Did Jesus exist?

[roger_pearse]

However, the more I have read on parallels between Jesus, Mithras, Horus and many other mythical saviours,

What you're reading here is certainly unscholarly. It's headbanger material. What I suggest you do is verify in the ancient sources whether Mithras, Horus, etc, really did do this or say that. You will quickly find that these claims are factually twaddle, and often written by people like Acharya S.

...the more I have moved towards, "There probably was no historical Jesus". No mentions of Jesus by contemporary historians is another indicator for me.

Most first century history is based on Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Josephus. Cassius Dio says nothing. Tacitus mentions Christ, Suetonius mentions Christians, and Josephus has a passage about the brother of Christ (and another long and corrupt passage which probably did so originally).

You will find, however, that the headbangers are ready with excuses to ignore this data.

Only a fool manufactures a silence and then argues that his manufactured absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[dejudge]

Most first century history is based on Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Josephus. Cassius Dio says nothing. Tacitus mentions Christ, Suetonius mentions Christians, and Josephus has a passage about the brother of Christ (and another long and corrupt passage which probably did so originally).

We have already gone through this a "million" times. You may be new around here.

You ought to know that HJ was an obscure preacher NOT the Christ.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a very, very late forgery and was not even used by any apologetic or Christian writers.

1. Eusebius when writing "Church History" c 325 CE did not use Tacitus to prove the advent of Christ--he used the forgeries in Josephus.

2. Sulpitius Severus when writing "Sacred History" c 400 CE did not use Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus to prove the advent of the Christ.


3. Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does not refer to Jesus Christ in the NT and is NOT HJ.

HJ was an obscure preacher.

4. Jesus called the Anointed [Christ] in AJ 20.9.1 was an High Priest the son of Damneus.

5. Jesus the Anointed [Christ] was alive c 62 CE.

6. Chrysostom in "Commentary on Galatians" admitted that James was not the brother of Jesus Christ.

7. The term Christian is not an exclusive term for those who believe the Jesus story. Even followers of Simon Magus were called Christians in the 1st century in the time of Claudius.

Please, get familiar with the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras.

You will find, however, that the headbangers are ready with excuses to ignore this data.

Only a fool manufactures a silence and then argues that his manufactured absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

You may be a headbanger because you seem prepared to ignore all the data which shows that Jesus the Christ is a figure of mythology.

In fact, your claims are not only mis-leading they show that you have done very little research into the question of the existence/non-existence of Jesus found in the NT.

You ought to have known the Gospels may have written after the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius. They are forgeries, full of fiction, riddled with historical problems and discrepancies, you know.

Please, read "Forged" and "Did Jesus Exist" by Bart Ehrman.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Another good question would be -

"is the biblical writing alone reliable enough evidence to show Jesus probably existed?"​

If it was an even slightly credible source, maybe. But it's not, so no.

 

[roger_pearse]

No mentions of Jesus by contemporary historians is another indicator for me.

Most first century history is based on Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Josephus. Cassius Dio says nothing. Tacitus mentions Christ, Suetonius mentions Christians, and Josephus has a passage about the brother of Christ (and another long and corrupt passage which probably did so originally).

You will find, however, that the headbangers are ready with excuses to ignore this data.

We have already gone through this a "million" times. You may be new around here.

You ought to know that HJ was an obscure preacher NOT the Christ.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a very, very late forgery (etc)

And the headbanger duly appears.

Please, get familiar with the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras.

Here we have a quite spurious pretence of learning, since the poster has no familiarity with any of these.

And what does he say, in response to my point about headbangers? Bluster?

You may be a headbanger because you seem prepared to ignore all the data which shows that Jesus the Christ is a figure of mythology.

Yup.

It's hard not to feel contempt for such dishonesty.

Please, read "Forged" and "Did Jesus Exist" by Bart Ehrman.

You might like to read my reviews of portions of Ehrman's "scholarly" book "Forgery and counterforgery".

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/tag/forgery-and-counterforgery/

I enjoy being patronised <SNIP>.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed breach of rule 0, rule 12.

 

[dejudge]

And the headbanger duly appears.

Your statement has no real value.

Here we have a quite spurious pretence of learning, since the poster has no familiarity with any of these.

Again, nothing here but just rhetoric.

And what does he say, in response to my point about headbangers? Bluster?

Your post lacks substance.

It's hard not to feel contempt for such dishonesty.

You have nothing to contribute.

