Jesus is the reason baby

[Kishkumen]

You may not be aware of this, drumdude, but temple content is off limits in Terrestrial.

[Gabriel]

Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?

But the questions kept coming, and soon I began to wonder: Why are so many people asking? My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles—misquoted rather—as saying that Jesus never existed. I decided to look into the matter. I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus.

I was surprised because I am trained as a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, and for thirty years I have written extensively on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement, and the history of the church’s first three hundred years. Like all New Testament scholars, I have read thousands of books and articles in English and other European languages on Jesus, the New Testament, and early Christianity. But I was almost completely unaware—as are most of my colleagues in the field—of this body of skeptical literature.

I should say at the outset that none of this literature is written by scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges of North America or Europe (or anywhere else in the world). Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed. But a whole body of literature out there, some of it highly intelligent and well informed, makes this case.

These sundry books and articles (not to mention websites) are of varying quality. Some of them rival The Da Vinci Code in their passion for conspiracy and the shallowness of their historical knowledge, not just of the New Testament and early Christianity, but of ancient religions generally and, even more broadly, the ancient world. But a couple of bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament—have taken this position and written about it. Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice. Once you tune in to this voice, you quickly learn just how persistent and vociferous it can be.

Those who do not think Jesus existed are frequently militant in their views and remarkably adept at countering evidence that to the rest of the civilized world seems compelling and even unanswerable. But these writers have answers, and the smart ones among them need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention. The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist.

Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. This is not a piece of evidence, but if nothing else, it should give one pause. In the field of biology, evolution may be “just” a theory (as some politicians painfully point out), but it is the theory subscribed to, for good reason, by every real scientist in every established university in the Western world.

Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence for their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for a traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced.

And so, with Did Jesus Exist?, I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in fact, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’s historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.

But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that your mother believes in or the Jesus of the stained-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things, with relative certainty, about him.

DidJesusExist.jpg (38.87 KiB) Viewed 565 times

[Dr Exiled]

For me, the question of existence or myth is unimportant because the myth could very well have been created around a real person. I don't think he walked on water or did the other miracles and perhaps was an amalgam of many "messiahs" running around at the time. The atonement claim is nonsensical in that if one imagines a powerful god or an all-powerful one, certainly that god always had the power to forgive his supposed children without a blood sacrifice. Also, this god couldn't resurrect anyone with out the blood sacrifice coming first? Even so, such a person being the basis for all this myth could certainly have existed.

[Gadianton]

I read your post, Stem. I've never followed the debates about Jesus existing, and so I'm responding as a complete novice.

If Paul mentions Peter and James and the rest of the apostles, not as followers of a previously living Jesus, but as fellow believers who witnessed Jesus just as Paul did in vision,

but were revealed to him, via revelation or through scripture. Paul didn't think there were disciples of a mortal Jesus walking around with him. He thought there were fellow believers and fellow apostles who were called via revelation from Jesus.

what is the backdrop for this kind of mystical beliefs? We're saying that Paul, Peter, and James all read the scriptures independently and came to believe a mystical Jesus figure had called them as disciples? Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, right? And so a very serious guy suddenly feels "called" and then makes up a new religion and goes around preaching it? There were other people who had decided a mystical being called Jesus had called them, Paul has some of these people stoned, but then suddenly believes he's one of them?

Matthew copies 90% of Mark. That's not independence.

Does the 10% not copied talk about Jesus?

[huckelberry]

For me, the question of existence or myth is unimportant because the myth could very well have been created around a real person. I don't think he walked on water or did the other miracles and perhaps was an amalgam of many "messiahs" running around at the time. The atonement claim is nonsensical in that if one imagines a powerful god or an all-powerful one, certainly that god always had the power to forgive his supposed children without a blood sacrifice. Also, this god couldn't resurrect anyone with out the blood sacrifice coming first? Even so, such a person being the basis for all this myth could certainly have existed.

Dr exiled,
I have been inclined to think there was more to it than just being forgiven. I cannot remember hearing that people could not be resurrected without Jesus dying, But people propose this that and the other.

"Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."

[dastardly stem]

Does he claim we have them? Or does he claim we can infer they probably existed and were lost based on the textural analysis of the gospels?

Either way it's largely contested that there is any reason to think they ever were. But, he does claim "we have" them. That's his wording. That he goes on to explain we have them because he thinks they used to be, is pretty silly., I'd say. I mean disastrous to his case. Particularly since when he makes his case his evidence continues to be these hypothetical sources.

