# New evidence against an historical Jesus **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2013, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832 "2013-10-10T00:16:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![dogbutler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dogbutler/32/428_2.png) [@dogbutler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dogbutler)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/41 "2013-10-10T12:49:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > J find your jdeas jnteresting, and J wish to subscribe to your newsletter. > > Regards, > Shodan J think he’s just a mole for the Jllumjnatj. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/42 "2013-10-10T13:01:46Z")
> [@newinitiation](#): > > Oh here we go again all that without a shred of proof or evidence to back up your claim against Billy Meier > > Jesus is a fictional character created by the pharisees who inserted this erroneous term to the bible and wrongly attributed this name to a real person known as Jmmanuel We already talked about your nutjob-this thread is about another nutjob. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/43 "2013-10-10T13:12:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We already talked about your nutjob-this thread is about another nutjob. Are we only allowed one nutjob per thread? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/44 "2013-10-10T13:18:26Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > Are we only allowed one nutjob per thread? Let’s hope not, or we are going to have a whole lot of really short threads on the SDMB. Of course, I expect the number of nutjobs on the SDMB to decrease by at least one in the near future, if you catch my drift. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![PSXer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/48db29/32.png) [@PSXer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PSXer)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/45 "2013-10-10T13:50:57Z")
Atheists already don’t believe ancient texts why would they care what this one says ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/46 "2013-10-10T13:53:05Z")
> [@PSXer](#): > > Atheists already don’t believe ancient texts > > why would they care what this one says absolutely false statement - atheists do not belive in ‘god’ - has absolutely nothing to do with validity of ‘ancient texts’ - ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/47 "2013-10-10T14:20:52Z")
I fully doubt a singular historic Jesus existed, and this stinks of nutjobbery even to me. I mean, seriously, it’s like a Dan Brown novel - “You need to decipher the code hidden in these 1st century documents” is right out of his playbook. ---
**Author:** ![Stalky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@Stalky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stalky)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/48 "2013-10-10T15:12:36Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I fully doubt a singular historic Jesus existed, and this stinks of nutjobbery even to me. I mean, seriously, it’s like a Dan Brown novel - “You need to decipher the code hidden in these 1st century documents” is right out of his playbook. It just reeks of the tortured logic of conspiracy theory. I very much doubt that enough actual documentary evidence exists to back it up, although I can certainly understand the impulse to want to “Prove those Christians wrong once and for all.” It’s not a healthy or useful impulse, and it’s also not necessary. It kind of makes everybody involved look desperate. Nothing will make a Believer stop listening to you faster than claiming that you can prove, via some tortured logic, that Jesus doesn’t exist. You might as well just stop talking at that point, because I can guarantee that they aren’t listening. They already have a chosen conspiracy theory, as presented by their personal theology. What possible reason could they have to abandon that position, as poorly supported as it is, in order to take up another position that also requires that they accept massive leaps of unsupported logic. It’s just not going to happen. Atwill seems to be aware of this, from the press release article "what my work has done is give permission to many of those ready to leave the religion to make a clean break. " It’s red meat for newly converted Atheists… he’s simply helping them replace one conspiracy (christian theology) with another, more emotionally pleasing, conspiracy. To quote Bob Price, “All conclusions are tentative, which is why you cannot dogmatize as a historian… Some people cannot sleep at night; they want the teddy bear of certainty, but I am afraid it is time to leave that sort of toy land behind.” ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/49 "2013-10-10T15:44:19Z")
> [@newinitiation](#): > > This name is ascribed to a real person by the name of Jmmanuel who was the 5th prophet out of a series of 7 and before Mohammed and Billy Meier who was fathered by an extraterrestrial person by the name of Gabriel. Wait, didn’t Billy Meier invent Oxyclean? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/50 "2013-10-10T15:51:39Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Wait, didn’t Billy Meier invent Oxyclean? He did. But then the MiB stole it and got that Billy Mays guy to sell it for them. And Meier didn’t notice for years he wasn’t getting the royalties. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/51 "2013-10-10T15:52:45Z")
