Was There A Historical Jesus?

[Robto]

I voted #2 - if you look at modern New Testament studies, you learn that there are at least four early, independent sources that can be identified: Paul, Mark, Q and the Gospel of Thomas. These present very different views of Jesus, yet they all make sense (well, a certain amount of sense) when viewed as different versions of the same person. However, I am only "somewhat sure" about this conclusion. I'm open to the possibility that Jesus was the result of pure myth-making, but I have yet to see a convincing presentation of how this might have occurred.

 

"Q" is actually hypothetical. The logic behind it makes sense and it is definitely possible, but no such document has ever been found and thus it is speculative.

 

Right - I see it as the best explanation that has come along so far. That doesn't rule out the possibility that a better explanation will come along later; then it would become necessary to re-evaluate all the conclusions based on Q (including the existence of Jesus).

 

I don't see the mythical Jesus as a best explanation of anything. Probably the most thorough version is Doherty's. But he needs to postulate a mythical Jesus who exists in a sub-lunar realm above the earth - a theology for which there is no evidence in the later writings (2nd-3rd century AD). (Doherty also accepts the Q document hypothesis.)

 

In contrast to the mythicist hypothesis, what you see when you study the layers of Christian tradition is a move from a less mythical, more realistic Jesus in the early layers, to a more mythical, god-like Jesus in the later layers. This seems to be the exact opposite of what you would expect if the original Jesus were purely mythical. Rather, it fits in with a view of a historical Jesus about whom the legends and myths gradually accrued. I summarize my view (based on reading a lot of NT scholarship) here.

[Vigile]

One of the problems that experts have pointed out with the TF is the fact that it interrupts the flow of the narrative, which is a list of calamities that befell the Jews. IOW, it's obviously a clumsy Xtian insertion.

 

I'd never considered this before, but yeah, I can see that.

[Guest]

I watched a show that discussed a pre-Jesus messiah figure, Simon. It seemed that at the time, every popular new rebel quickly gained messiah status, and there were quite possibly many messiahs. Jesus Christ was not a unique figure or idea.

 

I think Jesus was possibly an invented character, but he very well may have been just another rebellious guy, like Simon, who had a cult following that hyped him up as something supernatural. The superstitious people of that time were constantly looking for a hero. Anyone who was anti-establishment could have fit the bill.

[mwc]

One of the problems that experts have pointed out with the TF is the fact that it interrupts the flow of the narrative, which is a list of calamities that befell the Jews. IOW, it's obviously a clumsy Xtian insertion.

True. In the copies we have now. But the TF had a tendency to move about. Just as its wording changed a bit so did its position (based on those who referenced it).

 

mwc

[mwc]

I believe that one of the reasons why this isn't necessarily evidence for Jesus is that it seems strange for Josephus to reference to Jesus, here without introducing him properly. He hasn't even mentioned him anywhere else in his works (except of course the flavium, which is justifiably disputed). This becomes even more relevant when we consider that James the Just may have been the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, who was made high priest at the end of the passage. What if Christians such as Origen simply assumed that James the Just was the brother of Jesus talked about in the gospels, and then at some point quite innocently "who was called Christ" got introduced into the text?

Josephus uses the word "christ" 3 times in Antiquities (I don't think it's used at all in Wars...I'd need to check). Two times are in these questionable sections and the 1 other time relates to a plastered roof. At no time, other than the "jesus" portions, is the word used to mean a "messiah" or anything of that nature.

 

I would doubt that Origen forged any of this.

 

And apparently said a lot of nice things about Ananus, the villian of the previous text cited by Origen (It would be useful if somebody who is actually familiar with Jewish Wars could confirm or deny this.)

The death of Ananus (son of Ananus) and Jesus happen long after the start of the war. Around the time Vespasian enters the temple courtyard I think so a couple of years in at least (I'm going from memory here). Since the death of James was prior to the start of the war we shouldn't expect to see it in Wars.

 

mwc

[dagnarus]

The death of Ananus (son of Ananus) and Jesus happen long after the start of the war. Around the time Vespasian enters the temple courtyard I think so a couple of years in at least (I'm going from memory here). Since the death of James was prior to the start of the war we shouldn't expect to see it in Wars.

 

mwc

 

I was wondering more about whether or not Josephus gave a generally positive view of Ananus (son of Ananus) in Jewish Wars as opposed to the negative view demonstrated in the antiquities passage.

[mwc]

I was wondering more about whether or not Josephus gave a generally positive view of Ananus (son of Ananus) in Jewish Wars as opposed to the negative view demonstrated in the antiquities passage.

Yes.

 

I will qualify this by saying this could be because Ananus could have, over the course of the war, stepped up and acted "better" than he did prior to the war. Relatively speaking, he could have actually been a fairly horrible person, but compared to those who were also in Jerusalem at the time (the other factions that had taken up residence) he may have come off smelling like a rose.

