[Jeff H]

So, I've read a few websites that seem, to me anyway, to make a pretty strong argument that Jesus may never have existed as an historical figure. (Or at least, he was so obscure and the stories about him so unrelated to his actual life that his real existence does not matter.) However, I am of the understanding that the majority of scholars and historians take the position that Jesus was a person who actually lived in history. The position of the non-existent Jesus seems to be a minority position among this group.

I was wondering if anyone might be able to tell me why this is the case. I know that being the majority doesn't mean they are right, but at the same time...it at least seems reasonable to trust their judgments in most cases. Is it because there is a disproportionate number of Christian scholars? Or is there some factor which they interpret differently than these minority no-Jesus scholars? I'm just a little confused about it and looking for some clarification. I posted it in the Lion's Den, because even Christians might have a reasonable opinion on this one :P

Also, as a second question, would anyone have any good books that advocate this view? Preferably by, you know, well-respected scholars...it's all well and good to read material on the Internet, but sometimes it's hard to know who actually knows what they're talking about and who's just talking out of their ass. Of course, reading a book doesn't change this, but it's at least easier to find out who the authors are. And, well, having reviews on Amazon always helps :)

Anyway, let the discussion begin!

[Steven]

I'd be interested to see what the scholars here have to say on this subject. My two cent: I've always considered the "Jesus didn't exist" stance to be the lazy option. It is tempting to, rather than point out the implausibilities, inconsistancies and contradictions of the gospel, to simply say "He never was" and be done with it. However just as the existence of a historical Jesus does not "prove" the truth of Christianity, his non-existence does not invalidate it. Consider Mithraism, almost a twin of Chritianity, it had a virgin-born God man who dies and was reborn, it even had the threat of eternal damnation for unbelievers. Yet I doubt anyone thought of Mithras as an actual living person. Of course Mithraism didn't survive while Christianity did. What did Christianity have that Mithraism didn't? Perhaps just dumb-luck. This isn't just my cock-eyed idea it is dealt with in "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?"
http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0609807986 I'm not saying I agree with it but it makes you think, and that can never be a bad thing.

[Kuroikaze]

Jeff H, on Oct 2 2008, 11:39 AM, said:

So, I've read a few websites that seem, to me anyway, to make a pretty strong argument that Jesus may never have existed as an historical figure. (Or at least, he was so obscure and the stories about him so unrelated to his actual life that his real existence does not matter.) However, I am of the understanding that the majority of scholars and historians take the position that Jesus was a person who actually lived in history. The position of the non-existent Jesus seems to be a minority position among this group.

Actually most scholars take a position somewhere in the middle. Some say Jesus is real, but the stories were exaggerated. Some argue that the character of Jesus in the bible is an amalgamation of several different messianic figures. I think if you look around modern biblical scholarship you will be hard pressed to find that any single view holds the majority.

[R. S. Martin]

The only book I've read todate is Tom Harpur's Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. On my table waiting to be read is Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle: Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus. Other books often mentioned on these forums are Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, and the work of Robert Price, and also of John Dominic Crossan. I think Crossan is a liberal Christian and so is Harpur, but the fundies would hardly own them as part of the fold. Even the moderate school where I studied condemned Harpur, though they recommended Crossan as a reputable scholar.

A look at the titles of the books by Price and Crossan suggest to me that by the time you get through all of these you will have expanded your horizons. Does anybody know--I think Price is an atheist.

[Neon Genesis]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Robert Price is an atheist. He was interviewed in the Jesus myth hypothesis documentary film, The God Who Wasn't There.