You might like to read my reviews of portions of Ehrman's "scholarly" book "Forgery and counterforgery".

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/tag/forgery-and-counterforgery/

I enjoy being patronised <SNIP>.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content SNIPed.

Ehrman believes your Jesus existed but he just admitted that the NT is basically a pack of lies [embellishments] and riddled with forgeries.

Isn't the conception of Jesus, the walking on the sea, transfiguration, the resurrection, the commission after the resurrection, and the ascension a pack of lies [embellishments]?

Even if the NT writings were all authentic they would still be myth fables.

After all Plutarch did write "Romulus" but Romulus was a myth [an authentic myth].

 

[pakeha]

I voted for 4.
At the end of the day, no matter how or where I dig, evidence for an HJ seems to slip away into plausible likelihoods.
Meh.

 

[Craig B]

Your statement has no real value.
Again, nothing here but just rhetoric.
Your post lacks substance.
You have nothing to contribute.

These are not powerful rejoinders.

Even if the NT writings were all authentic they would still be myth fables.
After all Plutarch did write "Romulus" but Romulus was a myth [an authentic myth].

Dare I ask you to clarify the meaning of the last sentences?

 

[roger_pearse]

Your statement has no real value.
Again, nothing here but just rhetoric.
Your post lacks substance.
You have nothing to contribute.

These are not powerful rejoinders.

Not much.

Even if the NT writings were all authentic they would still be myth fables.
After all Plutarch did write "Romulus" but Romulus was a myth [an authentic myth].

Dare I ask you to clarify the meaning of the last sentences?

It looks to me as if the poster is repeating stock gibes so fast that he's getting them jumbled up. Let's see if we can disentangle them for him...

The first point is that accurate transmission of a text does not mean that the content in it is true. Now this is absolutely right. The two are separate things. So we certainly have the text of the bible (if we don't, we have *no* ancient texts whatever), and we do have the text of Plutarch. But that doesn't mean of itself that what either says is true. This point is correct. (I don't believe, tho, that he has the faintest idea what the text tradition of the "Parallel lives"** is.)

The second point is that some ancient texts contain the mythology of the pagan gods, and we "know" that in fact this mythology is just that, rather than history. That makes mythology a genre of literature. There is some truth in this, but it doesn't help, since the NT is not a member of that genre and is not writing about mythological or historically remote events, as the Iliad is.

The third point is really confused. This is that the New Testament is a specimen of the mythological genre (which is silly), and that the Life of Romulus is also. Probably the original author of whatever thought he is repeating said something along the lines that the NT represented mythology as history, and that the life of Romulus does the same; and presumably he believes that Plutarch knew that what he wrote about remote events was not true (which is doubtful) and believes that the NT writers knew the same about the events that they or their colleagues witnessed (which is twaddle). At this point it all falls apart.

Bad thinking, on lots of levels. But then, desperation to believe stuff because it is convenient does that to anyone who does it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
** For the benefit of normal people: Plutarch ca. 100 wrote a work which we know as the "Parallel Lives", one item in which was a life of Romulus. An English translation of this can be found here. Generally he produced his lives in pairs, one Greek and one Roman. The lives are often good sources for the people concerned (and equally often, sensational rather than accurate).

 

[turingtest]

...
But no one should really be surprised by this, as the majority of atheist are not busy looking for the truth/signs which would point them in the direction of God. Most enjoy operating in the realm of willful ignorance, this is despite the age we currently live in where so much information and knowledge can be found just a few clicks away.

It's true; atheists certainly aren't desperately scrabbling for confirmation of a bias (by thinking, for example, that incidental historical details included in fiction somehow prove its truth in all other details). I'm not sure I understand why you think this is a bad thing, though, or indicative of "willful ignorance"...

...oh, wait- yes, I do.

(Voted both 1 and 4- I accept that Jesus could have existed as a real person about whom a mythology just got out of hand, while also accepting that it's not likely there will ever be enough evidence to determine, except by faith, one way or the other)

 

[Big Al]

What you're reading here is certainly unscholarly. It's headbanger material.

Thank you. I have actually been a devotee of heavy metal for many years and accept this as a complement.

What I suggest you do is verify in the ancient sources whether Mithras, Horus, etc, really did do this or say that. You will quickly find that these claims are factually twaddle, and often written by people like Acharya S.

If you use independent, contemporary sources to confirm that Jesus said this and did this. The Bible is post-dated material.

