Did the man "Jesus" exist?

ant · Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:06 am

In becoming more familiar with BookTalk I've read more than a handful of times that it is highly doubtful that Christ even existed at all.

Doubting if Jesus ever walked the earth has always puzzled me. I've concluded that what is really being denied is not his actual existence, but ascribing divinity to the man. Atheists can not live with that assertion, so it appears they are willing to go one step further and claim that he never was even a true historical figure.

Setting the gospels aside, Christ is mentioned, however briefly, in the following historical sources:

1} The Roman governor of the province of Bythinia-Pontus (in modern-day Turkey), Pliny the Younger,
in a letter written to his emperor, Trajan (112 AD), mentions a group of Christians who are followers
of “Christ, whom they worship as a God” (Letter 10 to the Emperor Trajan).

2} The Roman historian Tacitus gives a lengthier reference in his history of Rome, The Annals (115 AD),
in his discussion of the torching of the city of Rome by the emperor Nero in the year 64 AD. Here he mentions the Christians as the hatred of the human race and says that they were followers of “Christ” who, he notes, was crucified under the procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, when Tiberius was the emperor.

3) The Antiquities.

The briefer of the two references indicates that he was called by some the messiah and that he had a
brother named James.

The longer reference (Book XVIII of Antiquities) gives considerably more detail, indicating that Jesus
was known to be a wise man who did spectacular deeds and had a following among both Jews and Greeks. This reference also says that Jesus was brought up on charges by the Jewish leaders, appeared before Pontius Pilate, and was crucified and that his followers formed a community that continued to thrive.

As a historical figure, the general consensus among biblical scholars is that Jesus probably did in fact exist, at the very least.
Heck, even Bart Ehrman (I've read 2 of his books) says he no doubt existed.

Why do atheists insist that he most likely did not?

Robert Tulip · Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:21 am

Hello Ant, I discussed this topic at some length in a review of Earl Doherty's recent book Jesus Neither God Nor Man. jesus-neither-god-nor-man-t11515.html

In summary, the historical claims you present here are examined in detail by Doherty, and shown not to meet the most basic historiographic standards of evidence.

More recently, I compiled the following Twelve Good Reasons not to believe in Jesus. If you follow the link there is quite a lively discussion.
1. No extra-biblical contemporary evidence for Jesus, despite historians Josephus and Philo writing about closely related material.
2. Jesus of Gospels obviously partially fictional, especially performance of impossible miracles, major political events such as passion, crowds
3. No definite evidence that Saint Paul knew of an historical Jesus - absence of clear reference leads apologists to clutch at scanty straws in epistles
4. Sudden emergence of Christianity around Roman Empire does not match spread from single genius founder.
5. Continuity of Christ myth with previous stories of dying and rising saviours from Greece, Syria, Babylon and Egypt
6. Long period between supposed life of Jesus and emergence of Gospels - at least 40 years before first gospel and possibly 150 years until four gospels finalised.
7. Evidence that historical Jesus story is dumbed down public version of original allegorical secret mystery - if Jesus did not exist he would have been invented anyway
8. Political demand for 'one for all' redeemer - historical story met emotional need for new syncretic vision in wake of disaster of destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD
9. Opportunity among therapeuts of Alexandria to develop Jesus story as new myth based on manufactured Serapis myth - adding Israel to Greek-Egypt syncretism
10. Match between Christ myth and cosmic story of movement of stars - alpha omega moment of end of Age of Aries and start of Age of Pisces in 21 AD
11. Broad messianic expectation based on Hebrew prophets - demand to explain how prophecy from Isaiah, Daniel, Micah, etc was realized
12. Logical argument that cosmic gnostic Christ figure was carnalized, with gradual shift over generations from eternal myth to historical fiction.