[orlando]

My understanding is that yes, most scholars thik he existed, but many think he was not the miracle worker and man-God for the Bible but a rural preacher who lived and died in relative obscurity and was later mythologised. I guess it is just a less radical view than to say he never existed at all, which is hard to prove. Earl Doherty tries to claim that the earliest Christians had a Gnostic type belief in a purely spiritual Christ I think, and did not believe in him as a man who recently walked the Earth. He thinks Paul's lack of information about him and direct quotes from him etc suggests this. I personally am unconvinced, I think there is evidence in the letters Paul did think he existed as a man, but just that Paul - who never met him as a man but had a sort of vision of the resurrected saviour - focussed on the Christ of faith. He does however, eg mention the last supper, and he says eg that when Jesus comes back believers will be : caught up in the air to meet him (the Rapture) etc. I find the fact there is little evidence outside the Bible for Jesus - I think the Josephus passage is a fake - is strong evidence he was not a major figure, but I think it probably there was some figure who preached and was crucified and had an original band of followers who continued to hope he would be coming back soon and developed theories as to why he needed to die - atonement etc. I find it odd that a group of jews would start believing in a purely spiritual messiah who never existed as a man, as the messiah was deifinitely meant to come as a man. Paul's letters and Acts show there was an early group of Christians in Jerusalem, headed by peter and by James "brother of the Lord". I think the latter probably was Jeus'actual brother. We see in Acts and Paul's letters evidence that eg they and Paul clashed over whether or not Gentile converts neeeded to foillow the Jewish laws - diet and circumcision etc - or not. I suspect the first Christians did not think Jesus had come to start a new religion and did not think he was God but that h had come to tell people to focus on the most important things in preparation for the coming "Kingdom of God" which was expected to be when God would inaugurate a golden age ruled over by his messiah. They expected him back at any moment to usher it in, which would include the faithful dead being raised back to life in incorruptible bodeis etc (an idea the Pharisees also believd in according to Josephus).

[orlando]

The Jesus Mysteries is interesting, but I think the authors push their claims a bit far -- eg they over do the similarities between Jesus and Mithras a bit -- there are some, but less than they suggest, as far as I can see -- and also boost the similarities by amalgamating all vaguely similar saviour gods into one God of their own invention called "Osiris-Dionysus" as I recall (if I've got the two representative gods they chose right). However the main point - that many of the claims about Jesus were also made for other contemporary or earlier god figures, is interesting if you have not studied the idea before.

However although the Christians may well have been influened by other beliefs around the Mediterranean as Christiainity developed into what we know it as today (a saviour God religion) I do personally think that a lot of the claims about Jesus are actually invented from Old Testament sources and also recent developing ideas about the Messiah, final judgment and the resurrection of the dead in contemporary Jewish culture (itself perhaps influenced eg by Zoroastrianism?), which is what you would expect from a bunch of Jews (even Paul was a jew - a Pharisee, I think).

Another site with more info on the problems of knowing anything much about the historcial jesus is www.jesusneverexisted.com

[TheHammer]

Most scholars I've heard answer this question have said something along these lines: "It is likely that there was a historical figure by the name of Yeshua living in Palestine around the time that Jesus is said to have lived."

The thing is, the question of whether Jesus ever existed or not is a very loaded question. What do you mean by "Jesus"? Do you mean the Christian, "finalized" version? Are you simply asking whether there was a spiritual leader named Yeshua from Gallilee at the time? Saying that you believe "Jesus existed" or didn't really doesn't explain anything unless you, at the same time, add your religious stance on the matter, or simply elaborate on saying "Yes, I believe he did".

Personally, I'm open to the possibility of the existence of A Yeshua ben Joseph from Gallilee, but the evidence suggest that the historical Jesus figure, if he existed, was but a fragment of what he is believed to be today, one piece in a very big puzzle, where the other pieces involve other self-proclaimed messiahs, but also legend, myth and folklore. In the end, it spelled the name "Jesus Christ".

