Was There A Historical Jesus?

[★ Citsonga ★]

Did proving that the Earth literally didn't revolve around the sun make an impact on Christianity as a whole?

 

Holdonasecond. It was proven that the earth didn't revolve around the sun? In other words, the bible is right and the past several centuries of scientific thought have been wrong?

 

 

 

 

Haha, gotta love them typos....

[Neon Genesis]

Thanks for the typo correction. ^^;;

[dagnarus]

 

 

No other historical figure would stand on such flimsy foundations.

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

 

So what's your point? We shouldn't believe in the existence of Socrates? Because you know what, I can't say that I really believe in his existence anyway, actually I don't really care. Irregardless what can I say about the evidence for Jesus? The Church, an organization founded based upon the evidence that Jesus existed and was the son of god, has presented as much evidence as it possibly could to prove that Jesus existed, I have looked at it, I have found it wanting. What about the evidence for Socrates? Well, all I really know about for the evidence of the non-existence of Socrates is that some people say that there is just as much evidence for him as Jesus, beyond that, I really can't be bothered investigating, why? because I don't care whether Socrates existed or not. So if it is true that there is just as much evidence for Socrates existence as Jesus's existence, well, ok, there probably was no Socrates, what do I care? Of course technically it's more complicated than that, because arguably there is more evidence for Jesus's non-existence, Socrates is represented as being a philosopher, Jesus is represented as being a magical, dieing rising saviour god. One is much more likely to exist than the other. Second of all there is more reason for Socrates to not show up in historical records from his time, than for Jesus to not show up in historical records from his time. Apparently we don't have any historical writings documenting the period of Socrates, not so of Jesus. Furthermore that I am aware there is no evidence of people from the ancient world scouring for evidence of Socrates's existence and when they found nothing, resorting to forging their own evidence. So on that count Socrates is more likely than Jesus.

[Neon Genesis]

The point is it was stated earlier in the thread that no other historical figure's existence would stand on as flimsy evidence yet Socrates may have as much flimsy evidence of existing of Jesus. Your argument that it doesn't matter because Socrates' existence doesn't help you disprove religion sounds like your argument against the existence of Jesus is being motivated by an anti-religious bias, as if religion can't be argued against in other ways other than to disprove the existence of Jesus.

[Shyone]

The point is it was stated earlier in the thread that no other historical figure's existence would stand on as flimsy evidence yet Socrates may have as much flimsy evidence of existing of Jesus. Your argument that it doesn't matter because Socrates' existence doesn't help you disprove religion sounds like your argument against the existence of Jesus is being motivated by an anti-religious bias, as if religion can't be argued against in other ways other than to disprove the existence of Jesus.

Do you really want the evidence for Socrates' existence?

 

Here's five:

1. Plato was a student of his and wrote extensively of his conversations.

2. Xenophon was another student writing in the same vein

3. A playwright, Aristophanes also wrote a comedy about Socrates, and he was no fan.

4. Two other historical figures were pupils of Socrates at the time, Alcibiades and Critias

5. A Poet, Eupolis, also not a fan or pupil of Socrates, wrote some damning things about him.

 

Here's a gem regarding an account of the trial of Socrates:

 

Important support for Stone's conclusion comes from the earliest surviving reference to the trial of Socrates that does not come from one of his disciples. In 345 B.C.E., the famous orator Aechines told a jury: "Men of Athens, you executed Socrates, the sophist, because he was clearly responsible for the education of Critias, one of the thirty anti-democratic leaders."

 

There is more. Does it matter?

[dagnarus]

The point is it was stated earlier in the thread that no other historical figure's existence would stand on as flimsy evidence yet Socrates may have as much flimsy evidence of existing of Jesus. Your argument that it doesn't matter because Socrates' existence doesn't help you disprove religion sounds like your argument against the existence of Jesus is being motivated by an anti-religious bias, as if religion can't be argued against in other ways other than to disprove the existence of Jesus.

 

If you were referring to me then I will give my points as follows.

