Did Jesus really exist?

[_emilysmith]

For future reference, I prefer it if you don't do this line by line nonsense. I would much prefer you present evidence rather than your opinion. This silly strategy is hard to read, and you, ultimately, haven't made a single good point and you misrepresent even what is said on Wikipedia. I mean... Geez.

There is some very strong evidence that Jesus never existed, even as a historical figure.

Then why do the vast majority of all ancient historians disagree with this.

If a billion people believe in the Qur'an, does that make it true? Even Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers explicitly state the the story of Jesus is equated to the "fable of Jupiter." You will actually find that many historians do not agree with the idea of a historical Jesus.

The most obvious is the fact that Nazareth did not exist until after 100 AD. If there was no Nazareth, how could there have been a Jesus of Nazareth?

Wrong, check Wikipedia.

*sigh* I did. Did you? Even according to wiki, the earliest reference to Nazareth doesn't occur until 200CE. How do you explain that Josephus had never heard of it, even though he grew up less than a day's journey from it? Don't you find it odd that he was unaware of it and no one mentions Nazareth until hundreds of years after the fact? Don't you find it strange that, despite mentioning 63 Galilean towns, Nazareth is not mentioned once in the Old Testament or other rabbinic texts? Don't you think it is strange that Paul didn't know of Nazareth?

Most early Christians were completely unaware that Jesus was an actual person, even Bishops.

Yes, Paul was completely unaware that Jesus was a real person

... and Papias, Barnabus, Clement, Theophilus... was there mention of Jesus outside of the Bible before 100CE?

The most common extra biblical source quoted is Josephus, and the famous sentence is an obvious forgery. Josephus mentions 16 different people named Jesus, and he refers to one as the "messiah of the Jews." Of course, Josephus was a Jew, and his works are quoted in later years, but no one else mentions this reference. As a matter of fact, if you bother to read the whole page, it is clear he is talking about Jesus bar Damneus.

No, it's clear that there has been tampering with the passage, but most scholars are satisfied that once you take out the later revisions, it still mentions Jesus, though not in the glowing terms the original passage does.

Okay, then explain to me why Josephus believes this Jesus is the son of Damneus? Most scholars were unaware of this passage until hundreds of years later... even ones that referred to Josephus' works. Explain that.

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

Have you actually taken a few minutes to read the pages before and after that paragraph?

Philo of Alexandria, who lived exactly at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived, is completely silent on the subject, even though he would have been one of the most interested parties.

No, he would not have been even remotely interested in Jesus. Why would an erudite and artistocratic Jew living in the one of the largest cities in the empire, a city with the best academics bar none, be interested in a Galilean peasant? More to the point how would he even know about him? How many Galilean peasants other than Jesus can you name?

I suppose three days of darkness wasn't worth mentioning, either?

What is worse, is that, despite being raised near Nazareth, and doing a great job of documenting the area, including Sephorah, Nazareth is completely unknown to Josephus.

And the gospel writers fail to mention Sepphoris, a huge city in Galilee. Does that mean Sepphoris did not exist? They managed to name lots of other towns that have archaeological remains.

And yet, Josephus mentions Sepphoris. Who shall we believe? Someone who was there, or works that were written 100 years later?

If you read the earliest works of Christian authors, it becomes clear that they viewed him as a God, and it was only later that all of different views were brought together, which is why the Bible is so convoluted on certain points. It was Tertullian who solidified the concept of the "trinity," and he didn't come on the scene until almost 200 years after Jesus' supposed lifetime.

You've got it backwards. The Bible is contradictory on some points, that's why they later had to get together to make sense of it.

You've got it backwards. The story of Jesus as a person took a long time to appear on the scene. Once it did, it had to be reconciled with Old Testament prophecy and theology, while correlating a political message. If you don't think that is true, then explain what other reason they had to hand pick from 200 works and avoid putting them in chronological order.

There are actually some 200 gospels, epistles and other books concerning the life of Jesus Christ. Writing such material was a popular literary form, particularly in the 2nd century. The pious fantasies competed with Greek romantic fiction. Political considerations in the late 2nd century led to the selection of just four approved gospels and the rejection of others. After three centuries of wrangling 23 other books were accepted by the Church as divinely inspired. The rest were declared 'pious frauds'. In truth, the whole lot belongs to a genre of literary FICTION.

The more one examines the evidence, the worse it gets for a historical Jesus. If you take into consideration the fact that many aspects of the story are borrowed from other religions, and many aspects of the Jesus myth are allegory for the solar cycle, the historical aspects of Jesus' tale really start to evaporate.

If you take out all of the "miracles" and want to consider Jesus as just a man in history, then you are left with virtually nothing.

