Is there evidence proving an historical account of Jesus Christ?
As in a man called Jesus Christ, who would have existed as mortal human being without miraculous abilities.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
115 Answers
He was mentioned in the writings of Josephus, which was written about 60 C.E. He was also referred to by Tacitus, the great Roman historian.
As zenvelo says, Josephus refers to Jesus and the cult around him in his account of the “Jewish wars”, the only surviving eyewitness description of the Roman suppression of the revolt in Judea.
Jesus is referred to in dozens of authors’ manuscripts at least. Miracles by Him, however, may have been added. We have no way of knowing for sure.
But to say He may have never existed seems crazy to me. All those men writing about Him over hundreds of years and he never existed? Must have been a lot of very bored people who liked to tell not only tall tales but to have scribes writing it all down. We continue to find ancient pieces of manuscripts mentioning Him. Not only that, the church tossed out many writings about him such as, “The Gospel of James” and “The Gospel of Judas” etc. All writings about Jesus. But we’re finding them now!
Does it matter?
People who purport to believe in Jesus are going to, no matter what the facts show. And vice versa.
I think that Christendom is served better by a legend than by an actual person.
The problem with Tacitus is that he doesn’t cite his sources, and lived many years after the fact, thousands of miles away.
The writing of Josephus was The Antiquities of the Jews and was written in ~94CE, and is not parallelled in The Jewish War, written in ~60CE.
The details in the particular writing of Josephus doesn’t agree with any Biblical account that I’m aware of. The Jesus in Josephus’ work was supposed to be stoned, but was pardoned. He’s also referred to as the son of Damnaeus, and was named a High Priest after his pardoning. Since “Christ” literally means “annointed one”, and he was annointed as a priest, this could be literally anyone who shared the not-uncommon name Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus.
There is also great suspicion that the comments of Josephus regarding Jesus were added by a scribe copying his work sometime in the 2nd century.
Was there some dude named Jesus walking around Judea around that time? Probably. Just as there’s some dude name Greg walking around America today. It was not, as I understand, a terribly uncommon name for the time and place.
Christ isn’t a name. It’s an honorific. “The Annointed One”.
@NerdyKeith
Not a name, but rather a title. I don’t think that ancient Israelites had last names as such. They might be bestowed a title or honorific that they then carried kinda like a last name, but more often they would simple be referred to by their given name then by an additive such as “son of” or something noting the town or area they were from. Sorta like “Bill, son of Bob” or “Jim of Shitsberg”.
@Darth_Algar I see. So in that case, are there historical records of that title being used?
Sure. It’s the Greek equivalent of “messiah” (“anointed one”) a term for a high priest. There were a lot of anointed ones walking around Judea back then. The cult of Jesus just ended up with the strongest PR firm.
The Bible particularly and other historical documents/records. That’s good enough evidence for evidence’s sake.
The bible is no more evidence for Jesus than a Spiderman comic for Spiderman.
“Spiderman is real! Look, there is even a photo of him!”
I agree with @ragingloli the bible is NOT an historical document. It’s a doctrine of faith.
By now, with numerous texts mentioning him, and with several documentaries about him, even including actual footage of him, the existence of Spider-Man cannot be disputed.
It’s laughable, but the Spiderman analogy probably mirrors the rise of the Christian cult more than is credited. I think a great deal of insight into organized religions comes from examining the marketing necessities involved with “growing the brand”.
@stanleybmanly I think Superman is probably more relevant; since he was seen a s a God like figure.
This was a good question with some interesting answers.
I’d also like to tell you that I appreciate your non-confrontational way of asking these questions, and in your answers. I’m an agnostic, but we’ve had agnostics and atheists on here in the past whose whole tone was basically, “If you’re a Christian you’re an idiot.” I hate that. There is no reason to do that. None. It isn’t the least bit productive, so why do some do that? I guess that’s a question unto itself.
@Dutchess_III I’ve come across many atheists like that on Yahoo Amswers. In fact I used to be like that when I used to be an atheist. I’ve evolved my opinions and way of tackling controversial issues over the years. I know from experience that having an elitist attitude never works. It only turns into online flaming and ad hominem attacks, not good.
Why I used to behave like this and why many still do? It’s really all based on a disdain for religion amd religious people, which then turns into mass generalizations on the characteristics of religious people. While I don’t agree with organized religion and clergy. I had decided some time ago to tackle issues of religious extremism on a case by case bases. The questionable morality of many extremist characters are not a blueprint for the community they profess to be apart of. This is something many militant atheists choose to ignore.