 

Kind of how Bill O'Reilly seemed wacky but then Glenn Beck came along and now old Bill seems pretty reasonable by way of comparison.

 

mwc

[ContraBardus]

 

Kind of how Bill O'Reilly seemed wacky but then Glenn Beck came along and now old Bill seems pretty reasonable by way of comparison.

 

mwc

 

I consider them both to be equally stupid.

 

For some reason, any topic like this ends up turning into a discussion about Josephus.

 

I'm not making a complaint, just an observation there. Still, aren't there other suspected 'proofs' that Eusebius forged?

 

I always end up pointing out that not only is Josephus a known forgery, partially or not, but also that he's not a contemporary and eye witness account anyway.

 

He's still a second hand well after the fact account of the whole mess. Leaving him in the position of not being proof of anything more than the existence of someone who said that Jesus was a real person and that at least one other person believed it.

 

There's not enough to give any real credible probability to his existence.

 

A lot of people think he existed, but none of them said anything or seemed to think he was real until well after his death.

 

No other historical figure would stand on such flimsy foundations.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I always end up pointing out that not only is Josephus a known forgery, partially or not, but also that he's not a contemporary and eye witness account anyway.

 

He's still a second hand well after the fact account of the whole mess. Leaving him in the position of not being proof of anything more than the existence of someone who said that Jesus was a real person and that at least one other person believed it.

 

I agree. The thing with Josephus, though, is that his writings were at least from the same century that Jesus supposedly lived in. With the realization that christians clearly tampered with Josephus' text, the only first century AD nonchristian source making reference to Jesus flies out the window.

 

A funny thing about my first exposure to Josephus: When I bought his Antiquities because it supposedly gave credibility to Jesus as a historical figure, I was surprised to see how "glowing" his comments were about Jesus in the Testimonium. I thought to myself, how could he write something like this and still reject christianity? I was young at the time and wasn't familiar with how christians were prone to tampering with texts, so I took it at face value that Josephus had written that text, but boy did it have me perplexed. Now, of course, it makes perfect sense that it was an interpolation.

 

There's not enough to give any real credible probability to his existence.

 

A lot of people think he existed, but none of them said anything or seemed to think he was real until well after his death.

 

No other historical figure would stand on such flimsy foundations.

 

I agree that evidence for Jesus' existence is severely lacking, so much so that I don't think there's any real stretch to the position that he didn't exist. That doesn't prove that he didn't exist, though, so I'm on the fence, but I definitely have my doubts.

[mwc]

For some reason, any topic like this ends up turning into a discussion about Josephus.

 

I'm not making a complaint, just an observation there. Still, aren't there other suspected 'proofs' that Eusebius forged?

 

I always end up pointing out that not only is Josephus a known forgery, partially or not, but also that he's not a contemporary and eye witness account anyway.

Yep. I get tired of the TF discussion. It's also strange how when the TF is introduced that Philo, who was a contemporary, and who wrote of the trouble with Pilate is silent. But, of course, this is an argument from silence and not admissible. I've also seen people try to say that the two reports don't speak of the same event but that Pilate tried on more than one occasion and so there are single reports of different events. And so it goes. It's tiresome as I said.

 

No other historical figure would stand on such flimsy foundations.

Which is why he floats away at the end of the story.

 

mwc

[chefranden]

I know of at least one historical Jesus. He's married to my niece. I was at the wedding. He didn't change the water into wine. There was no wine or other evil spirits. He's got three kids.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

No other historical figure would stand on such flimsy foundations.

Isn't there about as much evidence for the existence of Socrates?

[Guest I Love Dog]

I know one thing for sure about this whole "Jesus" business. Even if, somehow, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was a Yeshua ben Yosef in ancient Judea, he taught stuff in the streets, got in trouble with the local Jews, then the Romans, and was crucified, I would still say "Huh...ok...and?"

Just because someone is real doesn't mean they're special, or validate their religion. Mohammad is a real, recorded historical person. He existed. Do I believe in Islam? HELL no! L. Ron Hubbard existed. Is Scientology true? I'm not rich enough to "know", but I still say fuck no! Basically, even if there is a "Historical Jesus", it wouldn't compel me to jump back on the Jesus wagon.

 

Ron L Hubbard may exist and his totally unbelievable wealth may exist, but is he an honorable, complete human being who lives for the benefit of humankind? Of course not. Ron L Hubbard, like Joyce Meyer or Benny Hinn or the Pope are part of the blinkered seduction of humankind.

 

They are all full of bullcrap.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

 

 

No other historical figure would stand on such flimsy foundations.

Isn't there about as much evidence for the existence of Socrates?

