Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Craig B]

Grrediguts

One source ascribes Cassius Dio's omission to the terseness of his account, rather than to any uncertainty about the existence of Bar Kochba:
http://histories.cambridge.org/extract?id=chol9780521772488_CHOL9780521772488A006

So terse is the one extant historical account of the revolt, found in the abridged version of the third-century historian Cassius Dio's Roman History (69.11–15), that it fails even to name the rebel leader. Archaeological findings from 1952 to the present, mainly papyrological, fill the gaps to a certain extent; however, they by no means create a coherent account of events in Palestine during the three-year revolt. Emerging is a partial picture of Bar Kochba's leadership style and administration, his state's borders, Jewish observance under wartime conditions, and the strong Roman reaction.

But even that is much more than we have for Jesus. There are coins bearing Bar Kochba's personal name, Simon, evidently from the period of the revolt. There can surely be no doubt of his existence. Or, in fact, do you doubt that he ever existed?

Startling omissions by individual chroniclers are not even confined to the ancient world. Within a few decades of its occurrence, John Barbour wrote a very long poem about king Robert Bruce and the Scottish war of liberation against the English, one of the main sources of information about that event. Barbour never deigns to mention Bruce's predecessor Wallace, who temporarily evicted the English from most of the country a few years before Bruce's rebellion. But the evidence for Wallace's existence, and for his importance, is overwhelming. His historicity simply cannot be doubted.

 

[The Norseman]

Please stop calling me Shirley.

Yes. The historical Jesus would have VERY little in common with the gospel CHRIST.





Ah. So we know that all Messiah wanna-bes were written about?

Just looking at ancient writers and people they cover, I can think of a couple of examples to make us go "hmmm...":

Dio Cassius wrote a fairly detailed account of the Jewish revolt in 132-135 CE (the Bar Kochba revolt). The person passed over in this account by Dio Cassius? That would be Bar Kochba (another Messiah wanna-be).

Josephus was an admitted Pharisee, yet in his works he never mentions Rabbi Hillel, the founder of the school of Hillelites.

That is just off the top of my head. If I compiled a list of ancient authors and was able to point out how many don't mention someone of known stature would that really prove or disprove the HJ theory? Is it germane?

I linked to a Christian apologist site not because I believe his conclusions but because I did not want to have to go through Kapyong's list author by author. I thought the site might encourage some of the posters here who accept the list (and its conclusions) as gospel *chuckle* to dig a little deeper and become familiar with the authors and their works.
For those here who would like to engage a real scholar on the whole HJ/MJ issues, I recommend commenting on this blog. Dr. James McGrath teaches at Butler University and has been responding to mythicists for awhile. I would start here and see if some of your questions have been answered.

Why? The only question that's important is are their conclusions sound and backed up by evidence. This goes for scholars and amateurs alike.

As to the "real scholar" I read a few of his blogs and the following excerpt seems pretty much the only thing he says. Extremely disappointing coming from a "real scholar." Where are the facts?

Now, if anyone who is familiar with McGrath's works could link to a specific blog that specifically addresses some of the overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed -- you know, stuff that isn't full of unprovable assumptions -- then please post it.

And so I will state once again what is obvious to historians and New Testament scholars but apparently unclear to some who are not entirely familiar with how historical investigation works. Historians are confident Jesus existed, first and foremost, because we have sayings attributed to him and stories about him that are more likely authentic than inauthentic. We have enough such material to place the matter beyond reasonable doubt in the minds of most experts in the field. And in order to deny that Jesus existed, one has to posit conspiracies and misunderstandings which, if one is willing to entertain such scenarios, could effectively be used to deny the existence of just about anyone in history. And even in the case of the most plausible mythicist scenario (not that they ever take the time to make a positive case for how the myth was invented and how it came to be misunderstood so quickly as being about a historical figure) we never get a scenario that is more probable than one that regards there as having been a real historical figure Jesus, however much he may have been obscured by later developments and dogmas.