From dabating over the years and listening to others, I eventually learned that at our core the religious and non religious are more similar than I had realized. At the end of the day we are all human beings with then same basic needs and desires. I also learned to accept that there are extremists in all groups.
But there have been some great minds who are religious, so it would be a shame to ignore this.
Elitist is the epithet always pulled first from the quiver whenever religious “truths” confront conflicting reality. For example, it is the label affixed to geologists whose lives are defined by studying the earth. Creationists find such folks inconvenient when it’s time to promote the notion of a ten thousand year old earth.
I almost couldn’t understand that there post, @stanleybmanly, although it was very imagerying. :)
I can’t think of any off the top of my head. DO remember reading something in Omni years ago where someone was researching ancient weather patterns and found that the Parting of the Red Sea may have actually happened.
No, it didn’t. Nor was there a flood that covered the entire earth. There may have been some local flood that was memorable. Everything gets bigger and more exaggerated in the telling.
That’s the thing all religions have in common with folk tales and the passage of time. Some individual displays a particular talent, and the legend begins. Jesus, like John Henry, or Paul Bunyan grows ever more incredible with each retelling of the “story.” I don’t doubt for one second that this is EXACTLY how Christianity came to dominate the Western world. Jesus is better known and more worshipped than John Henry for the simple reason that people with a greatly vested interest in the franchise(popes and bishops) saw to it that the myth was expanded and perpetuated with dire consequences for those indifferent or opposed.
Although there is not a huge amount of evidence, it seems almost certain that there existed in 1st century Galilea and Judea a dude named Yeshua or something like that, who thought of himself as the messiah and was crucified as a result. That at least is the scientific consensus over the issue. You won’t find a single modern scholar of antiquity who disagrees that some historical Jesus existed.
This consensus is based on the following independent sources: the New Testament, a few apocrypha gospels including Thomas, Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews in which there’s two mention of Jesus (one probably redacted post factum, one probably not redacted post factum) and the Talmud, which originally contained a number of “anti-gospels” i.e. polemic accounts of Jesus’ life.
There are other arguments as well. The one I find the most convincing is that nobody ever came up with a valid alternative, i.e. a credible hypothesis of how the Gospels could possibly be a total invention. I.e the theory that the NT was written by gentile Greeks or Romans cannot account for typically Jewish features and turns of phrase and Aramean words found in the Gospels.
Nowhere in the New Testament do the writers claim to be eyewitnesses. There is disagreement over whether they were eyewitnesses or they based their writing on stories circulating at the time. This is an area out of my expertise, but here is a Wikipedia article on the subject.
@olivier5 “The one I find the most convincing is that nobody ever came up with a valid alternative, i.e. a credible hypothesis of how the Gospels could possibly be a total invention. I.e the theory that the NT was written by gentile Greeks or Romans cannot account for typically Jewish features and turns of phrase and Aramean words found in the Gospels.”
That’s simply evidence for the historical existence of the sect. It’s not, itself, evidence of the historical existence of Jesus.
Maybe i should explain that i’m an atheist, or a sort of strong agnostic or something… In any case i certainly don’t subscribe to the belief that Jesus was God or the son of God or the messiah. That’s pure mythology for me. And of course this means i am NOT saying the Gospels say the truth and nothing but the truth. Of course they are full of exagerations and fabrications.
My point is simply that the main character and some of the material are modelled on a real historical preacher and prophetic figure who really died on a cross under Pontius Pilate.
The argument i was making in support of that general point, is that it’s very difficult to come up with a credible alternative scenario to explain the origins of the many Christian sects and of their many Gospels. This sudden blossoming of sects and texts cannot be explained other than by assuming a real, very charismatic dude at the origin of it all.
For instance, the classic (19th century) Jesus myth theory of the Roman army or emperor cultivating a Mitra-bis cult with political motives fails to explain the very Jewish nature of the texts, e.g. the use of parables, certain aramean words, the direct quotes of Hillel, etc.
@olivier5 – There’s a subtle but major difference between the existence of some guy who, with his friends, started a cult, and the existence of a literal Jesus as described in the Bible.
Obviously the cult is evidence of the existence of a cult, and all cults have beginnings.
Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be much correlation with Biblical narrative and any of the (weak) documentary links available. As I mentioned above, the work of Josephus, which actually mentions a priest named Jesus was the son of some dude named Damnaeus (not Joseph) and was not executed at all, but pardoned, and was later named High Priest of his sect. That story was written in 94 CE (some 50 or so years after Jesus would have been nailed the cross), but wasn’t important enough for Josephus to add to a book ~35 years earlier.
@olivier5 I don’t understand the difficulty. There is no question that the cult of Christianity was instigated and very much driven by Jews who in the main (particularly early on) were not even cognizant of the fact that they were no longer Jews. The free for all proliferation of sects and gospels is almost certainly the predictable result of isolated congregations and varied takes from place to place, much as the varied sects of Christianity abound with their hodge- podge of nonsense throughout our own bible belt. The “blossoming” would have gone virtually unnoticed & Christianity itself would probably amount to little more than a cult curiosity today had not Constantine gifteed it the imprimatur of state religion whereupon such matters took on the force of law backed by the power of the Roman state.
The problem with trying to fall back on the historical record to confirm the life and crucifixion of Jesus is that there is nothing contemporary to the time when he is supposed to have lived. Everything we have is, at best, several decades after the fact and is mostly likely influenced by the existence of the Christian cult by that time.
It’s sorta like if I were writing a book of local history and anecdotes and some guy told me a story about something that happened to a guy his grandfather knew back, oh, around 70 years ago. I might include this in my book. I’d have no particular reason to doubt it, and not necessarily any reason to not include it. But I couldn’t verify it via contemporary accounts ether, and it’s mere inclusion in my book can’t be taken as sure proof of it happening.
@Darth_Algar If only our sources were as good as a grandfather’s fish story.
Compare what’s comparable. The historicity of dudes from thousands of years ago is a different issue than whether or not your grandpa said the truth about that fish he pulled from the river 50 yr ago… Unless your grandpa is referenced in two dozens of biographies, the Talmud and the works of an historian.
For instance, compare the evidence for the historicity of Jesus with the evidence for the historicity of Socrates or Thales. And if you do that, you’ll see that the evidence is stronger for Jesus.
We have no record whatsoever for 99.999% of the people who lived in antiquity. By that standard, Jesus is amazingly well documented.
Please demonstrate your evidence for Jesus outside the Bible.
We’ve already established that Josephus and Tacitus are unreliable. But you have dozens, right? That shouldn’t be a problem.
Tacitus and Josephus are not less reliable than any other historian of the time. I’ve read Josephus and hold him in high esteem. Tacitus is likewise an historian of some repute. Of course they write after the event, but that’s what historians always do.
To assess such historical evidence (or lack thereof) requires specialized skills (koine greek, history training…), a good knowledge of the type of evidence than can reasonnably be expected for a 1st century wandering rabbi (not much) and a respectful attitude to the data. Of course no source is perfect and they can all be doubted, but there is no reason to apply different criteria to this case than to other cases. It would be too facile to dismiss it all because we don’t like the catholic church or some other ideological position.
The main difficulty is to come up with an alternative theory that would be better supported by evidence that the ‘default’ story of a wandering rabbi condemned to death, and whose legend became more and more magical at each retelling. To my knowledge nobody ever came up with a good alternative scenario. That’s a big reason why scolars agree that the dude must have existed: We can’t come up with a better theory.
Tacitus lived in France long after the fact and didn’t cite his sources. No one knows where he got his information, so no, he is not reliable.
Josephus’ Jesus is nothing at all like the biblical Jesus. For one major point: he wasn’t executed. That’s kind of a big sticking point. Also he was a high priest of an established religion, not a wandering rabbi. Another big point.
Anything else?
You’re confusing several Jesuses. The name was apparently in some fashion at the time. Jesus son of Damneus is a different guy, a high priest living decades after our man.
That’s exactly my point, Olivier. That is the Jesus that Josephus talks about. He doesn’t mention another Jesus.
Now, where are these dozens of historical records you have?
This discussion is evolving into a dispute and that’s not what I am interested in.
What dispute? The discussion is about historical evidence of Jesus. You claim to have dozens of sources. I, as a person who is fairly knowledgeable about the topic, am unaware of these dozens of sources, and am thoroughly interested in being introduced to them.
To me, it isn’t so much the question of whether or not there was an authentic Jesus. The fascinating thing to me is the Roman facilitation in spreading the cult. First by destroying Judea and dispersing the Jewish population. This left no central authority to resist or stamp out the apostasy. Then Constantine’s incorporation of the cult as a unifying force for the empire guaranteeing the reach of Christianity to every spot touched by anything Roman.
