Forum Discussion: Historical Jesus
Wednesday February 27, 2008
What do you think about the "historical" Jesus? Was there a Jesus, as the gospel stories depict? Was there perhaps one or more traveling preachers whose activities and mannerisms were later incorporated into the figure now know as Jesus? Or is Jesus entirely fictional? Most Christians naturally assume that Jesus was real, but there are problems with this view.
The source of that oral tradition, those Jesus "sayings", and parables...weather from Q source or Mark have such similarities in their patterns that clearly a real man spoke those words. Furthermore the activity, of real people who caused the birth of Christianity to spread all over the world also imply a real person so close to the source timeline.
Otherwise you must dismiss Peter, Paul, John writing on the island of Patmos, etc. The early Romans made reference to the followers of Chrestos. To is claim the gospels are forgeries, etc. is dismissive of a real events, real people.
Even if it seems likely that there was some sort of real figure behind the legends about Jesus, are the alternatives to a real Jesus so really unlikely and unreasonable that they aren't worth taking seriously? Add your thoughts to the comments here or join the ongoing discussion in the forum.
Comments
The truth is that Jesus existance was well documented. Not only by other Christian writters/historians but by others who hated Jesus, made fun of His claims, and etc… Here are a few to use as example.
Flavius Josephus, Jewish Historain (37-100AM) mentioned John the Baptist being his couson, James being a brother, and even goes as far to mention that Jesus had followers that worshiped him as the Christ.
Cornelius Tacitus a Roman historian (b.AD 53) mentions that Christians got their name from the man Jesus who was executted by Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius.
Evidence for Jesus was also found written in stone. in 2002 an inscription was found on an acient bone box that reads “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” in Aramaic and is dated back approximately to 63AD. You can look this up in the November/December Issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR)in the year 2002. The artical goes on to explain “Although all three names were common in acient times, the staistical probability of their appearing together in that combination is slim. In addition the mention of a brother is unusual - indicating that this Jesus must have been a well known figure.”
I hope you are not seriously thinking that Jesus never existed. Most people today believe He was a real person, even if they don’t think He was who He claimed to be, GOD.
Perhaps this is just a venue for you to vent your anger at Christians or God.
It might be possible to take this assertion seriously if you can demonstrate knowledge of how this position have been criticized — i.e., the reasons why references to Jesus outside the Bible are not generally accepted as independent accounts or even as legitimate.
Citing a known and well-documented fraud actually makes it harder to take your claims seroiusly.
Well, given defenses like this, it’s hard not to think that.
In my opinion the question of whether there was a real Jesus or not is similiar to $cientology creator, L. Ron Hubbard. We know there was a real Hubbard and we know a lot about the man but look at what $cientologists claim about Hubbard. This is in the later part of 20th century where we have technology such as video and audio recording as well as better documentation keeping (at least, it is more likely to have records available today) than what was available two thousand years ago. In that light, it may be reasonable to think that there was a historical Jesus but to think we can have any real or conclusive idea about who or what he was, much less what he actually said or did, is not. Then again, many believers rely on that murkiness to support their beliefs.
John Weldon, your sources, Josephus and Tacitus, are regarded as hearsay by scholars, having lived well after the time period in which the supposed Jesus lived. They are not eye witness accounts. Tacitus mentions Christus but gives no source. Scholars attribute Josephus brief writing on Jesus to Eusebius.
As Austin Cline states the box is a proven hoax. It was claimed the inscription occurred around 70 CE. Well after the supposed time of Jesus. Again more hearsay. Not acceptable.
I am seriously thinking Jesus never existed.
As far as your last comment, it reveals your desperation.
So say you, all atheists ever do is quote “no proof” or deny facts given, becuase your mentors tell you that they are hoaxes. You never take the time to look at it with any real objection. You look for evidences that back your beliefs, but ignore the evidences that point to the contrary. All this said…
there is more evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than there would be for many other historical people who actually existed.
Just because we don’t have video or audio of him doesn’t mean he did not exist. Some things are not proveable by sciencetific methods. Can you prove to me scientifically that Abraham Lincoin was assinated? No. We have to use history. If you don’t believe Jesus ever existed then you can’t believe that other philosphers like (spelling is bad, sorry) Socrates, Aestotle, and others existed either. There are more manuscrpts about Christ written than many other of those listed above. Who are trying to fool? You waste my time.
John Weldon,
“…Christians got their name from the man Jesus…”
Then why weren’t they called Jesusians?
Up till fairly recently, there has been a small but growing “Jesus skepticism”
movement, spurred on by the “pagan Christ” theory of Freke and Gandy, and the writings of Earl Doherty concerning the lack of mention of events in the life of Jesus in the epistles of Paul. These theories were prefigured in the Freethought movement of the 19th century. Even then the Freethinkers, such as Volney, Massey and Frazer, pointed to the birth, death and resurrection of the solar heroes, such as Adonis and Osiris-Dionysus.
