So did Jesus live or what?

[ceo_esq]

Since the village didn't exist, the number of victims was probably even smaller.

Bethlehem didn't exist during Herod's reign? That's the first time I've heard that one. Evidence, please?

 

[kuroyume0161]

Surely this is an exaggeration. Paul refers to the Incarnation, the Last Supper, and the Resurrection, for example. He also cites sayings attributed to Jesus.

All of which fit precisely with other religious cults of the general era which have dubious living 'gods' or humans that transcended (Mithra, Apollonius of Tyana, and so forth).

Paul never once mentions Jesus as a person (who did particular things as a living human being or was in certain places). God (OT and NT) was often spoke about in personified terms, but noone would claim that this refers to God (as distinct from Jesus here) walking about in human form.

The oft-quoted reference to "James, the brother of Jesus" can be countered by a dozen references to other 'brothers of Jesus' and 'brethren of Jesus'. Priests and congregations are regularly referred to as 'brothers' and 'brethren'. Does that mean they are all related? I'd have to see a clear distinction between usages in the epistles.

I think the jury is still out here since it is a quagmire, isn't it? There is so little independent corroboration, most of which is suspicious on its own. For every example that provides evidence for a historical figure, counter-examples can be provided.

And there is the sticking point of the so-called death of Jesus. Arguments seem to go three ways:

1. Jesus really was god, was crucified, and did resurrect. This is, of course, wholly specious and fictitious.

2. Jesus really was crucified but his body may (or may not) have been obsconded from from the tomb in order to, it seems once again, elevate the lowly religious cult leader above his station as it were (analogous to the entering Jerusalem on donkey and temple incident).

3. Jesus never died in this manner and went into hiding or some other circumstance.

Realize that I use the name Jesus loosely to refer to the supposed figure to whom we are trying to assign historicity. 2 & 3 present some interesting archaeological situations. It is assured that Jesus died at some point. Why did the 'Apostles' not make any attempt at marking or signifying such a significant death? Again, the evidence may have existed but time has obliterated it.

I don't know at this stage and work is calling very loudly. Maybe more scholarly research after a few projects are completed for my impatient followers...

 

[Marc L]

What makes you think the number of male children of the relevant age living in the relevant village was very large? It might have meant a dozen victims; it might have meant a half-dozen. Josephus indicates that Herod was responsible for putting a great many people to death during his reign, and at the time Herod's atrocity, if it occurred, might not have seemed that unusual. And of course, we don't know if the event was recorded or not; only that no record apart from the Gospels survives.

Was Bethlehem a village? I'd heard it refered to as the City of David. That suggests something slightly larger. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that a group of soldiers marched into a village, stole even 12 newborns and killed them for no reason, without anyone saying anything. Given the uniqueness of the event (killing a group of babies in one village in one night), it would certainly warrant more mention than "Herod killed a lot of people."

Surely this is an exaggeration. Paul refers to the Incarnation, the Last Supper, and the Resurrection, for example. He also cites sayings attributed to Jesus.

Yes, Paul refers to the Incarnation and the Resurrection. I know of the reference to the Last Supper, but I don't have my research materials handy, so I can't say if that's one of the disputed letters or not (ie, one that scholars believe was written by someone else and only attributed to Paul). As for the sayings, however, you need to remember that the epistles were written before the Gospels. It wouldn't be hard for the writers to add them in (after all, Paul said that Jesus said it...)

The fact remains, however, that again, there is no reference to Jesus' miracles, his virgin birth, etc. These are big things. Further, there is the case of the 'is it lawful to eat non-kosher food'? (Actually, it may be food sacrificed to idols. If it is, feel free to correct me). Paul goes into a long discourse that basically says, 'It's ok to do it'. Rather than waste the ink and the paper, why didn't he just remind them of what Jesus said about how what goes into your body is clean?

As I mentioned before, Paul himself claims to have studied under Gamiliel in Jerusalem-which would have been around the time Jesus was there. Why didn't he see him? Or at least hear about him? The man had already walked on water, healed the sick, and caused two people to come back from the dead. Don't you think Paul would have heard about this? Even if at the time, he dismissed it, once he had his conversion experience, don't you think he might have put two and two together?

