Did Jesus Exist? Part XI

[Lotan]

Did Jesus Exist? Part XI: Conclusion

Q: Was there an historical Jesus?
A: Of course there was.

[SimonH]

You might have missed my edit: Professor C. Stephen Evans writes that "there is no story of the historical Jesus that can be isolated from faith convictions".

"John the Baptist was resurrected, Eleazar cast out demons, Vespasian cured the blind, Honi made it rain, Hanina was a clairvoyant, Simon Magus flew, Alexander was sired by Zeus, Plato was sired by Apollo, etc. etc." - from Part VII

I'm pretty sure that at least some of these guys existed.

I'm told Josephus wrote quite a bit about John, so he's got more going for him. Sure myths surround any historical figure. But the Bible is about the myths. Are there tomes detailing Alexander's mythical life where he constantly does physically impossible things?

First you would have to provide a rationale for excluding the Bible. We already know that it's an apologetic work.

My rationale is that the Bible is about a mythical figure. It is not about a historical figure with the odd myth thrown in to make him look good.

I'm most definitely NOT trying to show that the Gospel Jesus is real.

So which Jesus are we talking about then, if its not the one in the Bible? Is it just A Jesus from around the same time, who may or may not have been the inspiration for the Biblical Jesus?

So we're not talking about Citizen Kane (fictional), we're talking about William Randolph Hearst (real), right?

No one is claiming that "Jesus as depicted in the Bible really existed".

Well, I think some people are. You see, we're on a Christian debate forum, so I just got all confused and assumed we were talking about the Christian Jesus.

Apparently not.

[micatala]

You might have missed my edit: Professor C. Stephen Evans writes that "there is no story of the historical Jesus that can be isolated from faith convictions".

"John the Baptist was resurrected, Eleazar cast out demons, Vespasian cured the blind, Honi made it rain, Hanina was a clairvoyant, Simon Magus flew, Alexander was sired by Zeus, Plato was sired by Apollo, etc. etc." - from Part VII

I'm pretty sure that at least some of these guys existed.

I'm told Josephus wrote quite a bit about John, so he's got more going for him. Sure myths surround any historical figure. But the Bible is about the myths. Are there tomes detailing Alexander's mythical life where he constantly does physically impossible things?

The Bible in general, and the gospels in particular, are not just about myth.

As a test, I would suggest SimonH go through the gospels and do the Thomas Jefferson routine. Take out all the supernatural bits. How much is left? Is it more than nothing? More than half?

Simon H claims that

My rationale is that the Bible is about a mythical figure. It is not about a historical figure with the odd myth thrown in to make him look good.

Let's see the actual evidence before we judge this.

Well, I think some people are. You see, we're on a Christian debate forum, so I just got all confused and assumed we were talking about the Christian Jesus.

Apparently not.

Lotan has never purported to be discussing the "Christians Jesus" but rather what scholars like Crossan term the "Historical Jesus".

Keep in mind that scholars have been able to parse out the gospels and determine with some probability which portions are from a relatively early date, and which portions came later. We also have separate writings that are independent of the canonical gospels (e.g. the Gospel of THomas, the Didache, etc.). Some of these earliest writings do not include mention of Jesus performing supernatural feats, and downplay or ignore the crucifixion and resurrection.

These writings would indicate that your objections to the presence of the supernatural in the gospels are negated, because we know of, and in fact have examples of, writings where these were not present.

Some of these writings concentrate on the sayings of Jesus. Consider that Plato related many of the purported teachings of Socrates without giving us anything about his life. We conclude on the basis of Plato and a few other ancient writings that Socrates existed, simply because these works relate his idea even if they do not in any accurate way give us information about his actual life.

Similarly, we know next to nothing about the life of Euclid, and do not even know with accuracy his birth and death dates. We know of him because his written work was copies, and he is referred to by other writers. Jesus, of course, left no writings that we know of, but he was written about and referred to. How is this diffent than Socrates?

[SimonH]

You might have missed my edit: Professor C. Stephen Evans writes that "there is no story of the historical Jesus that can be isolated from faith convictions".

"John the Baptist was resurrected, Eleazar cast out demons, Vespasian cured the blind, Honi made it rain, Hanina was a clairvoyant, Simon Magus flew, Alexander was sired by Zeus, Plato was sired by Apollo, etc. etc." - from Part VII

I'm pretty sure that at least some of these guys existed.

I'm told Josephus wrote quite a bit about John, so he's got more going for him. Sure myths surround any historical figure. But the Bible is about the myths. Are there tomes detailing Alexander's mythical life where he constantly does physically impossible things?