In the last year or so, two theories have emerged which are reinvigorating the Jesus skepticism movement.
The first is the work of Dan Unterbrink, who has pointed to the similarity of events in the life of Judas of Galilee, as mentioned in Josephus, to those of Jesus as mentioned in the gospels. Judas of Galilee was the founder of the zealot movement, which began after the tax revolt following the census under Cyrenius in 6 CE. The gospel of Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus around the time of the census may symbolically record the birth of the zealot movement.
Jesus’ cleansing of the temple was based on the real episode from 4 BCE (interestingly, the time the gospel of Matthew gives for the birth of Jesus), when Judas and Matthias conducted the Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing. Judas and Matthias were captured, and Matthias died in jail, but Judas was released due to the demand of the mob. This was the basis of the story of Jesus being released to the mob.
John the Baptist came onto the scene after the census of Cyrenius. According to the Slavonic version of Josephus, John followed the nationalistic teachings of Judas the Galilean.
It seems strange that Josephus would have mentioned Judas’ sons dying (James, Simon and Menahem) and his grandson (Eleazar, who led the revolt during the Jewish War) but not the death of Judas himself. Unterbrink believes that the Jesus passage in Josephus’ Antiquities is a replacement for the death of Judas under Pilate in 19 CE.
The zealot movement was basically wiped out in the Jewish War of 70-73 CE, and this brings us to the second theory, belonging to Joseph Atwill. Atwill’s thesis is that the gospels were written around 80 CE under the direction of Emperor Titus Flavius, who ten years earlier had conducted the war against the Jews and who destroyed the Jerusalem
temple. Atwill points out the remarkable similarity between the miracles of Jesus and the significant victories in Titus’ campaign throughoutt Judea, culminating with Titus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Jesus was made to prophesy in Matthew chapters 22 to 25 concerning the tribulations and the destruction of the temple when the real Messiah would come. Jesus said this would happen within one generation, and this did happen when Titus sacked Jerusalem, so Jesus was effectively prophesying Titus as the Messiah.
Atwill’s thesis effectively explains why Jesus was made so sympathetic towards the Romans.
Jesus’ prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem was based on a real historical figure, whose name of Jesus was probably used for the fictional figure described in the gospels. During his description of the siege of the temple, Josephus mentions the prophesying of a madman called Jesus bar Ananias, who several years before the siege, wandered around Jerusalem saying “Woe! Woe!” in the same manner as Jesus son of Joseph is recorded in the gospels as doing.
I have not done either Atwill or Unterbrink justice, their resperctive theories being quite complex, as one would expect given the complexity of the gospel narratives.
However, Atwill’s and Unterbrink’s works are complementary, and both Atwill and
Unterbrink have acknowledged this fact on Atwill’s forum. Atwill is at present writing a second book, and will most likely incorporate Unterbrink’s work in the new book, presenting the Jesus of the gospels as a composite figure, made up principally from the three characters of Judas the Galilean, Jesus bar Ananias, and Titus Flavius.
No, we simply point out when the latest evidence contradicts what you allege. The box, for example, has been established as a hoax through multiple lines of evidence, but it was treated tremendous skepticism right from the beginning. Your acceptance of it as genuine demonstrates unequivocally that you do not understand how and why claims are accepted or rejected in the field of archaeology.
It would be more accurate to say that we don’t look at claims like yours uncritically.
Prove it. Don’t just repeat the same line used in all the apologetics material - we’ve all seen dozens of Christians say the exact same thing with the exact same words. You aren’t presenting an original thought, you’re just repeating something you heard or read because it sounded good. Please, demonstrate that you can do more than parrot the thoughts of others and demonstrate, on the basis of sound historical and archaeological scholarship, that what you just wrote is true.
If you expected us to just believe whatever you wrote simply because you wrote it, then yes you are wasting your time. Someone misled you when they told you that lines like the one above are clever or credible. You need to learn how to construct logical arguments, how to use science, and how to evaluate historical scholarship if you are going to post in places like this. People here can help you, if you are interested.
John there is plenty of scholarship concerning the non-existence of Jesus. If you had interest you could seek it out. You could replace the word atheists in your first paragraph with Christians and it would make complete sense. You make a lot of assumptions about people you don’t know my friend.