DWill · Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:09 am

The way I view this question, ant, is that the man portrayed in the gospels is not real. By that I mean that no man produced the miracles reported or was resurrected as reported. That man didn't create the sensation recorded in the Gospels, either, or else much more extensive commentary on him would exist. The fall back then becomes to say that a man existed who was magnified into the quite different man we see in the Bible. I think that's probably what happened, but for me the historicity of Jesus isn't the important thing. The important thing is that he was believed to have been real. Robert argues that the gospel writers themselves don't insist that Jesus was real, that they're telling an allegorical tale while at the same time satisfying popular demand for a more dramatic story. I can't see that a reading of these books supports that view. Influences on the theology from Greece, Egypt, or other traditions don't mean that the Gospels writers had no ideas about their subject as a living man and were therefore consciously writing fiction. They are following the traditions passed down to them from the time of the supposed Jesus. It mattered greatly to them that Jesus was a real man who was also the incarnation of God. Their communication of this is direct and effective, as seen by the complete acceptance of the story as literal. Their depiction of the Jews as the killers of Christ isn't explainable if Jesus is a fable to them. That depiction of course had horrific consequences down through the ages.

geo · Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:44 pm

I agree that a man named Jesus probably lived and inspired something of a fanatical following. He became a martyr when he was crucified, and over time the stories about the man evolved into a belief that he was the son of God. It's quite relevant that the gospels were written some time after Jesus' death. I don't see how such beliefs could grow from a metaphor of the planets and stars, although it seems likely that astrological themes along with other mystical ideas played a large role in shaping Christianity. It probably mattered a great deal to the early mythicists that Jesus was a real person. Thus, Jesus is an amalgamation of many cultural beliefs and rituals and today we know almost nothing about the man himself.

The idea that Jesus never lived probably appeals to some people. I don't think it's mainstream, among atheists and theists alike.

lady of shallot · Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:51 pm

No, I do not believe any man such as Jesus (divine or not) really existed in history. That is the conclusion others have come to (Earl Doherty, Albert Schweitzer)

It is not "wish fulfillment" that leads atheists to this conclusion, Ant. . . it is total absence of historical proof.

Also frankly I have never understood why it was such a big deal if there was a Jesus that he was crucified. Lots of people were. None of it makes any sense.

ant · Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:14 pm


	Quote: it is total absence of historical proof.

I've cited authentic historical sources with little if any reason to promote a mythical man, without elaborating to any propitious degree. But apparently you've decided to "poison the well" by indicating there is a "total absence of historical proof."

Short of a historical figure coming back from the dead to prove their existence to us, historical evidence is limited to the discovery of artifacts, inscriptions, texts, and the like. Fine, you've dismissed what does in fact exist as documented evidene.

Thanks

ant · Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:16 pm

Robert,

Some interesting stuff there. I will have to research this further.

ant

Robert Tulip · Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:35 pm


	lady of shallot wrote: No, I do not believe any man such as Jesus (divine or not) really existed in history. That is the conclusion others have come to (Earl Doherty, Albert Schweitzer) It is not "wish fulfillment" that leads atheists to this conclusion, Ant. . . it is total absence of historical proof.

TS Kuhn comments in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that a paradigm change only occurs when a new paradigm is accepted as superior. Recognising that an old paradigm is implausible makes little difference. People will stick with it if it is the best they have.

In the case of Jesus, absence of evidence makes little difference to people's ongoing commitment to belief. The only thing that would change opinion is an explanation that gives a superior rationale for why Christianity emerged as it did.

This is why, as DWill and Geo have alluded, I focus on the natural cosmic story. If it can be shown there are factors within the cultural milieu, in terms of astronomical observation, that made a messianic story inevitable, and that the Jesus story was constructed to fit with this bigger cosmic science, we have a very important key to the puzzle of understanding how and why the Epistles and then the Gospels emerged as they did.

Ignoring this cosmic framework, as almost all history has done, leaves us reliant on completely implausible claims. Leaving aside the impossibility of the traditional accounts of supernatural intervention, we still have the implausibility of how an obscure peasant produced a sudden world movement, why the Jesus story went viral. We also have the implausibility that Paul was the main advocate, but saw fit to mention nothing definite about his hero Jesus. These problems become straightforward and simple once we place the cultural evolution within a mystery religion framework, in which widespread secret knowledge of the stars provided the essential back story. We also have to recognise that suppression of this stellar vision was a main goal of orthodoxy.