Why, exactly, would the Romans try to undermine a group they had pretty clearly beaten on the battlefield? And why wouldn’t they target their new religion more specifically to the Jews (e.g. write the NT in Aramaic rather than Koine Greek), rather than allowing it to escape that region and became a new problem for the Romans (as Tacitus remarks on the fire at Rome during Nero’s reign)? Why, in fact, would any later Roman criticize Christianity if it had been designed by Romans to be Roman-friendly? And beyond just Jesus, the theory seems to require that Paul’s letters were also faked–or at least that Paul was part of the conspiracy. There are plenty of good reasons to doubt the historical content of the NT. Atwill isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/52 "2013-10-10T16:33:23Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Apparently I haven’t visited 2015 yet. Typical me! My first thought on opening this thread was that we had all time traveled to April 1, 2014. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/53 "2013-10-10T16:35:37Z")
> [@Stalky](#): > > I have said it other places on the board, even without a supposed additional historical document there are plenty of reasons to conclude that Jesus is, at least potentially, literary. > > When you strip out of the Gospels all of the stories and sermons the can be shown to be related to other earlier works and traditions, when you remove accounts that are form critically non-biographical, there is basically nothing left of a historical account. If a real first century Jew was at the heart of Christianity then the one thing we can know about him is that, using our current documents, we can know absolutely nothing about him at all. > > That does not mean he can be shown to definitely not to exist, but there are certainly plausible ways that the writings could have arisen without requiring a historical figure. > > But I also have to agree with the consensus of the thread. The document is likely nothing, or a forgery. You see stunts like this an awful lot. [These](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1371290/70-metal-books-Jordan-cave-change-view-Biblical-history.html) were a big buzz about a year ago, but were promptly shown to be [fakes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Lead_Codices). Anything for a quick buck, it seems. Holy relics are big business. Almost all ancient texts are literary to some degree, as the authors made stuff up to increase reader interest. Look at all the weird stuff in works of geography. And not just ancient - look at Parson Weems. ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/54 "2013-10-10T17:48:21Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > [Here is one (hostile) review of Atwill’s theory](http://www.tektonics.org/books/csmessrvw.html). From the link. > [@](#): > > The clue missed is that Jesus’ message was not one of peace, but of a sword, as he himself said – the Gospel message undermined the values then held current, via subtle influence rather than direct force as the Sicarii preferred. If Atwill cannot see that Jesus’ message was not indeed, at its core, hostile to Roman authority and society in terms of the components it offered, then he needs to do some more research (see here). After the Council of Nicea [First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) canonized Jesus’ teachings, it suited Rome (and the Church) just fine. To whit, tithe and love your asshole masters. Aloha ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/55 "2013-10-10T20:22:25Z")
> [@Stalky](#): > > I have said it other places on the board, even without a supposed additional historical document there are plenty of reasons to conclude that Jesus is, at least potentially, literary. > > When you strip out of the Gospels all of the stories and sermons the can be shown to be related to other earlier works and traditions, when you remove accounts that are form critically non-biographical, there is basically nothing left of a historical account. In your opinion, which stories and sermons in the gospels can be shown to be related to other earlier works and traditions? Moreover, why would that be a reason for stripping them out? Much of what Shakespeare wrote is related to earlier writings, yet most people still agree that Shakespeare existed. (Though, of course, a few crackpots don’t.) ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/56 "2013-10-10T20:55:40Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In your opinion, which stories and sermons in the gospels can be shown to be related to other earlier works and traditions? > > Moreover, why would that be a reason for stripping them out? Much of what Shakespeare wrote is related to earlier writings, yet most people still agree that Shakespeare existed. (Though, of course, a few crackpots don’t.) Shakespeare was the author - Jesus wasn’t - we have no writings at all associated with Jesus’ authorship. One would not suggest that “King Lear” existed simply because there is a book ‘about’ him, would they? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/57 "2013-10-10T21:18:50Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Shakespeare was the author - Jesus wasn’t - we have no writings at all associated with Jesus’ authorship. I think you’re missing **ITR champion** ’s point. The Gospels contain lots of statements that they attribute to Jesus, i.e., of which Jesus was allegedly the author. They also contain other statements **about** Jesus. Likewise, Elizabethan literature contains many poems and plays ascribed to Shakespeare. It also contains lots of other documents and remarks **referring to** Shakespeare. The evidence for the historical Shakespeare’s existence may be much stronger than that for the historical Jesus’s existence (it was much more recent, for one thing), but the two situations are basically parallel. And consequently, the fact that Jesus’s alleged sayings or Shakespeare’s alleged original works of literature have connections to earlier traditions doesn’t mean that there wasn’t actually somebody called Jesus, or somebody called Shakespeare, who lived and produced the version of them that’s ascribed to him. The analogy with King Lear is misapplied because Lear is presented from the get-go as a fictional character. He may have been inspired by some historical or pseudohistorical sources, but AFAIK nobody has ever seriously claimed or believed that Shakespeare’s Lear was a historical person. A more appropriate analogy would be between Shakespeare’s Lear and, say, the prodigal son in Jesus’s parable, who AFAIK is also never claimed or believed to have an identifiable historical existence. Of course, just because lots of people claim or believe in the historicity of Jesus (or Shakespeare, for that matter) doesn’t **prove** that any such person existed. But the standard historiographic default assumption is that most people who are referred to in ancient documents as contemporaries or near-contemporaries of the documents’ authors did exist, and it requires pretty strong evidence to establish a counterclaim that there was actually never any such person at all. ---
**Author:** ![ruben4ruben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@ruben4ruben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruben4ruben)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/58 "2013-10-10T21:59:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Looks to me like you’re refusing to pay your part of the check. Let me guess - you were the Mr. Pink of the apostles. Mr Pink said the truth! ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/59 "2013-10-10T22:03:25Z")
CJJ, Paul was a Roman tax collector, so that would fit into the conspiracy theory. Perhaps it was a political scheme that got out of hand - like the Republican government shut down. Crane ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832/60 "2013-10-10T22:15:39Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think you’re missing **ITR champion** ’s point. The Gospels contain lots of statements that they attribute to Jesus, i.e., of which Jesus was allegedly the author. They also contain other statements **about** Jesus. > > Likewise, Elizabethan literature contains many poems and plays ascribed to Shakespeare. It also contains lots of other documents and remarks **referring to** Shakespeare. > > The evidence for the historical Shakespeare’s existence may be much stronger than that for the historical Jesus’s existence (it was much more recent, for one thing), but the two situations are basically parallel. > > And consequently, the fact that Jesus’s alleged sayings or Shakespeare’s alleged original works of literature have connections to earlier traditions doesn’t mean that there wasn’t actually somebody called Jesus, or somebody called Shakespeare, who lived and produced the version of them that’s ascribed to him. > > The analogy with King Lear is misapplied because Lear is presented from the get-go as a fictional character. He may have been inspired by some historical or pseudohistorical sources, but AFAIK nobody has ever seriously claimed or believed that Shakespeare’s Lear was a historical person. A more appropriate analogy would be between Shakespeare’s Lear and, say, the prodigal son in Jesus’s parable, who AFAIK is also never claimed or believed to have an identifiable historical existence. > > Of course, just because lots of people claim or believe in the historicity of Jesus (or Shakespeare, for that matter) doesn’t **prove** that any such person existed. But the standard historiographic default assumption is that most people who are referred to in ancient documents as contemporaries or near-contemporaries of the documents’ authors did exist, and it requires pretty strong evidence to establish a counterclaim that there was actually never any such person at all. I’ll admit that I may have missed the point somewhat - thank you fro that - all I was saying is that we have _nothing_ that Jesus personally wrote down - we only have sayings that are ‘attributed’ to him - While I am an atheist, I have no problem believing that there was possibly a man called Jesus (or whatever the correct local name would be at the time) that probably did some preaching/attempting to change some things - and who’s story ‘grew in the telling’. Further - any ‘evidence’ that would purportedly be ‘uncovered’ at this point that would ‘prove’ that he did not I would eye with as much suspicion as all the evidence that keeps being ‘found’ that ‘proves’ he did. (the Lear analogy was just the first name that came to mind from shakespeare - s/Othello, etc if you like - in the end - its the same thing - having works,words associated with a given ‘name’ is only evidence of that - to ‘prove’ that said person did or did not exist takes a bit more when the authors are not available (or did not leave clear words that are indisputable) to answer that question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-evidence-against-an-historical-jesus/670832.md?page=4)