Why or why not?
I have to side with the scholars who unanimously agree that he existed. So, I think some of the basic things were actually true (itinerant Jewish preacher who was from Nazareth, baptized by John, had some brothers, was executed). However, the evidence is pretty thin!
#1 – Paul’s writings (at least 10 or 15 years after Jesus died?)
#2 – Earliest gospel writings (Mark – 35 to 40 years after Jesus died?)
#3 – A blurb by a historian (Josephus – 65 or 70 years after Jesus died?)
…Seems to be about it. Paul never met Jesus. But he did meet some of Jesus’ followers including Jesus’ brothers/family.
And it seems the gospel authors didn’t meet Jesus either (written several decades after his life and written in a different langauge – Greek).
Hello!
My view on the matter is positive, I really think he was a real person, just like most of ancient famous persons in antiquity. Sometimes we get hit by the notion of the lateness of the textual evidence about Jesus, but, on the other hand, the same is true and worse for many other figures in antiquity of whom we are very sure the existed. So, for me, there is not yet a piece of evidence that had persuaded me for the opposite.
I’m not quite sure Paul never met Jesus alive. This is debated, isn’t it? In order to experience a vision of J. Paul must have had some knowledge in order to recognize the “vision” as an appearance of J. I think it is likely that he saw him in public in Jerusalem at least once, preaching to a multitude or something. 2. Corinth 5.16 may be hinting at this.
Although Paul’s writings dates to 15-20 year after the death of J., the relevant passages are based on his experiences that took place less than 5 years afterwards.
While some doubt may be raised against Paul’s “Brother of the Lord ” testimony, the mythicist case for a figurative reading of 1. Cor 5.9 is completely hopeless.
There has been great scholars on all sides of the Josephus testimonies. Josephus is not needed to establish the historicity beyond doubt, I think. But I find it hard to believe that the “James , the brother of Christ” passage is interpolated. Can anyone summarize the arguments for interpolation?
Another denialist approach to this is to discard the traditional criteria of authenticity, like those laid out in e.g. Meier’s “A marginal Jew vol I”. These criteria has come under attack, and it could be fun to discuss this topic in detail. I’m not sure if Bart has had any posts relating to this?
I think Jesus existed but that you can’t really know much more than MilkyWay suggested “itinerant Jewish preacher who was from Nazareth, baptized by John, had some brothers, was executed.” This is because the oral period was in so many cultures, countries, religions and languages that existed around Galilee that what was finally written down reflects evolving community beliefs rather than Jesus. I saw an interesting article the other day stressing that the Jesus tradition began in the rural areas but the communities and then writings were in urban settings. The trajectory seems clearly from Jewish to Jewish Hellenist to Gentiles followed by syncretism with pagan beliefs and philosophies. This is why people are able to write on parallels with pagan beliefs or Egyptian beliefs and in turn leads others to conclude there was no historical Jesus at the center.
Even if you deny the historicity of Jesus, the Christian tradition certainly exists, which means it all had to originate somehow. Richard Carrier has an explanation for everything but his view is just as much based on interpretation as any other. We have a tradition and historians have formulated methodologies to help them conceptualize and analyze the possible sources of the tradition. These methodologies are tools. Tools that work in some instances and not in others. They’re not magic. As Prof Ehrman rightly asks, if you’re going to replace them, what are you going to replace them with?
At best the Mythicists can cause us to question Jesus’ existence. They can’t settle the issue. So in the face of a lack of certainty the question becomes, what is the simplest explanation that accounts for what information we do have? Occam’s Razor. I think the simplest explanation is that there was a historical figure at the source of the tradition. A historical figure who we can place squarely within the context of First Century Palestine without doing violence to anything we know about the time and the culture.
I’ve found these sources so far … and costly to purchase since they’re off major scholar presses:
Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods Paperback – July 1, 2002
by Darrell L. Bock (Author)
The Historical Figure of Jesus. Lane The Penguin Press: 1993
The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton Readings in Religions) Paperback – November 5, 2006
by Amy-Jill Levine (Editor), Dale C. Allison (Editor), John Dominic Crossan (Editor)
Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, Volume 1 Hardcover – July 29, 2003
by James D. G. Dunn (Author)
Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence Paperback – May 1, 2002
by Jonathan L. Reed
I choose not to include Meier because (I think) his work sticks out like a sore thumb compared to other reference material out there.