Looking more broadly at the implausibility of the "Big Bang Theory" that Jesus Christ was the founder of Christianity, we can compare the evolution of Christian belief to the evolution of phyla from the Burgess Shale after the Cambrian Explosion 540 million years ago as described by Stephen Jay Gould in Wonderful Life. This evolutionary model supports the multiple origin theory for Christ, as against the traditional single point origin hypothesis of an historical founder. Just as life became macroscopic when there was enough oxygen in the air of the planet, Christ came into being in the common era as a way of explaining reality that enabled an accommodation between disputing parties and fitted with enough existing strands of evidence.

Initially the Cambrian Period supported numerous body forms, or phyla. A few out-competed all the others, and survived through to modern times, such as tetrapods. The same evolutionary pattern is seen in Christianity. Current Christian beliefs are the descendants of the most successful phylum, orthodoxy, and barely recognize the contested birth of the meme, the existence of other phyla which were often more intellectually coherent than the one that survived.

The competing phyla of early Christianity - Gnostics, Syncretists, Docetics and others - were in memetic evolutionary competition to determine which was most adaptive to social needs. Orthodox Christianity enabled support for imperial structures while also offering a redemptive message of guilt for murdering Christ. The Catholic Church had powerful accessible rituals, an ordered community and a persuasive narrative. Its historical Jesus met emotional needs for an incarnate redeemer. His actual existence was irrelevant against the power of the myth. Since Jesus did not exist, it was necessary to invent him. Jesus is the imaginary story of what a messiah would have done, had he existed, grounded in the 'as above so below' ancient cosmology geared to a new vision for the new age of the common era.

Such a story, designed to meet emotional needs, can readily be more attractive than one based on rational coherence. The problem now for faith is that the demand for rational coherence is catching up with traditional beliefs which may have served to build community, but are not true, especially the historical Jesus.

lady of shallot · Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:39 pm

ant wrote:


	Quote: it is total absence of historical proof.

I've cited authentic historical sources with little if any reason to promote a mythical man, without elaborating to any propitious degree. But apparently you've decided to "poison the well" by indicating there is a "total absence of historical proof."

Short of a historical figure coming back from the dead to prove their existence to us, historical evidence is limited to the discovery of artifacts, inscriptions, texts, and the like. Fine, you've dismissed what does in fact exist as documented evidene.

Thanks

Thanks Ant. You seem to have overlooked the more thorough research that Robert Tulip posted. I don't see how the opinion of one person could "poison the well"

I did not say that the sources you quoted do not exist. Only that they do not meet the standards for historical accuracy. If Jesus had the historicity of say Mohammed I would agree that he is a real figure. As you say believing his divinity is not the same as believing in his historical being.

For instance I can say that the men and women hung and pressed at Salem are true historical figures that died accused and found guilty of being witches without believing in fact that they were witches.

ant · Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:29 am


	Quote: Only that they do not meet the standards for historical accuracy

By who's standards? Your personal standards or agreed upon standards by biblical scholars?

When considering the plausible credibility of a source, scholars utilize 3 criteria:

Independent attestation - (maintains that traditions that are attested independently by more than one source are more likely to be reliable than those found in only one source.)

criterion of dissimilarity - traditions that appear to work against the vested interests of the Christians who were telling them are more likely to be historically accurate than those that Christians may have “made up” to suit their own purposes.

criterion of contextual credibility - argues that no tradition about Jesus can be accepted as reliable if it cannot plausibly be situated in a first-century Jewish Palestinian context

Once again, HOWEVER BRIEF, Christ is mentioned in the sources I previously indicated.

All are independent sources

All had no vested interests to mention Christ in efforts to promote Christianity, apocalypticism, or any type of mysticism for that matter.

All can plausibly be situated in the jewish/Palestinian context of the historical Jesus.

What exactly are the scholarly standards you are referring to?
Are you saying these sources are all in on the "myth"? Why would pagan sources all be in cahoots about this?
Why are these sources considered accurate on other unrelated accounts but inaccurate when mentioning Christ?

ant · Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:50 am


	Quote: overlooked the more thorough research that Robert Tulip posted.

