Did Jesus Exist?

[clerihew80]

OK, Reno, before I make a few points, would you like to present some evidence on behalf of your hypothesis? Any comments on my posts in the other thread?

I'm almost hesitant to open this discussion because it will require some research and re-reading of the Bible - a book I despise.

Let me reiterate an earlier question: What evidence to you have to suggest that Jesus didn't exist, or couldn't have existed? (Note: This is not asking you to prove a negative!)

[Reno]

Thank you for opening this new thread clerihew80. I will of course answer the points you mentioned in the other thread.

But first let me answer your current questions/points you have so far made in one post in this thread:

OK, Reno, before I make a few points, would you like to present some evidence on behalf of your hypothesis? Any comments on my posts in the other thread?

First of all, I have no hypothesis. I am merely asking for proof that there ever was a historical Jesus. I'm not making the claim that there was a historical Jesus - you are. I'm asking for proof.

Let me reiterate an earlier question: What evidence to you have to suggest that Jesus didn't exist, or couldn't have existed? (Note: This is not asking you to prove a negative!)

Actually, that's exactly what you're doing. And as soon as you prove that my pet dragon (as previously described) does not exist, I'll prove that Jesus never did exist. Until then, you are entitled to believe the evidence (or lack thereof) showing the non-existence of my pet. I'll do the same with your pet.

So...where's the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus? Present it and let's see if it stands up to scrutiny. If it does, I'll accept the evidence and change my view.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Before you guys get too far into this, you might want to check out Malachi's earlier thread with arguments pro and con: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75494

[brodski]

You are never going to get "proof" that Jesus existed, however Occams razor would suggest that there was a real Jesus- it is the easiest way to explain certain theological aspects of Christianity, especially the way that the gospels have to stretch to try to link Jesus with OT prophesy.
If they where "creating" Jesus from whole-cloth they could have easily had a much better fit. The crucifixion is a little tricky too, and its inclusion in Christian theology is most easily explained by being based on an actual event.

[Beerina]

Yes, but you have to be careful -- that there might have been a rabble-rouser/anarchist floating around with followers is hardly new to any land or culture in history. And that same was executed is also hardly new anywhere.

Such a thing might have been so common, indeed, that there might never have been an actual "Jesus" anymore than "an ancient huge flood" might reflect a collective memory of dozens of large floods over the centuries, with all specifics melding into a kind of myth.

Now I will admit it would have been easier to slap him with the name Emmanual than Jesus, but Jesus is a Joshua variation, a very common name then (and now.)

Personally I suspect there might have been some guy with roughly the upstart leader properties necessary named "Jesus", and he got taken out by the Romans, his followers created some memories of him, and half a century later some other religious upstarts wanting to start their own church for fun and profit latched onto this myth/memory and amplified it, shoehorning in various Old Testament prophesies by altering and adding details as necessary.

There were other people about that time floating around to whom were ascribed features like healing the sick, dying and being resurrected, and so on, so there was a smorgasboard of supernatural features that appeal to the common man to pick and choose from, and everybody "knew" about them as possible, so it wasn't like they introduced some spectacular, fantastical concepts out of culturally thin air.

[Cleon]

Who knows?

It's certainly possible that there was a historical figure named "Y'shua ben Yosef" who let a messianic movement in Roman-occupied Palestine. There were a lot of such movements at the time.

The actual historical evidence of Jesus' existence specifically is rather poor, but such is the way of history--the farther back you go, the harder it is to get the details.

In the end, of course, it really doesn't matter. People believe in the Noachian Flood and the Exodus from Egypt as historical events, despite the fact that the physical/historical/archaeological evidence for them can be accurately described by the scientific term "doodly squat."

The historicity of the Jesus narrative will likely never be confirmed as fact or fiction. People who believe in Jesus will continue to believe in Jesus.

[drkitten]

Yes, but you have to be careful -- that there might have been a rabble-rouser/anarchist floating around with followers is hardly new to any land or culture in history. And that same was executed is also hardly new anywhere.

Yeah, that's my big concern with this thread. How close does something have to be to the Gospel narrative to count as "Jesus existed"?

The Gospel narrative is false in detail. No question about that. The famous census never existed -- the Romans were fanatics about documenting that sort of thing, and it would have required so much manpower and paperwork to organize and to carry out that it would have been recorded. Instead we have records of that exact time and place telling us what was happening that don't mention it. Suggesting that somehow a census of that size could happen without being written down is like suggesting that the President of the United States could be assassinated, somehow, without the world press picking up on the news.

So, the census didn't happen. Since the census is the only reason that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem, it's probably safe to assume that JN, if he existed, wasn't born in Bethlehem.

But if he wasn't born in Bethlehem, was he really Jesus of Nazareth?

[Belz...]

Maybeh... Maybeh not.

[dglas]

The real question is: "Does it even matter?"

[clerihew80]

First of all, I have no hypothesis. I am merely asking for proof that there ever was a historical Jesus. I'm not making the claim that there was a historical Jesus - you are. I'm asking for proof.
This is an evasion. You stated in the earlier thread that no such person existed. I suspect that, if pressed, you would admit that you don't believe that Jesus existed, and that he is nothing more than a conglomeration of various mythological traditions. This, like it or not, is an hypothesis.

Actually, that's exactly what you're doing. And as soon as you prove that my pet dragon (as previously described) does not exist, I'll prove that Jesus never did exist. Until then, you are entitled to believe the evidence (or lack thereof) showing the non-existence of my pet. I'll do the same with your pet.
Again, this is an inappropriate analogy. You can't compare a very reasonable phenomenon, such as a normal man, a preacher who lived 2,000 years ago, with a highly fantastical phenomenon such as a dragon. The first is possible. The latter, almost certainly impossible.

Every good skeptic knows the maxim: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Well, the corollary to that is that not all claims to knowledge have equal merit. Ordinary claims are not subject to the same demands of proof as extraordinary ones.

Asking you to prove that an alleged historical figure didn't exist is not the same thing as asking you to prove that God doesn't exist, or that Paranormal Powers don't exist. It is not arbitrary - you can use reason and evidence to defend your position.

So...where's the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus? Present it and let's see if it stands up to scrutiny. If it does, I'll accept the evidence and change my view.
Well, let's face facts. The debate will come down to how we read the Gospels.
Let me ask you this, for starters. Why do the Evangelists have to go out of their way to make Jesus correspond to the prophecies of the Messiah? Take the genealogies, for instance (Matthew 1: 2-16, and Luke 3:21-38). Why are they so awkward in their attempts to establish Davidic lineage? If Jesus were just made up, it should be easy to forge a seamless genealogy that proves descent from David.

[fuelair]

Sure he does. He runs a small restaurant about six miles from me. Wonderful tortillas, great carnitas!!!!!

[drkitten]

Well, let's face facts. The debate will come down to how we read the Gospels.
Let me ask you this, for starters. Why do the Evangelists have to go out of their way to make Jesus correspond to the prophecies of the Messiah? Take the genealogies, for instance (Matthew 1: 2-16, and Luke 3:21-38). Why are they so awkward in their attempts to establish Davidic lineage? If Jesus were just made up, it should be easy to forge a seamless genealogy that proves descent from David.