I think Dr. Ehrman’s book does a pretty good job illustrating Jesus’ historicity but the mythicists continue to pick it apart.
These above references IMHO will get anyone started on discovering Jesus, the human being.
-Tom
Yes, I believe he existed. The story of Jesus becoming God is too wacky to have started out in fiction. His story contains too many incongruities with the Jewish expectations of the Messiah that it is hard to imagine a fabricator would include them in the first place. It makes much more sense that these incongruities actually happened and later had to be explained away (i.e. Baptism by John, Nazarene origin, the crucified messiah).
I have found that Mythicists, who are mostly atheists, will not consider anything from the bible as evidence for anything historical. They are not interested in criterions or methodologies, the bible is unreliable and that is that. The baby is thrown out with the baptism.
I usually counter this narrow view with the inverse of Christopher Hitchens’s maxim: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Atheists love this quote, and I think it’s a good one, but it also helps my case regarding the existence of Jesus: what if anything is extraordinary about the claim that a 1st century Jewish apocalypticist was crucified by the Roman authorities? Or that his followers formed a religion based on him? I’ll concede that it doesn’t happen to everyone, but this is hardly a miraculous event. I don’t think his name needs to be etched everywhere in stone to prove it.
Hank_Z said
asjsdpjk said
From what I read Jesus might have been of the nazarene sect which was later confused with nazareth. It seems likely to me.What is some of the best evidence you’ve seen regarding this hypothesis? Thanks.
I have read this hypothesis from time to time mostly on internet. I haven’t kept track of where.
>The best evidence?
If the two words are similar in Greek and if the Nazarene sect can be established (at the time and place of Jesus) then I think it must be considered highly plausible. There is also an element of embarrassment. Later Christians wouldn’t want a messiah who got his ideas from an already existing sect or even being remotely associated with a Jewish sect.
Why doubt that he not only lived, but was God’s son? Didn’t he do extraordinary things? Why would a bunch of people make up a story about him? What was in it for them? Why bother? What is it about Jesus that makes him so controversial? Why couldn’t he be who he said he was?
How did the authors/scribes/contributors (many of them independent of the others) create this collection of books/letters/accounts called the new testament, that is the single most influential volume of written material in the development of Western civilization? Could any one or any group of people create something comparable today? If much of it is made up, added to, deleted from, derived from errors, written and changed by folks with agendas who were willing to and did lie, why is it the focus of tens of thousands of people-hours of study, examination, reverence, university PhD programs, etc.?
Why not devote that kind of energy and those resources to analyze the story of Santa Claus?
prestonp said
Why doubt that he not only lived, but was God’s son? Didn’t he do extraordinary things? Why would a bunch of people make up a story about him? What was in it for them? Why bother? What is it about Jesus that makes him so controversial? Why couldn’t he be who he said he was?
How did the authors/scribes/contributors (many of them independent of the others) create this collection of books/letters/accounts called the new testament, that is the single most influential volume of written material in the development of Western civilization? Could any one or any group of people create something comparable today? If much of it is made up, added to, deleted from, derived from errors, written and changed by folks with agendas who were willing to and did lie, why is it the focus of tens of thousands of people-hours of study, examination, reverence, university PhD programs, etc.?
Why not devote that kind of energy and those resources to analyze the story of Santa Claus?
I hope I don’t sound like too much of a smarta** by pointing out that I know of a New Testament scholar named Bart Ehrman who has written several books addressing just these sorts of questions.
And these days I’m sure the Cultural Studies departments of many fine academic institutions are full of earnest young scholars enthusiastically analyzing the story of Santa Claus from a full range of perspectives, i.e., post-colonial, feminist, Marxist, neo, pseudo, quasi, post-coital, etc etc etc…
I must admit I’ve never been able to take the mythicists seriously. If you’re going to make up a story about the Messiah 2000 years ago, why not make it a traditional Messiah, a winner over the powers that be?
Dr. Ehrman has argued that the belief in a messiah who died and was resurrected only makes sense if people had already put their hopes in the person when he was alive. No one would make that up only after the man was dead. Similarly no one would make up this new-fangled Messiah out of nothing.