I will need to read the entire book. Based on what Robert posted, I see thorough theory and speculation in motion and not cited historical documentation that can be evaluated based on the criterion that scholars recognize.

Also, I agree with one thing that immediately caught my eye in Robert's post - Jesus was not responsible for the spreading of Christianity. I never once said I believed that.

I believe that Jesus was more than likely a jewish apocalyptist who lived among other apocalyptists of his time.

I am interested in and appreciate what Robert has posted.

Thanks

Robert Tulip · Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:06 am

ant wrote:


	Quote: Only that they do not meet the standards for historical accuracy

By who's standards? Your personal standards or agreed upon standards by biblical scholars?

Hi Ant, I'm glad you seem eager to explore this surprising question objectively. It really is quite astounding that the standards agreed by biblical scholars for considering the existence of Jesus Christ are actually quite different from the standards applied in the rest of history.

The existence of Jesus Christ is something of a 'no go' area for historical evidence. Earl Doherty is probably the best source to understand the depth of the problem, but he is treated as a pariah among the dominant 'historical Jesus' school, where the argument from incredulity often passes for logic. People say they cannot imagine that Jesus did not exist. I once held that view myself. But looking at the evidence, fabrication is far more plausible.

Earl's website, http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/, gives the gist of main arguments in his books, and hopefully will encourage interested readers to look to the full account in Jesus Neither God Nor Man, which is exhaustive, forensic, logical, well-referenced and compelling. All the old canards such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and others are thoroughly demolished.

What we find though, is that orthodox historians treat serious study of this question with ridicule and ignorance. They routinely say the Christ Myth Theory has previously been disproved so they don't have to do it again. But when you look for the disproof, it proves utterly elusive.

Jesus is a sacred taboo. He should be analysed with the standards of history, which are neither those of an individual or those of Bible believers. As the last bastion of miraculous faith, Jesus provides the promise of the supernatural, enabling believers to retain an obsolete magical view of the universe. It is all really rather unethical, because true ethics should be based on evidence.

Traditionally, heretics were threatened with the line from 2 John 1:7 "deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."

This bullying tactic of accusing skeptics of being in league with Satan is not really in conformity with normal standards for history, but religion has up till now been regarded as a special case.


	Quote: When considering the plausible credibility of a source, scholars utilize 3 criteria: Independent attestation - (maintains that traditions that are attested independently by more than one source are more likely to be reliable than those found in only one source.); criterion of dissimilarity - traditions that appear to work against the vested interests of the Christians who were telling them are more likely to be historically accurate than those that Christians may have “made up” to suit their own purposes; criterion of contextual credibility - argues that no tradition about Jesus can be accepted as reliable if it cannot plausibly be situated in a first-century Jewish Palestinian context. Once again, HOWEVER BRIEF, Christ is mentioned in the sources I previously indicated. All are independent sources All had no vested interests to mention Christ in efforts to promote Christianity, apocalypticism, or any type of mysticism for that matter. All can plausibly be situated in the jewish/Palestinian context of the historical Jesus. What exactly are the scholarly standards you are referring to? Are you saying these sources are all in on the "myth"? Why would pagan sources all be in cahoots about this? Why are these sources considered accurate on other unrelated accounts but inaccurate when mentioning Christ?

No, these independent sources are not 'in on the myth'. They are either late or fraudulent. Have a look at Doherty's website, especially his discussion of Josephus. In my view, as I explain in the thread I linked above in my post about Origen, the non-mention of the Testimonium Flavianum by Church Fathers for three centuries after Josephus supposedly wrote it is utterly implausible if it were genuine. Christians would have leapt on this independent testimony, but they do not, because it did not exist. Equally heavy doubt surrounds all other supposed independent testimony. There is none because Jesus was fictional.

ant · Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:47 pm

Hi Robert,

Thanks for acknowledging that I attempt to remain objective when considering this particular topic. I'd like to think I do.