Marc

 

[Marc L]

Bethlehem didn't exist during Herod's reign? That's the first time I've heard that one. Evidence, please?

That may be my fault. I mentioned that the place where Jesus supposedly lived didn't exist. I was refering to Nazereth, not Bethlehem. I apologize for the confusion.

Marc

 

[ceo_esq]

All of which fit precisely with other religious cults of the general era which have dubious living 'gods' or humans that transcended (Mithra, Apollonius of Tyana, and so forth).

Even if true (and I don't see it with respect to the Last Supper), what does this have to do with the point in question, which is whether Paul refers to the life of Jesus?

Paul never once mentions Jesus as a person (who did particular things as a living human being or was in certain places). God (OT and NT) was often spoke about in personified terms, but noone would claim that this refers to God (as distinct from Jesus here) walking about in human form.

I suppose I don't grasp what is being claimed here. What qualifies as referring to Jesus as a person who actually lived on Earth? A cursory review of the surviving Pauline letters indicates that Paul believed at least the following of Jesus' life:

• He was born, in the flesh, and of a woman
• He lived a life of voluntary poverty
• He instituted the Eucharistic rite at the Last Supper
• He was betrayed on the same night
• He died, specifically by crucifixion, at the behest of actual persons within the Jewish community
• He miraculously rose from the dead

I find extraordinary the claim - if such is actually being claimed - that Paul believed all these things to be true of Jesus but only in some obscure, unusual way compatible with believing that Jesus was never an actual person and that such things were done by (or happened to) Jesus solely otherwise than in a temporally or spatially concrete (i.e. historical) sense. I daresay it would take a fair amount of positive (not negative) textual evidence for a reasonable reader to assent to such a thesis.

Was Bethlehem a village? I'd heard it refered to as the City of David. That suggests something slightly larger. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that a group of soldiers marched into a village, stole even 12 newborns and killed them for no reason, without anyone saying anything. Given the uniqueness of the event (killing a group of babies in one village in one night), it would certainly warrant more mention than "Herod killed a lot of people."

Possibly this merits further investigation.

Yes, Paul refers to the Incarnation and the Resurrection. I know of the reference to the Last Supper, but I don't have my research materials handy, so I can't say if that's one of the disputed letters or not (ie, one that scholars believe was written by someone else and only attributed to Paul).

It's in 1 Corinthians; so far as I know the scholarly community has never seriously entertained objections to the epistle's Pauline authorship.

As for the sayings, however, you need to remember that the epistles were written before the Gospels.

With regard to the four Gospels as we know them, this is undoubtedly true of most of the epistles, although if one takes an early date for Mark and a late date for Colossians (and assuming arguendo that Colossians is authentic), it might not be the case there.

If the Q-source existed as many suppose, however, it not only consisted primarily of Jesus' sayings that turn up in the Synoptics (I'd have to inquire which sayings exactly) but probably predated Paul's first surviving letter.

It wouldn't be hard for the writers to add them in (after all, Paul said that Jesus said it...)

Theoretically it wouldn't, but that thesis entails an additional set of suppositions of its own.

The fact remains, however, that again, there is no reference to Jesus' miracles, his virgin birth, etc. These are big things.

Big things if you are writing a Gospel, perhaps, but not necessarily (to my mind) if you are writing compositions of the nature of Paul's letters.

 

[davefoc]

Mark L,
I think to some degree you are arguing things that most people have accepted as true in this thread already.

I think there is a general consensus that the Gospels are mostly fiction.

I think that nobody here (with the possible exception of Huntster if he is still around) thinks that Herod killed a lot of children.

I think there is no expectation here that Paul would have referred to certain elements of the Gospels because they are probably written after Paul and the general belief here is that they are largely works of fiction. So my guess is that Paul didn't know about things like the virgin birth, so I don't think it's surprising that he didn't mention it.

