Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[Nickman]

Nickman
You keep appealing to scholars and the few that have your same presuppositions. The NT can be interpreted in any way a person wants it to be.

It is not clear cut.

Please show how the NT could portray a Jesus that is anything other than what it reports him to be?

It is not clear cut? Really?

Please show how you are right on that assertion.

Trinity vs non-Trinity. Now that was simple.

Yep, Mormons have the God head, and Catholics have the trinity ... both have the same three aspects.

Guess what happens if you are Mormon? Yep, you take the God head.

Guess what happens if you are Catholic? Yep, you take the trinity.

Guess what happens if you are atheist? Potato, potato, agh ... lets call the hole thing off.

The inability to make your own decision based on scripture and find a faith community that believes as you do ... or at least one that doesn't get wrapped around the axle about something that isn't integral to the Bible - all Christian religions believe that there are three aspects to the trinity, The Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, each has a role ... and as you relationship deepens you depend on those three aspects as you relate to God.

Of course, the inability to form and support conclusions ... hardly the stuff of failures in others. Merely in those looking for excuses to not try.

Atheists form conclusions based on all evidence. In the case of the bible, we don't just accept a certain flavor we can swallow. We deny the bible because there is no good reason to accept it as anything more than mere myth. Faith is gullibility and that is something we don't normally fall into. We make informed decisions by looking at what is presented and either confirming that info or concluding that the info cannot be verified. If it can't, then there is no reason to believe it as true.

[historia]

The most likely explanation for the available evidence is that Jesus existed. That is why the overwhelming majority of scholars hold this position.

With Jesus, there are even more factors to consider such as, blatant forgeries that put him in the extra-biblical record, the earliest writings we have, by Paul, do not speak of his earthly life, and the extraordinary claims made pertaining to his life. We must consider all of these.

I agree with you completely. We should always critically examine all of the availability sources.

The point that I'm making here, however, is that we need a proper framework for understanding that analysis. Historians never set out to "prove" what happened in the past. That's impossible. If anyone thinks the goal here is to "prove" whether Jesus existed or not, then I'm afraid you're laboring under a mistaken idea of how history (the discipline) works.

Historical inquiry proceeds like any other aspect of human inquiry: We make an observation, we form a hypothesis, and then we critically examine the available data in an attempt to confirm that hypothesis.

Again, the question here is not whether we can "prove" Jesus existed or not. The question is which hypothesis best explains the available data. Only when we're ready to proceed on those grounds can we have a meaningful debate.

Why did the early church fathers have to forge writings into extra-biblical sources? If Jesus was infact real, then this seems unnecessary let alone dishonest.

I would make two points here.

First, the notion that Jesus didn't exist is an entirely modern phenomenon. Christianity has always had outspoken (pagan and Jewish) critics, but in the first 1,800 of the Christian movement, none of those critics appear to have leveled the claim that Jesus didn't exist. Only modern skeptics make that claim.

So the notion that the early Christians felt this need to "forge" Jesus into non-biblical writings to "prove" he existed lacks a motive, unless you think they knew people two thousand years later would question this. This argument is an anachronism from start to finish.

Second, as Mithrae already pointed out, there is only one case of anything even close to what you are describing, and that is the mention of Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities.

This point has probably been raised in the thread already, but most scholars do not think this text was invented out of whole cloth. Rather, they believe this was likely an expansion of an existing (neutral or even slightly critical) mention of Jesus by Josephus. So it is not an outright invention along the lines you are suggesting here.

[Goat]

So the notion that the early Christians felt this need to "forge" Jesus into non-biblical writings to "prove" he existed lacks a motive, unless you think they knew people two thousand years later would question this. This argument is an anachronism from start to finish.

Then.. one must wonder why there are so many pseudo-graphical works, and modifications. If there are so many modifications, and forgeries, one must wonder at the original state to begin with, and the motivations

In addition, why would there be such extensive modifications of extra-biblical documents? What is the motivation? It is acknowledged that Antiquities 18 is at least highly modified, why would that be done?

Yes, that is the only non-Christian work that was done extensively, but that is the ONLY non-Christ work that supposedly addressed Jesus directly, the others were talking about Christians, not Jesus.

[catalyst]

Hi Mithrae,

You wrote:

29:30 - Carrier suggests that Mark invented an eclipse from whole cloth, which as far as I can tell is deception by omission at best: Carrier knows (it's mentioned in one of his infidels.org articles) that there was in fact a midday eclipse in the middle east during the rule of Pontius Pilate (29 CE to be precise, in August if memory serves).

