I am convinced that Jesus existed, but the more important question we must ask is
who this Jesus who existed actually was. Where extreme skepticism has denied the historical Jesus altogether, milder skepticism has sought to uncover the true Jesus beneath the gospel narratives, using the tools of historical scholarship. I believe one reason people deny the historical existence of Jesus is because these scholarly efforts have uncovered such vastly different pictures of the same man. I will illustrate by dialoguing with ThatGirlAgain's reconstruction of the historical Jesus.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
If one reads between the lines in the Synoptic Gospels, one can find the story of a preacher saying things that would have been familiar to and resonate with a lower class Jewish audience of the day.
Generally, I'm going to agree with Schweitzer, that anyone attempting to reconstruct a "historical Jesus" does so in a way that they simply construct the Jesus that they more or less already believed in. Thus, I find it no surprise that a debater who rejects Christianity reduces Jesus to merely an apocalyptic preacher (you are in good company with the likes of Ehrman or Schweitzer himself). Likewise, the reader will not be surprised that I, a Christian, will construct a Jesus much more in line with Christian teaching. However, so that the reader is not deceived into thinking yours is the only possible historical reconstruction, I'll present an alternative and suggest some flaws with your own.
Let's begin with the historical context of the first century in Judea, recognizing that many contemporary Jewish groups were critical of the Temple authorities. This is evident in the
Psalms of Solomon, in the Qumran sect, and in several messianic movements of the day.
There is some evidence that John the Baptist was part of an anti-temple movement, and rather strong evidence that Paul was anti-temple, as he redefined the temple as the individual bodies of believers in which the Spirit dwelt (1 Cor. 3:9-10, 1 Cor. 6:19-20. Gal. 2:9 may refer to the apostles as the pillars of the temple, etc.). Paul's views are shared by many early Christians across the board (see 1 Peter 2:4-9, Hebrews 3:6,
Epistle of Barnabas 16:7, Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Ephesians 9:1, etc.). The question then becomes, could Jesus, who was baptized by John the Baptist, leader of what might be interpreted as a counter temple movement, have been the founder of a counter-temple movement himself, especially given the fact that early Christians seemed to hold such counter-temple views. The trajectory of John the Baptist -> Jesus -> Christianity would suggest such a possibility.
We see evidence for Jesus interpreting himself in this way throughout the gospels, in his acts and his teachings. To note his acts, Jesus dispensed forgiveness (which was usually declared by the priest after a sacrifice was made in the temple), Jesus and the disciples dispensed alms (traditionally reserved as a role for the temple cult), and Jesus famously overturned the tables in the temple, which many scholars interpret as a sign against the temple and as the reason why Jesus was executed. Regardless, the latter action is multiply attested in each gospel.
This also fits with the teachings of Jesus, where the canonical gospels and the
Gospel of Thomas depict Jesus as teaching about the destruction of the temple.
The Gospel of John suggests that Jesus was speaking about his body (John 2:19). Multiple gospels have independent attestation that Jesus was accused of claiming that if the temple was destroyed, he would rebuild it in three days (Mark, Mattew, John, Acts, Thomas). Now, if we take the standard dating of the writing of the gospels, this occurred after the temple was already destroyed, but was not rebuilt within three days. It seems plausible that the early Christians, who did not change or erase the second half of the prophecy, believed that Jesus was originally speaking of himself as a temple.
Did Jesus interpret himself as a temple, and if so what does this mean? We do have many recorded teachings and acts of Jesus which indicate that he was reinterpreting the entire temple cult around himself. So, for example, John 7:37-39, which occurs during the feast of booths. Traditionally on the last day of this feast, Jews would go to the temple to the presence of God where there would be a water libation and a wine libation poured on the altar. At this time, it was traditionally believed that the Spirit of prophecy could come upon one of those who was present. John 7, in the last day of the feast, Jesus tells people to come to him instead of coming to the temple. He claims he will give water, in the same way that water pours out from the altar. And, as some translate John 7:37 as saying, "out of his navel will flow rivers of living water." As some Jewish texts considered the temple to be the navel of the earth, the connection between the creation and its creator, Jesus could be claiming to be that connection. So Jesus takes a cultic event and says, no come to me, I'm the temple, I'll give you what it does. And John interprets this as the gift of the Spirit, which was given in prophecy at the feast of booths.
Let's take a more well-known example, the Lord's Supper. Here, Jesus is reinterpreting the Passover meal as applying to himself as a sacrifice to create a new covenant. This is multiply attested in Paul and the Synoptics (and it may be indirectly referenced in John). It is widely attested as a practice of early Christians, in Christian and pagan literature. And here again Jesus reinterprets the entire cult around himself.
