Did Jesus exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter UKcatholicGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UKcatholicGuy

Guest
I suppose I never considered this topic before I heard someone attack it the other night . . . the historical Jesus. What is the consensus among secular scientists and historians as to whether or not Jesus actually existed? I always assumed it was a fact (and of course I still believe it), but I was shocked to actually hear someone make an academic claim that Jesus never existed.

What’s the deal?

PS sorry about the thread title, but I knew it would attract some responses! 😉
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
I suppose I never considered this topic before I heard someone attack it the other night . . . the historical Jesus. What is the consensus among secular scientists and historians as to whether or not Jesus actually existed? I always assumed it was a fact (and of course I still believe it), but I was shocked to actually hear someone make an academic claim that Jesus never existed.

What’s the deal?

PS sorry about the thread title, but I knew it would attract some responses! 😉
www.jesuspuzzle.com is a well presented argument on the mythicist position.

If you go infidels.org/library/ you will find many writings by secular scholars modern and from back in the day on the subject of the historical Jesus.

From my experience with reading about it, it seems that there are many strong arguments to be made for the mythical Jesus, the spiritual resurrection etc.

But, my perception is that most people believe there was a man Jesus on whom the myth was based. Much like there was a man on whom the King Arthur myth was based.

But this is just my perception, so your best bet is to read for yourself.
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
I suppose I never considered this topic before I heard someone attack it the other night . . . the historical Jesus. What is the consensus among secular scientists and historians as to whether or not Jesus actually existed? I always assumed it was a fact (and of course I still believe it), but I was shocked to actually hear someone make an academic claim that Jesus never existed.

What’s the deal?

PS sorry about the thread title, but I knew it would attract some responses! 😉
The historian that most often comes up to support the existence of Jesus is Flavius Josephus. He wrote in Rome in the early 90s AD. He was a Jewish historian.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. ** - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63**

The other idea that supports the existence of Jesus is why would the earliest Christians who claimed to have known Jesus have died for Him, rather than just deny Him as those who killed them wanted? If they would just have stoppped preacing and deny He was the Son of God, they wouldn’t have been tortured and killed.

To what end did they suffer martyrdom if they knew He didn’t exist?

We have writingd from Peter and John in the Bible, they knew Jesus, they walked with Him, and they wrote down what He said, what He did, what He taught, and they died for it.

That is proof.
 
udral said:
www.jesuspuzzle.com is a well presented argument on the mythicist position.

If you go infidels.org/library/ you will find many writings by secular scholars modern and from back in the day on the subject of the historical Jesus.

From my experience with reading about it, it seems that there are many strong arguments to be made for the mythical Jesus, the spiritual resurrection etc.

But, my perception is that most people believe there was a man Jesus on whom the myth was based. Much like there was a man on whom the King Arthur myth was based.

But this is just my perception, so your best bet is to read for yourself.

Jesus is not a myth!
 
I totally agree. That’s why I’m perplexed as to why or how anyone would actually make an argument that Jesus never existed. I mean, I’ve heard plenty of arguments against why one should be a Christian, but never against the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. Isn’t this considered fact?
 
The best way to “kill” off someone is to deny they ever existed but in the case of Jesus not even the Jews of that time who were against him tried to do that because it could not be denied. All they could do was to try to deny he was the son of God.
 
40.png
MonkeyTape:
The historian that most often comes up to support the existence of Jesus is Flavius Josephus. He wrote in Rome in the early 90s AD. He was a Jewish historian.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. ** - Jewish Antiquities**, 18.3.3 §63
Most scholars, including religious scholars agree that that at least part of the passage was a later interpolation. Some believe the entire passage to be an interpolation while others thing it might have originally included a less fanatical reference to Jesus. Remember Josephus was a Jew, it makes no sense for him to write that passage in such a context.

ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel2.html#josephus includes a fairly thorough debunking of non-Christian evidences for Jesus.
The other idea that supports the existence of Jesus is why would the earliest Christians who claimed to have known Jesus have died for Him, rather than just deny Him as those who killed them wanted? If they would just have stoppped preacing and deny He was the Son of God, they wouldn’t have been tortured and killed.
This is another problem, in the New Testament as far as I know there is evidence only of 2 martyrs. And it doesn’t seem like they were confronted with the choice “accept that Jesus wasn’t God or we’ll kill you.:”

That Christians in Rome were refusing to sacrifice to Roman gods and were willing to die doesn’t say much, because those Christians did not see Jesus and believed in him based on what others said. Muslims today die for Allah believing in the words of Mohammed.
We have writingd from Peter and John in the Bible, they knew Jesus, they walked with Him, and they wrote down what He said, what He did, what He taught, and they died for it.
That is proof.
www.earlychristianwritings.com has dates of the writings, most of them being pretty late, too late to have been written by the apostles themselves.
 