This post has been edited by TheHammer: 02 October 2008 - 05:47 PM

[orlando]

Well I seem to remember reading that Josephus refers to at least 20 people called Jesus in his histories - it was a common name at the time. Also it means "God saves" (and is a version of the name of Joshua --- a key Old Testament fuigure) so is a suitable name for a Messiah. Christ is not his surname, just Greek for Messiah - the "anointed" holy king/representative of God that the Jews were expecting to come along. It's like if we were to come up with a figure called John Saviour or something. However my conculsions from what reading I have done are that I think there might well have been a preacher called Jesus who said some of the things attributed to him and he was killed by the Romans because he caused some kind of disturbance in Jerusalem - maybe overtutning the money changers tables etc, maybe even claiming to be the messiah - the expected Davidic king, therefore a threat to Roman rule. Then his followers believed he would come back from the dead - maybe some even thought they saw him in visions etc -- but it would probably all have died out if it had not been for Paul who really created the "religion" of Christianity as we know it with Jesus as a dying and rising saviour god

[orlando]

Just found this - about the numerous Jesuses:

http://www.jesusneve...com/surfeit.htm

[mwc]

orlando, on Oct 2 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

However my conculsions from what reading I have done are that I think there might well have been a preacher called Jesus who said some of the things attributed to him and he was killed by the Romans because he caused some kind of disturbance in Jerusalem - maybe overtutning the money changers tables etc

Now this part is funny because people did strange things in the temple and these things were written about. I like the story where the Roman soldier waves his dick (okay, his privates so it could be he mooned them but it reads otherwise) around and causes a riot in the temple. Ends up killing a bunch of folks in the stampede. Thousands of people die actually. Now do you think that this "penis attack" is somehow on a scale greater or less than the actual overturning of the money changers? Because no one gets hurt at all in that. It doesn't even make the history books (outside the gospels). And there are other examples of minor things causing massive deaths in the temple but nothing from this money changer debacle complete with whips and all. Not even an arrest. Could have been the whole approaching Passover thing if these other events also didn't occur during major festivals like Passover and Pentecost.

Quote

maybe even claiming to be the messiah - the expected Davidic king, therefore a threat to Roman rule.

Romans weren't so easily threatened. People run around claiming to be all sorts of things these days. Does the government imprison them all? Nope. The Romans didn't know and didn't care what a "messiah" was. What they cared about was troublemakers. If he'd overturned the money changers tables he'd have been arrested...right then. The Romans kept soldiers at the temple. If they found him a threat prior to that he'd have been arrested or killed (Pilate had the power to take life if justified though he overstepped this with the Samaritan Messiah and was recalled in 36 CE after complaints were made against him). Also, keep in mind that Agrippa I was made King of the Jews in 41 CE by Rome. Clearly the Romans aren't too threatened by Judean self-rule (Judea proper was a Roman province from 6CE to 41CE but the other territories were under the reign of Herod's sons until they died in 33/34 CE where they were briefly given to Syria province or Agrippa I depending on the territory).

mwc

[Jeff H]

Thanks all for your replies so far. You've brought up a lot of good points, both ones that I've heard as well as new ones. I'll just talk about a few things you guys brought up:

Steven, on Oct 2 2008, 01:26 AM, said:

However just as the existence of a historical Jesus does not "prove" the truth of Christianity, his non-existence does not invalidate it. Consider Mithraism, almost a twin of Chritianity, it had a virgin-born God man who dies and was reborn, it even had the threat of eternal damnation for unbelievers. Yet I doubt anyone thought of Mithras as an actual living person. Of course Mithraism didn't survive while Christianity did. What did Christianity have that Mithraism didn't? Perhaps just dumb-luck.

The non-existence of a historical Jesus may not have destroyed the early Christian faith, but I think it's a little hard to say that today. We've had almost 2000 years of development of this faith based on the idea that he was a real person. It might not be enough to topple it over entirely, but it certainly would cause a massive paradigm shift of the faith. But at any rate, that's what Christianity had - dumb luck. Constantine happened to pick Christianity, for some reason, as the state religion, and voila - we have it around today still.