Actually, I consider that to be a point of evidence against the hypothesis of a historical Jesus. My understanding is that scholarship is fairly confident that the authors of Matthew and Luke both had access to Mark, but not to each other. The problem with the awkwardness, then is that of anyone writing fan-fiction; how do you fit your "new" ideas into the established continuity, especially when there isn't very much established continuity.

If Jesus had really existed and had himself claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, I find it more likely that he would have a prepared, set speech about how he fulfilled the various prophesies. THe confusion and awkwardness suggests, instead, that the authors of the Gospels had to make that argument for him -- and that independent authors chose different ways to make that argument, to the lessened credibilty of any/all of them.

Or, as the famous makeup final put it -- "(90 pts). Which tire was the flat one?"

[Beleth]

If they where "creating" Jesus from whole-cloth they could have easily had a much better fit.
Are you saying that the less Jesus fit the prophecies about the Messiah, the more likely Jesus was to have actually existed?

[clerihew80]

If Jesus had really existed and had himself claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, I find it more likely that he would have a prepared, set speech about how he fulfilled the various prophesies.

Ah, but it's unclear if the real Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah.

Here's the thing. I'm not arguing that the Gospels are historically accurate accounts of the life of Jesus. What I'm arguing is that it is far more reasonable to assume that there was an actual man named Jesus, who corresponded in some ways to the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I think it's reasonable to assume that his parents were named Mary and Joseph, that he was a preacher who was charismatic enough to attract a certain number of followers, and that he was crucified by the Romans. I think we are justified in assuming a few more things about his life, but beyond that...

My contention with those who deny the historicity of Jesus is that I can see no good reason for not making those assumptions based on a reading of the Gospels, and our knowledge of ancient history. It is my belief that those who deny, do so out of nothing more than dislike of Christianity. I can sympathize with that. I don't like Christianity either. But that's not how history works.

[drkitten]

Are you saying that the less Jesus fit the prophecies about the Messiah, the more likely Jesus was to have actually existed?

If you define "Jesus" widely enough, then the answer should be "of course."

That's the standard cold-reading trick. The more you twist a prediction, the more likely it is that something real (something that actually exists) fits the prediction.

.... which gets back to the question I've been asking. If all that the "historical Jesus" fans need to feel vindicated is some nutcase who gathered a cult-like following and was arrested by the local authority, well, that describes Manson, among others. Congratulations -- the Lord exists and he's in Corcoran State Prison.

If you insist that the historical Jesus must have been crucified, then Manson no longer qualifies, simply because crucifixion is no longer a common punishment, even in Texas. But it was in first-century Palestine. Lots of apocolyptic nutcases were gathering end of the world cults and getting arrested; it was the dot-com boom of its era.

Some of them may even have been named "Joshua, son of Joseph" or have lived in Nazareth or have been born in Bethlehem. Although, as I pointed out earlier, the combination of all three is almost certainly untrue.

At what point do we get from shoe-horning Charlie Manson into a Christ-shaped mold to an actual "historical Jesus"?

[drkitten]

What I'm arguing is that it is far more reasonable to assume that there was an actual man named Jesus, who corresponded in some ways to the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I think it's reasonable to assume that his parents were named Mary and Joseph, that he was a preacher who was charismatic enough to attract a certain number of followers, and that he was crucified by the Romans.

This strikes me very much as argumentam ad Sylvia Browne.

I'm getting the name "Mary." Does anyone in here have a wife named Mary? Sister? Mother? Yes, of course, mother. And I'm seeing the letter "J," and I have no idea what it means, since we will still be using "I" for the next fifteen centuries. Male relative, begins with what will eventually become "J,"?

When you get to this point, I don't really see any reason to believe, for instance, that these people are even all the same. I see no reason, for example, to discount the possibility that the preacher Jesus son of Joseph was crucified by the Romans, but that many of the speeches given by Simon, son of Mary, were later attributed to Jesus, 'cause they were good speeches.

See Dorothy's lament:
If once in a great while I am
Inclined to coin an epigram
I never try to take the credit
They always think that Oscar said it.

It seems that you are casting your net way too wide for my comfort.

[Ichneumonwasp]

At what point do we get from shoe-horning Charlie Manson into a Christ-shaped mold to an actual "historical Jesus"?

If you strip away the myth from the man........

I'm not sure it's possible. The furthest I have ever been able to suppose is that there was probably a man who was probably crucified for pissing off the Romans and Paul built a religion about him. He may have preached what he supposedly preached in some of the gospels. I think most of the gospel accounts are inventions, but that's just me.

[triadboy]

Let me ask you this, for starters. Why do the Evangelists have to go out of their way to make Jesus correspond to the prophecies of the Messiah? Take the genealogies, for instance (Matthew 1: 2-16, and Luke 3:21-38). Why are they so awkward in their attempts to establish Davidic lineage? If Jesus were just made up, it should be easy to forge a seamless genealogy that proves descent from David.


Matthew had a specific agenda with his Gospel - to convince Jewish people that Jesus was the Messiah. To do this convincing, he poured over the OT and used everything he could find - whether he understood it or not.

Here's an example:

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

This is Jewish double-speak for "He rode on an ass"

However, Matthew didn't understand it!!! So....

Matthew 21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

The other Gospels got it right - but Matthew has Jesus riding on 2 animals!!

Just think about that for a day or two - it is very telling.

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, but you have to be careful -- that there might have been a rabble-rouser/anarchist floating around with followers is hardly new to any land or culture in history. And that same was executed is also hardly new anywhere.

Your whole post pretty much covers my feelings on the subject. My inexpert opinion is that there probably was a "real Jesus" in the same sense that there probably was a "real Arthur". But I'm highly doubtful that the real Jesus bore any similarity to the literary Jesus. I'm also reasonably certain that the literary Jesus is based on several people, both real and mythical.

[Beleth]

Are you saying that the less Jesus fit the prophecies about the Messiah, the more likely Jesus was to have actually existed?
If you define "Jesus" widely enough, then the answer should be "of course."
I would submit, then, that by that logic, since Puff the Magic Dragon fits no Messianic prophesies, he actually exists.

That's the standard cold-reading trick. The more you twist a prediction, the more likely it is that something real (something that actually exists) fits the prediction.

I see what you are saying here, but I think the logic is reversed between the two sections of your post that I have quoted. The first part is saying "the less exact a prophecy describes something, the more likely the thing it describes exists", whereas the second is saying "the less exact a prophecy describes something, the more likely an existing thing will be described by it."

The former describes a reality that depends on a prophecy. The latter describes a prophecy that depends on reality.

I agree with the latter but not the former.

[Reno]

thanks for linking that other thread, Ichneumonwasp. It kind of makes this one redundant. However, I'd certainly like to see clerihew80 make his points in that other thread. If he has any left to make after reading the full thread.

[clerihew80]

This strikes me very much as argumentam ad Sylvia Browne.
I'm sorry. I've read your post several times over, and I have no idea what you're getting at.

What does cold reading have to do with this subject?