To what end did they suffer martyrdom if they knew He didn’t exist?
I know an atheist who believes that Jesus was a man whom people died for–much like people died for David Koresh, the “Whacko from Waco.”
 
Virtually no reputable historian or religious scholar seriously doubts that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person in history who was executed by the Romans. There is more available historical evidence for Jesus’ existence than for most historical figures whose reality is essentially certain. If one wishes to dismiss Jesus, he must also throw out the vast majority of known historical persons. The “Jesus myth” is itself a myth.

Recommended books:

Charlotte Allen, The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus (Free Press, 1998); ISBN 0-684-82725-5

Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Baker, 2002); ISBN 0-85111-288-9

Michael J. Wilkins & J.P. Moreland, Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus (Zondervan, 1995); ISBN 0-310-61700-6
 
A little off topic perhaps, but:

Even if you were to deny the spiritual side of the gospels, why wouldn’t the gospels be considered as historical evidence?

They come to us from copies of copies—just like all the other books of antiquity.
 
Most scholars, including religious scholars agree that that at least part of the passage was a later interpolation. Some believe the entire passage to be an interpolation while others thing it might have originally included a less fanatical reference to Jesus. Remember Josephus was a Jew, it makes no sense for him to write that passage in such a context.
True, there is dispute about the passage. Personally I do think it is an interpolation. Josephus never became a Christian. However his other passage does shed light on the historical person of Jesus and would be something a non believing Jew would state:

Now it is said that the elder Ananus was extremely fortunate…but the younger Ananus, who had been appointed to the high priesthood, was rash in his temper and unusually daring. He followed the school of the Sadducees, who are indeed more heartless than any of the other Jews, as I have already explained, when they sit in judgment. Possessed of such a character, Ananus thought that he had a favourable opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinas was still on the way. And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and accusing them of having transgressed the law delivered them up to be stoned. Those of the inhabits of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict in observance of the law were offended at this. They therefore secretly sent to King Agrippa urging him, for Ananus had not even been correct in his first step, to order him to desist from any further such actions. Certain of them even went to meet Albinus, who was on his way from Alexandria, and informed him that Ananus had no authority to convene the Sanhedrin without his consent. Convinced by these words, Albinus angrily wrote to Ananus threatening to take vengeance upon him. King Agrippa, because of Ananus’ action, deposed him from the high priesthood which he had held for three months and replaced him with Jesus the son of Damnaeus.

As well he also authenticates John the Baptist as a real person in another passage. While not reflecting on the Christianity they do shed light on the figures of the time as historical.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
I suppose I never considered this topic before I heard someone attack it the other night . . . the historical Jesus. What is the consensus among secular scientists and historians as to whether or not Jesus actually existed? I always assumed it was a fact (and of course I still believe it), but I was shocked to actually hear someone make an academic claim that Jesus never existed.
I don’t think any mainstream scholars of the New Testament doubt Jesus’ existence. The consensus of secular scholars is that Jesus really lived, that some of his teachings are found in the Gospels, and that he was crucified by the Romans. Beyond that there’s a lot of debate.

The best summary of what most scholars would agree on about Jesus is E.P. Sanders, *The Historical Figure of Jesus. *Some of Sanders’s claims are controversial (like many liberal Protestants, he emphasizes the idea that Jesus welcomed sinners unconditionally and claims that this was the point of conflict with other devout Jews–something many would challenge). But he has a list in that book of about fourteen things that he thinks can be solidly accepted as historical. And by and large I think most of those points express a scholarly consensus.

Point of comparison: There are actually respectable scholars of early Islam who question whether Muhammad ever lived. This is a minority position but more widely held among scholars than the comparable view about Jesus.