Most first century history is based on Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Josephus. Cassius Dio says nothing. Tacitus mentions Christ, Suetonius mentions Christians, and Josephus has a passage about the brother of Christ (and another long and corrupt passage which probably did so originally).

• Tacitus was born 20 years after Jesus supposedly died. Not contemporary.
• Suetonius was even later
• Cassius Dio second century CE.
• Josephus was the nearest in time to the purported events, and most historians believe that the "brother of Jesus, called the Christ..." etc. qualification to the name James is a later addendum. He certainly omits mention of the sun stopping in the sky and the dead arising from the grave.

Only a fool manufactures a silence and then argues that his manufactured absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence. However, it's a lousy reason to believe in something.

 

[davefoc]

...

• Josephus was the nearest in time to the purported events, and most historians believe that the "brother of Jesus, called the Christ..." etc. qualification to the name James is a later addendum. He certainly omits mention of the sun stopping in the sky and the dead arising from the grave.

...

There might be some sort of secular Christian History specialist consensus that the Testimonium Flavium was completely a later interpolation, but I think you are probably wrong about the consensus on the mention of James being a later addendum. Richard Carrier thinks it probably wasn't a complete interpolation. However, he thinks (along with quite a few others) that the James mentioned wasn't James the brother of Jesus Christ.

 

[dejudge]

(Voted both 1 and 4- I accept that Jesus could have existed as a real person about whom a mythology just got out of hand, while also accepting that it's not likely there will ever be enough evidence to determine, except by faith, one way or the other)

That is exactly what is known. The HJ position is just like that of Christians--it is purely Faith based.

HJ is therefore no different to the Jesus in the NT.

Jesus of the NT is the Jesus of Faith.

HJers Jesus is also a Jesus of Faith--HJ required no evidence just belief.

The HJ argument is really about a New Creed--a heavily watered down Nicene Creed without the magic.

The Nicene Creed with the Magic stricken.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The HJers Creed appears to be "I believe Jesus was a man born of Mary who was crucified under Pilate and was buried".

Essentially, HJers believe the NT is really a pack of Lies [Embellishments] or a parcel of Magic or a load of mythology or a combination of the three.

Of course, like those who believe the Magical Nicene Creed, HJers too have no evidence for what they believe.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by turingtest View Post

(Voted both 1 and 4- I accept that Jesus could have existed as a real person about whom a mythology just got out of hand, while also accepting that it's not likely there will ever be enough evidence to determine, except by faith, one way or the other)

That is exactly what is known. The HJ position is just like that of Christians--it is purely Faith based.
HJ is therefore no different to the Jesus in the NT.

Jesus of the NT is the Jesus of Faith.

HJers Jesus is also a Jesus of Faith--HJ required no evidence just belief.
...
The HJers Creed appears to be "I believe Jesus was a man born of Mary who was crucified under Pilate and was buried".

Essentially, HJers believe the NT is really a pack of Lies [Embellishments] or a parcel of Magic or a load of mythology or a combination of the three.

Of course, like those who believe the Magical Nicene Creed, HJers too have no evidence for what they believe.

Only if you're reading my "could have" as "must have." Dogma and faith come from a belief in absolutes; there's no absolute in "could have existed," while I can see a certain amount of faith in a dogmatic insistence on "could not have."

 

[roger_pearse]

There might be some sort of secular Christian History specialist consensus that the Testimonium Flavium was completely a later interpolation, but I think you are probably wrong about the consensus on the mention of James being a later addendum.

Neither is correct. Alice Whealey did a study of the history of scholarship a few years ago, and it is probably still accessible on Amazon.

The TF was generally considered an interpolation in 1900. Today there is much less certainty, and probably most scholars consider it genuine but corrupt (to various degrees) although substantial numbers still think it is an interpolation, and a number think it is genuine (using the same reasons as those who consider it an interpolation.

The passage in Ant. 20 has never been seriously questioned, even back in 1900, aside from one or two scholars.

Never mistake what people in fora like this say for the consensus of real scholarship. There is too much chest-beating by people who assert whatever is convenient for it to be at all reliable.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger_pearse]

Thank you. I have actually been a devotee of heavy metal for many years and accept this as a complement.

Surely you mean "compliment"?

What I suggest you do is verify in the ancient sources whether Mithras, Horus, etc, really did do this or say that. You will quickly find that these claims are factually twaddle, and often written by people like Acharya S.

