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.

[Mithrae]

On the contrary, he references the James brother of Jesus passage from Josephus three times in two different works (though I've found only two of them):

All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus. In all three citations Origen relates that the death of "James the Just the brother of Jesus called Christ" (note the change in nomenclature) is the cause of the fall of Jerusalem.

The Origen passages in question:

Commentary on Matthew 10:17 – “And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus called Christ [ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou]. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great, and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.�

Contra Celsum I, 47: “Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple…says…that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ [adelphos Iēsou tou legomenou Christou], the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.�

Contra Celsum II, 13: “…Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus called Christ [ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou]…�

All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus.

Origen is wrong about Josephus, and judging by the information he gives, he probably had him confused with Hegesippus.

Thanks for that third reference - I was referring back to an old discussion, though I'm not sure why I didn't find it back then. Laziness, I suspect.

I note that while Origen calls him 'James the Just' in Against Celsus in his Commentary on Matthew he does not, so your comment on nomenclature is dubious. The idea that Jerusalem's destruction was a result of the killing of James no doubt does come from Hegesippus. But as I pointed out earlier, it seems that such a mistake can be made even while editting a Wikipedia article about Josephus' reference to James - though of course I have no proof that it wasn't I who inserted the questionable paragraph in preparation for this debate Hegesippus' notion is, as it were, a Jewish Christian form of poetic justice and an explanation for the horrible event, and as such it's somewhat memorable. Of course Origen takes a more mainstream or Gentile Christian view that it was the death of Jesus which was resulted in that 'judgement,' which perhaps means all the more reason for him to recall the contrast with Hegesippus' view.

But there are very significant points of Hegesippus' account which Origen does not mention, most notably that James was thrown down from the temple's pinnacle (reminiscent of Jesus' temptation) and that he was buried right there, by the temple. Far from confusing Hegesippus with Josephus, Origen appears to have simply recalled the single most memorable aspect of Hegesippus' account; he does not mention other noteworthy details, and indeed specifically says that the fellow did not believe in Jesus as Christ.

On the other hand the account of Hegesippus does not appear to use anything like the phrase "Jesus who is called Christ," unlike the passages in Origen and Josephus I highlighted above. In fact (though I'd prefer a source for it), your Greek transliterations of those Origen passages truly reinforce that despite some small confusion, when he said he was talking about Josephus' mention of the death of James "the brother of Jesus called Christ," he was indeed referring to Josephus:
Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 - ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou
Origen, Com. on Matthew 10.17 - ton adelphon IÄ“sou tou legomenou Christou
Origen, Contra Celsum 2.13 - ton adelphon IÄ“sou tou legomenou Christou

Since the commentary from Origen does not appear to reference antiquites 20.9.i , yet the phrase is the same, perhaps the commentary from Origen was a copiers gloss into Antiquities.

After all, the phrase is the same as found in a couple of the gospels.

Hi Goat. We discussed this a while back and as you know it's not quite the same as found in the bible:

• John 4:25 - The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is comingâ€� (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.â€�
  ho legomenos Christos (source)
  
  Matthew 1:16 - And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ
  Iesous ho legomenos Christos (source)
  
  Josephus Ant. 20.9.1 - ...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others...
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source)
  
  Origen Com. on Matt 10.17 - ...in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ...
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source)
  
  Origen Contra C. 2.13 - ...whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source above)
  
  Origen Contra C. 1.47 - ...says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)...
  adelphos IÄ“sou tou legomenou Christou (d.thomas' transliteration; though the source above has adelphon again)

The connection with the gospels consists of two words in a different case, which on one single occasion are used to identify Jesus as Christ in a peculiar manner. It's absurd to imagine that this was the basis for Origen using a larger phrase identically on three separate occasions, each time referencing it to to Josephus (mentioning Antiquities specifically on two of them, contrary to your claim).