[clerihew80]

Matthew had a specific agenda with his Gospel - to convince Jewish people that Jesus was the Messiah.

Yes, I've said that all along.

The other Gospels got it right - but Matthew has Jesus riding on 2 animals!!

The Book of Matthew is full of similar Old Testament extrapolations. They're often distorted and/or erroneous. So?

[triadboy]

They're often distorted and/or erroneous. So?

This is a blatant example of Matthew - deliberately and without thought - adhering to OT prophesies, without regard to any "history" he may have been aware of.

[brodski]

Are you saying that the less Jesus fit the prophecies about the Messiah, the more likely Jesus was to have actually existed?

yes. And I think the logic is sound. Especially gioven what we know about the accuracy of prophecies. The hoops that the gospel writers had to jump though to make Jesus fit the prophoices indicates that there where some inconvenient facts which they where trying to get around. If jesus was not at least based on a real person thenthey would have had fewer inconvenient facts, in particular in relation to the birth narratives.

of course what I am not saying is the less Jesus fit the prophecies about the Messiah, the more likely Jesus was to have been the son of god.

[Bikewer]

Gospel skeptics like author Bart Ehrman are inclined to speculate that there was an actual human being to who's history the various stories were grafted.
Likely a rabbi who preached a rather populist message, and started to accumulate a sufficiently large following to become "inconvenient" both to the Jewish religious hierarchy and the Romans as well.

The Romans were tolerant of religions, but rather down on sedition...

[Beleth]

yes. And I think the logic is sound. Especially gioven what we know about the accuracy of prophecies. The hoops that the gospel writers had to jump though to make Jesus fit the prophoices indicates that there where some inconvenient facts which they where trying to get around. If jesus was not at least based on a real person thenthey would have had fewer inconvenient facts, in particular in relation to the birth narratives.
Hmmm, okay. See post #20 above for what I consider an important clarifying point, but I think you have stated it in the form I concur with.

of course what I am not saying is the less Jesus fit the prophecies about the Messiah, the more likely Jesus was to have been the son of god.

Okay, good. I was hoping so!

[CapelDodger]

The actual historical evidence of Jesus' existence specifically is rather poor, but such is the way of history--the farther back you go, the harder it is to get the details.

In general this is the trend, but it's not a continuous function and is in two variables - time and place. Levels of literacy, bureaucracy and trade all influence the resolution history can attain. There is actually quite good resolution on the first century Roman Empire. Judaea in the 30's stands out like a strategic site on GoogleEarth. There is surprisingly (suspiciously?) little documentation extant.

In the early 4thCE the Western Augustus Maximian commissioned a book, the Acti Pilati, which was essentially a report on who this Jesus character actually was, from contemporary records. An offical like Pilate didn't crucify men without putting it in a report (and billing his relatives for the nails). If nothing else it showed what a hard time the locals were giving him. A copy of the Acti Pilati would be an untold treasure. Sadly, none exists. We only know of its existence from contemporary Christian excoriations of it. Those have survived the Christian centuries that followed shorty after.

A cover-up? It smells strongly of such to me. If the records failed to mention Jesus that wouldn't have been a problem to Christians - Pilate washed his hands of the matter, after all. The problem arises when the records identify Jesus as this guy, who did this and said that and was involved with all this anti-Roman (and un-Christian) stuff. Nailed-up for good reason (from a Roman perspective) so let's have no more of this "conscientious objection to the draft" nonsense, OK?

[CapelDodger]

Matthew had a specific agenda with his Gospel - to convince Jewish people that Jesus was the Messiah.

That was no doubt a specific agendum but not, I think, the whole agenda. There was also the need to dissociate Christianity from the Jewish Rebellion and the broadly-held view of Jewish anti-Roman intransigence. Without ditching Jesus or his fate - execution by the Romans as an enemy of Rome. A tricky commission. Solved brilliantly by shifting the blame to the local Jews, who were just as intransigently anti-Christian. Whereas the Christians (and Mark's Jesus) had no problem with Rome - "Give unto Caesar", "Put up your sword", all that stuff.

[ChristineR]

The NT makes clear reference to certain persons: Jesus, James, his brother, Peter, his friend. Even assuming that much of the information was inaccurate did these writers (Mark, Luke/Acts and Paul) have particular real persons in mind?

I haven't yet seen a good explanation how it could be otherwise. If these are fictional characters, who created them? How did they become popular? Why were they created in the first place? Why did no one suggest the characters were fictional when there were living witnesses who would know? Why do none of the many surviving anti-Christian Roman and Jewish documents not suggest that Christ was fictional? Several accept that Christ was a criminal executed by Pilate. Who were the first Christians? Who or what did they worship? Who founded their church? Where did the fictional biography come from?

[Slimething]

Let me reiterate an earlier question: What evidence to you have to suggest that Jesus didn't exist, or couldn't have existed? (Note: This is not asking you to prove a negative!)

Yes, it is. Funny how you think that if you say it's not a logical fallacy, it isn't! You're just a laugh riot!

I'm gonna leave you to the tender mercies of the skeptics you've attracted, c80. They'll make quicker work of you than I could as they know a heck of a lot more about the bible than you or I.

Before I go, some parting words in response to the original thread:
1. Posts are not automatically spellchecked. That's an optional download that I'm too lazy to take advantage of. I don't like spellcheckers because they usually don't like technical terms. So, I forego. Sue me but you're wrong.
2. You did come across as a flaming nazi in your initial post. Glad you finally realized it. Don't tell other people what to do here and you'll have a more pleasant stay, regardless of how you are in real life.
3. If you don't have the evidence, just say so. I don't disagree with your point that the weight of the evidence points to a real human being being the basis of the new testament but, all in all, that means very little. Even if there was an itinerant woo artist named jesus way back when, it's still pretty difficult to tell where the reality ends and the folklore begins. Net effect is NOBODY CARES. (Where is Triumph the Insult Dog when you need him?)
4. Just because documents are old doens't make them historical documents. They're just old documents. No one considers the old writings of dead religions as historical. Age does not excuse documents from authentication and verification. You may have, in your own mind, decided that old documents are exempt from critical analysis but the rest of humanity may not have.
5. Being anal about spelling only proves you're anal. But that ties into item 1, above, so maybe you'll understand that now.

Buh-bye!

[MG1962]

I think that Jesus was playing the role not unlike that of Martin Luther. I am not sure he was there to create a new religion, but to refocus the Jewish faith that had become over concerned with ritual at the expense of faith.

The most telling example for this (In my mind) Is the scene in the temple where Jesus absolutely does his block over what has become of his Fathers' house

[clerihew80]

Yes, it is. Funny how you think that if you say it's not a logical fallacy, it isn't! You're just a laugh riot!
Do you understand the difference between the words "suggest" and "prove"? Let's say I was asked for evidence which suggests that paranormal powers don't exist. I could answer along the lines of "Nobody has claimed the million dollar prize," or "Paranormal powers have never been demonstrated under proper observing conditions." This is not proof, but it is (or should be) persuasive. Similarly, Reno can offer any Biblical and/or historical exegesis which underlies or supports his rejection of the historicity of JC (similarity to other mythological archetypes could be one example).