Edwin
 
40.png
Contarini:
The best summary of what most scholars would agree on about Jesus is E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus.
This is certainly an important work on the subject of the historical Jesus, though I’d balance it with a few other volumes, such as:

Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic Sage, or Son of God: Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies (Victor, 1995)

Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way (Oxford, 2001)

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 Vols. (Doubleday, 1991-2001)

Robert B. Strimple, The Modern Search for the Real Jesus: An Introductory Survey of the Historical Roots of Gospels Criticism (P&R, 1995)

And especially, for its ability to tie all the issues together:

Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (InterVarsity Press, 1995)

[Also, include the books listed in Post #10 above]
 
Donald,

I mentioned Sanders (other than the fact that I went to grad school at Duke, though I never took a class with him) precisely because he’s a liberal Protestant and represents a rough minimum of what a responsible, open-minded scholar will conclude on the basis of the evidence. I certainly encourage people to read works by more conservative scholars as well (Witherington’s book is excellent, in my opinion). But I point to Sanders as someone who does not adhere to what I’d consider orthodox Christianity and yet clearly refutes some of the sillier claims out there.

Similarly, I sometimes cite Paula Fredriksen as a Jewish scholar of the New Testament, even though obviously I’m going to disagree with a lot of what she says.

Edwin
 
40.png
Contarini:
Similarly, I sometimes cite Paula Fredriksen as a Jewish scholar of the New Testament, even though obviously I’m going to disagree with a lot of what she says.
Fredrikson, being a serious scholar, never displays any doubt of Jesus’ existence, though she might dispute the meaning of his existence.

If one is going to doubt the existence of Jesus, one might as well also doubt the existence of Caesar Augustus, Aristarchus, Hippocrates, and perhaps posit that Columbus was merely a mythical figure.

Is this ahistorical mindset a peculiarly modern phenomenon?
 
As time goes on, no matter what evidence we put forth as-to Jesus’s existence, someone is going to come up with a counter-argument. 😦

Its been 2000 years since Jesus’s birth. Wars have been fought and disasters have occured, subsequently historical texts have been destroyed or copied/re-copied/translated countless times.

The point is, it is probably not too much of a challenge for a modern historian to write a paper refuting the existence of, say, Alexander the Great or Aristotle. 😃 (Hey, next time I am up late studying and wired on caffeine, I might just try it! :rolleyes: )

For me, it does not matter whether the historians ever “prove” Jesus existed historically or not. The Catholic Church, the early martyrs, the Pope, and the witness of the Saints are proof enough for me! 👍

Francisco
 
Doesn’t the mass provide enough proof?

It is not like studying an extinct organism, or an archaeologist digging up the remains of a forgotten civilisation. The flow is held in living memories, the remembrance goes back in a living chain.

At every service there are present elderly people who, 50 or 60 years ago heard certain words spoken by, or in the presence of, men old enough to be their grandparents; there are young people who, it may be, will repeat them in the hearing of their grandchildren. And so the endless chain goes on. For 20 centuries there has not been one single week in which this act of remembrance was not made, one generation reminding another:

The Lord Jesus, on the night of his arrest, took bread, and after giving thanks to God, broke it and said: ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.’ In the same way he took the cup after supper and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant sealed with my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’

Or words such as these.

One of the best illustrations of this continuity of memory within the Church for me is that around and about 200 AD there died at Lyon in France the Bishop of that city, Irenaeus by name, one of the outstanding Christian leaders of his time. It happens that a letter of his has come down to us, addressed to an old fellow student named Florinus from whom he had been seperated for many years. The letter brings up reminiscences of their student days together at the city of Smyrna in Asia Minor. In particular he recalls how they used to attend lectures by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who died about 155 AD at the age of at least 86. He must have been getting on in years when Irenaeus and Florinus heard him. Irenaeus reminds his old companion- and there would have been no point in it if Florinus could not confirm his recollections- how Polycarp used to tell them stories about ‘John, the disciple of the Lord’, whom he had known personally many years before. Iraneaus, then, in France shortly before 200 AD was able to recall at only one remove, a man who had known Jesus intimately. When the Bishop of Lyons brooke bread with his little congregation as a memorial of the death of Jesus, he was not thinking of something he had found (where Kipling’s Tomlinson found his God) ‘in a printed book’, but of something that he had been told by his old teacher, whose friend had been there and knew. That is what the memory of the Church is like. A corporate memory handed down from generation to generation become what we call a tradition.

Our knowledge of about the origins of the church and about its Founder, rests primarily on a living tradition, which had its beginnings in the actual memories of those who had witnessed the events and had personal dealings with the principle Actor in them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top