The Bible in general, and the gospels in particular, are not just about myth.

As a test, I would suggest SimonH go through the gospels and do the Thomas Jefferson routine. Take out all the supernatural bits. How much is left? Is it more than nothing? More than half?

Simon H claims that

My rationale is that the Bible is about a mythical figure. It is not about a historical figure with the odd myth thrown in to make him look good.

Let's see the actual evidence before we judge this.

Well, I think some people are. You see, we're on a Christian debate forum, so I just got all confused and assumed we were talking about the Christian Jesus.

Apparently not.

Lotan has never purported to be discussing the "Christians Jesus" but rather what scholars like Crossan term the "Historical Jesus".

Keep in mind that scholars have been able to parse out the gospels and determine with some probability which portions are from a relatively early date, and which portions came later. We also have separate writings that are independent of the canonical gospels (e.g. the Gospel of THomas, the Didache, etc.). Some of these earliest writings do not include mention of Jesus performing supernatural feats, and downplay or ignore the crucifixion and resurrection.

These writings would indicate that your objections to the presence of the supernatural in the gospels are negated, because we know of, and in fact have examples of, writings where these were not present.

Some of these writings concentrate on the sayings of Jesus. Consider that Plato related many of the purported teachings of Socrates without giving us anything about his life. We conclude on the basis of Plato and a few other ancient writings that Socrates existed, simply because these works relate his idea even if they do not in any accurate way give us information about his actual life.

Similarly, we know next to nothing about the life of Euclid, and do not even know with accuracy his birth and death dates. We know of him because his written work was copies, and he is referred to by other writers. Jesus, of course, left no writings that we know of, but he was written about and referred to. How is this diffent than Socrates?

I understand that not everything in the Bible is supernatural, but that is a very different thing to mythical.

To be honest, I find the whole concept of an historical Jesus suspect. I have read a fair amount, from both sides, and find myself wondering who this "real" Jesus is.

All we have to go on is a glorification.

"Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle are the main sources for the historical Socrates; however, Xenophon and Plato were direct disciples of Socrates, and presumably, they idealize him; however, they wrote the only continuous descriptions of Socrates that have come down to us. Aristotle refers frequently, but in passing, to Socrates in his writings."

So we do have a neutral and consistent reference for Socrates - Aristotle. We also have a good idea who Plato was, so we can judge to a certain extent what his motives would have been, unlike the Gospel writers. He also wrote about other things than Socrates, so again we get good insight into his thinking. We have a far rounder picture to go on.

We can see that Plato would have idealised Socrates, but would he have glorified him in the same way the Scriptures glorify Jesus? Obviously not.

When I say mythical, I don't just mean supernatural. I mean glorification to create a picture of a man above and beyond a normal humanity. Of course, historical figures have been glorified. But I challenge you to find another ancient non-religious historical figure who has been glorified to the same extent, without there being other sources to judge that person by.

Perhaps some pharoe or other. But even then, we have archeological evidence to back up their existence.

[micatala]

To be honest, I find the whole concept of an historical Jesus suspect. I have read a fair amount, from both sides, and find myself wondering who this "real" Jesus is.

All we have to go on is a glorification.

I certainly can understand anyone being skeptical, and frustrated at the non-objectivity of most of the sources we have for Jesus.

However, I would say it is not fair to say that "all we have to go on is glorification." As has been noted, some of the sources we have, including some that influenced the canonical gospels, do not "glorify Jesus." Certainly Josephus et al fit in this category.

"Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle are the main sources for the historical Socrates; however, Xenophon and Plato were direct disciples of Socrates, and presumably, they idealize him; however, they wrote the only continuous descriptions of Socrates that have come down to us. Aristotle refers frequently, but in passing, to Socrates in his writings."

So we do have a neutral and consistent reference for Socrates - Aristotle. We also have a good idea who Plato was, so we can judge to a certain extent what his motives would have been, unlike the Gospel writers. He also wrote about other things than Socrates, so again we get good insight into his thinking. We have a far rounder picture to go on.

Sure, we have Aristotle and the sources we have for Socrates are in many ways very different than the sources we have for Jesus. Still, although the comparison is not perfect, there are enough similarities to indicate that if we accept the reality of Socrates, we should accept the reality of Jesus. Aristotle referring "in passing" to Socrates is not unlike Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.

We can see that Plato would have idealised Socrates, but would he have glorified him in the same way the Scriptures glorify Jesus? Obviously not.

True, but again irrelevant. If we discover another ancient writing that does glorify Socrates, would that lead us to think Socrates' existence less likely?