And then of course we must suppose that some Christian copyist between Origen (c 230CE) and Eusebius (c 320CE) happened to work on Josephus shortly after acquainting himself with Origen's work and decided to insert this unusual phrase. Without, of course, leaving any trace of Origen's other peculiarities like 'James the Just' or an association with Jerusalem's fall. And this was the copy of Josephus which, coincidentally, was the copy Eusebius came across.

No, there's not a shred of evidence suggesting that the passage as it stands in Josephus is not genuine. We know of James' position, relationship to Jesus and place of residence from Paul (Galatians 1 and 2), and an embellished account of his death before the war from Hegesippus. Josephus was there in Jerusalem (c 62CE, I believe) when this leader of a growing sect was unlawfully killed, leading to a change in the priesthood; and in describing the event to his readers he identified this fellow in the simplest and most neutral fashion - the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.

[Dr.Barre]

I would contend that Gal 1:19 is strong evidence that Jesus existed. Here James is known as the "brother of the Lord." Certain attempts to define "brother" in an unusual sense are not convincing. There is no reason not to take the word in its usual and plain meaning.

[d.thomas]

I would contend that Gal 1:19 is strong evidence that Jesus existed. Here James is known as the "brother of the Lord." Certain attempts to define "brother" in an unusual sense are not convincing. There is no reason not to take the word in its usual and plain meaning.

Paul uses the term 'brother' or 'brothers' in reference to fellow believers about 80 times. You interpret 'brother' to mean literal blood sibling and then use such an interpretation as yours as evidence when in actuality, all you serve to do is beg the question.

[Mithrae]

I would contend that Gal 1:19 is strong evidence that Jesus existed. Here James is known as the "brother of the Lord." Certain attempts to define "brother" in an unusual sense are not convincing. There is no reason not to take the word in its usual and plain meaning.

Paul uses the term 'brother' or 'brothers' in reference to fellow believers about 80 times. You interpret 'brother' to mean literal blood sibling and then use such an interpretation as yours as evidence when in actuality, all you serve to do is beg the question.

How do you know Paul used the term 'brothers' in reference to fellow believers, rather than some siblings he happened to have around the place?
It's clear from the context, yes?

How do we know in reference to James he was talking about a family relationship?
It's clear from the context.

By another meaning, Cephas and so on were 'brothers of the Lord' also; but James (and some others, not named) are distinguished from Peter and the apostles by the fact that they were brothers of Jesus (1 Cor. 9:5, Gal. 1:19). Between Paul and Josephus we have two primary sources regarding the brother of Jesus, neither of whom view him particularly fondly or otherwise suggest embellishment in their accounts. Little wonder James is so carefully ignored when discussing Jesus' historicity. As far as ancient history goes for anyone who wasn't a king or otherwise greatly influential in shaping history - and never mind the gospels, Acts, Hegesippus, the pseudonymous epistle and so on - two primary sources is exceptionally strong evidence for the existence of the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James.

Admittedly, I've met sceptics out there who've argued that he'd somehow become known as the brother of a mythical character. It's funny how the mind can work at times

[Goat]

On the contrary, he references the James brother of Jesus passage from Josephus three times in two different works (though I've found only two of them):

All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus. In all three citations Origen relates that the death of "James the Just the brother of Jesus called Christ" (note the change in nomenclature) is the cause of the fall of Jerusalem.

The Origen passages in question:

Commentary on Matthew 10:17 – “And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus called Christ [ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou]. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great, and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.�

Contra Celsum I, 47: “Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple…says…that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ [adelphos Iēsou tou legomenou Christou], the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.�

Contra Celsum II, 13: “…Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus called Christ [ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou]…�

All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus.

Origen is wrong about Josephus, and judging by the information he gives, he probably had him confused with Hegesippus.

Thanks for that third reference - I was referring back to an old discussion, though I'm not sure why I didn't find it back then. Laziness, I suspect.