You just negated your point of Jesus not existing by admitting that he was a man in history. There are basic non-miraculous facts about his life that the vast majority of all scholars of all belief systems are agreed upon. Now, how you interpret his life is going to be more difficult and controversial. But, you can say that about any figure in the ancient world.

Nice try. Your little line by line debate tactic fails you in this respect. You are merely nitpicking words, while ignoring the context in order to further your point. Notice the word "If."

Why don't you go ahead an present these non miraculous facts for our examination?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

STOP the thread! Don't you people see what you are doing? You are OFFENDING Daniel C. Peterson! You have no right to discuss topics that are not already approved of by prominent scholars. Stop it, I don't want to have to tell you again!

[_emilysmith]

That Jesus of Nazareth existed is about as certain of a historical fact as you can get when it comes to ancient history. Do you doubt that Socrates existed? Probably not, but the historical evidence for Socrates is about as good as it is for Jesus. Both wrote nothing and what we have as proof for their existence are conflicting accounts written by the next generation.

Now, what you believe about Jesus of Nazareth is outside the realm of historical fact, but his existence is not.

To be perfectly honest, Earl Doherty and his ilk are conspiracy theorists or pretty close to being conspiracy theorists.

Except that Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes actually lived in the time of Socrates and their works survived. We have first hand accounts of Socrates. Outside of the New Testament, which obviously was not written in the time of Jesus, there is no mention of Jesus. If it could be demonstrated that the New Testament was written earlier, then you might have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately, your comparison is a very bad one. Mainly, this is because the first hand accounts of Socrates don't even claim to be historically accurate. They are mainly used to further philosophical ideals.

Who had more to gain by lying about Jesus? The church? Or the people who knew the truth? It is clear that lying for God is condoned by the church, as it is in Islam.

"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...

For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...

And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

Faustus

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

– Martin Luther

Origen, Eusebius [et al] write at great length ... Sometimes it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is useful.'

– St Jerome, c. 380.

"One never errs more safely, methinks, than when one errs by too much loving the truth, and too much rejecting of falsehood."

– St Augustine, Retractations, Book I

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
– 2 Thessalonians 2.11

"Unsigned works are a peculiar Christian phenomenon, in works with a dogmatic, apologetic, and propagandistic aim – in other words, works already suspect, and thus made even more so by an author's anonymity."

– Richard Carrier

"It is usual for the sacred historian to conform himself to the generally accepted opinion of the masses in his time.'

– St Jerome (P.L., XXVI, 98; XXIV, 855).

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived." - Jerome

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."

– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

[_KimberlyAnn]

For future reference, I prefer it if you don't do this line by line nonsense. I would much prefer you present evidence rather than your opinion. This silly strategy is hard to read, and you, ultimately, haven't made a single good point and you misrepresent even what is said on Wikipedia. I mean... Geez.

<snip>

Nice try. Your little line by line debate tactic fails you in this respect. You are merely nitpicking words, while ignoring the context in order to further your point. Notice the word "If."

Why don't you go ahead an present these non miraculous facts for our examination?

I don't understand your complaint, emilysmith. Aristotle S.'s line by line reply isn't a debate tactic; it's standard procedure for replying on this board. He used the quote function correctly. His reply isn't hard to read, but yours certainly is, which is understandable. You're new and the quote function on this board can be a bit tricky to master.

This silly strategy is hard to read, and you, ultimately, haven't made a single good point and you misrepresent even what is said on Wikipedia.

Could Aristotle S. be alluding to this passage from the Wiki article?

James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[27] Strange originally speculated that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”[28] In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that she stated date to the time of Jesus. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."[29]

KA

[_thews]

Have you ever noticed that the term "conspiracy theorist" has become as pejorative as "Sarah Palin fan" (or something equally outrageous and detestable)? One would think, listening to people who say that expecting to communicate the loaded baggage the term carries that conspiracies never happen. Every crime in the world, therefore, must be done by a lone nut. Or cultural phenomenon that happen is pure chance and is never consciously orchestrated, or even directed/influenced/nudged.

Don't get me wrong; most conspiracy theories really are outrageous. I just think it's a mistake (albeit, an understandable one) to dismiss everything ever said if it happens to come from someone who believes in certain conspiracies.

And by the way, I don't consider the historical Jesus to be a conspiracy. I think it's a myth that's been taken too far (personified), and there are obvious economic and political reasons why that would have been a motivated outcome.

2) If Jesus wasn't all miracles and supernatural flare, and the things attributed to him were made up by others perpetrating a faith myth, why note anything about him at all? Why would this real guy get all the credit?