When I say mythical, I don't just mean supernatural. I mean glorification to create a picture of a man above and beyond a normal humanity. Of course, historical figures have been glorified. But I challenge you to find another ancient non-religious historical figure who has been glorified to the same extent, without there being other sources to judge that person by.

Is there another ancient figure glorified as much as Jesus? Off the top of my head, others that could be argued to be in the same league would be Buddha and Mohammed. Also, we have the Caesars. Jesus is probably unique in that he is the only person who is still worshipped as God in current times. However, at his time he would not have been so unique.

And again, there ARE other sources that point to the actual existence of Jesus. They may not be plentiful, but they DO exist.



Consider the option that you are implicitly proposing. Jesus did not exist. This would mean that everything written about him is entirely fictional.

Now, let's turn this on its head. Assuming Jesus was fictional, what other fictional character from ancient times has ANY historical citations alluding to him or her. What other fictional character has the number and variety of works written about him that declare him to be an actual person as Jesus would? Can you name even one?

[Goat]

To be honest, I find the whole concept of an historical Jesus suspect. I have read a fair amount, from both sides, and find myself wondering who this "real" Jesus is.

All we have to go on is a glorification.

I certainly can understand anyone being skeptical, and frustrated at the non-objectivity of most of the sources we have for Jesus.

However, I would say it is not fair to say that "all we have to go on is glorification." As has been noted, some of the sources we have, including some that influenced the canonical gospels, do not "glorify Jesus." Certainly Josephus et al fit in this category.

"Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle are the main sources for the historical Socrates; however, Xenophon and Plato were direct disciples of Socrates, and presumably, they idealize him; however, they wrote the only continuous descriptions of Socrates that have come down to us. Aristotle refers frequently, but in passing, to Socrates in his writings."

So we do have a neutral and consistent reference for Socrates - Aristotle. We also have a good idea who Plato was, so we can judge to a certain extent what his motives would have been, unlike the Gospel writers. He also wrote about other things than Socrates, so again we get good insight into his thinking. We have a far rounder picture to go on.

Sure, we have Aristotle and the sources we have for Socrates are in many ways very different than the sources we have for Jesus. Still, although the comparison is not perfect, there are enough similarities to indicate that if we accept the reality of Socrates, we should accept the reality of Jesus. Aristotle referring "in passing" to Socrates is not unlike Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.

We can see that Plato would have idealised Socrates, but would he have glorified him in the same way the Scriptures glorify Jesus? Obviously not.

True, but again irrelevant. If we discover another ancient writing that does glorify Socrates, would that lead us to think Socrates' existence less likely?

When I say mythical, I don't just mean supernatural. I mean glorification to create a picture of a man above and beyond a normal humanity. Of course, historical figures have been glorified. But I challenge you to find another ancient non-religious historical figure who has been glorified to the same extent, without there being other sources to judge that person by.

Is there another ancient figure glorified as much as Jesus? Off the top of my head, others that could be argued to be in the same league would be Buddha and Mohammed. Also, we have the Caesars. Jesus is probably unique in that he is the only person who is still worshipped as God in current times. However, at his time he would not have been so unique.

And again, there ARE other sources that point to the actual existence of Jesus. They may not be plentiful, but they DO exist.



Consider the option that you are implicitly proposing. Jesus did not exist. This would mean that everything written about him is entirely fictional.

Now, let's turn this on its head. Assuming Jesus was fictional, what other fictional character from ancient times has ANY historical citations alluding to him or her. What other fictional character has the number and variety of works written about him that declare him to be an actual person as Jesus would? Can you name even one?

However, the Josephus source is very suspect. It is acknowledged that antiquities 18 is at least modified. IF that is so, one must ask 'is it an entire insertion' There is no really good evidence, except for speculation based on a copy 600 years after the first reference to antiquities 18 that it is not.

As for Antiquities 20.. the phrase that is reference Jesus is practically letter for letter from the gospels. If that one short phrase is removed, it makes perfect sense to be a different Jesus.It is what we would expect as a copiers gloss

[micatala]

I would say read one of Lotan's other parts on the whole insertion issue in the Testimonium Flavium. I think we can say insertions were very likely. I think Lotan and his sources argue compellingly that the whole thing is not an insertion. There likely was an actual reference to Jesus. Some sources even argue the tone of the passage without the insertions is negative. Certainly we cannot say Josephus is any kind of a Jesus apologist.

[Goat]

I would say read one of Lotan's other parts on the whole insertion issue in the Testimonium Flavium. I think we can say insertions were very likely. I think Lotan and his sources argue compellingly that the whole thing is not an insertion. There likely was an actual reference to Jesus. Some sources even argue the tone of the passage without the insertions is negative. Certainly we cannot say Josephus is any kind of a Jesus apologist.