@Stanley
Christianity spread far beyond the Roman Empire. It reached India centuries before Constantine, and made it to eastern China around the 7th century…
By the way, Constantine only ALLOWED Christianity (it was banned by the empire until then). He did not make it “a unifying force for the empire”, he just extended freedom of religion to Christians, while also helping them develop.
@Seek “I, as a person who is fairly knowledgeable about the topic, am unaware of these dozens of sources”
I used the term “biographies”, and I was alluding to the gospels. There are about two dozens of them that we are aware of, 4 of them canonical, the rest apocrypha. This proliferation of texts is hard to explain without assuming a real life as their inspiration.
That is literally the equivalent of using fan fiction to justify belief in a literal Spiderman.
The authors of Spiderman are well known; they never said that Spiderman existed; their purpose for inventing him are clear (make money); and they did not develop mutually contradicting versions of the same stories. No historian ever mentioned Spiderman as a real person; not even the Talmud speaks of him. So no, it’s a very different case.
Do you believe in a literal Thor? A literal Pecos Bill? A literal Paul Bunyon? A literal Zeus?
I happen to believe the scientific consensus about this issue. The theory that Jesus was a myth has been debunked in academia during the 1930’s. It survived among USSR scolars until the 70’s. Nowadays it’s only found on the internet.
@olivier There may have been a Christian or 2 in India early on, but the religion was not established in that region until well within the sixth century. Constantine went far beyond “allowing” Christianity in the Roman Empire. The emperor himself convened and oversaw the Council of Nicea in 325. He is responsible for basically bringing about the formalization of the Church and the establishment of its rules. It was Constantine who gathered the bishops of the empire together to hash out the rules of the cult and sat through tiresome arguments not giving a shit about the warring sects and doctrines but making sure that each participant in the discussion was aware that the most powerful man in the world didn’t give a hoot about doctrine or petty arguments over the divinity of Jesus, as long as the bunch came to a unified decision on the rules of the road. He insisted on this specifically in order to utilize the religion as a unifying force in his empire. And AS HE REQUIRED, the bishops obliged. Men were excommunicated, sects banished, and the those who remained left the town of Nicea with the contract that put Christianity in business—the Nicene creed.
@olivier5 – Hon, you can’t have a “scientific consensus” on something that isn’t scientific.
@stanleybmanly yes indeed he midwived the nicean creed. And he built st sophia and funded the church(es). But he did not establish the cult. Nor did he established it as the unique and mandatory cult. He merely strengthened it. He himself never officially converted from the old Roman religion into the new, oriental one.
@Seek what do you mean? If it isn’t scientific, why are we even discussing it?
Let me put it this way:
Either a literal Jesus existed, a person existed who the Biblical Jesus was based on, or he is a compilation of lots of stories.
“Was Jesus a real person?” isn’t a scientific question, any more than “Was King Arthur a real person?” is a scientific question.
It’s not something that can be tested and proven, because the question isn’t specific enough.
In order to prove something, it has to be falsifiable. There has to be a yes or no answer that can be found. The question “Was King Arthur real” raises more questions. What do you mean by “real”? What do you mean by “King Arthur?”
Are you asking if some guy named Arthur was king once, regardless of whether any of the stories about him are true?
Are you asking if some boy king once ruled over England during some time shortly after the Roman occupation, who had a Druid advisor?
Are you asking whether someone literally drew a literal sword out of a literal stone to claim their place as King?
Likewise, the question “Was Jesus real?” raises similar questions. How much of the Jesus myth has to be real in order for the literal Biblical Jesus to be confirmed? How much has to be fantasy before we can dismiss it as fantasy?
@olivier5. Wrong again. He took the popular route of the day. He sinned his ass off and was baptized in the “true faith” a week before his death. What Constantine achieved was the minimization of schisms and oddball splinterings within the Church. Whenever doctrinal disputes arose, he would order another council in which all the boys (bishops) would vote. The losers would either acquiesce or be booted out, and the decision would then have the state, the law and the Roman army behind it. And the Hagia Sophia was erected some 200 years after Constantine’s death. It is the great arhitectural masterplece commissioned by the emperor Justinian.