 

1. I don't actually know that there is just as much evidence for Jesus as for Socrates, just that those who are in favour of a historical Jesus say this, there are those who say the same thing about Caesar crossing the rubicon. I can't be bothered to look deeply into the Socrates existence question because, well, I don't care. EDIT: evidence which shyone may very well be able to provide.

2. If it were actually true that there were just as much evidence for Socrates existence as for Jesus, that wouldn't be evidence for Jesus's existence. It would be evidence for Socrates's non-existence. A conclusion which I have absolutely no problem with.

3. Whether or not Socrates existed or not I don't believe that their is more evidence for the non-existence of Jesus than their is for the non-existence of Socrates.

 

In short I think this whole argument is sophistry.

[ShackledNoMore]

The point is it was stated earlier in the thread that no other historical figure's existence would stand on as flimsy evidence

That is exactly the point.

yet Socrates may have as much flimsy evidence of existing of Jesus.

...and it simply is not refuted by this particular example.

 

I realize this does not address the broader question of whether any other figure can be found which is accepted as historical with evidence as flimsy as that for jesus (we might want to exclude certain other figures, such as mohammad, from our analysis, who need to be historical to support some form of widespread mythology). If such an example were found, it would not make or break an argument for or against a historical jesus. NEVERTHELESS, it is still a good point. Serious, academic historians are supposed to be experts, whose job it is to not arrive at conclusions based on flimsy evidence. They exist in a world of academia where their work is reviewed by other experts who are very bright and have dedicated years of their life to study historical evidence. We should be past the days (in science, medicine, AND history) where an "expert" decided that we need to let blood from patients to balance their humors and the community accepts it, untested, as cutting edge knowledge (no pun intended here).

 

Shyone's assertions cannot be dismissed as his own unsupported claims. Even non-historians, like me, and most people reading this thread can easily corroborate them with a little research. Shyone's assertions are not only consistent with my limited pre-existing knowledge about Socrates, they are also consistent with what I've learned over the past couple of days.

 

We can raise doubt over the existence of any historical figure, but how much doubt do we need to accept it as reasonable? There is significant evidence of the existence of Socrates.

[oddbird1963]

I am late chiming in here.

 

But there are very few historical figures I would be heartbroken to find out actually didn't exist.

 

History is essentially a narrative that we create to give coherence and order to our world. History explains how things were in the past and how events of the past lead us to where we are today.

 

If that narrative changes for us (as it often does) my life is not rocked and turned upside down. There would be no existential crisis if we discovered some evidence that Socrates never existed, Homer never existed or Shakespeare never existed.

 

So, when people say, "If you can't accept that Jesus never existed then you must reject the evidence for just about any other historical figure too!" I am unimpressed.

 

I don't CARE if a historical figure never existed. I just want to know what the actual history, according to the best evidence is.

 

The question of the historical Jesus takes on a new dimension when it is used to try to pressure us into a religious faith decision.

 

Of course, by then, we are being told to accept miracle stories, walking on water, demon possession, resurrection, etc. We are told to accept the extraordinary based on flimsy and inadequate evidence.

 

There is never going to be sufficient evidence to believe in a historical "Jesus Christ." Maybe the evidence will point to some guy named Jesus who wandered around Palestine in the early 1st Century C.E. But there will never be evidence enought for a person like the one in the Gospels of the New Testament.

[qadeshet]

We can raise doubt over the existence of any historical figure, but how much doubt do we need to accept it as reasonable? There is significant evidence of the existence of Socrates.

 

If someone had created a new Religion around Socrates-called him a god-and claimed he ascended to Heaven, I would ask for more evidence. As it stands, I see no reason for Plate to fabricate a mentor named Socrates. Plato's writings can stand on their own, with or without a historical Socrates.

[Shyone]

We can raise doubt over the existence of any historical figure, but how much doubt do we need to accept it as reasonable? There is significant evidence of the existence of Socrates.

 

If someone had created a new Religion around Socrates-called him a god-and claimed he ascended to Heaven, I would ask for more evidence. As it stands, I see no reason for Plate to fabricate a mentor named Socrates. Plato's writings can stand on their own, with or without a historical Socrates.

