Did Jesus exist?

[Vampiel]

I've recently watched the movie "The God Who Wasn't There"

They made the case that Jesus never actually existed as a man on Earth, and it was pretty convincing.

So my question is, what evidence is there that Jesus actually existed?

Note : I would like to frame this into two different arguments :

One being quotes from the bible.

The second being evidence outside of the bible.

The reason for this is because even quotes from the bible may contradict itself, so I am interested in both sides of the debate.

In other words, quotes from the bible are not "off limits" in the debate, although it would give more credence if the evidence existed outside of that.

If anyone has watched the movie, they actually use the bible's own words that Jesus wasn't even a prophet on Earth, but rather a simple part of the "legendary hero" that many people want to exist that becomes legends such as Hurclules, in other words, just a tale that people say to each other that changes after each person. Rather "an idea" -- that get's spread and resonates with us.

[Goat]

It strikes me as not unreasonable that there really was an apocalyptic preacher named Jesus who got in trouble with the authorities and was executed. The rest of it is a story that grew.

This is pretty much what I've concluded too. For someone who didn't exist, there was an awful lot written about him by his followers. We also don't have the earliest stories about Jesus - the missing Q Gospel as scholars call it, and a book of sayings of Jesus. Mark is apparently based on this missing Q Gospel (according to some scholars), with Matthew and Luke being based on Mark (and Q). The older versions of Mark end with Jesus death, and do not include the short resurrection story. This part was added later by a scribe. This leads me to believe that Jesus did, at one point, exist and was probably a travelling apocalyptic preacher (his insistence that the Kingdom of God was imminent is echoed in all the Gospels) who was killed somehow.

The missing Q document was hypothesized to explain why Matthew and Luke contain so much common material. To my knowledge no one has presented any evidence of reasoning that Q contained anything more than this common material. My personal belief is that Q never existed, that Luke was fully aware of Matthew’s Gospel and wrote his own to counter certain aspects of Matthew, incorporating much material from Matthew as he did so. But that is a long and complex argument that I despair of ever finding the time to present properly. When I win the lottery and do not have to work or go to school I will write it all down.

So you subscribe to the Farrer theory??

[ThatGirlAgain]

It strikes me as not unreasonable that there really was an apocalyptic preacher named Jesus who got in trouble with the authorities and was executed. The rest of it is a story that grew.

This is pretty much what I've concluded too. For someone who didn't exist, there was an awful lot written about him by his followers. We also don't have the earliest stories about Jesus - the missing Q Gospel as scholars call it, and a book of sayings of Jesus. Mark is apparently based on this missing Q Gospel (according to some scholars), with Matthew and Luke being based on Mark (and Q). The older versions of Mark end with Jesus death, and do not include the short resurrection story. This part was added later by a scribe. This leads me to believe that Jesus did, at one point, exist and was probably a travelling apocalyptic preacher (his insistence that the Kingdom of God was imminent is echoed in all the Gospels) who was killed somehow.

The missing Q document was hypothesized to explain why Matthew and Luke contain so much common material. To my knowledge no one has presented any evidence of reasoning that Q contained anything more than this common material. My personal belief is that Q never existed, that Luke was fully aware of Matthew’s Gospel and wrote his own to counter certain aspects of Matthew, incorporating much material from Matthew as he did so. But that is a long and complex argument that I despair of ever finding the time to present properly. When I win the lottery and do not have to work or go to school I will write it all down.

So you subscribe to the Farrer theory??

The Farrer Hypothesis is based on textual considerations, something I am not very good at. My hypothesis is based on thematic considerations. Briefly, Mark 's Gospel was about disassociating the Jesus movement from the failed messianic inspired revolt. Matthew's Gospel was about identifying Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, with the Jesus movement being the new stage of Judaism.

In my view, Luke is concerned that Matthew's close identification of Jesus with Judaism so recently after the revolt is putting a black mark on Judaism. Luke therefore takes several themes from Matthew and turns them on their heads, disassociating the Jesus movement from being exclusively or at least strongly Jewish. These themes include the genealogies, the Nativity stories, Matthew's association of Jesus with Moses and a general strongly Jewish flavor to Matthew.

[Grumpy Old Man]

The Farrer Hypothesis is based on textual considerations, something I am not very good at. My hypothesis is based on thematic considerations. Briefly, Mark 's Gospel was about disassociating the Jesus movement from the failed messianic inspired revolt. Matthew's Gospel was about identifying Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, with the Jesus movement being the new stage of Judaism.