And so, in short, the existence of Jesus is not something that can be proven in the abstract. This is simply stating the obvious, and is true of any historical figure. And the reason all mainstream historians and New Testament scholars believe Jesus existed? Because they have found at least one thing that he is purported to have said, or done, or had done to him, that seems very likely to be authentic. And if there is an authentic saying of Jesus, or action by him, or he was crucified, then he existed, because there is no such thing as an authentic historical action by a non-existent person.

A lot of bluster with no facts to back it up. Lots of talk of probabilities which sounds really scientific and authoritative. No facts so far. From the threads on JREF that I've read, this seems to be the standard HJ stance which makes me more and more suspicious that there really isn't any evidence supporting a real Jesus.

So if there is a dearth of evidence regarding Jesus either way, then why not have the HJ folks say that a mythical Jesus has merit and could be possible? What's so hard about that?

 

[pakeha]

I have to admit complete ignorance but it seems interesting enough to take a look at. May be important in future discussions to have at least some knowledge.

You know this is a fictitious cosmos invented by Lovecraft?

 

[RandFan]

According to the vast majority of scholars it exists in the imagination of Eisenman and a few others who interpret references to mean this.
I don't want to go into great detail about the scrolls, it's certainly not a field I'd consider myself an expert in, and the translation and study of the scrolls is an ongoing field of study. Plus my expert on them is still in bed.

There are parallels between the practices of the group at Qumran (probably Essenes) and those of Jesus’ disciples, these are well known. They include the Council of Twelve; the communal meal; healing and exorcism; sharing possessions; baptism; antagonism towards the main Jewish sects; looking to the end of the world and the coming of a messiah.
Likewise similar imagery recurs: the cornerstone, the spring of living waters, the Many; the Children of Light; the poor; the elect; the meek; the Son of God.
However. while Eisenman (and others) interprets this as referring to proto-xianity, and misrepresents the age of the scrolls to support this belief, most scholars consider the similarities between the beliefs and lifestyles of the scroll writers and xianity to be down to deeper and older themes common to both. For example Allegro¹ believed that xian, Essene and Gnostic beliefs and world views spring from a common, older, set of myths.

Overall there are a number of theories as to what the scrolls represent, by far the most commonly held of these is the original one; the settlement at Qumran was a group of Essenes. This is supported by similarities between some of the practices documented on the scrolls and details of Essene life known from other sources and other evidence.
There are other theories, one of the more recent (and probably the next most popular) is Lawrence Schiffman's; he proposes that the community was led by a group of Sadducees. Some details from the scrolls, purity laws and the dating of festivals support this.
The other origin theory that is at all widely held among scroll scholars is that the Qumran community were non-Essene Jews, either a mix of different groups or more-or-less sectarian Jews (the Qumran-Sectarian Theory).

The idea that Qumran was an xian community is considered nonsense by most scholars. It originated with a a Jesuit Josep O'Callaghan-Martínez in 1972 and resurrected by Eisenman in 2004 and has little-to-no supporting evidence and much to contradict it. This hasn't done much for Eisenman's already damaged credibility².



¹ Yes that Allegro.
² I don't want to be too hard on Eisenman, is work in forcing the public release of the scrolls was a blow for academic freedom of access to information, but he's a conspiracy nut when it comes to xian history, he even believed in the cache of documents under the Tour Magdala..........

Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

Because the majority of the gospels aren't true. I don't think this is a suprise to anyone here.

Paul's letters and the "Q" hypothesis point towards something else.

The claims for a "historical Jesus" are not religious claims. There are Christian apologists that try to co-opt the scholarship but that ain't what it's for.
Historians look for a Jewish peasant. Most likely illiterate. He convinced a few other peasants (most likely illiterate) to follow him. After a brief time playing in the sticks he moved to Beverly (Jerusalem that is, baptismal pools and Roman guards) did something to piss off the Romans and was killed. His closest followers stayed in Jerusalem teaching what he taught. Back in the sticks, among the peasants, the story of his life grew. The church Paul encountered and converted to was probably rooted more in this tradition than the Jerusalem school. Paul's letters allude to differences between his beliefs and the Jerusalem clan.When the Romans wipe out Jerusalem in 70 you see the end of the Sadducees and probably the majority of the Jewish-proto-Xians who regarded Jesus as a Jewish teacher (but not a god). The apotheosis of Jesus becomes complete over time.