Kuroikaze, on Oct 2 2008, 04:19 AM, said:

Actually most scholars take a position somewhere in the middle. Some say Jesus is real, but the stories were exaggerated. Some argue that the character of Jesus in the bible is an amalgamation of several different messianic figures. I think if you look around modern biblical scholarship you will be hard pressed to find that any single view holds the majority.

Maybe I wasn't entirely clear. I think most historians would believe in an actual historical figure, even if the claims of the gospels were exaggerated. In other words, they still hold that the claims revolve around an actual person in history, even if he never did any of the stuff they say he did.

But that brings up another important point that several people have kind of hinted at: where exactly do you draw the line between a "historical Jesus" and just "some random guy"? You've got the conservative, fundamentalist Christians that demand that the gospels are entirely true, which makes Jesus essentially a superhero. Then (some) liberal Christians come along and say, "Well, not all of that stuff happened, but he still existed." So in essence, you've still got a good teacher with some followers. Then the more agnostic scholars come and say, "Well, Jesus was some obscure guy that nobody really listened to when he was alive." And then this view that the gospels are not based on an actual person at all. In other words, we strip away more and more of the "supernatural" aspect of Jesus, but how far can we go and still say, "That's Jesus"? If we're talking about some obscure cynic philosopher that wandered around Palestine largely ignored, is that still "Jesus", or is that just some obscure cynic philosopher? I'm not really sure the answer to that, but I think it's an important thing to bring up.

Edit: Another thing I meant to bring up but forgot to was the idea of legendary development. If we accept that Jesus was a historical figure (with exaggerated claims, however), then we only have about 40 years for the legends to grow and morph. That, while not impossible, is not a lot of time for an ordinary teacher to turn into a superhero. If, however, the gospels are based on some sort of mythological figure that was put into a more recent context and literalized, then we have no "upper limit" for the earliest the legends could have started. Perhaps the seeds of the story started way back in 100 BCE, and then grew from there.

R. S. Martin, on Oct 2 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

The only book I've read todate is Tom Harpur's Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. On my table waiting to be read is Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle: Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus. Other books often mentioned on these forums are Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, and the work of Robert Price, and also of John Dominic Crossan. I think Crossan is a liberal Christian and so is Harpur, but the fundies would hardly own them as part of the fold. Even the moderate school where I studied condemned Harpur, though they recommended Crossan as a reputable scholar.

A look at the titles of the books by Price and Crossan suggest to me that by the time you get through all of these you will have expanded your horizons. Does anybody know--I think Price is an atheist.

Thanks for the book suggestions. I have read Misquoting Jesus, and I have heard and intend to read the Jesus Puzzle. As far as Tom Harpur, from what I've heard of his book, it seems to be a little too strongly stated - in other words, perhaps trying to take advantage of the sensationalist and controversial topic. It likely still has a large deal of truth to it - I don't know, since I haven't read it - but I at least hesitate a little more to read it. Plus, my "Jesus: Life and Legacy" (Religious Studies) prof mildly ridiculed it in class one time. I actually had a chat with him following that class (which, incidentally, sparked this post), and he suggested a book called "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions" by N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg. It seems to be an interesting book so far, and I know that at least Borg is a prominent scholar. However, I'd kind of like to find a book by a good scholar who believes Jesus existed on the actual topic of whether he, in fact, did exist. I just want to hear the counter-arguments so I have some sort of basis to weigh the arguments.

Anyone know of a book like this? Maybe I'm asking a crazy question :P

This post has been edited by Jeff H: 03 October 2008 - 01:42 PM

[orlando]

I understand NT Wright is a prominent conservative scholar - he is also one of the most senior Abglican bishops. He is a literalist who eg definitely thinks Jesus will come back and raise the faithful from the dead etc. It is funny as his predecessor as Bishop of Durham was noted for his liberal views. Marcus Borg is, as you say, respected, notably among liberals like himself. He is very undogmatic and says nothing much you can object to.