In my view, Luke is concerned that Matthew's close identification of Jesus with Judaism so recently after the revolt is putting a black mark on Judaism. Luke therefore takes several themes from Matthew and turns them on their heads, disassociating the Jesus movement from being exclusively or at least strongly Jewish. These themes include the genealogies, the Nativity stories, Matthew's association of Jesus with Moses and a general strongly Jewish flavor to Matthew.

This is a fascinating hypothesis and makes sense in light of the failed Jewish rebellion of 70AD. The main problem, as I see it, is the dating of the Gospels. Most scholars, as far as I know, date Mark from around 55-65AD. There are some who believe it was dated later, after 70AD. Personally, as all of the Gospels contain a prophecy by Jesus about the destruction of the Temple, I believe all the Gospels must have been written after 70AD.

It's just one of those things we may never really know though.

[Grumpy Old Man]

I would be interested in hearing more details on this if you are willing. I have my own theory about the mysterious ‘betrayal’ of Judas, which does not seem to make sense. Like, if they wanted to kill him why did they not trail him to where he slept (in the open!) at night. And why did they need an insider to pick him out. Thousands of people saw him every day, including a number of surely more than willing witnesses from that Temple brouhaha.

It was just something I was thinking about one day. The story of Judas just never made much sense to me even when I was Christian. Why did Jesus need to be betrayed in the first place? Just to fill some esoteric prophecy? Also, there is a conflict, denied by Christians, between Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 as to how Judas died. Matthew says he hanged himself after throwing the silver pieces away somewhere in the temple. The author of Acts says Judas kept the money and bought a field with it, whereupon he somehow fell and burst. Christians argue that Judas hung himself then fell. This doesn't really explain the money though. Did Judas throw it away or keep it?

Anyway, my idea is that the story of Judas' betrayal is a complete fabrication. There was no need for Jesus to be betrayed. He spoke to the Pharisees and Sadducees frequently. He was known to be in Jerusalem during Passover as, according to the Synoptic Gospels, he'd cleared out the Temple. People knew what Jesus looked like, he drew crowds wherever he went. Remember that Judas told the priests that Jesus was the person he would kiss, implying that the authorities didn't even know what he looked like. This is impossible. At least one Pharisee would have been able to point out Jesus. The only thing Judas would have been required to do would be to tell the authorities where Jesus was staying.

So the whole Judas story is illogical. My own belief is that the disciples were frustrated with Jesus. I doubt he drew the crowds mentioned in the Bible, and I certainly don't believe in the miracles. The disciples were most likely discontents who were following an itinerant apocalyptic preacher (Jesus); such "manic street preachers" were apparently pretty common then. Jesus turned out to be a disappointment to them as he had no wish to stir up discontent against the Romans. Perhaps Jesus even got into trouble with the Romans. Maybe the Temple clearing story is true. Either way, one of his disciples decided to kill him, probably for profit, or perhaps out of fear of getting caught and identified with him.

After Jesus died, the disciples decided to fabricate a story, covering up what they'd done. Perhaps this "Judas" character did actually hang himself, or he was caught by the Romans for the murder and was hanged. After many re-tellings and "Chinese Whispers", this story turned into what we have in the Gospels; a confabulated and bloated story of a miraculous man who happened to be the Son of God and died and rose again after being betrayed by one of his own disciples.

This is just my own view of course, but it makes more sense to me than what we have in the Gospels. As I said, there must be some grains of truth in the Gospel stories. I'm not one of the Jesus Myth proponents. I do believe Jesus existed as a person and I think everything about him in the Gospels were invented yet based on some real events.

[ThatGirlAgain]

The Farrer Hypothesis is based on textual considerations, something I am not very good at. My hypothesis is based on thematic considerations. Briefly, Mark 's Gospel was about disassociating the Jesus movement from the failed messianic inspired revolt. Matthew's Gospel was about identifying Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, with the Jesus movement being the new stage of Judaism.

In my view, Luke is concerned that Matthew's close identification of Jesus with Judaism so recently after the revolt is putting a black mark on Judaism. Luke therefore takes several themes from Matthew and turns them on their heads, disassociating the Jesus movement from being exclusively or at least strongly Jewish. These themes include the genealogies, the Nativity stories, Matthew's association of Jesus with Moses and a general strongly Jewish flavor to Matthew.