@olivier5 *“Compare what’s comparable. The historicity of dudes from thousands of years ago is a different issue than whether or not your grandpa said the truth about that fish he pulled from the river 50 yr ago… Unless your grandpa is referenced in two dozens of biographies, the Talmud and the works of an historian.
For instance, compare the evidence for the historicity of Jesus with the evidence for the historicity of Socrates or Thales. And if you do that, you’ll see that the evidence is stronger for Jesus.
We have no record whatsoever for 99.999% of the people who lived in antiquity. By that standard, Jesus is amazingly well documented.”*
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Any historian worth his salt will acknowledge that history is a murky business and, before the age of mass media, isn’t so cut-and-dry. See, for a much more recent example, the dispute over the historicity of Marco Polo’s accounts – which were not penned by Polo himself, but by a cellmate (who may well have embellished the stories) after hearing the tales from Marco Polo (who may well have embellished his stories).
Here’s the thing however – people haven’t built religions around Socrates. People haven’t staked their lives and their eternal salvation on Thales. People haven’t been put to death for denying Marco Polo.
@Seek if that is the case, then you’ve been arguing about something that’s not worth arguing about: A question of taste, like what’s your favorite color.
I disagree though. It’s up to you to define the question better if you think it’s too vague. The ACADEMIC (if this is not science) consensus remains, though, that the Gospels are based on a real character, and there is broad agreement on some of the details, eg the fact the he was crucified is not in significant doubt. Another detail which all historians agree on is that his brother James was also persecuted. That’s because Josephus mentions him:
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned”
Antiquities of the Jews, book 20
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm
@stanleybmanly The story of Constantine’s conversion on his death bed is disputed though. At most it was a secret convertion.
Anyway, that’s a tengent.
@Darth_Algar What people did with Jesus’ message is another story altogether. It doesn’t matter to the question of the historicity of the messenger.
Olivier- that is the Jesus, son of Damnaeus, that we both agreed is not the same person.
Please try to remember your own argument.
No, in this passage Josephus speaks of Jesus “who was called Christ”. You got some reading to do.
Have you read this thread?
Christ is an honorific meaning “anointed one”. The Jesus that Josephus talked about was an anointed priest. He was supposed to be executed by stoning, but was pardoned. His father was Damnaeus.
Does that sound familiar enough to BibleJesus to be the same person to you?
Personally, if I were looking for a Historical Jesus, I would want some record of activities that matches something he’s known for in the Bible. Execution by crucifixion should be the absolute least of that.
I don’t think so, and perhaps more importantly, specialists of Josephus don’t think so. I don’t know where you got that impression that the quote refers to Jesus son of Damneus. It does not. The quoted passage, from book 20 of the Antiquities, is generally considered as the best non-christian evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Not to be confused with another passage in book 18 known as the Testimonium Flavianum, which was evidently edited centuries after Josephus.
You need to read more. Louis Feldman, the leading US specialist of Josephus, could be a good start. I can provide a few links if you’re interested.
One important thing to consider is the academic background and ideologic bias of the authors you read. In my experience, Jesus deniers tend to harbour strong anti-Christian feelings, and none of them has adequate academic qualification. In contrast, all qualified academics lean towards the historicity of Jesus, whether they are Christian, atheist, or Jewish (as is Feldma
It’s definitely evidence of someone named Jesus.
I will not argue that. Clearly the name Jesus is recorded. However, one line about some guy named Jesus who had a brother and was sentenced to stoning doesn’t sound much at all like the Jesus in the Bible.
If you’re looking for evidence that the name “Jesus” was known in the mid-first-century, though, you’ve got it.
More precisely, it’s evidence for a 1st century Jew named Jesus, and “called Christ” (called so by his followers, supposedly), who had a brother named James. And his brother was killed by the high priest of the time… hmmm… I wonder who this guy called Jesus Christ brother of James could be… Tough one.
—Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?
Mark 6:3—
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Stoning. Pardon. No Pontius Pilate. No cross. No actual execution, and who the hell is Damnaeus, anyway?
And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other;
Oh look! Another priest named Jesus!
I wonder how many there are.
Another one!
Jesus, the son of Josadek, took the high priesthood over the captives
Man, this is a popular name for priests.
Two different Jesuses here. One is the brother of James, the other one is the son of Damneus. Is that confusing?
I have counted up to five different Jesuses in this document so far. None of them are mentioned as being crucified. No mention of feeding multitudes or stealing horses or casting demons into pigs or anything else. Just some guy named Jesus with a brother named James. Could be anybody.