The main issue of this thread is whether an individual existed that resembles the biblical Jesus closely enough to be described as the historical Jesus. The general opinion here is that this man, assuming he existed, was vastly different that the biblical Jesus. So in putting forth sections of the Gospels that are probably false for various reasons you are mostly talking to the choir.

There is an issue as to whether Nazareth existed during the life of the supposed Jesus. This is a complicated issue since at least one school of thought is that Nazareth is some kind of corruption of a word that refers to members of a certain sect. My own cut at this controversy, is that the lack of evidence for an historical Nazareth isn't evidence against the possibility of an historical Jesus it just doesn't support it. One other thing to note about Nazareth perhaps, is that secular scholars posit that this was the actual birth city of Jesus and that Bethlehem as the birth city was just a fiction created as an attempt to create the impression of the fulfillment of biblical prophesy.

You seem to be in the camp that believes that Paul is not referring to a flesh and blood Jesus. I have read this idea a number of times in various "Jesus is myth sites". It seems that the evidence is more against this idea than for it. ceo_esq put together a list that looks like strong evidence to me that the idea is wrong.

When I went off to look into this myself I came across this passage almost immediately from Galations 1:18-20 New International Version:

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Is it possible that the evidence for Paul's belief in a non-flesh and blood Jesus has been exaggerated?

 

[Marc L]

Mark L,
I think to some degree you are arguing things that most people have accepted as true in this thread already.

I think there is a general consensus that the Gospels are mostly fiction.

I think that nobody here (with the possible exception of Huntster if he is still around) thinks that Herod killed a lot of children.

Actually, Huntster was the one I had originally responded to.

The main issue of this thread is whether an individual existed that resembles the biblical Jesus closely enough to be described as the historical Jesus. The general opinion here is that this man, assuming he existed, was vastly different that the biblical Jesus. So in putting forth sections of the Gospels that are probably false for various reasons you are mostly talking to the choir.

Yeesh. My fault for not paying close enough attention. Thanks for the heads up.

You seem to be in the camp that believes that Paul is not referring to a flesh and blood Jesus. I have read this idea a number of times in various "Jesus is myth sites". It seems that the evidence is more against this idea than for it. ceo_esq put together a list that looks like strong evidence to me that the idea is wrong.

This is going to sound really lame, but my research stuff is at home. I'm currently on a ship out at sea, so I can't look things up. I have a book called (I think) 'Who Wrote the New Testament' that talks about which letters are likely written by Paul and which aren't. I bring that up because I'd like to check ceo_esq's list against that book. I'd also appreciate it if you'd point me towards some resources that go against the idea that Paul is not referring to a flesh and blood Jesus.

When I went off to look into this myself I came across this passage almost immediately from Galations 1:18-20 New International Version:

"Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie."

Is it possible that the evidence for Paul's belief in a non-flesh and blood Jesus has been exaggerated?

Again, let me check my stuff at home. I should be back this evening, and hopefully will be able to post tomorrow.

Marc

 

[davefoc]

Marc L,
It seems that I might have been a bit tactless. My apologies. I think I might have missed some of the interactions when I picked back up on the thread.

As to links to Jesus as Myth sites:
Here are two:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

I was am going to spend some more time reading the second one. When I was making sure of the link, I was attracted to several articles that looked interesting.

This is a link to my favorite site that takes the view that Jesus was real:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html

It has occurred to me that there is a kind of trap associated with articles with the point of view like the ones on the above site. It seems like the authors make an assumption that Jesus was real and once this assumption is made then there is a bias to interpretting the available sources in such a way as to support the idea of a real Jesus by carefully teasing plausible details of his life out of the sources.

Still, this thread, plus the reading I have been doing as a result of this thread makes it seem more likely than ever that an historical Jesus did exist.

At this point my list of evidence in order of how strong I think it is consists of the following:

The letters of Paul believed to be authentic
The Josephus passages (minus the obvious later inclusions)
The apparent existance of non-Pauline Jewish Jesus sects
The Gospels
External evidence that supports some of the details in the Gospels

I was reading through some of Paul's letters looking for passages to back up some of ceo_esq's list and one of the things that struck me was that I was hard pressed to read those letters as referring to anything other than a flesh and blood Jesus. I would quote them now but the need for gainful work is getting in the way of my desire to keep messing about with this right now.