Ok.. this is what I would like to see then. If you claim that it is not the whole thing is an insertion (I think it is), answer me the following questions.

Where is there a reference to any of the passage from before the 4th century.

Why didn't Origen, who quoted from Antiquities 18 about John the Baptist, mention this passage?

[SimonH]

To be honest, I find the whole concept of an historical Jesus suspect. I have read a fair amount, from both sides, and find myself wondering who this "real" Jesus is.

All we have to go on is a glorification.

I certainly can understand anyone being skeptical, and frustrated at the non-objectivity of most of the sources we have for Jesus.

However, I would say it is not fair to say that "all we have to go on is glorification." As has been noted, some of the sources we have, including some that influenced the canonical gospels, do not "glorify Jesus." Certainly Josephus et al fit in this category.

"Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle are the main sources for the historical Socrates; however, Xenophon and Plato were direct disciples of Socrates, and presumably, they idealize him; however, they wrote the only continuous descriptions of Socrates that have come down to us. Aristotle refers frequently, but in passing, to Socrates in his writings."

So we do have a neutral and consistent reference for Socrates - Aristotle. We also have a good idea who Plato was, so we can judge to a certain extent what his motives would have been, unlike the Gospel writers. He also wrote about other things than Socrates, so again we get good insight into his thinking. We have a far rounder picture to go on.

Sure, we have Aristotle and the sources we have for Socrates are in many ways very different than the sources we have for Jesus. Still, although the comparison is not perfect, there are enough similarities to indicate that if we accept the reality of Socrates, we should accept the reality of Jesus. Aristotle referring "in passing" to Socrates is not unlike Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.

We can see that Plato would have idealised Socrates, but would he have glorified him in the same way the Scriptures glorify Jesus? Obviously not.

True, but again irrelevant. If we discover another ancient writing that does glorify Socrates, would that lead us to think Socrates' existence less likely?

When I say mythical, I don't just mean supernatural. I mean glorification to create a picture of a man above and beyond a normal humanity. Of course, historical figures have been glorified. But I challenge you to find another ancient non-religious historical figure who has been glorified to the same extent, without there being other sources to judge that person by.

Is there another ancient figure glorified as much as Jesus? Off the top of my head, others that could be argued to be in the same league would be Buddha and Mohammed. Also, we have the Caesars. Jesus is probably unique in that he is the only person who is still worshipped as God in current times. However, at his time he would not have been so unique.

And again, there ARE other sources that point to the actual existence of Jesus. They may not be plentiful, but they DO exist.



Consider the option that you are implicitly proposing. Jesus did not exist. This would mean that everything written about him is entirely fictional.

Now, let's turn this on its head. Assuming Jesus was fictional, what other fictional character from ancient times has ANY historical citations alluding to him or her. What other fictional character has the number and variety of works written about him that declare him to be an actual person as Jesus would? Can you name even one?

The argument here is that Jesus of the Bible was based on a real Jesus.

Now, is Citizen Kane a real person or fiction? He was probably based on William Randolph Hearst, but that doesn't make Kane real.

If Jesus was based on a real person, we have so little to go on, apart from the "glorifying writers". Because they are glorifying, the truth of what they are saying is unreliable.

Its quite possible Socrates was a fictional character made up by Plato. But people don't put this forward as an idea so much because there is less motivation for him to do so, than Gospel writers.

The problem is this - if you are a Christian, trying to convert people to your belief, you are not going to want any descriptions of an "historical Jesus" flying around. So, if there was an historical Jesus, the knowledge of him would probably have been erased. eg: The Josephus passage - clearly, if there was a description of a real Jesus, it has been got at. And there is a real clear motive for Christians to want to get at it and change it.

If Jospehus had written "Jesus was a religious leader who was crucified by the Romans for causing trouble" and you're a Christian trying to persuade people "Jesus was the son of God who came back from the dead", what are you going to do when you come across Josephus's book?

So whatever a real Jesus was actually like has been wiped out (probably). If the Jesus in the Bible was based on this real Jesus, he's still fictional - as Kane is to William Randolph Hearst.

If the Bible does have elements of a real Jesus that could be weeded out, we have no way of telling which bits are real - and this is exactly what the early Christians would have wanted.

Consider the option that you are implicitly proposing. Jesus did not exist. This would mean that everything written about him is entirely fictional.

No I'm not. I'm saying we can't tell what is real and what is fiction. I'm saying the water is so muddy the idea of knowing an historical Jesus is futile.