Of course it could be anyone. we will never be 100% sure that Thales, Jesus, Socrates, Hillel, Shammai and scores of other dudes mentioned in the literature actually existed. Things could always have happened otherwise than written in the documents we have… Witnesses can lie, documents can lie, etc. Nobody can be forced to believe a source. However, the evidence we have point to their existence, which is accepted by all modern historians without exception.
That’s good enough for me. If you want perfect certainty, I’d quote a Venetian courtesan’s retort to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was complaining about the imperfect shape of her left nipple: “Zanetto, lascia le donne e studia la matematica!” (Johnny, forget about women and study mathematics instead!”) For only in mathematics can you reach perfection.
The historical reason lies in the possible, in the (more or less) likely; it offers to our review, at the best, evidence that one may find no good reason to doubt, or that good reasons encourage us to accept; but what can you answer to those who believe that these reasons for belief are not sufficient? [...] No one can be compelled to faith: hence (each generation of historians has experienced this) the passionate character, the bitterness, the infinitude of the discussions triggered by such hypercritical assumptions: we cannot ‘get through’, and no argument can prevail.
Henri Irénée MARROU, De la connaissance historique
“all modern historians without exception.”
Um, nope.
Charles Francois Dupuis. Constantin Francois Volney. Richard Carlile. Bruno Bauer. Edwin Johnson. G.A. Wells. Tom Harpur. Michael Martin. Thomas L. Thompson. Thomas L. Brodie. Earl Doherty. David Fitzgerald. Richard Carrier. Robert Price. Joseph Atwill. Marcus Borg. John Dominic Crossan. Shall I continue?
Here’s a nice article.
This one is a bit more reader-friendly.
I was talking of MODERN historians. As in alive or recently dead ones. Charles Francois Dupuis died in 1809; Constantin Francois Volney died in 1820; Richard Carlile died in 1843… Should I continue?
David Fitzgerald is “an American author, public speaker, and atheist activist”, not an historian. Do you read GW denier’s blogs too?
Did you read the Price article?
A popular falsehood is still a falsehood.
Why should I read some average guy’s blog? He probably knows far less about the topic than I do.
And yes, the popular belief that historians doubt Jesus’ historicity is a falsehood.
Some average guy?
The guy’s got TWO PhD.s in theology.
Says who? And who said theology was akin to history?
Public record?
The universities that granted them?
Huhu? Like which universities? What topics did he study in his TWO theology PhDs?
Does this guy Price even exist? What’s his full name, for a start?
I don’t want to lose too much time on this. As I said, all modern historians agree that Jeebus existed. Either you find one or two modern, qualified historians who do not think so, or we can move on to another topic. Long-dead people and untrained atheist activists won’t do.
And for a second:
Richard Cevantis Carrier
December 1, 1969 (age 46)
Nationality American
Education B.A. (History), M.A. (Ancient history), M.Phil. (Ancient history), Ph.D. (Ancient history)[1]
Alma mater University of California, Berkeley, Columbia University[1]
Website http://www.richardcarrier.info/
And for a third, Marcus Borg
I know Carrier is trying to publish his thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. To my knowledge, no luck yet.
Are you certain that Robert M. Price, theologian and professor of biblical criticism for the Council for Secular Humanism, is the same guy than G. H. Price, who writes the blog you linked to? The initials don’t match… Me think this guy GH Price does not exist. ;-)
And Robert M. Price is not an historian, in any case. He is a specialist of H. P. Lovecraft and an editor of the journal “Crypt of Cthulhu”... No cigar.
Marcus Blog wrote a book entitled: Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. Hmm…. Are you certain that he is a Jesus denier?
As I said, there is a academic consensus for the historicity of Jesus. You are welcome to disagree with academia of course, but don’t assume that everybody you read of or about is the genuine, well-informed and objective scholar. You linked to the blog of a nobody, Seek. You should be more careful about what you read and link to. Plenty of fakes out there.
Whaat?
Now yo’re just trolling.
I’m just trying to inform you, and it’s not easy.
About Marcus Borg
This guy is NOT a Jesus doubter.
“All historians agreed that Jesus existed. Well, I mean all modern historians that is. All modern historians agree that Jesus existed. Except the ones who don’t, but they don’t count. All modern historians who count agree that Jesus existed.”
So far, if we count only bona fide historians, we have one (1) who believes that Jesus could be an entirely fictional character: Richard Carrier
That’s not much, but it’s one exception to my statement of hunanimous support to the historicity thesis. I stand corrected.