Ah, but was Plato real?

 

Just kidding.

[mwc]

Okay, I got a little bored and tossed this together:

 

Poll Source

LONDON (AFP) — Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.

...

Meanwhile, 58 percent thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective Holmes actually existed;

 

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who first appeared in publication in 1887. He was the creation of Scottish author and physician Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. A brilliant London-based "consulting detective", Holmes is famous for his intellectual prowess and is renowned for his skillful use of astute observation, deductive reasoning and forensic skills to solve difficult cases.

...

Conan Doyle said that the character of Holmes was inspired by Dr. Joseph Bell, for whom Doyle had worked as a clerk at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. Like Holmes, Bell was noted for drawing large conclusions from the smallest observations.

 

Joseph Bell

Joseph Bell, JP, DL, FRCS (2 December 1837 – 4 October 1911) was a Scottish lecturer at the medical school of the University of Edinburgh in the 19th century. He was a great-grandson of Benjamin Bell, a forensic surgeon. In his instruction, Bell emphasized the importance of close observation in making a diagnosis. To illustrate this, he would often pick a stranger and, by observing him, deduce his occupation and recent activities. These skills caused him to be considered a pioneer in forensic science (forensic pathology in particular) when science was not often used in the investigations of crimes.

 

Arthur Conan Doyle met Bell in 1877, and served as his clerk at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. Doyle later went on to author a series of popular stories featuring the character Sherlock Holmes, who Doyle stated was loosely based on Bell and his observant ways. Bell was aware of this inspiration and took some pride in it.

 

At Holmes with Doyle (Echoed on the official Sherlock Holmes site)

Here is how Conan Doyle himself wrote about this period in his life, in his autobiography, Memories and Adventures:

I felt now that I was capable of something fresher and crisper and more workmanlike [than many of the detective stories that had been written up to that time]. Gaboriau had rather attracted me by the neat dovetailing of his plots, and Poe’s masterful detective, M. Dupin, had from boyhood been one of my heroes. But could I bring an addition of my won? I thought of my old teacher Joe Bell, of his eagle face, of his curious ways of his eerie trick of spotting details. If he were a detective he would surely reduce this fascinating business to something nearer an exact science. I would try it if I could get this effect. It was surely possible in real life, so why should I not make it plausible in fiction? It is all very well to say that a man is clever, but the reader wants to see examples of it - such examples as Bell gave us every day in the wards.

 

Again, in a letter to Dr. Bell dated May 4 1892, Conan Doyle wrote:

It is most certainly to you that I owe Sherlock Holmes, and though in the stories I have the advantage of being able to place [the detective] in all sorts of dramatic positions, I do not think that his analytical work is in the least an exaggeration of some effects which I have seen you produce in the out-patient ward. Round the centre of deduction and inference and observation which I heard you inculate I have tried to build up a man who pushed the things as far as it would go - further occasionally - and I am so glad that the result has satisfied you, who are the critic with the most right to be severe.

 

Bell wrote to Doyle saying:

“You are yourself Sherlock Holmes and well you know it.”

 

In the 121 years since the first publication of a Sherlock Holmes story and the poll cited above roughly 58% of those involved in the poll have come to believe that Sherlock Holmes was a living breathing human.

 

Lacking the information provided by the author himself would anyone readily connect the character of Sherlock Holmes to the real life Joseph Bell? Would their common traits be enough to make such a connection? Or would this be more easily explained as both Doyle and Bell knowing the "real life" Holmes and taking his admirable traits for themselves?

 

Finally, even with the attribution given, for any number of reasons, the real life Bell, certainly flattered, reveals the reality of the situation and that Holmes is the embodiment of the author himself. Doyle and Bell were real and if it were possible to go back and meet them it is unlikely that either would be (mis)taken for Sherlock Holmes.