‘Silkworm’ mentions Freke, Gandy and Doherty on the idea that Christ is based on earlier pagan myths. Other more authoritative sources on this issue include profs. Robert M. Price and Tom Harpur. The evidence seems pretty compelling that the canonical Christian gospels and the gnostic gospels are heavily drawn from earlier sources such as Horus, Dionysus and Zoroaster - as well as philosophical sources like Plato (although apologists vehemently deny the connection). Some have taken this idea further and pointed out, for instance, that there was a popular image of Dionysus’ divinity at the time whereby the godship was actually a lie. In Euripides’ “Bacchae,” for instance, we read, regarding Dionysus, that “E’en though he be no god, as thou assertest, still say he is; be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, that she may be thought the mother of a god, and we and all our race gain honour.” This may have been drawn upon by the gospel writers as an inspiration to invent a new god-man figure for political reasons. Nietzsche thought as much - which is what he meant when he wrote “Dionysus versus the crucified” at the end of one of his last works. All you need to do is look in the index of the annotated version of the New Jerusalem Bible to find places in the Old Testament where lying and deception was smiled upon if it was done in the name of God. I think the mature point of view is that it really depends on what you want to believe. If you want to believe Jesus was real, then you pick out the evidence that suggests he was, and ignore the other stuff. On the other hand, if you want to think Jesus was a fairy story, then you do the same in the other direction. A third option, of course, is that Jesus was real, but just a charlatan. Anyway, one thing no one can deny is that the effect the Jesus story had on our history was certainly ‘real’ enough.
John there is plenty of scholarship concerning the non-existence of Jesus. If you had interest you could seek it out.
How much of it is peer reviewed?
Response to ‘Question’: As I’m sure you know, practically none of the debate has been peer reviewed on either side of the argument. It mostly exists as a back and forth on the internet, and in popular literature between people that have little academic respect (possessing an M.A, B.A., or less in most cases). This is why I mention Robert M. Price and Tom Harpur as two exceptions. Price is a well respected double PhD. member of the Jesus Seminar who has received many accolades by scholars (even though some disregard the methods of the Jesus seminar) that both agree and disagree with his positions. Harpur is a less well known Canadian professor, but his arguments still hold weight. Theology as a discipline is somewhat different from most academic fields in that most of the applicants that go so far as into the PhD. level already have a strong religious faith, and so have little interest in considering that it may be based on fantasy. Anyway, that doesn’t really answer the question. You are right on both counts. On the one hand, there is plenty of writing on both sides. On the other, very little of it has been present in serious academic debates among university professors. Whether this is the case because the topic is a non-starter, or because it is just too taboo for the professionals in that field, is a matter yet to be settled. My own background is a PhD. in classical philosophy, so I approach it from the outside. I would be interested to hear where you stand. Of the Christ themes that have been taken from earlier pagan sources, I could list the following: 1. The mother of the godman is a mortal virgin and the father is a god 2. He is born in a cave or cowshed on December 25th in front of sheperds 3. He has 12 disciples 4. Followers can be born again through baptism 5. He turns water into wine at marriage ceremonies 6. He rides into town in triumph on a donkey while people wave palm leaves at him 7. He attacks religious authorities who are out to destroy him 8. He dies at easter for the sins of the world, sometimes through crucifixion 9. He is raised on the third day and goes to heaven 10. He is awaited for his return as judge on the last days 11. His death and resurrection are symbolized by a meal of bread and wine that symbolize his body and blood 12. His followers will share in his resurrection. — However, I will not list these because they are taken from Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy; not university professors, which would seem to disqualify them in your view. Just the same, I’ll reiterate my favorite passage from Euripides that I mentioned before: “E’en though he be no god, as thou assertest, still say he is; be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, that she may be thought the mother of a god, and we and all our race gain honour.” Cheers; John
It’s passed into the stuff of legend. Like King Authur or Robin Hood. To me, I’m OK saying there might have been a Jesus, although the evidence cited above is pretty shakey. Still, to me, the larger question is one of do we have any unviolated or unbiased or timely texts that would give an accurate picture of the guy if he did live. And that’s where I think we’re out of luck even if he actually existed. Once people start building your life into larger than life legend, whatever you really were might only be in there as a kernel–or it might be lost entirely. No one can say. And it’s actually too bad. It would be great to know if he existed and what he might think about the mass media campaign his life has been blown into a couple thousand years later. I’d be interested.
If you follow it back carefully, the very earliest Christian writings *don’t* seem to refer directly to Jesus as a real, living person. That comes later.
So there’s considerable doubt about whether such a person really existed.
That said, I believe such a person probably actually existed (though a number of things the bible says about him are plainly false, that’s easily explained by the fact that all writing about him comes long after his death).
However, it’s not a certainty, by a long shot - many of the few references attributed to him are either doubtful (in the sense that it’s NOT certain he is being referred to rather than some other figure), hearsay, forgeries, or some combination of the three.
As Maxwell Scott tells Ransom Stoddard at the end of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
There is fairly good evidence in the scriptures themselves that Jesus was a composite - like Betty Crocker. We shall probably never find conclusive evidence one way or another. It is the baffling and confusing Jesus of the scriptures and other writings that one has to account for anyway. I think he is a composite.
Jesus was most probably a composite - like Betty Crocker