2- Yes, in most places, I assume, in the USA in the the 1970’s and 1980’s, places where people valued things like logic and critical thinking, they knew wrestling was fake. But down here in “Georgia” in the “Bible Belt” people used to actually debate this topic, quite fervently.
Ironically, or, not ironically and more to - my - point, it was the same people, back them, who believed in a literal Noah’s Arc also thought wrestling was “real”.
I’m not exaggerating. I’m 43. I was born in 1972. Growing up in rural Georgia people really did debate if wrestling was real.
Missed the edit window. Very few people thought it was completely fake. People could see that when you punched someone in the face and stomped the mat at the same time the loud “bang” was for sound effect.
But they would of been insulted, however, if you suggested the outcome was predetermined. If you said their guy didn’t really win, people got mad.
I think both of you are underestimating the potential power of a skilled and charismatic therapist, even without Divine assistance. The power of hypnosis is controversial, but some think some ancient people were more susceptible to hynopsis, and experienced more psychosomatic diseases, compared with today. Cases of people wrongly declared dead who “come back to life” are seen even today.
This is a really important point IMO. There is absolutely nothing implausible at all about the very idea that someone might have simply made up these stories ca 40 or 50ad and there are plenty of people that would have simply believed them–or not really cared whether they were “true” or not in the first place. This shit happens all the time.
And what we do have is absolutely compatible with something like that having happened in the case of Jesus. That Jesus was made up is at least as likely as that there was a real guy.
Well, Mark was written, or at least finished, no earlier than 70 AD, so that’s what, 37 years, and the others came later, so I’d say more like 35 to 50 years. And yes, there would still be people around, but who would be able to dispute it? Jesus was apparently a small-time apocalyptic preacher. He didn’t appear on the Dick Cavett show of his day. Further, everything in the New Testament was written in Greek, so even if there was some old guy in Jerusalem who could remember every person tried and executed, would he even be exposed to the gospels, or even be able to read them if he had come across them?
Look, I think it’s more likely that the legends were based on a real person, but the explanation that people in the area would have disputed the gospels if there hadn’t been, doesn’t hold water.
ETA:
I was born 11 years before that, in the deep woods of east Texas, still right in the Bible Belt, and when I was a little kid, it was common knowledge that rasslin’ was all staged.
Simon of Cyrene, who carried Jesus’ cross, had two sons, Rufus and Alexander. Simon bar Kochba, who was said to be the Messiah by some, had a son Rufus, who continued the opposition to the Romans after his father died. This all happened in the 130s ad. The reference to Cyrene alludes to an earlier major revolt of the Jews starting at Cyrene in 116 ad. The story of Jesus was a tract written after 130 ad set a 100 years earlier.
There are “false magicians” described in the Bible itself - the notion was hardly unknown at the time.
For example, “Simon the Sorcerer”. He’s specifically mentioned as eventually recognizing the superiority of Christianity - but in the “wrong spirit” (he thinks it’s just better magic, that he can buy - hence, the sin of “simony” named after him).
According to the Aprocrypha, Simon tries to impress the Romans by a levitation trick - but Peter screws it up (by praying for him to fail) and he falls. The Romans, unimpressed, then stone Simon.
Now, tricks such as levitation don’t actually require “mass hypnosis” - lots of modern magicians can do them, and so presumably could ancient ones.
I don’t think it is nearly as likely. The evidence: the writers of the gospels went through all sorts of improbable contortions to give “Jesus” the right pedigree for a messiah. If they just made him up out of whole cloth, why not give him perfect credentials without all the difficulties?
This makes me think that they were mythologizing an awkwardly real person, that enough was known at the time the stories were written about that real person that they could not just give him whatever characteristics they wanted.
I’m not sure why you posted this, unless you just want to irk those of us who remain open-minded about the authorship. Nobody disputes that there was a real person named William Shakespeare buried in the church chancel in Stratford under a gravestone that reads
There is no real necessity to invent any.