So what does that leave us in terms of the historical Jesus? The historical Jesus fit his context and the trajectory of his movement as part of an anti-temple movement. He claimed to be the locus of God's special presence on earth, a temple that replaced the corrupt second temple cult. His anti-temple overturning of the temple explains his crucifixion, and his teaching in which he explained himself as the temple explain the development of high Christology. Specifically, his claim to rebuilt the temple in three days explains the expectation of a resurrection on the third day. The is all plausible in explaining the events of Jesus' life, the relation between John the Baptist, Jesus, and the early Church, and the way Jesus fit within Jewish culture. It is multiply attested in canonical and non-canonical sources. And it fits fairly well with Christian theology, as opposed to the apocalyptic preacher depiction.
Now we'll see a few differences...
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Remove the supernatural elements and miracles (of which Paul is unaware anyway)
Can an argument from silence be considered valid? If Paul does not mention the miracles, does he not know stories about them? If Paul does not mention his own mother, can we assume Paul did not have one?
Furthermore, doesn't removing the supernatural elements as a methodological measure necessarily eliminate the possibility of a miraculous Jesus? Certainly here, the presuppositions of one's faith come into play.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
…change all those third person Son of Man references to refer to an actual third person coming in the future (as they almost seem to do now)
If Jesus was part of a counter-temple movement, this can be interpreted as an apocalyptic movement (see the end of Ezekiel for example, where the restoration of a holy temple is an apocalyptic act, or see Daniel's discussion of the end of sacrifice at the end). If Jesus did interpret himself as a temple, as the completion and surpassing of the old cultic tradition, as the fulfillment of the law, and as the sacrifice which instantiates a new covenant, all of which are apocalyptic acts, is it not plausible that he also considered himself to be the Son of Man, who was the primary apocalyptic agent in many apocalyptic works?
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Now take a closer look at all this sacrifice business:
* Jesus as the Passover Lamb – sorry, that is not a sin atonement sacrifice
But in the original passover a lamb was sacrificed in order to avert the plagues and judgment of God. Jesus as the Paschal lamb seems to link the animal sacrifice on Yom Kippur with the lamb killed to protect Israel during the first passover. In fact, the sacrifice of Jesus is interpreted as the fulfillment of the entire religious history and cultic practice of Israel, which is fitting with my interpretation.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
* A sin atonement sacrifice that is fully effective in its own right – sorry, did not exist in Judaism
Are you referring to the need to mix repentance and faith with sacrifice? For Christians would teach this too.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
* A painful, human sacrifice – definitely against the rules
Unless you interpret Isaiah 53 as many early Christians did.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
* A sacrifice performed by goyim instead of in the Temple by priests – forbidden!
Yet Jesus reinterpreted himself as priest, temple, and sacrifice, and claimed his death was by his own will. A sacrifice performed by a priest in the temple of his body. That's part of the entire counter-temple theology he presented.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
There is no way anyone would make up such an improbable story. But if this holy man who was expected to usher in the messianic age and all that entailed instead got executed by the Romans, this sacrifice business and subsequent ‘resurrection’ is a good way of explaining away that uncomfortable fact.
Or, if Jesus was part of a counter-temple movement, and did interpret himself as a reconstitution of the holy practices of Israel and of the temple itself, then the sacrifice business could be central to the understanding of the historical Jesus, and not an invention of the later church.
So, back to the OP:
historia wrote:Why has the belief that Jesus never existed (the 'mythicist movement') gained in popularity in recent years among some atheists and agnostics?
If two people (ThatGirlAgain and myself) can use historical analysis and the tools of historical reconstruction to reconstruct two entirely different pictures of Jesus, which both seem to conform to our presupposed view of who Jesus was, it makes it seem as if the Jesus of history is nothing more than an ideological chess piece. Claims of the historical existence of Jesus are thus nothing more than ideological claims.
In my opinion, then, and contrary to EduChris, we need not suggest that "mythicist" movements are entirely due to ignorance, but rather that they could in some instances be due to a degree of exposure to scholarly work on historical Jesus studies, which itself seems unable to develop any widely accepted understanding of Jesus apart from his existence. However, existence devoid of content seems meaningless, so why believe in Jesus at all?
That being said, I do believe there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, but I must also suggest that it is impossible to divorce the "Jesus of history" from the "Jesus of faith", as one's faith inevitably shapes one's historical reconstruction. Perhaps the "mythicist" approach, then, is simply a stronger move towards atheism, towards a lack of faith in Jesus, an atheism that no longer strives to salvage a historical Jesus as a cultural necessity as the first quest for the historical Jesus did. Instead, this new movement seeks to eradicate Christ, and by proxy Christianity, from all of culture and history.