If you use independent, contemporary sources to confirm that Jesus said this and did this.

Then you get a main clause?

Quite what this has to do with my point I don't know.

Then follow some excuses to ignore data:

• Tacitus was born 20 years after Jesus supposedly died. Not contemporary.
• Suetonius was even later
• Cassius Dio second century CE.
• Josephus was the nearest in time to the purported events, and most historians believe that the "brother of Jesus, called the Christ..." etc. qualification to the name James is a later addendum. He certainly omits mention of the sun stopping in the sky and the dead arising from the grave.

Friend, you have not noticed that I didn't discuss whether these sources are credible. I stated that these are the sources that have come down to us to use for *all* first century history. Without them we have nothing. Ask your professor of ancient history. I mean that.

We have the choice: accept what survives from ancient history, or else abandon all ancient history and become an obscurantist.

Incidentally you make quite a number of assertions there, based purely on hearsay. Why not find out what "most historians" actually believe, hmm? It's not very honest to assert what that is, when in fact you don't know. (I do: so no point in BS).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[The Big Dog]

[*]Tacitus was born 20 years after Jesus supposedly died. Not contemporary.

These comments have always baffled me, as it indicates a profound misunderstanding of what Tacitus was writing about. He was writing about the Great Fire in Rome (which of course took place while he was alive) and the fact that Nero blamed the Christian community in Rome for it. He never claimed to be a contemporary of Jesus, and therefore to reject it on that basis makes no sense.

 

[IanS]

There might be some sort of secular Christian History specialist consensus that the Testimonium Flavium was completely a later interpolation, but I think you are probably wrong about the consensus on the mention of James being a later addendum. Richard Carrier thinks it probably wasn't a complete interpolation. However, he thinks (along with quite a few others) that the James mentioned wasn't James the brother of Jesus Christ.

If it's true that the earliest copies we have are from Christians themselves writing around 11th century, then they are far too late to be considered reliable in the little they have to say (as hearsay) about Jesus anyway.

 

[Big Al]

These comments have always baffled me, as it indicates a profound misunderstanding of what Tacitus was writing about. He was writing about the Great Fire in Rome (which of course took place while he was alive) and the fact that Nero blamed the Christian community in Rome for it. He never claimed to be a contemporary of Jesus, and therefore to reject it on that basis makes no sense.

Just that it's hearsay, not first-hand reportage.

 

[The Big Dog]

Just that it's hearsay, not first-hand reportage.

But what he was talking about WAS first hand knowledge, i.e. the fire, Nero's laying of the blame, the Christian community in Rome, etc.

 

[Big Al]

Surely you mean "compliment"?

I do indeed. You got me.

Then you get a main clause?

I was paraphrasing you with regard to Mithras, Horus et al. It was a condition for my following your suggestion. Used in such a way, it's perfectly normal usage.

Quite what this has to do with my point I don't know.

Different standards of proof. You demand historical rigour for just about everything except the Gospels, which were written long after the purported events.

Then follow some excuses to ignore data:

My point is, where are the CONTEMPORARY eye-witness accounts of bodies rising from the grave, the sun stopping in the sky, etc., or even that a rabbi called Yeshua, born in Bethlehem, was crucified at the orders of Pontius Pilate?

The sources are all after the purported events, and the writers would not have been alive to witness them.

Friend, you have not noticed that I didn't discuss whether these sources are credible. I stated that these are the sources that have come down to us to use for *all* first century history. Without them we have nothing. Ask your professor of ancient history. I mean that.

But where are the eye-witness accounts of people on the ground at the time? None are available.

We have the choice: accept what survives from ancient history, or else abandon all ancient history and become an obscurantist.

An exaggeration. For example, the evidence that Rome was once ruled by a living, breathing Julius Caesar (who predates Jesus by a century) is overwhelming and it would be ridiculous to deny it (not to mention his books). However, Shakespeare's play is not good evidence for Caesar.

Incidentally you make quite a number of assertions there, based purely on hearsay. Why not find out what "most historians" actually believe, hmm? It's not very honest to assert what that is, when in fact you don't know. (I do: so no point in BS).

About the only claim I made which could be called hearsay was my comment on the Testimonium Flavianum - and I stand by it. There is controversy about Josephus' claimed Jesus quotes. I will trawl through to provide citations if you insist, but http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm does a pretty good job of it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Vale, mihi amicus