I'm gonna leave you to the tender mercies of the skeptics you've attracted, c80. They'll make quicker work of you than I could as they know a heck of a lot more about the bible than you or I.
How magnanimous of you. I'm so grateful to be spared from the onslaught of your intellectual artillery. As for the other skeptics here, I have no doubt that many of them know more about the Bible than I do. I think I can handle myself, though.

1. Posts are not automatically spellchecked. That's an optional download that I'm too lazy to take advantage of. I don't like spellcheckers because they usually don't like technical terms.
Like I said, sheer laziness. And I haven't seen any especially "technical" terms in any of your posts.

2. You did come across as a flaming nazi in your initial post.
That's a pretty serious charge, pal.

Net effect is NOBODY CARES.
If you don't care, then GO AWAY!

(Where is Triumph the Insult Dog when you need him?)
Why? You need to stick your hand up a stuffed dog's ass before you can think of a way to insult me?

4. Just because documents are old doens't make them historical documents.
Depending on what is considered historically relevant, no, it "doens't." I can't imagine any reasonable person who doesn't consider Jesus Christ or Christianity historically relevant, though.

No one considers the old writings of dead religions as historical.
They do if they're studying dead religions. And Christianity is hardly "dead." You don't get out much, do you?

Age does not excuse documents from authentication and verification. You may have, in your own mind, decided that old documents are exempt from critical analysis but the rest of humanity may not have.
I never said that old documents were "exempt from critical analysis."

5. Being anal about spelling only proves you're anal. But that ties into item 1, above, so maybe you'll understand that now. Buh-bye!
Being repetitive suggests that you're an idiot. Buh-bye!

[Ichneumonwasp]

May I ask for clarification because it doesn't seem clear to me that everyone understands the positions being expressed here?

From my reading of the posts, Reno is in the Jesus never existed camp. Or, at the very least, the "there is no reliable evidence outside the New Testament that Jesus ever existed" camp.

clerihew80 is in the Jesus probably existed as a real person but we can't tell much about him because the gospels are covered in mythic overlay.

Do I understand your two positions clearly or did I get that wrong? I haven't seen anyone yet in this thread who seems to be in the Jesus is God camp.

For the others, and this applies more to the other thread, Malachi believes that Jesus never existed as a real person. He may or may not be correct. He has, however, constructed an elaborate argument that deserves scrutiny. He provides a link to the fuller argument in that other thread. I object to his characterization of those who think of the character of Jesus from the gospels probably being based on a real individual as the least likely possibility. I think it is fairly likely that there was someone on whom the accounts were hung. I'm not at all sure that his name was Jesus. At the very least it was probably Yeshua and not Jesus, but I'm not even sure about the Yeshua bit let alone Mary and Joseph.

CapelDodger has some very intriguing ideas about James and Jesus that I think bear close scrutiny. I think he has quite a lot to offer the discussion.

[pgwenthold]

Yes, but you have to be careful -- that there might have been a rabble-rouser/anarchist floating around with followers is hardly new to any land or culture in history. And that same was executed is also hardly new anywhere.

Such a thing might have been so common, indeed, that there might never have been an actual "Jesus" anymore than "an ancient huge flood" might reflect a collective memory of dozens of large floods over the centuries, with all specifics melding into a kind of myth.




Bingo.

Short answer: when you ask "Did Jesus exist?" you first have to define what you mean by Jesus.

If you think Jesus was a rabble-rouser/anarchist rabbi with followers, it is one thing. If you say, "Jesus as described in the New Testament of the Bible" that is different.

If the former is the type of standard you want, then I'm sure there was someone like that. Of course, by that same standard, then Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz "existed," too (Frank Baum's niece was named Dorothy, was from Kansas, and had and Aunt "M" (Maude)). However, Dorothy's existence does not say anything about whether the stories about her are true. Same goes for this type of Jesus.

[clerihew80]

Of course, by that same standard, then Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz "existed," too (Frank Baum's niece was named Dorothy, was from Kansas, and had and Aunt "M" (Maude)). However, Dorothy's existence does not say anything about whether the stories about her are true. Same goes for this type of Jesus.
The Wizard of Oz is a work of pure fantasy (or allegory, according to some), and was intended as such. The Gospels were intended to be historical accounts. If they are fantastical to modern readers, and if their very purpose - to establish that Jesus was the Messiah - is incompatible with our approach to history, that doesn't mean that a legitimate historical narrative can't be mined from the ore of their pages. All it takes is a prudent interpreter. (Unfortunately, that's not me!)

[pgwenthold]

The Wizard of Oz is a work of pure fantasy (or allegory, according to some), and was intended as such. The Gospels were intended to be historical accounts. If they are fantastical to modern readers, and if their very purpose - to establish that Jesus was the Messiah - is incompatible with our approach to history, that doesn't mean that a legitimate historical narrative can't be mined from the ore of their pages. All it takes is a prudent interpreter. (Unfortunately, that's not me!)

This seems to miss the point of my post.

That point is, before you can address the question of "Did X exist?" you have to provide a sufficient description of X that can be used to assess your knowledge.

Thus, if "Jesus" = wandering Jewish anarchist ultimately persecuted by the Romans, you can get a very different answer than if you insist that "Jesus" = "son of god who performed miracles and ultimately rose from the dead."

Similarly, you can get different answers to the question of whether Dorothy from the WoO existed if you use "Dorothy" = little girl who lived in Kansas had an Aunt M, as opposed to = little girl who traveled to land of Oz via tornado.

[slyjoe]

... The Gospels were intended to be historical accounts...

How would one know this? Based on when they were written and the fact that the Gospels "borrowed" so heavily from the OT, one could conclude that a historical account is NOT what they were intended to be.

Randall Helms' "Gospel Fictions" does a pretty good job of describing why the Gospels are not historical accounts at all.

[clerihew80]

How would one know this? Based on when they were written and the fact that the Gospels "borrowed" so heavily from the OT, one could conclude that a historical account is NOT what they were intended to be.
I suppose I shouldn't have brought up the subject of "intentions." In any case, they deal with what were perceived to have been historical events and characters. Whether or not any of these correspond to reality is the question.

Randall Helms' "Gospel Fictions" does a pretty good job of describing why the Gospels are not historical accounts at all.
Thanks for the recommendation. I've having trouble finding good books on this subject at my library. I'll see if I can locate a copy of Helms' monograph.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The Gospels were intended to be historical accounts.

No they weren't. They were intended to be confessional accounts. They do not follow the pattern of typical histories from that time.

[clerihew80]

No they weren't. They were intended to be confessional accounts. They do not follow the pattern of typical histories from that time.
What I meant was that they dealt with events which were believed to have actually happened, and characters who were believed to have actually existed. They were not pure fantasy like The Wizard of Oz. I didn't mean to lump the Gospels in with Tacitus or whoever.

I suppose a good analogy would be with The Iliad. The Greeks of the period (I'm talking 7th, 8th century B.C. - Pre-Periclean Age Greece) considered the poem to be historical. And we know that it reflects actual events. We know that The Trojan War took place (although it was probably nothing more than a land grab, rather than a war over Helen). It's likely that many of the characters actually existed, although they have been exaggerated and mythologized by the bards. Likewise, supernatural elements have been introduced into the narrative. But underneath it all is a foundation of historical fact. The Odyssey, on the other hand, is much closer to pure fantasy.