 

[Complexity]

Who cares.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

Part of the point of passive resistance is to place the aggressor in circumstances such that he must desist or be shamed.

That;s a just a form of insult.

 

[ceo_esq]

ceo_esq
That;s a just a form of insult.

I find that to be an unusual way of looking at it. You almost make it sound as though the teaching about turning the other cheek were a spiteful one - and given your inexplicable propensity to cast Jesus and his teachings in an absurdly unfavorable light, I wonder if that's exactly what you're trying to do here. Surely no unbiased reader would summarize Jesus' lessons about the treatment of enemies as "Insult them" (as you did a few posts back).

 

[Melendwyr]

That may be my fault. I mentioned that the place where Jesus supposedly lived didn't exist. I was refering to Nazereth, not Bethlehem. I apologize for the confusion.

Don't apologize: Bethlehem didn't exist either at the time. I believe it was established well after Christ's birth was supposed to have taken place.

 

[CapelDodger]

Don't apologize: Bethlehem didn't exist either at the time. I believe it was established well after Christ's birth was supposed to have taken place.

Bethlehem is referred to (as a place-name, admittedly) repeatedly in the OT. It's in many ways more significant than Jerusalem. David is said to have been born there. He set up his first HQ in Hebron then captured (and transferred to) Jerusalem, which has strategic advantages for a warlord. Apart from that Jerusalem has little going for it. Modern Bethlehem is a much more natural settlement site.

Not that there's a unique Bethlehem, of course ...

 

[davefoc]

Who cares.

Hi Complexiity,
There are thousands of threads in this forum, can we look forward to you going through each one and letting us know each time you don't find the subject interesting? I notice that you've done it twice in this thread. Is that because you are especially not interested in this subject or will all threads that you find not interesting get at least two posts exclaiming your non-interest?

 

[davefoc]

Don't apologize: Bethlehem didn't exist either at the time. I believe it was established well after Christ's birth was supposed to have taken place.

CD alluded to this, but the city of Bethlehem near Jerusalem is not known to have existed in the first centruy. However there is a Bethlehem in Galilee that has been excavated and found to have definitely existed in 1 ce.

Some scholars have suggested that this is the Bethlehem that the New Testament is referring to:

Wikeipedia article on Bethlehem, Galilee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem,_Galilee

 

[Complexity]

davefoc - I'm answering the question posed by the thread title.

Does it matter whether Jesus lived?

If there were significant evidence that he did live, that would not alter the beliefs of people that are not Christian.

If there were significant evidence that he did not live, that would not alter the beliefs of people that are Christian.

Its all very well to have a discussion on the subject. I'm simply throwing in my two cents. I maintain that it does not matter whether Jesus lived.

A longer way of saying this is that the truth value of the statement 'There once lived a man named Jesus who is the same Jesus described in the Christian Bible' has no effect on the world we live in.

I seriously asked the question, 'Who cares?' I'm interested in hearing who does care and the reasons for caring.

I don't find the thread question interesting, but I do find the reasons why people claim to care about it interesting.

I think there are lot more important and interesting things to talk about. If I think people are engaged in a fruitless serious discussion, I usually find a way of letting them know. I'm not overly concerned about whether the discussion continues, but some things just need to be said.

It is likely that I will forget about this exchange and thread and rediscover what I think is a fruitless serious discussion later. When I do, I may be moved to comment. Feel free to disregard that comment as well.

 

[davefoc]

reasonable questions,
I don't know the answers. But I'll take a shot at some of them.

As to whether it matters whether Jesus lived or died in terms of how the answer to that question might affect the present:

I don't know. I am interested in the answer, probably for about the same reason I want to know who did it in a Law and Order episode. I'm a curious fellow and one of the things I'm curious about is how the Christian relgion got going and what role an historical Jesus played in that.