I’m afraid i cannot understand Bayesian logic, which is what he uses to support his thesis. It must boil down to pencelling down certain odds for certain events… But this part of his wki article i can understand, and refute:
There is no independent evidence of Jesus’s existence outside the New Testament. All external evidence for his existence, even if it were fully authentic (though much of it isn’t), cannot be shown to be independent of the Gospels, or Christian informants relying on the Gospels.
I believe this is demonstrably false. Jewish sources have very little chances of being impressed by the Gospels. The Talmud says they must (or at the least can) be burned. No 1st, 2nd, 3rd century Jew in likely to believe or even have read whatever gospel or christian convert. And yet the Talmud does include bits and pieces of polemic versions of Jesus’ life, the Yeshu ben Pandera stories.
If you think the good rabbis were fools enough to accept the total invention of a fake messiah pretender from their own nation, to buy the con so thoroughly that they relay their own version of the story in their own books…. think again.
Likewise Josephus is a Jew, and he knows better than relaying allegations from a rival, aggressive rival sect. No, he like other Jews of the times knew perfectly well that a rather stuborn and embarassing rebel rabbi cum magician named Yeshu had been put to death under Pontius Pilate. That’s why he writes of ” Jesus called Christ” in passim, while speaking of his brother James’ execution. Like one would say “you know Ben, Shlomo’s brother?”
@olivier5
The flaw in your argument there is that these writers were not speaking for the veracity of what the Christian cult claimed, merely that the cult existed.
The Talmud speaks of a bastard called Yeshu, son of a certain Mariam and of a Roman legionary, who made magic and other mischiefs and was hanged on a stick during Pesha. I should dig up the quote, it’s interesting.
That’s part of a broader argument: None of the 2nd to 4th century authors who OPPOSED Christianity and wrote against it (Celsus) used the argument that Jesus was a fabrication. Instead, they say he was a vilain, a criminal.
And they’re writing centuries after the fact. By that point you have hundreds of years of folks going around speaking of Jesus as a real person. These writers would have no particular reason to doubt his existence, but their accepting the story as fact doesn’t actually make it fact (as per my example here).
Not centuries after the facts, not for the Gospels, not for Josephus. Those are sources dating a few decades after the fact. The sort of distance the 50’s are at, compared to now. Some people still remember the 50’s.
And nobody accepts any story “as a fact”. But when there are several independent accounts of the same man, it’s good reason to assume he is more likely to have existed than not.
Why go through all the trouble of inventing a prophet in 1st century Palestine when the place was full to the brim with them? Who would be able to pull such a con under the caring watch of the rabbis? For what motive? Why would they have chosen such a loser as their herald? Surrounded by dunces and traitors, the guy is sentenced to death in the most disgusting way… Really? And why couldn’t they keep their story straight? Several contradicting versions—isn’t that downright messy for a con job? Etc. Etc. The myth theory requires a larger conspiracy theory than i am ready to believe. So i conclude he’s more likely to have existed than not.
Sorry, we don’t have the original Gospels that might have been written decades later. We have copies, of copies, of copies.
Yes, some people remember the 50s or even the 40s. But I wasn’t alive then. And neither was my mother. My grandmother was but she never left the country.
So, if I wrote a history of World War II in Germany based entirely on what my grandmother told my mother, and my mother told me, no one would consider it documentary evidence.
Okay. My point was just to put forth a few known facts and arguments that lead the VAST MAJORITY of qualified historians to stand more or less firmly in the historic Jesus camp.
But as Marrou pointed out, nobody can be forced to trust a source, or 2 or 3 or 4 sources. There is ALWAYS some reason to doubt, if you look for it. I mean, maybe the guys who built the pyramids were aliens. Why do everybody assume that the traditions and sources saying otherwise should be trusted? Hieroglyphics can lie. Most of them do, probably… Hmmm…
;-)
The Gospels are mythology, they are fable. They can no more be counted as evidence for Jesus than the Havamal can be counted as evidence for Odin’s existence.
That’s exactly what you wanted to PROVE, and now you use it as a premisse in your argument. That’s circular logic. AND it ignores Josephus as a near contemporary and independent source. You’re in denial.
@Seek Sorry, we don’t have the original Gospels that might have been written decades later. We have copies, of copies, of copies.