I don't know if this analogy helps to clarify my point. It may even hurt. Let me state, though, that I consider the Gospels to be more historically based than the Iliad.

[strathmeyer]

You are never going to get "proof" that Jesus existed, however Occams razor would suggest that there was a real Jesus- it is the easiest way to explain certain theological aspects of Christianity, especially the way that the gospels have to stretch to try to link Jesus with OT prophesy.
If they where "creating" Jesus from whole-cloth they could have easily had a much better fit. The crucifixion is a little tricky too, and its inclusion in Christian theology is most easily explained by being based on an actual event.

Interesting. Can you go through all of the Bible characters and tell us which ones Occam's Razor says should exist?

[pgwenthold]

What I meant was that they dealt with events which were believed to have actually happened, and characters who were believed to have actually existed. They were not pure fantasy like The Wizard of Oz.

DId you know that Baum was known as the "Royal Historian of Oz"?

Whereas Baum admitted that he wrote the books for entertainment purposes, I don't know anywhere where he admitted that were fictional.

[Ichneumonwasp]

What I meant was that they dealt with events which were believed to have actually happened, and characters who were believed to have actually existed. They were not pure fantasy like The Wizard of Oz. I didn't mean to lump the Gospels in with Tacitus or whoever.

I suppose a good analogy would be with The Iliad. The Greeks of the period (I'm talking 7th, 8th century B.C. - Pre-Periclean Age Greece) considered the poem to be historical. And we know that it reflects actual events. We know that The Trojan War took place (although it was probably nothing more than a land grab, rather than a war over Helen). It's likely that many of the characters actually existed, although they have been exaggerated and mythologized by the bards. Likewise, supernatural elements have been introduced into the narrative. But underneath it all is a foundation of historical fact. The Odyssey, on the other hand, is much closer to pure fantasy.

I don't know if this analogy helps to clarify my point. It may even hurt. Let me state, though, that I consider the Gospels to be more historically based than the Iliad.

Yes, the opening, "In the beginning was the Word" is a closer cousin to "Sing to me, Muse, the wrath of Achilles" than "Herodotus of Halicarnassus, his researches are here set down"; but (and this is akimbo to your main point) we need to be careful of such analogies. The purpose of the gospels differs from that of The Iliad. The former seem to be intended as spiritual works, the latter as story for life instruction.

As to the historicity of either text, unfortunately, the degree to which one subscribes to fact vs myth seems to depend more on one's confessional status or preconceived notions than any verifiable source. I still think it is more likely that there was an actual person beneath the Jesus story.

As guide stories for life instruction, as both can be used, I don't think it particularly matters one way or the other, though.

[CapelDodger]

The Wizard of Oz is a work of pure fantasy (or allegory, according to some), and was intended as such. The Gospels were intended to be historical accounts. If they are fantastical to modern readers, and if their very purpose - to establish that Jesus was the Messiah - is incompatible with our approach to history, that doesn't mean that a legitimate historical narrative can't be mined from the ore of their pages. All it takes is a prudent interpreter. (Unfortunately, that's not me!)

My emphasis, because I think it's an important point. People's expectation of what a historical account should be was different in those days. While there were a very few purists (bone-dry and without much public appeal), the general expectation was that history was a moral lesson and the historian's role was to present that lesson in a coherent manner. Coherent enough for the intended audience, anyway, and that sure as heck wasn't us :) .

The Gospels can tell us something when we take into account the surrounding environment that, for instance, Mark lived in. The consensus is that Mark was a Roman Jew (by which I mean at least second-generation living in Rome) whose active life spanned the Jewish Revolt, the Year of the Four Emperors, and the founding of the Flavian dynasty. On the back of Flavian success (and serious amounts of loot) in the Jewish Revolt.

This guy has probably been raised with only the vaguest idea of Judaism but a much better understanding of life in Rome. He's fallen in with a cult that's as Jewish as Madonna, and has for some peculiar reason picked on a crucified (by the Roman state) Jew as their exemplar of a Sacrificed God. Mark inherited that, but drew a new Jew :) . Pacifist, unworldly, and what's more not even Jewish, since "The Jews" rejected him and, by the way, it was they who engineered his death. No blame to be attached to the Roman state. Mark's Jesus said "Give unto Caesar ...", not "Death to Rome!" like those Jewish freaks at Masada. And so on ...

The intriguing (and probably unanswerable) question is why this Graeco-Roman cult found itself with such baggage in the first place. Any Jesus, real or mythical, lived a good generation before Mark and faraway in a very different environment. Mark didn't invent Jesus, he re-invented him - but why a Jesus in the first place?

An intriguing fact is that there's little or no sign of Pauline theology in the Gospels. Nor is there much correlation between Acts and Paul's Letters.

[CapelDodger]

I still think it is more likely that there was an actual person beneath the Jesus story.

Just for the sake of stating the obvious, so do I :) .

Which is to say, IMO if we were given sufficient sources we could track back all the concepts of Jesus to a particular individual who was nailed-up by the Romans back in the 30's.

[ChristineR]

Just for the sake of stating the obvious, so do I :) .

Which is to say, IMO if we were given sufficient sources we could track back all the concepts of Jesus to a particular individual who was nailed-up by the Romans back in the 30's.

Or hung by the Romans. ;)

Really, all the sources agree that there was a man, usually named Jesus but sometimes referred only by the title Christ, he was executed (rightly or wrongly) by the Romans, and that his followers called themselves Christians.

You have Mark, the letters of Paul, Q, The Sayings Gospel of Thomas, Acts, whatever independent sources were used by Matthew, whatever independent sources were used by Luke, the trustworthy passage in Josephus, the short version of the corrupted passage in Josephus, various disapproving comments by Romans (Pliny, Tacitus, the lost Acts of Pilate).

The hypothesis of fictionalization of an actual person's life seems to me to fit the data far better than the hypothesis of a life chosen to fit a fictional God's supposed stay on earth.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the obvious and flagrant inconsistencies and contradictions among the Gospels show clearly that their authors' motivations were not primarily about being a historical record, but rather to support one or another religious viewpoint.

Some examples:
1) Luke and Matthew both give a listing of the lineage of Jesus from David. The lists are very different--a total of 43 names given in Luke and 28 in Matthew. (Including, by the way, different names for Jesus' paternal grandad, Joseph's father.)

2) In Matthew 27:9-10, the author misattributes a quote (he says it's from Jeremiah, but it's actually from Zechariah).

3) Matthew and Acts disagree on how Judas died.

4) In Matthew, Judas returned the pieces of silver to the chief priests (threw it on the floor), but in Luke he used the money to buy a field.

5) Among the Gospels, when they recount the same events, they sequence those events differently. (An important thing for a historical chronicler is to get the chronology right.)

6) In Mark, the story where Jesus exorcises a demon and lets it enter a herd of pigs who then run off a cliff and fall into the sea, the geography is wrong. He's in the region of Gerasenes or Gerasa which is not near either the Sea of Galilee or the Dead Sea (or even a smaller lake). (This argues that the author of Luke was not even very familiar with the area.)