There was no midday eclipse in 29CE and certainly not one in August.

There were 3 solar eclipses in 29CE and they were in January, June and November.

Some apologetics sites have claimed the one that happened in November is the one you perhaps are referring to, however it peaked at 9.24am and ended over an hour before midday.

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE0001-0100.html

Cat.

The eclipse that you refer to was not some object passing in front of the sun, it was an incoming object that cast its shadow over the land of Israel for three hours and was the cause of the earth tremors wherein the mountains shook and the veil to the inner most sanctuary of God's Temple was torn from top to bottom, allowing all believers access into the Holy of Holies. (If you are a mind that is able to comprehend what has been revealed)

If that is your claim, then once again, please provide evidence to support, or retract the claim.

Look forward to it.

Catalyst.

Its called minutia. Paul did not have access to the internet and modern space tracking devices, and much of what he wrote was from memory. The fact that he gets some details wrong only points out that he is human ... not that Jesus was a myth.

Whether "Paul" or any of the gospel writers had access to the internet or other modern modes of technology is irrelevant.

Also, it is important to see just WHAT happened when to determine whether the information put forth in christian writings IS viable or not.

Indeed, the Pauline Epistles, along with the Synoptic Gospels, are remarkably in agreement with one another, particularly about the larger details.

Really? And what would they be? Also are any of these "bigguns" also supported by NON religious writings?

So if we base our rejection of Jesus on errors of detail, minutia, rather than of substance, then we have fundamentally mistaken how history works.

Something substantial would be something that can be accepted from OBJECTIVE observance.

The Bible was not written by God. The exacting words of inerrency, is at best misleading. The creation of the Church Canon took hundreds of years, and there are many records that simply did not make the cut of authenticity at that time. Modern history has proven that the records included are remarkably accurate, remarkably in agreement, given their differing authorship, and it is presented as the BEST record of Jesus and his message.

The above paragraph is nonsensical as if modern history had proven what you say, then forums like this would not exist, nor would modern day historians AND theologians still be discussing the CHINKS in the biblical armour.

Remember, there was a reform, which tended to blow Catholic rhetoric out of the water. Even Luther didn't agree with the claptrap and he WAS originally a Catholic.

Focusing on the exact timing of an eclipse, when, by your own record, there were three (one within a month of Paul's claim), and ended a hour before mid day ... well, that seem remarkably close to what a man travelling in a time of looser Calendars would have written would it not?

I am not the one who made the claim that precision was "key", that was Mithrae. I merely pointed out that his precision was OFF and in fact the only solar eclipse that could even BEGIN to fit was not even in the yr 29CE, but rather a couple of years later. For the record, they too fail, but at least I have investigated them. Obviously you haven't.

The Tongue claimed there was no solar eclipse at ALL. I asked him to qualify his claim.

Expecting records from two thousand years ago to conform EXACTLY to modern scientific exactness ... well, perhaps inerrency in not just a religious problem when dealing with ancient texts after all?

Well considering NASA does use the correct dating and timing method (Julian) when gauging these eclipses that happened back then, IF such events actually DID happen at least there would be objective information to support the religious stuff. Like ALL things relating to this Jesus of Nazareth character, THERE IS ZERO from any other sources that point specifically to THAT GUY.

Catalyst.

[Nickman]

I agree with you completely. We should always critically examine all of the availability sources.

The point that I'm making here, however, is that we need a proper framework for understanding that analysis. Historians never set out to "prove" what happened in the past. That's impossible. If anyone thinks the goal here is to "prove" whether Jesus existed or not, then I'm afraid you're laboring under a mistaken idea of how history (the discipline) works.

Right, which is why I make no assertions in positive claims on this matter and have repeatedly stated that I am in the "I don't know" camp. I find that there are too many variables and the evidence is inconclusive on both sides of the issue.

Again, the question here is not whether we can "prove" Jesus existed or not. The question is which hypothesis best explains the available data. Only when we're ready to proceed on those grounds can we have a meaningful debate.

See above. Im in the undecided camp. The evidence, for me, could point either way. I am just not convinced one way or the other in the positive.

I would make two points here.

First, the notion that Jesus didn't exist is an entirely modern phenomenon. Christianity has always had outspoken (pagan and Jewish) critics, but in the first 1,800 of the Christian movement, none of those critics appear to have leveled the claim that Jesus didn't exist. Only modern skeptics make that claim.

So the notion that the early Christians felt this need to "forge" Jesus into non-biblical writings to "prove" he existed lacks a motive, unless you think they knew people two thousand years later would question this. This argument is an anachronism from start to finish.