I note that while Origen calls him 'James the Just' in Against Celsus in his Commentary on Matthew he does not, so your comment on nomenclature is dubious. The idea that Jerusalem's destruction was a result of the killing of James no doubt does come from Hegesippus. But as I pointed out earlier, it seems that such a mistake can be made even while editting a Wikipedia article about Josephus' reference to James - though of course I have no proof that it wasn't I who inserted the questionable paragraph in preparation for this debate Hegesippus' notion is, as it were, a Jewish Christian form of poetic justice and an explanation for the horrible event, and as such it's somewhat memorable. Of course Origen takes a more mainstream or Gentile Christian view that it was the death of Jesus which was resulted in that 'judgement,' which perhaps means all the more reason for him to recall the contrast with Hegesippus' view.

But there are very significant points of Hegesippus' account which Origen does not mention, most notably that James was thrown down from the temple's pinnacle (reminiscent of Jesus' temptation) and that he was buried right there, by the temple. Far from confusing Hegesippus with Josephus, Origen appears to have simply recalled the single most memorable aspect of Hegesippus' account; he does not mention other noteworthy details, and indeed specifically says that the fellow did not believe in Jesus as Christ.

On the other hand the account of Hegesippus does not appear to use anything like the phrase "Jesus who is called Christ," unlike the passages in Origen and Josephus I highlighted above. In fact (though I'd prefer a source for it), your Greek transliterations of those Origen passages truly reinforce that despite some small confusion, when he said he was talking about Josephus' mention of the death of James "the brother of Jesus called Christ," he was indeed referring to Josephus:
Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 - ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou
Origen, Com. on Matthew 10.17 - ton adelphon IÄ“sou tou legomenou Christou
Origen, Contra Celsum 2.13 - ton adelphon IÄ“sou tou legomenou Christou

Since the commentary from Origen does not appear to reference antiquites 20.9.i , yet the phrase is the same, perhaps the commentary from Origen was a copiers gloss into Antiquities.

After all, the phrase is the same as found in a couple of the gospels.

Hi Goat. We discussed this a while back and as you know it's not quite the same as found in the bible:

• John 4:25 - The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is comingâ€� (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.â€�
  ho legomenos Christos (source)
  
  Matthew 1:16 - And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ
  Iesous ho legomenos Christos (source)
  
  Josephus Ant. 20.9.1 - ...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others...
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source)
  
  Origen Com. on Matt 10.17 - ...in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ...
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source)
  
  Origen Contra C. 2.13 - ...whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source above)
  
  Origen Contra C. 1.47 - ...says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)...
  adelphos IÄ“sou tou legomenou Christou (d.thomas' transliteration; though the source above has adelphon again)

The connection with the gospels consists of two words in a different case, which on one single occasion are used to identify Jesus as Christ in a peculiar manner. It's absurd to imagine that this was the basis for Origen using a larger phrase identically on three separate occasions, each time referencing it to to Josephus (mentioning Antiquities specifically on two of them, contrary to your claim).

And then of course we must suppose that some Christian copyist between Origen (c 230CE) and Eusebius (c 320CE) happened to work on Josephus shortly after acquainting himself with Origen's work and decided to insert this unusual phrase. Without, of course, leaving any trace of Origen's other peculiarities like 'James the Just' or an association with Jerusalem's fall. And this was the copy of Josephus which, coincidentally, was the copy Eusebius came across.

No, there's not a shred of evidence suggesting that the passage as it stands in Josephus is not genuine. We know of James' position, relationship to Jesus and place of residence from Paul (Galatians 1 and 2), and an embellished account of his death before the war from Hegesippus. Josephus was there in Jerusalem (c 62CE, I believe) when this leader of a growing sect was unlawfully killed, leading to a change in the priesthood; and in describing the event to his readers he identified this fellow in the simplest and most neutral fashion - the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.

With you showing the bible quotes, and comparing it to jospehus, you have totally convinced me it was copied from the gospels.. Good Job! With this information, and with D. Thomas direct quotion from Origien which shows he was not referencing ant 19, it is totally convincing that Ant. 19 for Josephus is spurious.

[Mithrae]

With you showing the bible quotes, and comparing it to jospehus, you have totally convinced me it was copied from the gospels.. Good Job! With this information, and with D. Thomas direct quotion from Origien which shows he was not referencing ant 19, it is totally convincing that Ant. 19 for Josephus is spurious.