 

Sherlock Holmes, even if inspired by the real person of Bell, is nothing but a pure fiction. Yet 58% of those that took this poll believed he was alive and solving crimes only 121 years ago.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

Author and professor of religion, James McGrath responds to the arguments of Jesus mythicism and defends the historicity of Jesus:

Here's an article from him on Jesus mythicism http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2010/02/mythicism-microexistence-vs.html

Although I know some have found the comparison between Jesus mythicism and historicism offensive, it seems like the more time I spend thinking about this topic, the more similarities become apparent.

 

It seems to me that the claim of at least some mythicists that mainstream historians fail to address the existence of Jesus directly, much less prove it more probable than the mythicist scenario, is akin to the creationist objection that scientists have proven "microevolution" but not "macroevolution." They object, in essence, not to this or that piece of data, but to the connections drawn between them.

 

In the same way, mainstream historians seem to always come away from an examination of the early documents about Jesus persuaded that he did in fact do or have done to him, say or say something not entirely unlike, at least a few of the things claimed in those sources.

 

Once again I wish to make the point I made in another recent post. Non-existent individuals do not say things or do things. If even one saying of Jesus, or action by him, or something done to him such as the crucifixion, is clearly more likely to represent authentic historical information rather than something invented, then we have to posit a historical Jesus. It may or may not be that most of what was later claimed about him was invented. That isn't the issue - I don't know a mainstream historian or New Testament scholar who thinks Jesus said and did everything that the New Testament documents claim. The issue regarding mythicism is whether there was a Jesus at all, out of whom the later legends grew.

[dagnarus]

Author and professor of religion, James McGrath responds to the arguments of Jesus mythicism and defends the historicity of Jesus:

Here's an article from him on Jesus mythicism http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2010/02/mythicism-microexistence-vs.html

Although I know some have found the comparison between Jesus mythicism and historicism offensive, it seems like the more time I spend thinking about this topic, the more similarities become apparent.

 

It seems to me that the claim of at least some mythicists that mainstream historians fail to address the existence of Jesus directly, much less prove it more probable than the mythicist scenario, is akin to the creationist objection that scientists have proven "microevolution" but not "macroevolution." They object, in essence, not to this or that piece of data, but to the connections drawn between them.

 

In the same way, mainstream historians seem to always come away from an examination of the early documents about Jesus persuaded that he did in fact do or have done to him, say or say something not entirely unlike, at least a few of the things claimed in those sources.

 

Once again I wish to make the point I made in another recent post. Non-existent individuals do not say things or do things. If even one saying of Jesus, or action by him, or something done to him such as the crucifixion, is clearly more likely to represent authentic historical information rather than something invented, then we have to posit a historical Jesus. It may or may not be that most of what was later claimed about him was invented. That isn't the issue - I don't know a mainstream historian or New Testament scholar who thinks Jesus said and did everything that the New Testament documents claim. The issue regarding mythicism is whether there was a Jesus at all, out of whom the later legends grew.

 

Good post.

 

I hadn't considered that the earliest Christians, may very well have considered Jesus as being merely a prophet of God. Although that said, the Jews only consider moses to be a prophet of God, and I wouldn't consider him to necessarily be historical, that said there would likely be a great deal less time between writing the legends of Jesus and his activities than the legends of Moses and his.

 

Also I remember hearing on one of the reasonable doubts podcasts that apparently they found in the dead sea scrolls, a manuscript written by the leader of the Essenes stating that he believed that he was the Messiah and yet, also believed that he must suffer, and I think be killed.

 

Anyway, excellent post, with a lot of food for thought.

[Ouroboros]

No other historical figure would stand on such flimsy foundations.

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

I believe there is less evidence for Socrates. We have only Plato's words to go on. And there are other characters in history with just as little.

 

But the good thing, in all these cases, even Socrates, there are those who believe he was real, and those who do not, and most just give it a probability and leave it at that.

 

But the difference of opinion is accepted by all sides. No one is fighting or arguing that the other side must believe this-or-that. There are no Socrates-apologists trying to convert the Asocratists to their religion.

[Ouroboros]

There is significant evidence of the existence of Socrates.

Like what?

 

They even have dubbed the problem of Socrate's historical evidence as "The Socratic Problem."