Second, as Mithrae already pointed out, there is only one case of anything even close to what you are describing, and that is the mention of Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities.

This point has probably been raised in the thread already, but most scholars do not think this text was invented out of whole cloth. Rather, they believe this was likely an expansion of an existing (neutral or even slightly critical) mention of Jesus by Josephus. So it is not an outright invention along the lines you are suggesting here.

Goat already addressed this, but heres my portion. For a long time in Christian history, tradition told us that Jesus was a real person. He may have been. It wasn't until more recently that thinking people outside of tradition started to look at all of the evidence and realized it is not in the affirmative for his existence. Now, rewind back to the 3rd century when we see the writings of Josephus being manipulated, and ask yourself why. What would be a reason to manipulate an extra-biblical text if Jesus' existence wasn't even an issue? We need to look at some things that were happening in that time so we can gain context. Jesus didnt return as was expected and people started questioning. This is also at the Nicean counsel. Some ideas were those that did not acknowledge a fleshly Jesus.

The strongest motive is that of gaining merit in the idea of Jesus' existence. In the texts of the catholic church we see many writers speaking about this. There was no evidence and in order to expand, they needed textual, historical support.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/at ... flavianum/
Historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ was one of the critical elements they needed to expand their small cult into awidespread religion; and historical evidence was the one element they lacked. The writings of the early Christian apologists and even those of the New Testament clearly demonstrate this dilemma that confronted the early Christian church. These texts borderline on an obsession that worshippers should believe that Jesus Christ existed, that he was the Messiah, and that he died for their sins on the cross under Pontius Pilate. The Testimonium Flavianum addresses all three of these concerns.

The link actually provides all of the textual evidence that there was a need for evidence. Its a really good read.

[Mithrae]

Goat already addressed this, but heres my portion. For a long time in Christian history, tradition told us that Jesus was a real person. He may have been. It wasn't until more recently that thinking people outside of tradition started to look at all of the evidence and realized it is not in the affirmative for his existence.

The earliest source we have is the letters of Paul, which you say "do not speak of his earthly life." But this - like the claim of blatant forgeries into extra-biblical works by early church fathers - is manifestly false: A shocking disregard for accuracy at best.

"Thinking people outside of tradition," it seems, are those who bend over backwards trying to make texts say something other than what they clearly do:
> Paul says Jesus was born under the law of Moses, born of a woman (Gal. 3/4), but somehow this is presumed not to speak of an earthly Jesus
> Paul says that Jesus was descended from David according to the flesh (Romans 1), but surely it goes without saying that he doesn't really mean what he writes
> Paul refers to Jesus' brothers (Galatians 2, 1 Cor. 9), saying that he was acquainted with James as well as Peter, but these "thinking people" suggest that he doesn't really mean Jesus' brothers
> Paul says that Christ made himself nothing, being found in human likeness (Philippians 2)
> Paul says on innumerable occasions that Jesus was executed in the Roman manner

Even the gospels offer some evidence regarding Jesus' existence of course; so to be saying that it's "not in the affirmative" suggests that there are some contrary points which overbalance the affirmative case made by Paul, Josephus, the gospels and the Jerusalem origins of a movement claiming James' brother Jesus as its founder.

What contrary points are you hinting at?

[Nickman]

The earliest source we have is the letters of Paul, which you say "do not speak of his earthly life." But this - like the claim of blatant forgeries into extra-biblical works by early church fathers - is manifestly false: A shocking disregard for accuracy at best.

Are you suggesting that the interpolations by Eusebius into Josephus' works are not forgeries? They are dishonest at minimum. Also the later interpolations of such texts as John 8 and the last part of Mark are evidence that at least part of Jesus' so called life on earth was false. Why do we need to make up stories about someone who is said to have existed? The fact that we have these interpolations that are not authentic, places doubt on the rest of the text, especially when we don't have originals.

"Thinking people outside of tradition," it seems, are those who bend over backwards trying to make texts say something other than what they clearly do:
> Paul says Jesus was born under the law of Moses, born of a woman (Gal. 3/4), but somehow this is presumed not to speak of an earthly Jesus
> Paul says that Jesus was descended from David according to the flesh (Romans 1), but surely it goes without saying that he doesn't really mean what he writes
> Paul refers to Jesus' brothers (Galatians 2, 1 Cor. 9), saying that he was acquainted with James as well as Peter, but these "thinking people" suggest that he doesn't really mean Jesus' brothers
> Paul says that Christ made himself nothing, being found in human likeness (Philippians 2)
> Paul says on innumerable occasions that Jesus was executed in the Roman manner

My point is that he makes no reference to specifics in the gospels. Stating he was born of a woman would be a given, but why not mention the virgin birth? That's not something you leave out unless it wasn't there to begin with. It appears that the life of Jesus was an evolutionary event. It was built upon and built upon until a few clergy decided that this is the story were gonna accept. The specifics Paul speaks of pertaining to Jesus are common to the time. Anyone from that time could have the same story that Paul vaguely speaks of.