	Quote: It really is quite astounding that the standards agreed by biblical scholars for considering the existence of Jesus Christ are actually quite different from the standards applied in the rest of history.

What differences are there?
From a pure historical perspective, scholars agree that evidence having a high degree of validity are manuscripts that contain disinterested comments about the existence of the character in question and are as close to the context of that person's time.

The unanimous consensus among mainstream biblical scholars, with recognized scholastic credentials of course, is that Paul authored his writings. They contain "off the cuff" comments related to Christ.
What is the evidence that backs an assertion that biblical scholars are wrong to consider Paul's mentioning of Christ to be embellished, or a patent lie?


	Quote: Earl Doherty is probably the best source to understand the depth of the problem,

What are Earl Doherty's credentials? What is his background and how long has he been researching historical biblical matters?
Why is he a "pariah" as you state?


	Quote: People say they cannot imagine that Jesus did not exist.

Which people? If we are talking about Christians or Catholics, I do not doubt the validity of your claim.
If we are talking about historical scholars who have devoted their lives to researching and concluding, based on the available evidence we have to work with, then I must say that they too believe that Jesus more than likely existed.


	Quote: All the old canards such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and others are thoroughly demolished.

This claim creates a slippery slope.
Historical evidence is based on the discovery of ancient texts, artifacts, and inscriptions. The criterion I previously outlined is used to determine the validity of the discovered source. If Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny's mentioning of Christ is to be thrown out as a canard, then why not simply doubt all their writings? What is to stop us from doing that?
How do we know if what Caesar Augustus wrote was embellished, fabricated, etc? Where do we stop?


	Quote: He should be analysed with the standards of history, which are neither those of an individual or those of Bible believers.

Biblical scholars that study the historical Jesus and are not of any faith utilized agreed upon standards within the scholarly community. Doherty is outside mainstream scholarship, just as creationists are out of mainstream science. Which brings me to this question:

What are the similarities between Doherty and other Mysticists of his type, and Creationists? I would outline the similarities for consideration.

I will look at Doherty's website further. It is interesting and I would not entirely dismiss his research. I'm sure you agree that it is not above placing side by side with a scholar like Bart Ehrman. It is true that from a pure evidentiary standpoint, we have little record of Jesus to go by, besides of course the gospels themselves. However, to dismiss him in the fashion that Doherty seems to be doing seems a bit of a stretch at this point.

I'd like to finish a couple of books I'm reading before I look into Doherty's latest. Structure of Scientific Revolutions being one of the two

lady of shallot · Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:54 pm

I will gratefully turn this discussion over to Robert Tulip and Ant. I must say though that it is a little disquieting that Ant challenged me (weaker of the two?) instead of Robert's scholarship.

I will just say that no matter the depth of research and understanding through the efforts of Robert or anyone else who cares to take the trouble to do the exploration of the cosmic framework, someone like Ant is very unlikely to undertake it.

That is o.k. to me for him to have the belief system he does, I just wonder as on other threads on the religion v. atheism forums why such people keep arguing with atheists? Why is it so important that we not be?

ant · Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:02 pm


	lady of shallot wrote: I will gratefully turn this discussion over to Robert Tulip and Ant. I must say though that it is a little disquieting that Ant challenged me (weaker of the two?) instead of Robert's scholarship. I will just say that no matter the depth of research and understanding through the efforts of Robert or anyone else who cares to take the trouble to do the exploration of the cosmic framework, someone like Ant is very unlikely to undertake it. That is o.k. to me for him to have the belief system he does, I just wonder as on other threads on the religion v. atheism forums why such people keep arguing with atheists? Why is it so important that we not be?

I don't think it is Robert's scholarship I am questioning. Is Robert Tulip "Doherty" as well? If that's the case, then yes, I am questioning "Robert;s scholarship."

Comic framework? That is too vague to respond to. One can only wonder what I am overlooking "cosmically."

A person's theological/religious position does not bother me. Ideologues and generalizers do.

I've concluded, with relative ease, that some individuals on this forum have different views than mine.
I can not learn from people who think like me.

I am sorry if I upset you.

Forum rules

Did the man "Jesus" exist? Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!