This is a fascinating hypothesis and makes sense in light of the failed Jewish rebellion of 70AD. The main problem, as I see it, is the dating of the Gospels. Most scholars, as far as I know, date Mark from around 55-65AD. There are some who believe it was dated later, after 70AD. Personally, as all of the Gospels contain a prophecy by Jesus about the destruction of the Temple, I believe all the Gospels must have been written after 70AD.

It's just one of those things we may never really know though.

What ‘most scholars’ think often depends on what one thinks for oneself before consulting scholars. I freely admit that I am heavily influenced by White who holds to the ‘just after the First Revolt’ theory. Here is another source that presents that viewpoint.

The Gospel of Mark does not name its author.[2] A 2nd century tradition ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), a companion of Peter,[9] on whose memories it is supposedly based.[1][10][11][12] The gospel was written in Greek shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, possibly in Syria.[7] The author's use of varied sources tells against the traditional account of authorship,[13] and according to the majority view the author is probably unknown.[14]

13 ^ "Above all the heterogeneous source material which the evangelist has worked over tells against [the traditional] account... [t]he author of Mark is a collector, in so far as he demonstrably takes up written and oral material from the tradition which varies in both form and theology." Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 26-27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_Mark

Does anyone know of sources that place the writing of Mark definitely before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE but does not base that conclusion on either the Peter ==> Mark tradition or the presumption that Jesus made a genuine prophecy about the Temple?

BTW, my hypothesis about Luke copying from Matthew and deliberately switching around the point in the ways I mentioned to once more disassociate the Jesus movement from rebellious Judaism is to the very best of my knowledge original with me. Considering how unlikely such originality seems, I would love to hear that others have dealt with it before. Anyone?

[ThatGirlAgain]

I would be interested in hearing more details on this if you are willing. I have my own theory about the mysterious ‘betrayal’ of Judas, which does not seem to make sense. Like, if they wanted to kill him why did they not trail him to where he slept (in the open!) at night. And why did they need an insider to pick him out. Thousands of people saw him every day, including a number of surely more than willing witnesses from that Temple brouhaha.

It was just something I was thinking about one day. The story of Judas just never made much sense to me even when I was Christian. Why did Jesus need to be betrayed in the first place? Just to fill some esoteric prophecy? Also, there is a conflict, denied by Christians, between Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 as to how Judas died. Matthew says he hanged himself after throwing the silver pieces away somewhere in the temple. The author of Acts says Judas kept the money and bought a field with it, whereupon he somehow fell and burst. Christians argue that Judas hung himself then fell. This doesn't really explain the money though. Did Judas throw it away or keep it?

Anyway, my idea is that the story of Judas' betrayal is a complete fabrication. There was no need for Jesus to be betrayed. He spoke to the Pharisees and Sadducees frequently. He was known to be in Jerusalem during Passover as, according to the Synoptic Gospels, he'd cleared out the Temple. People knew what Jesus looked like, he drew crowds wherever he went. Remember that Judas told the priests that Jesus was the person he would kiss, implying that the authorities didn't even know what he looked like. This is impossible. At least one Pharisee would have been able to point out Jesus. The only thing Judas would have been required to do would be to tell the authorities where Jesus was staying.

So the whole Judas story is illogical. My own belief is that the disciples were frustrated with Jesus. I doubt he drew the crowds mentioned in the Bible, and I certainly don't believe in the miracles. The disciples were most likely discontents who were following an itinerant apocalyptic preacher (Jesus); such "manic street preachers" were apparently pretty common then. Jesus turned out to be a disappointment to them as he had no wish to stir up discontent against the Romans. Perhaps Jesus even got into trouble with the Romans. Maybe the Temple clearing story is true. Either way, one of his disciples decided to kill him, probably for profit, or perhaps out of fear of getting caught and identified with him.

After Jesus died, the disciples decided to fabricate a story, covering up what they'd done. Perhaps this "Judas" character did actually hang himself, or he was caught by the Romans for the murder and was hanged. After many re-tellings and "Chinese Whispers", this story turned into what we have in the Gospels; a confabulated and bloated story of a miraculous man who happened to be the Son of God and died and rose again after being betrayed by one of his own disciples.

This is just my own view of course, but it makes more sense to me than what we have in the Gospels. As I said, there must be some grains of truth in the Gospel stories. I'm not one of the Jesus Myth proponents. I do believe Jesus existed as a person and I think everything about him in the Gospels were invented yet based on some real events.