No one would bother to take the time to write about someone like that when they were alive. Even if Jesus thought he himself was the Messiah, he would have had to take a number and stand in line with the other Messiah wannabes.

IF Jesus had been gathering thousands, feeding thousands, walking on water, healing lepers, turning water into wine, and rising from the dead then yes, I agree, some contemporary should have written about him.

I can live with that.

 

[Greediguts]

Why? The only question that's important is are their conclusions sound and backed up by evidence. This goes for scholars and amateurs alike.

I didn't make myself clear. The authors I am referring to are the ancient writers that Kapyong lists. Are most familiar with them and their genres? Does the list really provide any historical context?

So if there is a dearth of evidence regarding Jesus either way, then why not have the HJ folks say that a mythical Jesus has merit and could be possible? What's so hard about that?

If you look around his blog you will find his post on peer review and the Mythicists. Earl Doherty (Kapyong's mentor) makes an appearance in the comments section to explain why he doesn't submit his work for peer-review. Do you feel Doherty's hesitation is warranted and logical?

Norseman, if you are looking for some "smoking gun" that shows JC to be 100% historical you will not find it. When it comes to ancient sources, we don't have originals from well, anyone. All texts are copies of copies, of copies...etc. From Paul's letters to Cicero's letters all are copies. Ancient historians make due with what they have and try to place it all within a historical context and then postulate ideas within that framework. Many historians do this in all the fields of historical study ( ancient history, labor history, native american history, etc). It's not unheard of at all.

Just to present another side, here is a blog that views the HJ/MJ arguments and supports the view no one side can claim any type of historicity. (I guess we could refer to it as the agnostic theory (AJ)?)

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Why? The only question that's important is are their conclusions sound and backed up by evidence. This goes for scholars and amateurs alike.

As to the "real scholar" I read a few of his blogs and the following excerpt seems pretty much the only thing he says. Extremely disappointing coming from a "real scholar." Where are the facts?

Now, if anyone who is familiar with McGrath's works could link to a specific blog that specifically addresses some of the overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed -- you know, stuff that isn't full of unprovable assumptions -- then please post it.




A lot of bluster with no facts to back it up. Lots of talk of probabilities which sounds really scientific and authoritative. No facts so far. From the threads on JREF that I've read, this seems to be the standard HJ stance which makes me more and more suspicious that there really isn't any evidence supporting a real Jesus.

So if there is a dearth of evidence regarding Jesus either way, then why not have the HJ folks say that a mythical Jesus has merit and could be possible? What's so hard about that?

I agree. That's a whole lot of DOC logic in that paragraph.

"We know Jesus existed because these stories can't just have come from someone's imagination"

(Yes, that logic proves Harry Potter is a real person, all the characters of the LOTR trilogy existed, etc. We have stories. Who would make up stories about people that didn't really exist at some point in time?)

 

[bikerdruid]

(Yes, that logic proves Harry Potter is a real person, all the characters of the LOTR trilogy existed, etc. We have stories. Who would make up stories about people that didn't really exist at some point in time?)

jung would say that many of them exist in the collective unconscious, as archetypes.
(is that a reasonable assessment of jungian theory?)

 

[triadboy]

However, I, John Doe, see no reason to believe he existed at all.

So, give me reason to believe Jesus existed. Simple, right?

I managed to come up with this on my own and then was pleased to see Bart Ehrman agreed. He existed because he was known as "Jesus of Nazereth". That's it.

Because of that, the story-tellers couldn't just call him "Jesus from Bethleham".

It sounds stupid, but you have to think about it for a while.

 

[Ethnikos]

You know this is a fictitious cosmos invented by Lovecraft?

I read some from what was at the site I was given a link to. It seems like his idea of what could be but just got overlooked or something. I used to read all the Edgar Rice Burroughs books and that was always the central theme, if you were to just look in the right spot, you would find. . .
I liked the H. Rider Haggard books because he was an actual explorer and knew all those places he wrote about but just added the thing that was hidden to the ones not blessed by luck, or something.