I read a book by Geza Vermes which tried to get at what the real - Jewish - Jesus might have been like and was interesting - think it was called The Authentic Gospel of Christ - but I am not sure that, or any other one I have read would be exactly what you want. It seems like there is very little solid fact to be found about Jesus, and it boils down to - do you think a bunch of Jews would have just made up the stories with no actual founder or not? I personally don't think it sounds in character for some Jews to have decided the expected Messiah had already been and gone in some mythological past, but I suppose it is just possible that they came to believe so after contact with similar "mystery religions" in the mediterranean. My hunch is more that he existed but was a minor figure, who expected the end of the world any time soon and told his followers to get ready for it - and did not expect to be crucified; that for some reason some followers thought he would come back to them again from the grave -- but that it would all have died out if Paul had not had a vision (aka "hallucination") of Jesus and developed the whole saviour theology more and spread it around. I know of no way of proving one way or another if he existed. There was supposed to be a new study called The Jesus Project that was meant to be gathering respected scholars to study just this point --- to start with an open mind and look at what evidence we have to say whether or not Jesus existed and what can be known about him. However thre was some minor scandal when they listed various famous people as involved in their project on their website, when in some cases they had only written to them and asked them to be involved but they had not agreed. It now seems to have been abandoned as far as I can see, which seems a shame. The "Jesus Seminar" was a similar idea, but aimed to try to work out what things Jesus was most likely to have really said and done, but starting from an assumption that he did exist. The scholars involved were only able to agree on a small selection of sayings they thought very likely to be authentic for various historical/literary criticism reasons.

[R. S. Martin]

Jeff H, on Oct 3 2008, 02:36 PM, said:

As far as Tom Harpur, from what I've heard of his book, it seems to be a little too strongly stated - in other words, perhaps trying to take advantage of the sensationalist and controversial topic. It likely still has a large deal of truth to it - I don't know, since I haven't read it - but I at least hesitate a little more to read it. Plus, my "Jesus: Life and Legacy" (Religious Studies) prof mildly ridiculed it in class one time. I actually had a chat with him following that class (which, incidentally, sparked this post), and he suggested a book called "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions" by N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg. It seems to be an interesting book so far, and I know that at least Borg is a prominent scholar. However, I'd kind of like to find a book by a good scholar who believes Jesus existed on the actual topic of whether he, in fact, did exist. I just want to hear the counter-arguments so I have some sort of basis to weigh the arguments.

Anyone know of a book like this? Maybe I'm asking a crazy question :P

Others might have better answers. Christian scholars hate Harpur; that's the long and short of it so far as I can make out. My NT professor hated the very sound of his name so much that we students were not even allowed to raise his work for discussion with regards to the course. My professor for systematic theology had a Christian prof from another department come in and give a talk about Harpur. That prof ranted and raved about Harpur's terrible scholarship. He had had considerable correspondence with Harpur and was considered a "specialist" on him, I guess.

Harpur has a real PhD and did real research, along with real documentation, but he was writing for a popular audience so he did not format his book like a university text or professional journal. That is how I size up the situation. He is a Christian today so far as I know. He says in his book that the Christian message had more meaning for him after doing his research than before.

I live about an hour and a half from Toronto where Harpur got his doctorate and I presume he lives there. I suspected my profs just can't handle it that a "local boy" hit the jackpot with a heretical book while they themselves toil away faithful to the church with little to show for their efforts. But you say your prof doesn't like him either? :shrug:

I had contacted Harpur with questions and he had been seriously hurt because of hurtful correspondence with this "specialist"; I could hardly get answers for my questions. I would have been better off not to mention the name of the specialist, had I realized what I was getting myself into. When I stopped using his name and expressed a genuine need for answers he responded. One of my sisters was also seeking for answers a few years later. I recommended Harpur's book. She, too, wrote to him and had good correspondence.

Let me mention that the "specialist" let me see his correspondence with Harpur. I was shocked at the immature stabs he had taken at a fellow human.