7) The Gospel of John recounts 5 times that Jesus visited Jerusalem, while the others only mention one time.

8)In John, Jesus is portrayed as non-Jewish (even anti-Jewish) in many ways. (For instance, he refers to "your law" speaking to the priests.)

9) In Mark's account of Jesus cursing the fig tree, it is noted that it's not the season for figs (so why would Jesus think the tree should have figs for him to eat?) Matthew's account is similar, but there is no mention that it's not the season for figs. In Luke, a similar story is presented purely as a parable.

10) Matthew alone has the chief priests meeting with Pilate (on the Sabbath!) to ask that Jesus' tomb be sealed and guarded. The other accounts don't mention this. Matthew also has another episode where the chief priests conspire with the guards to lie and say that the disciples came at night and stole the body.

11) All 4 synoptic Gospels disagree on exactly who (and how many women were in the party) discovered the empty tomb.

12) Mark and Matthew have one angel (or man dressed in white) at the empty tomb, while Luke and John say it was 2.

There are many many more.
They certainly weren't written as histories. If they were based on actual events, at the very least the authors took great liberties and you'd have to call them "fictionalize" accounts.

As histories, they are completely unreliable.

And that's the gospel truth! ;)

[ChristineR]

I think the obvious and flagrant inconsistencies and contradictions among the Gospels show clearly that their authors' motivations were not primarily about being a historical record, but rather to support one or another religious viewpoint.

Some examples:
1) Luke and Matthew both give a listing of the lineage of Jesus from David. The lists are very different--a total of 43 names given in Luke and 28 in Matthew. (Including, by the way, different names for Jesus' paternal grandad, Joseph's father.)

2) In Matthew 27:9-10, the author misattributes a quote (he says it's from Jeremiah, but it's actually from Zechariah).

3) Matthew and Acts disagree on how Judas died.

4) In Matthew, Judas returned the pieces of silver to the chief priests (threw it on the floor), but in Luke he used the money to buy a field.

5) Among the Gospels, when they recount the same events, they sequence those events differently. (An important thing for a historical chronicler is to get the chronology right.)

6) In Mark, the story where Jesus exorcises a demon and lets it enter a herd of pigs who then run off a cliff and fall into the sea, the geography is wrong. He's in the region of Gerasenes or Gerasa which is not near either the Sea of Galilee or the Dead Sea (or even a smaller lake). (This argues that the author of Luke was not even very familiar with the area.)

7) The Gospel of John recounts 5 times that Jesus visited Jerusalem, while the others only mention one time.

8)In John, Jesus is portrayed as non-Jewish (even anti-Jewish) in many ways. (For instance, he refers to "your law" speaking to the priests.)

9) In Mark's account of Jesus cursing the fig tree, it is noted that it's not the season for figs (so why would Jesus think the tree should have figs for him to eat?) Matthew's account is similar, but there is no mention that it's not the season for figs. In Luke, a similar story is presented purely as a parable.

10) Matthew alone has the chief priests meeting with Pilate (on the Sabbath!) to ask that Jesus' tomb be sealed and guarded. The other accounts don't mention this. Matthew also has another episode where the chief priests conspire with the guards to lie and say that the disciples came at night and stole the body.

11) All 4 synoptic Gospels disagree on exactly who (and how many women were in the party) discovered the empty tomb.

12) Mark and Matthew have one angel (or man dressed in white) at the empty tomb, while Luke and John say it was 2.

There are many many more.
They certainly weren't written as histories. If they were based on actual events, at the very least the authors took great liberties and you'd have to call them "fictionalize" accounts.

As histories, they are completely unreliable.

And that's the gospel truth! ;)

1) Both Matthew and Luke wanted to show Jesus was a descendant of David. Since the historical David either didn't exist or didn't do most of the things attributed to him, that's a tough task. They both used mythical psuedogenelogies.

2) Matthew made a mistake, I guess.

3) The crucifixion/execution/resurrection accounts are completely unreliable and full of post hoc reasoning about Messianic prophecies. I have no idea what Judas really did or didn't do.

4) See (3). There is still an actual bit of land with Judas' name stuck on it, so maybe that's where that part of the story comes from.

5) Both Luke and Matthew are expansions of Mark, and apparently both used Q as a source. They had to decide where in the Mark narrative to stick Q, and the Mark narrative may not be chronological anyhow.

6) There's an awful lot that can be said about this story, but it appears to be completely fictional. Perhaps Jesus did exorcise some demons, but that's about it.

7) John is later, and pretty much fiction. I don't consider John to be evidence for a historical anything.

8) See (7)

9) The likely explanation for this story is that it did happen. It could have been a magic trick, or the fate of the poor fig tree could have been exaggerated. Perhaps it died weeks later because it was in poor light. Matthew and Luke were both confused by it (small wonder!) and attempt to give it theological interpretations.

10) Who was Matthew's witness? The story has to be complete antisemitic hearsay. The claim that the Christian's stole the body comes up a lot in contemporary anti-Christian accounts, as do Christian claims that the body was guarded so it could not have been stolen.

11) All the gospels agree that the disciples were skulking around and that Mary Magdelene went boldy to dress the body. To me the variants seem to be attempts to graft mystical meaning on some facts not well in line with the legendary narratives.

12) See (11).

I certainly wouldn't call any of this history, but I think it fits the model of a rather unromantic historical event being grafted into some classic Greek myths very well.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you pretty much saying the same thing I am?


11) All the gospels agree that the disciples were skulking around and that Mary Magdelene went boldy to dress the body. To me the variants seem to be attempts to graft mystical meaning on some facts not well in line with the legendary narratives.


None of the men were at the tomb to discover it empty. (I guess when you say "skulking about", you mean they were hiding somewhere else, right?)

KJV quotes

Mark 16:1 "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him." (chapter 15 ends with the burial, before the Sabbath)

Matthew 28:1 "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." (chapter 27 ended on the Sabbath with the posting of the guards)


Luke 24:1, 9-10 "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. . . .And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles." (chapter 23 ends with the burial prior to the Sabbath)

John 20:1-3 "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre." (chapter 19 ends with the burial)

My point, the same made by others in this thread, is that the gospels MAY have been based on historical events, but they certainly do not prove it. I don't believe you need to assume actual events--if so, which ones? And again, if you're not arguing a special case, then all the other legends and myths must also be based on actual events. How about the Book of Mormon?

I certainly don't claim proof that there was no historical Jesus, but I don't think the gospels comprise proof that there was.

[ChristineR]

The early Christian sects attached a lot of different meanings to Mary Magdelene. Some sects put her almost on the same level as Christ, being the feminine principal of the Gnosis. Other sects were disgusted by the idea of a female even being acknowledged as a disciple. John edits Mary out of the narrative almost altogether, leaving her only in a couple of key places.

What I suspect is that Mary Magdelene and one or more other women went to dress the body. There may have been various comings and goings, even someone stealing the body. Who knows now? The different gospels have different friends of Mary going with her because they have different interpretations of the meaning of a woman finding the body.