Note the contradiction in the above. When you add “made up by others perpetuating a faith myth” you are defining a conspiracy theory, as “others” are conspiring to create a faith myth. If your assertions are true (faith myth), then there was a band of myth producers all driven to one common goal, which would be to create a religion based on a fictions person. The most compelling evidence that Jesus existed in my opinion, are the different accounts. It’s not like every written account of Jesus came from the same source/place. Unlike the doctrine of Joseph Smith and his magic rocks, different people would have to conspired if a real person named Jesus did not exist.

I thought Aristotle Smith’s example of Socrates is a good one. People back then were drawn to philosophers, and like Socrates, you could be killed for your teachings. There is no question that Socrates existed and had an immense impact on other philosophers, and much like Jesus, the parallel lines on the potential outcome of such radical teachings/claims would result in death. For the record I realize that Socrates basically chose to die for his cause, and the reason I draw the parallel lines is more for how people followed philosophers rather than how philosophers were persecuted.

In a nutshell, either there was a conspiracy of many people to create a poster child for a religion, or Jesus did in fact exist. We’re talking about 2000 years ago and not 200 years ago. I can’t find much information on Sally Chase after she parted ways with Joseph Smith, and it would make sense as she wasn’t a prominent figure. People don’t write about common everyday humans, and to argue what was written about 2000 years ago isn’t conclusive enough, or contradicting, is refusing to acknowledge what is written about and by how many people. If a non-Christian were to say they believed Jesus was merely a philosopher and not God, that would seem to me to be the most logical conclusion.

[_Aristotle Smith]

More line by line for you:

Except that Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes actually lived in the time of Socrates and their works survived. We have first hand accounts of Socrates.

Let's look at those first hand accounts. Aristophanes' account is an obvious satire. All scholars are agreed that Aristophanes' Socrates is completely unrepresentative of Socrates. So yes, it does show that he existed but says nothing about him.

The two best sources are Xenophon and Plato. However, read both Xenophon and Plato and try and figure out what Socrates was like and what he taught. Hell, just read all of Plato and try and figure out what Socrates was like and what he taught. You are not going to come up with much that is consistent, scholars have been trying to figure out who the historical Socrates was as long as they have been trying to figure out who the historical Jesus was. The bottom line is that the contemporary accounts establish him as existing, but they do not give a coherent picture of who he was.

Aristotle did not know Socrates and was removed from him by one generation, so anything he says about him he got second hand from Plato. But, I notice you still count him as a valid witness of Socrates' existence. Good, that means I can count Paul as a witness of the historical Jesus since he was removed from Jesus by the same amount of time and got his information in the same way that Aristotle did, by talking to those who knew Jesus.

Outside of the New Testament, which obviously was not written in the time of Jesus, there is no mention of Jesus. If it could be demonstrated that the New Testament was written earlier, then you might have a leg to stand on.

emily, you misunderstand how ancient history works. Take the teeny example of Alexander the Great, probably the most influential person in all of western history. How many contemporary accounts of Alexander survive? Answer: zero! All accounts of Alexander come from hundreds of years later, which contain fragments of the original works. Finding contemporary accounts of historical figures from the ancient world is the exception, not the rule.

Now with Alexander you have archaeological evidence because he spent most of his life killing people, breaking things, and building cities. Since Jesus did none of those three things you have to rely on the accounts. And, by the standards of ancient history, they are actually pretty good.

Unfortunately, your comparison is a very bad one. Mainly, this is because the first hand accounts of Socrates don't even claim to be historically accurate. They are mainly used to further philosophical ideals.

So, do you now claim that Socrates did not exist? There is no archaeological evidence for Socrates and you just admitted that the accounts are not historically accurate. What do you have to go on for Socrates that an ancient historian studying Jesus does not have to go on?

Who had more to gain by lying about Jesus? The church? Or the people who knew the truth? It is clear that lying for God is condoned by the church, as it is in Islam.

emily, which church are you referring to here?

As for the quotes, they all boil down to the truism that most of us already know, that people will lie at times.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Could Aristotle S. be alluding to this passage from the Wiki article?

James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[27] Strange originally speculated that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”[28] In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that she stated date to the time of Jesus. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."[29]

KA

That's the one I was referring to, thanks for pointing it out.

[_Trevor]

Except that Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes actually lived in the time of Socrates and their works survived. We have first hand accounts of Socrates.

In my opinion this is the most important consideration. What value should one place on the sources? When it comes to establishing the existence of a purportedly historical figure, I would say the testimony of contemporary eyewitnesses to the person's life outweighs those who never saw or met the person or who rely on earlier, but non-extant witnesses. The value of Paul's witness is, in my opinion, somewhat compromised by the fact that he never met Jesus, and that he clearly has a largely theological agenda in his use of Jesus.