Thus, Harpur seems to be for real. Maybe I don't understand your question. But I don't know who else to recommend. The other NT scholars I know who don't think Jesus existed deconverted or never were Christians. There is also Acharya S. I didn't think of her for my other post....I looked at your question again. Are you asking for a scholar who argues FOR Jesus' existence? I would think those exist all over the place.

Just now I typed "historical Jesus" into Amazon. Here's the page. Famous names like John Dominic Crossan, Gary Habermas, and Albert Schweitzer head the list. I think all of those are Christians, though I don't know each person's position in the debate--whether for or against. Habermas is evangelical so he would definitely be for but, knowing what I do about some evangelical scholarship, I can't vouche for his quality of scholarship.

Another keyword to use would be "lives of Jesus." Scweitzter and Crossan are known for their excellent scholarship, I understand. A Jewish NT scholar of today is Adele Reinhartz. And here's another book I found just now on my shelf from my NT course: Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man From Galilee, by Mark Allan Powell. That book might lead you to others, if what you are looking for is the historical Jesus. If I remember correctly, it was in this book that I was introduced to names like Scweitzer, terms like "lives of Jesus," and issues like the search for the historical Jesus.

Good luck on your research! :3:

EDIT Changed the link for the Powell book; let's see if this one works.

[R. S. Martin]

A course that had quite a powerful impact on me was on the mystery religions in Greco-Roman society. One of the course texts, The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook of Ancient Texts, edited by Marvin W. Meyer, included excerpts from Philo, Plutarch, Clement, and Gospel of Philip--IOW, Jewish and early Christian writings of the Roman era.

After thinking about this for about five years, in the context of everything else I learned in that course and since then, and my own changing life situation, I am thinking it makes a lot of sense to believe that the Jesus story came out of wherever the Mystery Religions came, i.e. the dark womb of mystery. No one knows. There is so much in the New Testament itself and in the Gnostic literature that would allow one to arrive at this conclusion. The similarities between the Jesus story in all its versions (Gnostic as well as orthodox/traditional Christianity) and other Mystery Religion stories are, in my opinion, too great to discount without serious consideration.

One must also take into consideration how these stories were acted out on the stage, in what context, lighting, etc. The Mystery Religions used the stage, carefully adapted to evoke proper mood. Men and women were used as actors and admitted as audience because the enactment was part of the ritual of the religious practice. Then think about a regular Christmas or Easter enactment in a Christian church today, esp. one in which some professional talent is put to use with lighting, music, acting, accoustics, etc.

[Jeff H]

orlando, on Oct 3 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

I understand NT Wright is a prominent conservative scholar - he is also one of the most senior Abglican bishops. He is a literalist who eg definitely thinks Jesus will come back and raise the faithful from the dead etc. It is funny as his predecessor as Bishop of Durham was noted for his liberal views. Marcus Borg is, as you say, respected, notably among liberals like himself. He is very undogmatic and says nothing much you can object to.

Haha yes I am aware of who both of them are, thank you though. I am mostly reading it out of interest - my prof suggested it, so I am reading it. The first class I went to, he seemed very liberal, but the more classes I go to, the more I realize that he is on the conservative end of the liberal viewpoint - if that makes any sense. But hey, the book gives you two people's viewpoints for the price of one - can't beat that! Haha I'm not sure how much I'll learn from it, since I pretty much know what they're both going to say already, but it's still a topic of interest to me.

orlando, on Oct 3 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

I read a book by Geza Vermes which tried to get at what the real - Jewish - Jesus might have been like and was interesting - think it was called The Authentic Gospel of Christ - but I am not sure that, or any other one I have read would be exactly what you want. It seems like there is very little solid fact to be found about Jesus, and it boils down to - do you think a bunch of Jews would have just made up the stories with no actual founder or not? I personally don't think it sounds in character for some Jews to have decided the expected Messiah had already been and gone in some mythological past, but I suppose it is just possible that they came to believe so after contact with similar "mystery religions" in the mediterranean. My hunch is more that he existed but was a minor figure, who expected the end of the world any time soon and told his followers to get ready for it - and did not expect to be crucified; that for some reason some followers thought he would come back to them again from the grave -- but that it would all have died out if Paul had not had a vision (aka "hallucination") of Jesus and developed the whole saviour theology more and spread it around.