I am with you, that even if overwhelming evidence was found that contradicted most of Christianity's mythology concerning Jesus the effect on the world would be minimal. The evidence seems pretty straightforward that the basic Christian mythology is false and evidence for that has been available for a long time. That seems to have had no particular effect on anything so it is reasonable to expect that even stronger evidence that the Christian mythology is false wouldn't have much effect either. As an aside I think the best chance for better evidence to surface of the false nature of Christian mythology would be some kind of writings not now known from the original Jewish Jesus cults. I suppose after all these years the chance of something like that is probably almost zero though.

As to who cares besides people like myself:
I don't know, a certain percentage of the people who are interested in the nature of an hisotirical Jesus are previously religious folks who have lost their Christian faith but not their interest in the nature of Jesus. The writer of the Pascal's wager web site is somebody like that. I was listening to a bible scholar on NPR a couple of days ago and it sounded like he was in about the same boat.

I suppose believers are interested also, but I don't understand how they jibe their faith with the conflicting details that are inherent in trying to figure out the nature of an historic Jesus. I've wondered about that with respect to Catholic priests . At least some of them must have had the intellectual curiosity and capability to investiagete the known historical details that underlie their church and their faith. My thought is that they divide the world of faith into two parts, one a sort of fantasyland made up of all the traditions and mythology that people have come to expect and perhaps enjoy that the church has promulgated over the years and the other an intellectual world where truth is an important goal.

 

[ceo_esq]

If there were significant evidence that he did live, that would not alter the beliefs of people that are not Christian.

Hopefully it would to the extent that such beliefs included the belief that Jesus did not live.

If there were significant evidence that he did not live, that would not alter the beliefs of people that are Christian.

How do you know this? Even if only one in 100 Christians allowed his or her beliefs to be altered by knowledge of such evidence (an implausibly low number, I think), that would still result in twenty million changed minds - arguably a significant consequence.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Complexity:

Obviously lots of people care since this subject has been discussed and written about for nearly two millenia.

Personally, my interests are in the interplay between the fictions and the facts and wherein they were developed - more of a historical interest related to the development of the cult into religion and its mythology. Also it is interesting to see how, in the face of the reality that most of the gospel narration is fictitious and impossible, people are still able to be so credulous. We now know that most of the credulity is caused by indoctrinatory practices of one type or another (no person sufficiently isolated from knowledge of Christianity has ever become a Christian independently thereof and thereby).

I'm by no means a scholar in relation to this, only an interested bystander with a modicum of research. When I win the lottery - notice no 'if' - I'll then have sufficient time to do more esoteric things like this.

 

[Euromutt]

Okay, let's take another look at Seimosaurus' original post:

I've seen the claim from fundies several times lately that Jesus definitely existed and that all serious historians agree on this point - the debate is purely about whether he was actually God incarnate or just a man.

Based on what I've read in this thread, I think it's safe to say there is no truth to that claim, and we can file it alongside the "Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed" lie.

Clearly, there are valid grounds to doubt whether a historical Jesus existed at all, but even if we take the existence of a historical Jesus as axiomatic, there is still serious doubt that he bore any resemblance to the character portrayed (in rather incoherent fashion) in the New Testament.

Personally, even after having read this entire thread, I'm actually leaning further towards the idea that the Biblical Jesus was invented from whole cloth, with elements borrowed from other sources amateurishly thrown in to widen the appeal of the cult. The NT is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, both internally and with historical fact, and the references in Josephus and Tacitus are hearsay at best, forgery at worst.

Regarding the question of why Christianity succeeded where so many other Messianic cults failed, the hypothesis that Jesus was fabricated "posthumously" may provide the explanation: a messiah who isn't around any more can't be shown to be a fake. And you avoid the embarassment of somebody stumbling across his grave when you've been claiming he ascended to heaven. Note, moreover, how the epistles were all written to people who lived conveniently far away from Palestine (Corinth, Thessaloniki, Rome, etc.), and who were therefore in no position to go asking about this Jesus bloke.