Is it accurate? Of course not. But it does have the feel of oral history distorted by mythic interpretation. If it was wholly mythic, I'd expect a different storyline.

[Bikewer]

Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus goes into some detail on the "reliability" of the Gospels, even if we're only referring to the four Canonical gospels and not the hundred-or-more other gospels that didn't make it into the Canon.

None of the extant documents are felt by scholars to be first-person testimonies; they are all copies of copies of copies, and taken from established oral traditions before that.
None of the gospels were written by the persons named as the authors; they are all the product of scribes, and the famous names were attached to them.

Even the earliest, Mark, did not surface till nearly 50 years after the events depicted.

[ChristineR]

Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus goes into some detail on the "reliability" of the Gospels, even if we're only referring to the four Canonical gospels and not the hundred-or-more other gospels that didn't make it into the Canon.

None of the extant documents are felt by scholars to be first-person testimonies; they are all copies of copies of copies, and taken from established oral traditions before that.
None of the gospels were written by the persons named as the authors; they are all the product of scribes, and the famous names were attached to them.

Even the earliest, Mark, did not surface till nearly 50 years after the events depicted.

Not really. The likely date for the crucifixion is 33 AD, the likely date for Mark is 70 AD, which makes it 37 years. People have argued for later dates of course, and the mythicists come up with some very late dates. But I think that there is a tendency to exaggerate the meaning of phrases like "long after the event." Witnesses would have still been alive in 70 AD.

[SezMe]

Thanks for the recommendation. I've having trouble finding good books on this subject at my library. I'll see if I can locate a copy of Helms' monograph.

I'll second others' recommendations regarding Helms' books (I think he has three on the subject). They are accessible to the common man yet come from an academic background. The two I've read speak to the authors and intentions of the various gospels. Good reading.

[Bikewer]

Perhaps it's better to say that witnesses (if there were any actual events as depicted) might be alive after that period.
Between shorter life-spans and possible further arrests and executions by the Romans, the witness-pool might have shrunk a bit.

If any of the events happened to begin with....

I know that Ehrman, Pagels, and other scholars have essentially no confidence whatever in any of the Gospels (canonical or non) as history.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Not really. The likely date for the crucifixion is 33 AD, the likely date for Mark is 70 AD, which makes it 37 years. People have argued for later dates of course, and the mythicists come up with some very late dates. But I think that there is a tendency to exaggerate the meaning of phrases like "long after the event." Witnesses would have still been alive in 70 AD.

But consider that witnesses would have been half a world away. There is no reason to suspect that any of the gospel accounts were written in Palestine. The temple had already been destroyed. It is almost certain that none of the original core of four disciples could read or write.

A book written in Rome or Greece or Asia Minor among a secretive group who only wrote the book so as to spread the word in their own communities (the reason why I think we hear the injunction against the leaven of the Pharisees so often) would probably be invisible to another small group of Palestinian Jews running for their lives after the Romans sacked their main city.

There was a generation, at least, between his death and composition of the first gospels (at least the ones we have). It could be that earlier gospels existed, as Luke seems to refer. It could be that earlier works considered Jesus in a different light than the surviving gospels also. Luke appears slightly dismissive of the earlier accounts, else there would have been no reason for his.

[Bikewer]

And again note that we're only referring to the canonical gospels (the later three of which are just embellishments of the earliest). Scholars say they are aware of over a hundred "gospels", which reflect the wide diversity of early-Christian sects.

[pgwenthold]

Or hung by the Romans. ;)

Really, all the sources agree that there was a man, usually named Jesus but sometimes referred only by the title Christ, he was executed (rightly or wrongly) by the Romans, and that his followers called themselves Christians.

And if this is what is meant by "historical Jesus" or "Jesus existing", then 1) I wouldn't doubt that he did, and 2) it is exceedingly underwhelming.

Think about it for a minute and you realize that the only difference between this guy and David Koresh is the number of followers who survived to promote the story.

[ChristineR]

And if this is what is meant by "historical Jesus" or "Jesus existing", then 1) I wouldn't doubt that he did, and 2) it is exceedingly underwhelming.

Think about it for a minute and you realize that the only difference between this guy and David Koresh is the number of followers who survived to promote the story.

Oh, I agree. Except that I would qualify to say that we have much more hard information about David Koresh. The theory that Jesus was a paranoid schizophrenic who actually believed himself to be God is plausible, but there are other equally plausible theories, such as the con man theory and the political reformer theory.

Despite all this, I think that the mythicists are guilty of wishful thinking. So much of our life revolves around legends about this person and atheists take so much grief about not buying into it. I think there is a certain amount of, shall we say glee involved in shouting But he didn't really exist!

Alas for the atheist's revenge, I think he did exist. But here's another one, in case you are feeling peckish.

What would Jesus do? He'd take his meds!

[Ichneumonwasp]

Or hung by the Romans.

Jesus was hung?

[pgwenthold]

Oh, I agree. Except that I would qualify to say that we have much more hard information about David Koresh. The theory that Jesus was a paranoid schizophrenic who actually believed himself to be God is plausible, but there are other equally plausible theories, such as the con man theory and the political reformer theory.


But remember, the discussion is about "Did Jesus Exist?" As you note, if you consider Jesus to be basically a 1st century version of David Koresh, it is plausible. The problem is, it is also completely unremarkable.

That such a being existed, if he did, is so unremarkable that it doesn't it make any sense wasting time arguing about. We can concede that it's possible, or even probable, that someone like that was around.

But who cares? It says nothing about the Bible as anything but mythological embellishment. As my Wizard of Oz example shows, you can write completely fictional accounts about real people. You can also write true accounts about real people. What matters is NOT whether there was some true person who inspired the bible stories. What really matters is whether what was written about him is true, and especially the important parts.

IOW, did Jesus, as described in the bible, exist? That's the question that needs to be answered.

[ChristineR]

Jesus was hung?

Acts says he was hung. The one passage in the Talmud that probably refers to Jesus also says he was hung. Jehovah's Witnesses draw him crucified with his arms over his head, which is also something the Romans may have done. It's a neat solution to the hanging/crucification contradiction, but other sects really hate the Witnesses for using it. We don't really know a lot about crucification techniques (fortunately). It's a hot debate topic among scholars (unfortunately).

[Ichneumonwasp]

Acts says he was hung. The one passage in the Talmud that probably refers to Jesus also says he was hung.

Did Mary Magdeline know this?

[ChristineR]

But remember, the discussion is about "Did Jesus Exist?" As you note, if you consider Jesus to be basically a 1st century version of David Koresh, it is plausible. The problem is, it is also completely unremarkable.

That such a being existed, if he did, is so unremarkable that it doesn't it make any sense wasting time arguing about. We can concede that it's possible, or even probable, that someone like that was around.

But who cares? It says nothing about the Bible as anything but mythological embellishment. As my Wizard of Oz example shows, you can write completely fictional accounts about real people. You can also write true accounts about real people. What matters is NOT whether there was some true person who inspired the bible stories. What really matters is whether what was written about him is true, and especially the important parts.