ETA: Allan Quatermain meets She, is a book with a well developed fantasy religion.
ETA: checking wikipedia, title may be more simply She and Allan. Can be read on-line. Perhaps why the religion was so well developed was that it may be one of the last books he wrote.

 

[The Norseman]

I didn't make myself clear. The authors I am referring to are the ancient writers that Kapyong lists. Are most familiar with them and their genres? Does the list really provide any historical context?



If you look around his blog you will find his post on peer review and the Mythicists. Earl Doherty (Kapyong's mentor) makes an appearance in the comments section to explain why he doesn't submit his work for peer-review. Do you feel Doherty's hesitation is warranted and logical?

Norseman, if you are looking for some "smoking gun" that shows JC to be 100% historical you will not find it. When it comes to ancient sources, we don't have originals from well, anyone. All texts are copies of copies, of copies...etc. From Paul's letters to Cicero's letters all are copies. Ancient historians make due with what they have and try to place it all within a historical context and then postulate ideas within that framework. Many historians do this in all the fields of historical study ( ancient history, labor history, native american history, etc). It's not unheard of at all.

Just to present another side, here is a blog that views the HJ/MJ arguments and supports the view no one side can claim any type of historicity. (I guess we could refer to it as the agnostic theory (AJ)?)

I'm not looking for any smoking gun. So far what I've seen and read -- which I have no problem admitting probably isn't much -- says that there are a huge number of assumptions surrounding what little evidence that there exists for an HJ.

I would really love it if I read, "We don't know. There's so very little evidence and given that, it could go either way."

I think the concept that Jesus was cobbled together based on previous myths, stories and legends to be a reasonable one, now that I've been exposed to it and I have not seen much to disprove it. Just a surprising amount of dismissals based on appeals to authority and a bunch of false comparisons to creationism.

 

[Cavemonster]

In previous threads I've wondered what meaning this question has, and I haven't gotten a satisfying answer yet.

From the account of the biblical character Jesus, we know that most of the defining characteristics and events were simply untrue.
-No one was born to a virgin.
-No one healed lepers or cripples with the power of touch or brought the dead back to life.
-No one walked on water or turned it into wine, or magically multiplied bread and fish
-No one stormed the moneychangers in the temple (That would have made the history books)
-No one was ressurected after tee days of death.

We know these things because we are intelligent people.

So what's left? A preacher named Joshua gave some sermons that contained ideas already in circulation at the time and was executed by the Romans? There were tons of preachers, many of whom said the same things and more than a few were executed. What historical difference does it make whether the writings of the gospels, created decades later were about a particular one of these people or some amalgmation of the type?

 

[catscratch]

First things...

You don't have to convince me he was the Son of God, or that he could perform miracles. Even atheists can believe Jesus existed; I'm sure many do.

So, convince me. I am John Doe, and I have seen NO evidence that Jesus ever even existed. Being a rational man, I don't believe Jesus existed due to lack of any evidence , though I admit it is possible... many men have existed, this is not an extraordinary claim.

However, I, John Doe, see no reason to believe he existed at all.

So, give me reason to believe Jesus existed. Simple, right?

SEEMS simple, anyway.

But you have to start at the beginning.

First you have to believe that God IS and is able to save. And your first belief in God causes you to believe what He says about sending the Messiah. The Holy Spirit does that causing part... He convicts the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. It's that righteousness part (where Jesus has done what He came here to do and has returned Home) that convinces a man, who has been shown that he is a sinner, that Jesus is in fact the promised Messiah, through Whom God does the saving.

 

[RandFan]

But you have to start at the beginning.

First you have to believe that God IS and is able to save. And your first belief in God causes you to believe what He says about sending the Messiah. The Holy Spirit does that causing part... He convicts the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. It's that righteousness part (where Jesus has done what He came here to do and has returned Home) that convinces a man, who has been shown that he is a sinner, that Jesus is in fact the promised Messiah, through Whom God does the saving.