The controversy about Nazirite is generally as follows. That word in Hebrew describes someone who has taken a vow with God that has specific requirements. When the Hebrew text was translated into Greek it becomes a reference to a place of birth. There is no archeological evidence or reference to a place called Nazareth during the time of Jesus. It was established well after that according to most archeologists. There are several examples of this in Biblical writings that dramatically alter the theological meaning of the text. No, I do not believe there was a historical Jesus figure. If I make the assertion that Zeus is my father, it is incumbent upon me to provide evidence that supports it. I cannot offer the the rational that you cannot prove he isn’t as my evidence. Making a statement that there are 4 separate accounts for the existence of Jesus in the Gospels is, well, silly. Most evidence shows these are variations of the same account, not separate accounts of 4 people who were witness to anything. I will try to demonstrate this. Justin Martyr is often used to support the existence of a historical Jesus. I have done an analysis of his writings. I was struck by his reference to Jesus being born in a cave. This is not mentioned in any of the New Testament Gospels. The only reference I can find that mentions Jesus being born in a cave is the Gospel of James. Justin Martyr therefore had access to James. James could have existed before some of the other Gospels. James has some awfully strange events early in the Jesus story and even stranger tales at the end. Is it possible that the reason Mark starts at his baptism and ends abruptly at his tomb because it is a redaction of James? The author of Mark simply edited out what he seen as not believable. Is it not reasonable to claim that James then has precedence over Mark? If that is true, James should be a Canonical Gospel and not Mark. Prove that claim wrong, provide your evidence. There is no evidence from the time of Jesus or for the following decades that he existed. The Jesus story appears in history after the death of Philo and before the death of Josephus. If you make a claim that he existed, support it with evidence.
I think Jesus existed because many people spoke about him to such an extent that stories were then written about him. There is often some truth even in the most unlikely of stories.
He probably had abilities or insight that attracted a following. I do not believe there were writers and groups who never had an agenda, were willing to lie, or had distorted views and interpretations that I would find wrong headed. That said, believers could find the human condition such that answers for our most perplexing and frightening questions have to be directed and satisfied somehow. They are also used.
That is, 
In my opinion.
gavriel said
I’m not quite sure Paul never met Jesus alive. This is debated, isn’t it? In order to experience a vision of J. Paul must have had some knowledge in order to recognize the “vision” as an appearance of J. I think it is likely that he saw him in public in Jerusalem at least once, preaching to a multitude or something. 2. Corinth 5.16 may be hinting at this.
People have visions all the time of people they’ve never met. Look at how many people claim to see the Virgin Mary. Consider how many claim to see Jesus in their morning toast.
I believe that I’m a psychologist who enjoys reading about NT history as a hobby. Therefore I believe that evaluating the evidence re: the existence of Jesus is well outside my area of expertise. 
Among the people for whom it IS in their area of expertise, virtually all of them have concluded that it is highly probable that Jesus did in fact exist. Moreover, their arguments seem, within the limits of my (lack of) expertise, to be quite convincing. Therefore, I believe that Jesus existed.
Ultimately it’s the same reason I believe in evolution and the germ theory of disease and all sorts of other scholarly consensuses that lie outside the area of my expertise: to the best of my ability to evaluate them, the arguments seem convincing, but more importantly, I know that the arguments are convincing to nearly everyone who (unlike me) has the training and knowledge to evaluate them properly.
“That said, believers could find the human condition such that answers for our most perplexing and frightening questions have to be directed and satisfied somehow.” mary
Not necessarily.
Why not ask Him?
As a child’s fears fade through a warm, comforting embrace of a loving parent, God claims He can ease our fears and satisfy our longings. That isn’t devotional when you consider what the texts say.
Well Stephen, we have hope for the good doctor. “I hope I don’t sound like too much of a smarta** by pointing out that I know of a New Testament scholar named Bart Ehrman who has written several books addressing just these sorts of questions.”
Not only does the Dr believe Jesus lived, he reasons he was an apocalyptic preacher! He’s gottin warm and is gettin’ warmer all the time!
With regard to prestonp @comment 11, I think that the Mormons have demonstrated their ability to build a religion from scratch, complete with scriptures and traditions. This can be researched going back to court records, newspapers and letters from, to, and about Joseph Smith. These records are available online. If an entire, and successful, religion can be based on a conman’ divination of God’s word from looking at a stone in his hat, I do not find it odd that Christianity could have sprung from an itinerant Jewish preacher’s teachings.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)