Mind you, I am more inclined to think that the Jesus of the Gospels and Pauline epistles is rooted in an actual historical figure than not, but believers often exaggerate the quality of the evidence in favor of Jesus. That the life of this historical figure has been substantially reworked is, in my opinion, beyond question. The writers of the Gospels had no interest in or concept of historical accuracy according to our standards. One should not expect a straightforward, unembellished historical account of the life of Jesus in the Gospels.

A useful comparison, I believe, would be to look at the lives of the Roman emperors in Suetonius. Greco-Roman biography is a different genre from the Gospel, and many historians have taken most of the information in Suetonius at face value in the past. A close examination of Suetonius, however, reveals a high degree of fictionalization in his lives of the emperors. Information of the most unreliable kind is reported by the author right next to simple, easily corroborated facts.

Consider a few stories from Suetonius:

Am I to believe that a halo surrounded the sun on the day Augustus entered Rome as a young man to lay claim to his inheritance from Caesar?

Or that his mother Atia copulated with a snake, who was actually the god Apollo, when she was incubating in the sanctuary of the god?

Or that the infant Augustus climbed to the top of a column at sunrise to greet the sun?

Or that as a young man he commanded some annoying frogs who were croaking loudly to be silent, and that they were silent from that day forward?

Is it really credible that the emperor Nero constructed a collapsible boat as a weapon to kill his mother Agrippina because she had developed an immunity to poison?

Did the emperor Vespasian actually heal two commoners in the city of Alexandria on the command of the Greco-Egyptian god Sarapis? (By the way, Tacitus claims that he consulted eyewitnesses to this event.)

Ancient history, even of those for whom we have plenty of evidence, is, in the details, a shifting landscape. Those who told these stories, even those who called themselves "historians," often embellished and used unreliable sources when it served their own rhetorical purposes. One is best served by finding multiple evidences of different kinds to establish a fact. The closer in time the evidence is to the event, the better.

I recall that Dr. Peterson once compared favorably the historicity of Alexander the Great and Jesus. Alexander is indeed a problematic case. But the writers we have (dating to Roman Empire) are often quoting writings of Alexander's associates. I am not aware that the authorship of New Testament writings of those who supposedly knew Jesus personally has been established. If Peter and James did write their epistles, then we would really have something from someone actually connected to Jesus. But do we? I don't know. I am not sure anyone can be confident on that point.

[_Trevor]

Let's look at those first hand accounts. Aristophanes' account is an obvious satire. All scholars are agreed that Aristophanes' Socrates is completely unrepresentative of Socrates. So yes, it does show that he existed but says nothing about him.

The two best sources are Xenophon and Plato. However, read both Xenophon and Plato and try and figure out what Socrates was like and what he taught. Hell, just read all of Plato and try and figure out what Socrates was like and what he taught. You are not going to come up with much that is consistent, scholars have been trying to figure out who the historical Socrates was as long as they have been trying to figure out who the historical Jesus was. The bottom line is that the contemporary accounts establish him as existing, but they do not give a coherent picture of who he was.

But if the question is "does the evidence support the existence of Socrates or Jesus?", then the existence of contemporary witnesses does make a difference. Right?

At least, I thought that was what this conversation was about.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Ancient history, even of those for whom we have plenty of evidence, is, in the details, a shifting landscape. Those who told these stories, even those who called themselves "historians," often embellished and used unreliable sources when it served their own rhetorical purposes. One is best served by finding multiple evidences of different kinds to establish a fact. The closer in time the evidence is to the event, the better.

That pretty much sums up the point I am making. All too often people try and impose the requirements for doing modern history on ancient history and find that certain historical figures come up short. Trying to figure out what happened in ancient times is tricky at best.

I'm fine with people not believing that there was a historical Jesus based on an a priori criteria of what counts as historical evidence, so long as they are completely consistent in doing this. So if people want to argue that 2nd hand accounts 20-30 years removed (in the case of Paul) or embellished 2nd hand accounts 50-70 years removed (in the case of the gospels) are not historical is fine. But, they have to apply those same criteria to all of ancient history. When you do that consistently you don't have much left in the way of ancient history.

And that's the problem for people making these kinds of arguments against the historicity of Jesus, they generally show no inclination to apply their strict historical criteria towards every other historical figure from the ancient world. There's a word for that: biased.

For me the bottom line is this. If you think ancient history is possible, then Jesus was a historical figure. If you don't think ancient history is possible, then you can argue that Jesus was not historical.