 

Even the famous philosopher Karl Popper worked on this issue.

 

Sure, many historians believe Socrates existed, but the evidence is really lacking. There are no straight historical documents of him. There are no contemporary records. The only we have to go on are philosophical writings by someone else.

 

Imagine if there were only one Gospel in the Bible. Only John for instance. One author, putting words in the mouth of Jesus, we'd be even more convinced that Jesus was a fictional character and made up. But that's how much we have on Socrates. Pretty much one source only.

 

Stanford (famous for its philosophical department) has this to say about Socrates:

All our information about him is second-hand and most of it vigorously disputed, but his trial and death at the hands of the Athenian democracy is nevertheless the founding myth of the academic discipline of philosophy, and his influence has been felt far beyond philosophy itself, and in every age. Because his life is widely considered paradigmatic for the philosophic life and, more generally, for how anyone ought to live, Socrates has been encumbered with the admiration and emulation normally reserved for founders of religious sects—Jesus or Buddha—strange for someone who tried so hard to make others do their own thinking, and for someone convicted and executed on the charge of irreverence toward the gods.

[Neon Genesis]

 

I believe there is less evidence for Socrates. We have only Plato's words to go on. And there are other characters in history with just as little.

 

 

I've also heard some historians think there may have been a historical King Arthur even though most people think he was a fictional character.

[qadeshet]

 

I believe there is less evidence for Socrates. We have only Plato's words to go on. And there are other characters in history with just as little.

 

 

I've also heard some historians think there may have been a historical King Arthur even though most people think he was a fictional character.

 

No one really cares whether or not Socrates or Arthur really existed. No Religion claims them as a supernatural founder. I'm perfectly willing to accept that neither Socrates nor Jesus ever existed.

[Neon Genesis]

So history doesn't matter if it's not anti-religious history?

[Ouroboros]

 

I believe there is less evidence for Socrates. We have only Plato's words to go on. And there are other characters in history with just as little.

 

 

I've also heard some historians think there may have been a historical King Arthur even though most people think he was a fictional character.

Yes, there are some theories that the legends of Arthur is older than earlier believed, and that it even began with some real person.

[mwc]

[snip]

From same:

If there is one error, then the Bible is not inerrant. If there is one piece of historical data about a real Jesus, then mythicism is wrong.

Too bad this does not exist.

 

mwc

[ShackledNoMore]

There is significant evidence of the existence of Socrates.

Like what?

 

They even have dubbed the problem of Socrate's historical evidence as "The Socratic Problem."

At the time I wrote that I was thinking of Plato's accounts, which are first hand and substantial, Aristophanes, who was a contemporary how would have written Socrates into his plays while Socrates was still alive, and Xenophon who also would have been alive when Socrates lived (and died) and also wrote about Socrates. I had also read a bit about how Aristotle (or perhaps his student, in their records of Aristotle's conversations?) had referenced Socrates in a straightforward manner. I've seen a couple of independent references where Aeschines references the death of Socrates. For that matter, Polycrates, wrote an account (the Prosecution of Socrates) to which written replies exist from a couple of sources. There is a consensus about information like this from some pretty credible sources. Shyone's point 4 and point 5 (which I had not found beforehand) are easily corroborated from some pretty credible sources. There is a great deal consensus among experts that Socrates is a historical figure. While expert opinion may change as we collectively learn, experts are usually experts for a reason. I realize the irony of my bringing up this point since I have questioned the historicity of Jesus and most experts also believe that Jesus is a historical figure. However, we're talking about Socrates here (and pointing out expert consensus on Jesus' historical existence to refute my mythical-Jesus hypothesis, while a pretty good argument, is also another discussion for elsewhere in the thread). I feel somewhat more justified to cite expert consensus on the historical existence of Socrates than of Jesus because virtually every Western historian has been indoctrinated from birth with christian (or muslim) religious beliefs, and not defending the conclusion that Jesus existed would tend to pose a great threat to our core cultural beliefs, and probably, in most cases, to those individuals' core personal beliefs. No such situation exists when discussing the historicity of Socrates.