Yeah, and therein lies the problem I think. With so little information to go on, it's like trying to put together a puzzle with only a handful of pieces. That's why such radically different viewpoints can exist, I think. But I'm mostly just wondering what the counter-arguments for Jesus' non-existence are, I guess.

R. S. Martin, on Oct 3 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

Others might have better answers. Christian scholars hate Harpur; that's the long and short of it so far as I can make out. My NT professor hated the very sound of his name so much that we students were not even allowed to raise his work for discussion with regards to the course. My professor for systematic theology had a Christian prof from another department come in and give a talk about Harpur. That prof ranted and raved about Harpur's terrible scholarship. He had had considerable correspondence with Harpur and was considered a "specialist" on him, I guess.

Hmm, perhaps it's the same prof, I don't know. I'm the guy from your area, remember? Haha I think it'd be kinda funny if we were talking about the same person...but yeah, my spidey-senses told me that Christian scholars would hate someone who says anything close to what Harpur says.

R. S. Martin, on Oct 3 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

Harpur has a real PhD and did real research, along with real documentation, but he was writing for a popular audience so he did not format his book like a university text or professional journal. That is how I size up the situation. He is a Christian today so far as I know. He says in his book that the Christian message had more meaning for him after doing his research than before.

Thanks for that info, I honestly don't really know too much about the guy. I guess I haven't looked too hard into the matter, to be honest, but hmm. It's interesting. Perhaps I'll add it to my Amazon wishlist after all :grin:

That's the problem for me, though. It's hard to tell what's good research and what's bunk, especially when it's written for a general audience. You never know who's just trying to make a quick buck...kind of like Dan Brown. Great book, but a little lacking on....um....good scholarship.

R. S. Martin, on Oct 3 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

Thus, Harpur seems to be for real. Maybe I don't understand your question. But I don't know who else to recommend. The other NT scholars I know who don't think Jesus existed deconverted or never were Christians. There is also Acharya S. I didn't think of her for my other post....I looked at your question again. Are you asking for a scholar who argues FOR Jesus' existence? I would think those exist all over the place.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't so clear. I'm mostly trying to investigate the counter-arguments against Jesus' non-existence. So I'd like to find a book written by a person who would claim that Jesus existed (preferably a reliable scholar and not a stupid Christian apologist), but where the book is about the topic of whether Jesus did or did not exist. In other words, what would a Bart Ehrman say to defend the idea that Jesus did actually exist? Any good books, or even websites, would be helpful. I've been somewhat busy with work and school, it's a little hard to find time right now to scour Google for the good stuff in the midst of all the fundy apologist crap. "Oh, here's Lee Strobel! He must have a well-reasoned and well-researched position!" :rolleyes:

R. S. Martin, on Oct 3 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

Just now I typed "historical Jesus" into Amazon. Here's the page. Famous names like John Dominic Crossan, Gary Habermas, and Albert Schweitzer head the list. I think all of those are Christians, though I don't know each person's position in the debate--whether for or against. Habermas is evangelical so he would definitely be for but, knowing what I do about some evangelical scholarship, I can't vouche for his quality of scholarship.

Habermas, if I understand correctly, is the creator of the "minimal facts" argument for a literal resurrection - honestly, one of the best, well-reasoned arguments for it, in my opinion. At the same time, it's largely based on "the majority of scholars" and quite a literal reading of the gospel accounts, so to me, his name doesn't exactly inspire trust in what he says. I have heard of J.D. Crossan, of course, and whenever I get the chance I intend to read some of his stuff. I think I've heard of the last name, Schweitzer, but I'm not entirely sure. At any rate, I'll certainly give it a looksee. Thanks!