Interesting. I have my own completely different take on it. But I would rather think about yours for awhile and get back to you later.

[Mithrae]

This is a fascinating hypothesis and makes sense in light of the failed Jewish rebellion of 70AD. The main problem, as I see it, is the dating of the Gospels. Most scholars, as far as I know, date Mark from around 55-65AD. There are some who believe it was dated later, after 70AD. Personally, as all of the Gospels contain a prophecy by Jesus about the destruction of the Temple, I believe all the Gospels must have been written after 70AD.

It's just one of those things we may never really know though.

Does anyone know of sources that place the writing of Mark definitely before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE but does not base that conclusion on either the Peter ==> Mark tradition or the presumption that Jesus made a genuine prophecy about the Temple?

I don't know any published sources of course, but Grumpy Old Man may be interested in our past discussions on the topic.

From ThatGirl's post here FurrowedBrow replied further down the page, pointing out that the supposed 'prophecy' of Mark 13 is really very vague in most aspects; a combination of dire warnings with existing biblical concepts (notably the abomination of desolation). Knowing of rebellions and messianic claimants during his time (eg. Judas the Galilean), Jesus may well have been genuinely concerned about the possibility of the Jews eventually provoking the full wrath of Rome. Looked at from another perspective, if we knew Mark 13 was written/spoken decades before 70CE, would we really consider it a remarkable prophecy? I think not.

I replied here; Mark gives the abomination of desolation as a warning for Jesus' followers to flee Jerusalem. I think that's actually quite a strong reason to suppose it was written/spoken beforehand, 'cos it wouldn't make much sense for someone writing afterwards to put into Jesus' mouth the warning to flee Jerusalem when you see it's been captured and the temple razed to the ground!

[ThatGirlAgain]

This is a fascinating hypothesis and makes sense in light of the failed Jewish rebellion of 70AD. The main problem, as I see it, is the dating of the Gospels. Most scholars, as far as I know, date Mark from around 55-65AD. There are some who believe it was dated later, after 70AD. Personally, as all of the Gospels contain a prophecy by Jesus about the destruction of the Temple, I believe all the Gospels must have been written after 70AD.

It's just one of those things we may never really know though.

Does anyone know of sources that place the writing of Mark definitely before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE but does not base that conclusion on either the Peter ==> Mark tradition or the presumption that Jesus made a genuine prophecy about the Temple?

I don't know any published sources of course, but Grumpy Old Man may be interested in our past discussions on the topic.

From ThatGirl's post here FurrowedBrow replied further down the page, pointing out that the supposed 'prophecy' of Mark 13 is really very vague in most aspects; a combination of dire warnings with existing biblical concepts (notably the abomination of desolation). Knowing of rebellions and messianic claimants during his time (eg. Judas the Galilean), Jesus may well have been genuinely concerned about the possibility of the Jews eventually provoking the full wrath of Rome. Looked at from another perspective, if we knew Mark 13 was written/spoken decades before 70CE, would we really consider it a remarkable prophecy? I think not.

Mark is not at all vague. He refers to several details that would have been quite unexpected but actually happened in the Revolt.

Mark 13:2 “Do you see all these great buildings?� replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.�

Jerusalem was almost completely leveled by the Romans. (The War of the Jews, Book Six, Chapter 8)

Mark 13:12 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.

There was violent factional disagreement in Jerusalem. (The factions battle for Power)

Mark 13:18-20
18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.

There was mass starvation and even cannibalism during the siege of Jerusalem. (Ref) But the siege ended on September 7, before winter set in. (Ref)

I replied here; Mark gives the abomination of desolation as a warning for Jesus' followers to flee Jerusalem. I think that's actually quite a strong reason to suppose it was written/spoken beforehand, 'cos it wouldn't make much sense for someone writing afterwards to put into Jesus' mouth the warning to flee Jerusalem when you see it's been captured and the temple razed to the ground!

It would make perfect sense for a prophecy allegedly spoken 40 years earlier to be phrased as a warning. It would make the prophecy ring true after the fact. And let us not forget that Josephus gives us numerous examples of “fleeing to the mountains� (Mark 13:14) to man fortresses e.g., Yodfat, Gamala, Masada.

If someone supposedly retrofitted the details of the prophecy, they did a remarkable job of writing it in Mark’s lousy Greek. And let’s face it, it is really stretching to propose this.

I have yet to see any good arguments that Mark was actually written before the Jewish Revolt that do not first assume it was written before the Jewish Revolt.