IOW, did Jesus, as described in the bible, exist? That's the question that needs to be answered.

Well, I don't disagree that he seems to have been somewhat unremarkable. What's remarkable about Jesus is what his followers eventually made out him. That in itself is a puzzle--why this guy, if he was truly so ordinary?

But I disagree that no one cares. I think it is obvious that lots of people care. Lots of people want to know what parts of the texts are literally true. Hundreds of books have been written on the historical Jesus. The supposed "true story" is a key tenet of dozens of religions, including the Christian sects, Judaism, Islam, and Deism. Lots of people believe that Jesus existed and that his life was meaningful, and some believe the gospels are accurate and some believe they are not.

Unfortunately, I believe the questions are largely unanswerable. As I said, hundreds of books--plausible, scholarly, well-researched books--have been written on this very subject and there is no consensus on what really happened. So short of another Dead Sea Scrolls or Nag Hammadi library type discovery, I think it is unlikely that we will ever get to consensus. However I certainly don't think that all these researches were pointless.

[ChristineR]

Did Mary Magdeline know this?

I would assume so, if she was actually at the execution. All the gospels do seem to place her at the execution.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Not going to take the bait are you?:)

[SezMe]

Don't give up, Ichneumonwasp. :)

[RandFan]

Not going to take the bait are you?:)It didn't go unappreciated. ;)

[ChristineR]

Oh. You see, I am the most gullible person you'll ever find. :) Jokes like that go right by me.

[CapelDodger]

What matters is NOT whether there was some true person who inspired the bible stories. What really matters is whether what was written about him is true, and especially the important parts.

What matters depends on where your interests lie. I'm interested in History, and the Jesus period is a fascinating time in the Mediterranean World, particularly in the Eastern Med. The emergence of Christianity is a part of that, and thus of interest to me; the failure of other cults is another part. Later Christianity that coalesced around Constantine and became a component of the Empire is easy enough to understand. Seen it, done it, ticked it off. The "Why Jesus?" is still an irresistable mystery.


IOW, did Jesus, as described in the bible, exist? That's the question that needs to be answered.

The biblical Jesus isn't even vaguely credible. So that question's answered :) .

[CapelDodger]

A book written in Rome or Greece or Asia Minor among a secretive group who only wrote the book so as to spread the word in their own communities (the reason why I think we hear the injunction against the leaven of the Pharisees so often) would probably be invisible to another small group of Palestinian Jews running for their lives after the Romans sacked their main city.

In the case of Mark the book may well have been pre-emptive, an unthreatening manifesto to be presented by the defence if things turned nasty. Which they might easily have done. Vespasian was a newly installed Emperor of the first non-Claudian dynasty, and the Flavians were primarily famous (and popular) for crushing Jewish cultists. If things got tricky for him he might well decide to revisit that role, and Mark's cult could have easily fitted the frame. Thus the need to distance it - and its Jesus - from intransigent Jewish fundie whack-jobs who can't handle the modern world (as exemplified by the manifest benefits of Roman rule :) ).

Just change the proper nouns and it's all so familiar ...

There was a generation, at least, between his death and composition of the first gospels (at least the ones we have).

Mark must surely have been a mature adult by the time he started on his gospel, so there's a good chance of a temporal overlap. As you pointed out, the spatial overlap is less likely. Paul wasn't a witness and Peter's trip to Rome appears to be mythical.

The surviving Jewish rebels (of any failed revolt) didn't head for Rome, they headed for Egypt, and particularly Alexandria. It's perhaps (probably?) no coincidence that an Egyptian Christianity arose (and has survived) that is quite distinct from the Graeco-Roman Christianity of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Egypt was in the Empire, but somehow never quite of it.

[CapelDodger]

Jesus was hung?
Like a donkey, according to a graffito in Pompei.

[CapelDodger]

Think about it for a minute and you realize that the only difference between this guy and David Koresh is the number of followers who survived to promote the story.

Koresh is an interesting analogy. He hasn't become an icon of martyrdom because of his surviving followers or even his message - which, as ChristineR pointed out, can be heard pretty much from the horse's mouth. He's an icon because of what happened to him and who did it. The ATF acting on behalf of the ZOG.

That's in this day and age of state education and multimedia overkill.

Who adopted Jesus as an iconic martyr back in the 30's? The "who did it" is glaringly obvious, but there's an embarrassment of suspects in the Eastern Med. Nobody loved the Romans, and they were still relative newcomers. They might go the way of the Seleucids when faced with determined resistance. And the ZOG can be swept away if every real man emulates Koresh ...

[strathmeyer]

Acts says he was hung. The one passage in the Talmud that probably refers to Jesus also says he was hung. Jehovah's Witnesses draw him crucified with his arms over his head, which is also something the Romans may have done. It's a neat solution to the hanging/crucification contradiction, but other sects really hate the Witnesses for using it. We don't really know a lot about crucification techniques (fortunately). It's a hot debate topic among scholars (unfortunately).

Christine- hung either means that he had a large penis, or that he was left dangling from something, as in hung from the cross. When someone is killed with a rope around their neck they are hanged, though their body is hung.

[pgwenthold]

What matters depends on where your interests lie. I'm interested in History, and the Jesus period is a fascinating time in the Mediterranean World, particularly in the Eastern Med. The emergence of Christianity is a part of that, and thus of interest to me; the failure of other cults is another part. Later Christianity that coalesced around Constantine and became a component of the Empire is easy enough to understand. Seen it, done it, ticked it off. The "Why Jesus?" is still an irresistable mystery.
.


But the answer to that mystery has nothing to do with whether or not there was a David Koresh living at that time. It's far more an issue of the political scene, and "How did this version-of-David-Koresh's followers manage to turn it into the movement that it is now, while the other cults fizzled?"

It's similar to the question of "Why did the god of Abraham get to its status now?" The answer to that question does not lie in whether the god of Abraham existed or not.

[CapelDodger]

But the answer to that mystery has nothing to do with whether or not there was a David Koresh living at that time. It's far more an issue of the political scene, and "How did this version-of-David-Koresh's followers manage to turn it into the movement that it is now, while the other cults fizzled?"

I think some understanding of who the original Jesus was would be very useful in following the early evolutionary history of Christianity. Which is a matter that interest me, for entirely frivolous reasons. It might show us that he had some specific characteristic that made him a superior choice as sacrificial-god icon. Or it might simply show that there was a lot of demand at the time for a generic victim of the Romans to adopt in (and adapt for) that role.

Evidence for the latter case comes in the wild variety of Jesus flavours in the Nag Hamadi documents, among others. He was clearly adopted early on by a whole bunch of mystic cults, so perhaps it's not surprising one version survived.

(John the Baptist has a surviving cult, the Mandeans. Not everybody knows that. They've had a pretty rough time of it, all in all.)

It's similar to the question of "Why did the god of Abraham get to its status now?" The answer to that question does not lie in whether the god of Abraham existed or not.

Since the "god of Abraham" encompasses Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah that question reduces to "why did the very generalised god-notion of Western Eurasia achieve its current status in Western Eurasia and its cultural off-shoots?". Which does rather answer itself.

The reality of Abraham and his family though ... :)