We each have different criteria by which we weigh evidence, different levels of precision and care in how we think, and different leanings towards what we're likely to accept as convincing, of course. But I guess when push comes to shove, I must admit that I'd have to agree with you that there was originally no mention of Jesus' brother James in Antiquities 19. My thoughts on the reference to Jesus' brother James in Antiquities 20, of course, are a little different from your carefully reasoned conclusion.

I have yet to see any plausible scenario explaining either
A) how/when/why it was inserted into Josephus before the time of Origen without anyone noticing or
B) why Origen would pick up on such an obscure phrase from Matthew, expand it and on three occasions reference it to Josephus with word-for-word precision, followed by insertion into Josephus sans Origen's other pecularities before being used by Eusebius

Incidentally, while I do think it's probably nothing more than coincidence, I should point out that (since the oldest extant manuscripts of Matthew 1 appear to be early 4th century) you apparently haven't even considered the possibility that a Christian scribe working on Origen's Commentary on Matthew then worked on Matthew itself and, early in his work, remembered that unique identification of Christ from Origen and from John's clarification to his readers of what 'messiah' means. As a relatively small and somewhat oppressed group, we'd more likely expect Christian scribes working on Christian texts, and there's no denying that Matthew 1:16 is an unusual - indeed as far as I can tell, unique - way for a Christian to describe Christ.

So if you propose that the similarity is meaningful, I'd suggest that you should first consider a Christian scribe's gloss into Matthew from Origen's Commentary on Matthew, rather than a Christian scribe's gloss into Josephus without the slightest hint of Christian bias or Origen's peculiarities.

[Dr.Barre]

I would contend that Gal 1:19 is strong evidence that Jesus existed. Here James is known as the "brother of the Lord." Certain attempts to define "brother" in an unusual sense are not convincing. There is no reason not to take the word in its usual and plain meaning.

Paul uses the term 'brother' or 'brothers' in reference to fellow believers about 80 times. You interpret 'brother' to mean literal blood sibling and then use such an interpretation as yours as evidence when in actuality, all you serve to do is beg the question.

How do you know Paul used the term 'brothers' in reference to fellow believers, rather than some siblings he happened to have around the place?
It's clear from the context, yes?

How do we know in reference to James he was talking about a family relationship?
It's clear from the context.

By another meaning, Cephas and so on were 'brothers of the Lord' also; but James (and some others, not named) are distinguished from Peter and the apostles by the fact that they were brothers of Jesus (1 Cor. 9:5, Gal. 1:19). Between Paul and Josephus we have two primary sources regarding the brother of Jesus, neither of whom view him particularly fondly or otherwise suggest embellishment in their accounts. Little wonder James is so carefully ignored when discussing Jesus' historicity. As far as ancient history goes for anyone who wasn't a king or otherwise greatly influential in shaping history - and never mind the gospels, Acts, Hegesippus, the pseudonymous epistle and so on - two primary sources is exceptionally strong evidence for the existence of the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James.

Admittedly, I've met sceptics out there who've argued that he'd somehow become known as the brother of a mythical character. It's funny how the mind can work at times

No, I do not think I am begging the question, only asking what meaning within the semantic range of adelphos is meant in Gal 1:19. What does the context indicate about the intended meaning in this text?

[Dr.Barre]

The question for debate: What is the intended meaning of the word, adelphos, in Gal 1:19?

[d.thomas]

The question for debate: What is the intended meaning of the word, adelphos, in Gal 1:19?

You are begging the question, why THIS time? Why is 'brother' taken to mean literally a blood sibling while not the other 80 times that Paul uses the term?

[Dr.Barre]

The fact that adelphos can have a meaning other than sibling relationship is not disputed. But it only defines one part of the semantic range of the word. That it can mean a sibling relationship goes without saying. As previously noted, the context determines which of the possible meanings is intended.

I would be interested to know how you would paraphrase Gal 1:19 according to your understanding of adelphos in this context.