[dastardly stem]

from dasterdly stems opening post:

And here we sit 2,000 years later watching people quarrel over whether some unremarkable guy lived in antiquity. It'd be comical if it weren't true. If Jesus did not heal the blind, or teach us a parable about 10 virgins. If Jesus didn't look upon a blind man and spit his magic spit in his face to heal him, nor didn't raise anyone from the dead. If that Jesus didn't teach that he and he alone would tell many believers that he never knew them and would happily and confidently condemn them for not loving him more than anyone else, including their moms or sons...if that Jesus didn't live. What are we arguing over? The data only speaks of a magic Jesus. It doesn't tell us a thing about an unremarkable preacher who gained a tiny following and upset someone just enough to get himself killed. We don't know a thing about what he taught that upset anyone. We assume. We assume because for some reason people from centuries ago preserved writings about a magic dude, who remains venerated by many today.

Stem, I find myself puzzling over a couple of points.I find myself wondering just how your view actually differs from that of Bart Ehrman. He does not view Jesus as having miraculous power, having been raised from the dead or having a divine nature. He sees a jewish religious preacher whose message got him killed.

That is what you present as well.

The most apparent difference is that you use a lot of snark and Bart does not. Your persistence seems to show a serious emotional involvement in your view. Ok. Is it possible that with your focus on your interpretation of the "I never knew you" judgement combined with the love me more than family comment you see the real Jesus dangerous fanatic who ran afoul of people's reaction to the fanaticism?

Not much different. That's why I argued its a distinction without a difference. I think Bart has used plenty of snark over the years and in most recent times continues to do so. If you read his book, you'd see it even in there. I'm not really emotionally involved. For me its a great practice in reason and logic. As I said it doesn't matter to me either way.

[dastardly stem]

Great stuff, stem! I love the energy and passion you bring to this issue. I do think you are a little hard on Ehrman, but I am sure he can take it. He is using the tools he was trained to use to bring to this problem. I think he does a decent job. That said, the mistake we make in how we think of this is to imagine that Christianity is important because Jesus lived and did such and such things. To the contrary, Jesus is important because others made such a big deal out of him. It is participation in that act of worship—making a big deal out of Jesus—that lies at the center of Christianity.

Oh, I certainly can agree with this. I could have been more clear. And I'm honored you gave my little write up a read. Thanks for the comments, Kishkumen.

[dastardly stem]

I just don’t do loooong posts well. I’ve read some of it.

That's why I gave a TLDR, msnobody.

I think Jesus could wrap his mind around this. I’m pretty sure he is aware of things more disturbing than this.

If he's God in whatever measure people put to Him, I certainly hope He's aware of the great atrocities plaguing our good people.

[dastardly stem]

Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?

But the questions kept coming, and soon I began to wonder: Why are so many people asking? My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles—misquoted rather—as saying that Jesus never existed. I decided to look into the matter. I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus.

I was surprised because I am trained as a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, and for thirty years I have written extensively on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement, and the history of the church’s first three hundred years. Like all New Testament scholars, I have read thousands of books and articles in English and other European languages on Jesus, the New Testament, and early Christianity. But I was almost completely unaware—as are most of my colleagues in the field—of this body of skeptical literature.

I should say at the outset that none of this literature is written by scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges of North America or Europe (or anywhere else in the world). Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed. But a whole body of literature out there, some of it highly intelligent and well informed, makes this case.

These sundry books and articles (not to mention websites) are of varying quality. Some of them rival The Da Vinci Code in their passion for conspiracy and the shallowness of their historical knowledge, not just of the New Testament and early Christianity, but of ancient religions generally and, even more broadly, the ancient world. But a couple of bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament—have taken this position and written about it. Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice. Once you tune in to this voice, you quickly learn just how persistent and vociferous it can be.

Those who do not think Jesus existed are frequently militant in their views and remarkably adept at countering evidence that to the rest of the civilized world seems compelling and even unanswerable. But these writers have answers, and the smart ones among them need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason than to show why they cannot be right about their major contention. The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist.

Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. This is not a piece of evidence, but if nothing else, it should give one pause. In the field of biology, evolution may be “just” a theory (as some politicians painfully point out), but it is the theory subscribed to, for good reason, by every real scientist in every established university in the Western world.

Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence for their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for a traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced.

And so, with Did Jesus Exist?, I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in fact, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’s historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.

But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that your mother believes in or the Jesus of the stained-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things, with relative certainty, about him.

DidJesusExist.jpg

Thanks for quoting the opening to his book. I don't get his "snark", to use huckelberry's word, trying to suggest all mythicists aren't qualified. Surely he knows that's not the case. As it turns out, the growing number of qualified scholars turning to mythicism is interesting. Have you read his book? What are the relevent parts you think may or may not argue well for historicity? I admit i was very disappointed in his effort.