 

I was just thinking about Socrates as well . Like Jesus he never wrote anything down himself and so can be seen as a character rather than a real person. I can go either way, but of course with Socrates it doesn't really matter if he existed or not and it matters quite a bit to people if Jesus did.

[mwc]

Ron L Hubbard may exist and his totally unbelievable wealth may exist, but is he an honorable, complete human being who lives for the benefit of humankind? Of course not. Ron L Hubbard, like Joyce Meyer or Benny Hinn or the Pope are part of the blinkered seduction of humankind.

 

They are all full of bullcrap.

I don't know about Ron L. Hubbard but L. Ron Hubbard is dead. He is an ex-parrot.

 

mwc

[dagnarus]

 

 

No other historical figure would stand on such flimsy foundations.

Isn't there about as much evidence for the existence of Socrates?

 

Isn't Socrates's existence debated? Also looking at the wikipedia page on Socrates, at least we have at least 4 different people who wrote about him independently, and whom we actually know who these different people were.

[Guest I Love Dog]

Ron L Hubbard may exist and his totally unbelievable wealth may exist, but is he an honorable, complete human being who lives for the benefit of humankind? Of course not. Ron L Hubbard, like Joyce Meyer or Benny Hinn or the Pope are part of the blinkered seduction of humankind.

 

They are all full of bullcrap.

I don't know about Ron L. Hubbard but L. Ron Hubbard is dead. He is an ex-parrot.

 

mwc

 

Well, and I didn't even notice his passing. Are his feet nailed to the perch? Perhaps Jesus is dead too? Is the Pope(any one of them) still living?

[ShackledNoMore]

 

 

No other historical figure would stand on such flimsy foundations.

Isn't there about as much evidence for the existence of Socrates?

 

I was just thinking about Socrates as well . Like Jesus he never wrote anything down himself and so can be seen as a character rather than a real person. I can go either way, but of course with Socrates it doesn't really matter if he existed or not and it matters quite a bit to people if Jesus did.

I am not a historian, but I cannot think of Socrates without thinking of Plato (and Aristotle). Plato wrote prolifically about Socrates (a couple of other contemporaries wrote about him as well). Like the height of the Roman Empire, Classical Greece was as well documented a time and place as any we can find in the ancient world. How likely is it that Plato existed? The existence of Socrates AND Plato AND Aristotle AND a number of other Greek figures that were involved appear to be well supported by contemporary writings, and solid, consistent historical evidence beginning immediately at the time Socrates lived. This is all the sort of evidence we are seeking, yet lack when we discuss the proposition of a historical Jesus.

 

So now I just googled the topic. Here is one analysis I found that someone had to offer which looks well thought out: Evidence: Jesus vs. Socrates

[ContraBardus]

The issue with Socrates is that it's not really important that he existed or not.

 

He's a lot like Confusius that way. It's their respective philosophy that's important, not that either man actually really existed as a real person. Either one could likely be a compilation of the writings of several people collected under a single name.

 

The issue here is that neither one makes any particularly extraordinary claims. The only claims made about them are just that they were 'wise dudes that said smart stuff and knew interesting people'. That's it.

 

Both are considered wise, but neither is the basis of a religion. Neither one is the basis of the lives of millions of people. It does not matter if they really existed. Either way, it does nothing to the value of their work.

 

Jesus is not the same thing. He -has- to have existed. He -has- to have been divine. Ne literally needs the extraordinary claims about him to be literally true, they have to be validated, or his 'work' is devalued considerably. He's a religious figure, and almost a third of the world's basis for their worldview and system of 'morality' on the basis of his existence.

 

It is important that he really existed. It's a requirement, otherwise everything about everyone that worships him is literally pointless.

 

If Socrates and Confusius didn't exist, their respective philosophy still exists, it's still just as valid. This is not the case with JC.

 

If JC didn't exist, he's not the Son of God, he's not the truth, or the light, and everyone who is spending their time devoting their entire lives to him is completely wasting their time.

 

If JC wasn't real billions have disregarded good advice because of him and his words. They've disregarded other wisdom, ignored good advice, and been led astray for nothing.

 

It's not that Jesus didn't say wise things. It's that people believe he was the wisest fucker ever, and that -all others should be ignored in favor of his word-. If there is a contradiction, no matter how wise the other person might be, JC wins by default. He's the son of God after all.

 

That's how it becomes a problem.

 

If he doesn't exist, then the suffering of billions throughout history was utterly pointless. It was a waste of life, and murder for the sake of fantasy, delusion, and insanity. It makes Jesus a psychosis rather than a savior or anything resembling a decent philosophy.

 

I seriously doubt very many people were tortured, murdered, raped, burned, or otherwise harmed for the sake of not following Confucius or Socrates philosophy, or for claiming that either one might not have been a real person.