 

Mind you, I would gladly question the historicity of Socrates, but if I were to do so, a reasonable argument as to why I should question all of the above, and more, as well some plausible suggestions at to why they might not be credible would be a good starting point. Although I am comfortable with a reasonable certainty that Socrates existed, I am obviously not as certain that he existed as I am that, say, Hitler existed.

 

I just took the weenie's self introduction to the Socratic Problem (i.e., the Wikipedia page). It says: "There is a general consensus that Socrates, who was the main character in most of Plato's dialogues, was a genuine historical figure...The Socratic problem refers to the difficulty or inability of determining what in Plato's writings is an accurate portrayal of Socrates' thought and what is the thought of Plato with Socrates as a literary device." Assuming that's accurate (Wikipedia can be wrong, but the vast majority of the time it is correct with stuff like this), then I'd say that the Socratic Problem, while legitimate in its own domain, just doesn't deal with casting doubt upon Socrates' historical existence.

[Neon Genesis]

 

Too bad this does not exist.

 

mwc

But as Mcgrath points out in the video, why would the early followers of Jesus purposely make up a story about a Jewish messiah who does not remotely even come close to fitting the Jewish prophecies? If Jesus was made up entirely from scratch, wouldn't they have made him fit the prophecies more easily? It seems more likely to me they're trying to make a real figure who clearly does not fit the Jewish prophecies fit into the prophecies or else it would fit more neatly.

[dagnarus]

 

Too bad this does not exist.

 

mwc

But as Mcgrath points out in the video, why would the early followers of Jesus purposely make up a story about a Jewish messiah who does not remotely even come close to fitting the Jewish prophecies? If Jesus was made up entirely from scratch, wouldn't they have made him fit the prophecies more easily? It seems more likely to me they're trying to make a real figure who clearly does not fit the Jewish prophecies fit into the prophecies or else it would fit more neatly.

 

How would they be able to invent a messiah who actually fit the prophecies? It would still be pretty obvious that the Romans were still in control of the holy land. Also there is evidence that at least the Essenes believed in a suffering messiah. Also forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't the mythicist think that Jesus would have existed first existed as a figure in a Greek style mystery religion, who was then mistaken by certain people who heard the story to, have actually existed. I'm not certain what kind of evidence they have to back that up however.

[qadeshet]

 

Too bad this does not exist.

 

mwc

But as Mcgrath points out in the video, why would the early followers of Jesus purposely make up a story about a Jewish messiah who does not remotely even come close to fitting the Jewish prophecies? If Jesus was made up entirely from scratch, wouldn't they have made him fit the prophecies more easily? It seems more likely to me they're trying to make a real figure who clearly does not fit the Jewish prophecies fit into the prophecies or else it would fit more neatly.

 

The Gnostics were just as convinced that Jesus' adventures occured in the Heavenly realm and that he never lived an Earthly existence. Marcion would have had no reason to lie. There were many who doubted his existence even in the First Century. Those who believe in a historical Jesus must explain why not even one of his contemporaries bothered to mention him. All apologists have are excuses.

[Neon Genesis]

 

How would they be able to invent a messiah who actually fit the prophecies? It would still be pretty obvious that the Romans were still in control of the holy land. Also there is evidence that at least the Essenes believed in a suffering messiah. Also forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't the mythicist think that Jesus would have existed first existed as a figure in a Greek style mystery religion, who was then mistaken by certain people who heard the story to, have actually existed. I'm not certain what kind of evidence they have to back that up however.

It's like how JK Rowling can make Harry Potter fit the prophecies about him perfectly because she was just making the whole story up as purely fictional. Even if some Jews believed in a suffering messiah, I thought in Judaism Jesus' sacrifice would have been illegitimate because it was a human sacrifice or something? And then there's all those glaringly obvious errors where Matthew makes up prophecies that don't even exist in the OT. Even if there was no historical Jesus, it seems obvious to me that the gospel authors at the very least were writing under the impression Jesus was real and were meshing together already existing oral traditions about him instead of making the whole story up from total scratch.