EXACTLY! Thank you I said this almost word for word when I was a Mormon missionary. You just need to then believe that the church lost the light of Christ, that god sent Luther to start a reformation, and finally he called upon Joseph Smith to restore his one true Curch. The rest is history.` This resulted in many baptisms. If you first belive in god the father, Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith god will confirm the truth as he has done for so many Mormons.

 

[RandFan]

On the other hand you could use the sense god gave a billy goat and see that this method to convert non-believers to tithe paying members is identical to any con job. It helps if you can get people you have conned who sincerely believe to carry out the con.

 

[Greediguts]

I'm not looking for any smoking gun. So far what I've seen and read -- which I have no problem admitting probably isn't much -- says that there are a huge number of assumptions surrounding what little evidence that there exists for an HJ.

I would really love it if I read, "We don't know. There's so very little evidence and given that, it could go either way."

Again, maybe poke around the AJ blog some more. The author seems to support that conclusion and points out flaws on both sides.

I think the concept that Jesus was cobbled together based on previous myths, stories and legends to be a reasonable one, now that I've been exposed to it and I have not seen much to disprove it. Just a surprising amount of dismissals based on appeals to authority and a bunch of false comparisons to creationism.

Well, I agree that the concept of the Christ of the gospels was cobbled together. I agree that the comparisions to creationism are cheap, not a great fit, and a hinderance to rational, calm discourse. I try to stay away from extreme language. I feel there is an amount of exasperation among scholars in the field and that might be where some of it comes from.

Did you read the comments over peer review and mythicists? Any thoughts?

 

[catscratch]

Sorry...

EXACTLY! Thank you I said this almost word for word when I was a Mormon missionary. You just need to then believe that the church lost the light of Christ, that god sent Luther to start a reformation, and finally he called upon Joseph Smith to restore his one true Curch. The rest is history.` This resulted in many baptisms. If you first belive in god the father, Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith god will confirm the truth as he has done for so many Mormons.

I'm sorry, I just can't get past that Mountain Meadows Massacre thing. I would never follow a faith with bloodstained hands.

 

[catscratch]

Which Gospel?

Well, I agree that the concept of the Christ of the gospels was cobbled together.

The Gospels were (primarily) about the Messianic Kingdom. And the glimmer of that Kingdom exists in the Garden of Eden, so of course it has been seen in the whole world, just as the flood story has been told and retold in all of the families of Noah.

But Paul is the one who gives us the Gospel about the Savior.

 

[catsmate]

Might I suggest anyone interested in this subject read Fitzgerald's Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All
The original essay that he later developed into the book is available here as a PDF and is a good introduction to factual doubts about the historical Jesus.

The ten myths covered are:
MYTH No. 1: The idea that Jesus was a myth is ridiculous!
MYTH No. 2: Jesus was wildly famous – but there was no reason for contemporary historians to notice him…
MYTH No. 3: Ancient historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus
MYTH No. 4: Eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels
MYTH No. 5: The Gospels give a consistent picture of Jesus
MYTH No. 6: History confirms the Gospels
MYTH No. 7: Archeology confirms the Gospels
MYTH No. 8: Paul and the Epistles corroborate the Gospels
MYTH No. 9: Christianity began with Jesus and his apostles
MYTH No. 10: Christianity was a totally new and different miraculous overnight success that changed the world!

 

[Greediguts]

EXACTLY! Thank you I said this almost word for word when I was a Mormon missionary. You just need to then believe that the church lost the light of Christ, that god sent Luther to start a reformation, and finally he called upon Joseph Smith to restore his one true Curch. The rest is history.` This resulted in many baptisms. If you first belive in god the father, Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith god will confirm the truth as he has done for so many Mormons.

The funny thing is what became orthodoxy and what became heretical grew up together, borrowing from each. You can't really divide the two. For someone to say the church "lost the light of Christ" you would have to prove, before the Catholic church was formed, what flavor of Christianity was the correct one based upon the copies (of the copies, etc.) of the texts, the writings of the early church fathers, and what we know of ancient history to support that idea of a church.