[brotherhoodofmen]

Since the discussion has shifted a bit towards the Four Gospels, I want to post the following passages from the Urantia Book about how they originated:

121:8.2 These New Testament records had their origin in the following circumstances:

121:8.3 1. The Gospel by Mark. John Mark wrote the earliest (excepting the notes of Andrew), briefest, and most simple record of Jesus' life. He presented the Master as a minister, as man among men. Although Mark was a lad lingering about many of the scenes which he depicts, his record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. He was early associated with Peter; later with Paul. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. Knowing how consistently the Master refused to write out his teachings when on earth and in the flesh, Mark, like the apostles and other leading disciples, was hesitant to put them in writing. But Peter felt the church at Rome required the assistance of such a written narrative, and Mark consented to undertake its preparation. He made many notes before Peter died in A.D. 67, and in accordance with the outline approved by Peter and for the church at Rome, he began his writing soon after Peter's death. The Gospel was completed near the end of A.D.
68. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter's memory. The record has since been considerably changed, numerous passages having been taken out and some later matter added at the end to replace the latter one fifth of the original Gospel, which was lost from the first manuscript before it was ever copied. This record by Mark, in conjunction with Andrew's and Matthew's notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus.

121:8.4 2. The Gospel of Matthew. The so-called Gospel according to Matthew is the record of the Master's life which was written for the edification of Jewish Christians. The author of this record constantly seeks to show in Jesus' life that much which he did was that "it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet." Matthew's Gospel portrays Jesus as a son of David, picturing him as showing great respect for the law and the prophets.

121:8.5 The Apostle Matthew did not write this Gospel. It was written by Isador, one of his disciples, who had as a help in his work not only Matthew's personal remembrance of these events but also a certain record which the latter had made of the sayings of Jesus directly after the crucifixion. This record by Matthew was written in Aramaic; Isador wrote in Greek. There was no intent to deceive in accrediting the production to Matthew. It was the custom in those days for pupils thus to honor their teachers.

121:8.6 Matthew's original record was edited and added to in A.D. 40 just before he left Jerusalem to engage in evangelistic preaching. It was a private record, the last copy having been destroyed in the burning of a Syrian monastery in A.D. 416.

121:8.7 Isador escaped from Jerusalem in A.D. 70 after the investment of the city by the armies of Titus, taking with him to Pella a copy of Matthew's notes. In the year 71, while living at Pella, Isador wrote the Gospel according to Matthew. He also had with him the first four fifths of Mark's narrative.

121:8.8 3. The Gospel by Luke. Luke, the physician of Antioch in Pisidia, was a gentile convert of Paul, and he wrote quite a different story of the Master's life. He began to follow Paul and learn of the life and teachings of Jesus in A.D. 47. Luke preserves much of the "grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" in his record as he gathered up these facts from Paul and others. Luke presents the Master as "the friend of publicans and sinners." He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul's death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in A.D. 90 just before he finished the second of these works, the "Acts of the Apostles."

121:8.9 As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus' life as Paul had related it to him. Luke's Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus' life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark's Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador's narrative, and a brief record made in the year A.D. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew.

121:8.10 4. The Gospel of John. The Gospel according to John relates much of Jesus' work in Judea and around Jerusalem which is not contained in the other records. This is the so-called Gospel according to John the son of Zebedee, and though John did not write it, he did inspire it. Since its first writing it has several times been edited to make it appear to have been written by John himself. When this record was made, John had the other Gospels, and he saw that much had been omitted; accordingly, in the year A.D. 101 he encouraged his associate, Nathan, a Greek Jew from Caesarea, to begin the writing. John supplied his material from memory and by reference to the three records already in existence. He had no written records of his own. The Epistle known as "First John" was written by John himself as a covering letter for the work which Nathan executed under his direction.

121:8.11 All these writers presented honest pictures of Jesus as they saw, remembered, or had learned of him, and as their concepts of these distant events were affected by their subsequent espousal of Paul's theology of Christianity. And these records, imperfect as they are, have been sufficient to change the course of the history of Urantia for almost two thousand years.

[McCulloch]

Since the discussion has shifted a bit towards the Four Gospels, I want to post the following passages from the Urantia Book about how they originated:

[...]

I fail to see how the highly imaginative writings produced by unknown authors sometime between 1924 and 1955 without any appeal to verifiable evidence can be at all useful in this debate.