R. S. Martin, on Oct 3 2008, 05:29 PM, said:

After thinking about this for about five years, in the context of everything else I learned in that course and since then, and my own changing life situation, I am thinking it makes a lot of sense to believe that the Jesus story came out of wherever the Mystery Religions came, i.e. the dark womb of mystery. No one knows. There is so much in the New Testament itself and in the Gnostic literature that would allow one to arrive at this conclusion. The similarities between the Jesus story in all its versions (Gnostic as well as orthodox/traditional Christianity) and other Mystery Religion stories are, in my opinion, too great to discount without serious consideration.

Yeah, certainly I wouldn't deny that. But at the same time, it doesn't really tell us whether there actually was a real person as the "anchor-point" behind the religion or not. But it's at least interesting to note that there likely was no central figure behind the Mithras, Osiris, Dionysus, and Attis cults either...so the possibility still remains.

[TheHammer]

orlando, on Oct 2 2008, 06:20 PM, said:

Well I seem to remember reading that Josephus refers to at least 20 people called Jesus in his histories - it was a common name at the time.

The two sentences in Josephus that briefly mentions a "Christ" (not "Jesus") has been commonly known to be a forgery for a very very long time, and no marvel, for the only surviving manuscripts were in possession of the Roman Catholic Church all this time, which is also more than infamous for its numerous forgeries throughout the middle-ages.

You are right that there were many "jesuses" around at the time though, as well as other self-proclaimed messiahs, like Appolonius for instance.

This post has been edited by TheHammer: 04 October 2008 - 09:05 AM

[R. S. Martin]

Jeff H, on Oct 3 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

Hmm, perhaps it's the same prof, I don't know. I'm the guy from your area, remember? Haha I think it'd be kinda funny if we were talking about the same person...but yeah, my spidey-senses told me that Christian scholars would hate someone who says anything close to what Harpur says.

Actually, I'd forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me. I looked up the course. You've got him!?!? I think he's okay as a person and a good teacher but I think I'd flip if you said he accepted Harpur. He can explain why women don't have to wear prayer veils. But he's Mennonite. I don't think any of the profs in that place would accept Harpur. Talk with some of the atheists and/or agnostics in the Religious Studies department. I'd even suggest maybe the United Church of Canada profs might be more ammenable. The lady who taught the course on Buddhism was really nice when I was there. But I'd skip right over the Mennonites and Catholics. We're not talking about the same prof, though.

[Jeff H]

R. S. Martin, on Oct 4 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

Actually, I'd forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me. I looked up the course. You've got him!?!? I think he's okay as a person and a good teacher but I think I'd flip if you said he accepted Harpur. He can explain why women don't have to wear prayer veils. But he's Mennonite. I don't think any of the profs in that place would accept Harpur. Talk with some of the atheists and/or agnostics in the Religious Studies department. I'd even suggest maybe the United Church of Canada profs might be more ammenable. The lady who taught the course on Buddhism was really nice when I was there. But I'd skip right over the Mennonites and Catholics. We're not talking about the same prof, though.

Haha yes, I've got him. He is a pretty good prof, but as I mentioned, he seems to be on the conservative side of the liberal spectrum. It's nice that I'm getting taught about Q and that the gospels were written after 70 AD, but I still understand that anyone talking about an issue like that is necessarily going to be biased. Still, I appreciate experience and knowledge when I see it.

But perhaps I will talk to a few of the atheist/agnostic RS profs. I'm just not entirely sure which ones are which - they don't really advertise it, after all lol. You wouldn't happen to know any off-hand, would you?

[R. S. Martin]

Jeff H, on Oct 4 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

But perhaps I will talk to a few of the atheist/agnostic RS profs. I'm just not entirely sure which ones are which - they don't really advertise it, after all lol. You wouldn't happen to know any off-hand, would you?

I'll send a pm. I'm not quite sure where we cross the boundary of violating privacy.