 

The very core of Christianity, it's basis, and it's doctrines -require- that Jesus was real. It -requires- that at least some, most in fact, of the extraordinary supernatural claims be true. JC is not a philosopher, he's a demigod. Comparing claims his existence to claims of existence about Socrates or Confucius, or any other 'mortal' philosopher is apples to oranges.

 

Philosophers claim their words are good advice. Demigods claim their words are commands from higher beings. There's a very large difference here.

 

Socrates might not have a similar amount of evidence for his existence as JC, but it's still far more likely he was real. There are no extraordinary claims made about him, nothing abnormal or unusual about his existence. His claims are not extraordinary, and as such, do not require extraordinary evidence.

 

The same cannot be said for Jesus.

[Shyone]

The issue with Socrates is that it's not really important that he existed or not.

 

He's a lot like Confusius that way. It's their respective philosophy that's important, not that either man actually really existed as a real person. Either one could likely be a compilation of the writings of several people collected under a single name.

This reminds me of a joking retort to those who claim that the Odessey was not written by Homer:

 

"The Odessey was surely written by Homer, or someone else by the same name."

 

The humor, of course, is that "Homer" is unknown, and so anyone else named "Homer" would also be unknown. Who the heck was Homer? The writer of the Odessey.

 

And around and around it goes.

 

The point being that it is unimportant who wrote it. We don't value it because of Homer, but because of the literature itself.

[mwc]

Socrates existed because Bill and Ted went back and time and had a most excellent adventure with him.

 

mwc

[ContraBardus]

Dude! You're totally right!

 

 

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Jesus is not the same thing. He -has- to have existed. He -has- to have been divine. Ne literally needs the extraordinary claims about him to be literally true, they have to be validated, or his 'work' is devalued considerably. He's a religious figure, and almost a third of the world's basis for their worldview and system of 'morality' on the basis of his existence.

I've been posting at a forum for progressive Christianity and I asked the progressive Christians there if they would still be Christians if it was proven Jesus never existed and was purely a mythological figure. The majority of the members said they would because Jesus was "real" to them the same way Krishna was "real" to the Hindus. So, even if the existence of Jesus could be disproved, I doubt it's going to make any major difference to the survival of Christianity. Bibilical literalists will just ignore the evidence like with everything else and progressive Christians will just make the bible a metaphor.

 

 

 

Philosophers claim their words are good advice. Demigods claim their words are commands from higher beings. There's a very large difference here.

 

Socrates might not have a similar amount of evidence for his existence as JC, but it's still far more likely he was real. There are no extraordinary claims made about him, nothing abnormal or unusual about his existence. His claims are not extraordinary, and as such, do not require extraordinary evidence.

 

 

But what sort of impact disproving the existence of Jesus is versus the impact of disproving the existence of Socrates does not somehow disprove the existence of Jesus. You said yourself earlier in the thread that no other historical figure would stand on such flimsy evidence. If you accept Socrates has the same amount of flimsy evidence as Jesus, then it doesn't matter what sort of impact disproving Socrates's existence is, it's still an instance of a historical figure who has the same amount of flimsy evidence but is in fact standing on that amount of flimsy evidence and it sounds like you're holding Socrates to a double standard than you do Jesus because Socrates didn't have a religion.

[Shyone]

If you accept Socrates has the same amount of flimsy evidence as Jesus, then it doesn't matter what sort of impact disproving Socrates's existence is, it's still an instance of a historical figure who has the same amount of flimsy evidence but is in fact standing on that amount of flimsy evidence and it sounds like you're holding Socrates to a double standard than you do Jesus because Socrates didn't have a religion.

Socrates taught.

 

Who really cares if Socrates existed? If he was a fantasy of Plato, would the writings be any different? It isn't that he "didn't have a religion" but rather that he didn't make any claims that are impossible.

 

Can you name one thing that Socrates is supposed to have done that any other human being could not conceivably have done? Jesus supposedly walked through walls, walked on water, turned water into wine, came back from the dead, and he was a god.

 

If almost everything a man is supposed to have done is a lie, then it is more likely that his entire existence is a lie. After rejecting the impossible, is there still anything left?

 

It isn't a question of a double standard. It is telling the difference between mythology and history.

[Neon Genesis]

Did proving that the Earth literally didn't revolve around the sun make an impact on Christianity as a whole? There's still fundamentalists who believe in the literal reading of the bible and there's still progressive Christians who incorporate the facts into their beliefs and there's even still an actual Flat Earth Society. But again, whatever impact disproving the existence of Jesus would have on Christianity has nothing to do with whether or not he's real or if he has as much evidence of existing as Socrates. Socrates also had his own cult of followers in his own day too, by the way.