That’s true but it also applies to all the ancient texts we have got from antiquity: all the Chinese writing attributed to Confusius and others; Homer; all the Greek philosophers; the India vedas; the entire bible of course including the OT; etc.
No one is claiming that a literal Odysseus existed, though.
Ancient copied texts are invaluable to our knowledge of our past, and we should not consider them wholy unreliable just because they were copied. We live in times of instantaneous, automated information copy-pasting so we tend to assume that anything else is unreliable but that’s just not true.
Of course the occasional copy error or redaction would have happenned here or there but not that often, and there are ways to control for that by comparing different copies and versions.
You seem to be applying very stiff criteria to this particular case, criteria that are almost impossibly high. Such “hyper-critical” view, if applied across the board in history, would result in massive wrecking-ball destruction of our historical knowledge. Reminds me of Jean Hardouin, who in his Chronologiae ex nummis antiquis restitutae (1696) argued that all the ancient classics of Greece and Rome had been manufactured by 13th century monks…
No, I’m not.
You’re assuming a historical character created a mythology.
I’m looking at a mythology and demanding proof of the history.
I want the same proof anyone would ask for a historical Robin Hood, Cu Chulainn, Ragnar Lothbrok, or Odysseus.
What about Thales and all the pre-socratics, Socrates himself for that matter, the Buddha, Confusius, Zoroastre, Mohammad and his companions, Atilla, any English person before 1066, Marco Polo, Shakespeare and Joan of Arc? Did these guys exist or are they figments of some unknown author’s imagination, like Jesus?
The real difference between you and me is that I treat the texts as innocent until proven guilty, and you treat them as guilty until proven innocent.
Yes, that’s how proof works.
Do you also believe that aliens built the pyramids, because someone on TV said so?
As a Buddhist I doubt that the Buddha, or even Prince Siddhartha, ever existed, particularly since the first Buddhist writings appear centuries after his supposed lifetime. That, however, is a small matter, as the philosophy of Buddhism was developed by someone (or several someones) and is just as applicable even if the person it’s attributed to never existed. Buddhism does not hang on the literal existence of the Buddha. Neither do the works of Socrates or William Shakespeare (BTW: there is, as I understand it, some debate over whether or not Shakespeare actually wrote the works attributed to him, or if they were written by others who were employed in his company).
Christianity, on the other hand, does hang on the literal existence of Jesus as described in the Bible. And it’s not enough to just say that some preacher dude named Jesus existed during that time (evidently several did) and then point to people writing decades or centuries after the fact as proof. And no, decades later is not “near contemporary”.
Alright, I guess we can agree to disagree on the question of what evidence is “enough”. You want to use a very high bar; I’m satisfied with a lower one. But the question has been answered in that the available evidence as per the current scientific consensus has been described. At least I have tried to do so.
The evidence is on the table. What people do with such evidence—whether they accept it or reject it—is entirely a matter of personal opinion.
I might be more willing to “agree to disagree” if you at least understood what “scientific consensus” actually means.
Enlighten me. What does “scientific consensus” mean?
The great Carl Sagan once said, “One of the great commandments of science is, ‘Mistrust arguments from authority.’...Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.”
@olivier5
Well for starters “scientific consensus” applies to scientific fields. History is not a scientific field. Not by a long shot.
I’ve heard that before. So what do you think is it? An art? A sub-genre of fiction?
I go by Popper’s definition. If it’s falsifiable, it’s science. And any historic theory or version of events is falsifiable.
You cannot falsify the existence of a mythological being.
Going back to my question of clarification:
What do you mean by “Was Jesus real?”
If you can’t agree on a definition of “Jesus” and a definition of “real”, the problem and any hypothesis based on it, is not falsifiable.
I agree with Darth that the message is more important than the messenger, including in this case. The golden rule for instance transcends any religion. But to me, it is still important to give past thinkers their due. Like to know that Einstein borrowed from Poincaré and Lorentz, or that Jesus borrowed from Hillel. Who the physical body of the author was, like what sort of DNA, gender, looks, ethnicity, etc. is not important but the life that person lived can help understand the works.
i don’t see badly to the idea of a good biography of Kant, for instance. That’s a valid work to read, in my mind, if one wants to fully understand Kant’s work. Similarly, trying to understand who the historic Jesus was is not without interest for those who want to understand the very human thoughts exposed (or hidden) in the gospels.
Nyet, there is no evidence that scientists and logicians accept that Jesus Christ ever existed.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