Even the gospels offer some evidence regarding Jesus' existence of course; so to be saying that it's "not in the affirmative" suggests that there are some contrary points which overbalance the affirmative case made by Paul, Josephus, the gospels and the Jerusalem origins of a movement claiming James' brother Jesus as its founder.

What contrary points are you hinting at?

The gospels are externally contradictory to each other. We also see in some places events copied verbatim by other gospel writers. Why would you need to do this if you had knowledge of his earthly life. We know that Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark, and Luke borrows from Matthew. John uses some of all three here and there but with a Greek twist which is seen by the logos explanation.

Josephus speaks of a James who is a high priest in the sanhedrin which is inconsistent with the James in the NT. How can anyone honestly say that these are one in the same? The mentions of a person named Yeshua (a popular name) are also inconsistent with the Jesus in scripture. You cannot reconcile the two as the same person. The Jesus in Josephus is not spoken of in the same light. One of the mentions is a forgery which we have already established, so qll your left with is the occurence of the name Jesus in association with the high priest James who is called anointed. The high priest is an anointed position. The James of scripture is never a high priest. These rae the contrary points that cast doubt on the idea of Jesus being a real person or at least that the mentions in Josephus are not the same guy.

[stubbornone]

So the notion that the early Christians felt this need to "forge" Jesus into non-biblical writings to "prove" he existed lacks a motive, unless you think they knew people two thousand years later would question this. This argument is an anachronism from start to finish.

Then.. one must wonder why there are so many pseudo-graphical works, and modifications. If there are so many modifications, and forgeries, one must wonder at the original state to begin with, and the motivations

In addition, why would there be such extensive modifications of extra-biblical documents? What is the motivation? It is acknowledged that Antiquities 18 is at least highly modified, why would that be done?

Yes, that is the only non-Christian work that was done extensively, but that is the ONLY non-Christ work that supposedly addressed Jesus directly, the others were talking about Christians, not Jesus.

Which would be why we have actual experts looking st it ... who conclude its accurate.

All the Jesus Myth is, is a precautionary tale in biases. The evidence clearly indicates a historical Jesus, but atheists are the only ones not convinced ... which just happens to confirm their preconceptions about God.

Not much more too it than that.

[Mithrae]

The earliest source we have is the letters of Paul, which you say "do not speak of his earthly life." But this - like the claim of blatant forgeries into extra-biblical works by early church fathers - is manifestly false: A shocking disregard for accuracy at best.

Are you suggesting that the interpolations by Eusebius into Josephus' works are not forgeries? They are dishonest at minimum.

I'm suggesting that's a single forgery, and not by an early church father. How can you hope to reach reasonable conclusions from such imprecise reasoning/rhetoric?

Also the later interpolations of such texts as John 8 and the last part of Mark are evidence that at least part of Jesus' so called life on earth was false. Why do we need to make up stories about someone who is said to have existed? The fact that we have these interpolations that are not authentic, places doubt on the rest of the text, especially when we don't have originals.

"Thinking people outside of tradition," it seems, are those who bend over backwards trying to make texts say something other than what they clearly do:
> Paul says Jesus was born under the law of Moses, born of a woman (Gal. 3/4), but somehow this is presumed not to speak of an earthly Jesus
> Paul says that Jesus was descended from David according to the flesh (Romans 1), but surely it goes without saying that he doesn't really mean what he writes
> Paul refers to Jesus' brothers (Galatians 2, 1 Cor. 9), saying that he was acquainted with James as well as Peter, but these "thinking people" suggest that he doesn't really mean Jesus' brothers
> Paul says that Christ made himself nothing, being found in human likeness (Philippians 2)
> Paul says on innumerable occasions that Jesus was executed in the Roman manner

My point is that he makes no reference to specifics in the gospels. Stating he was born of a woman would be a given, but why not mention the virgin birth? That's not something you leave out unless it wasn't there to begin with. It appears that the life of Jesus was an evolutionary event. It was built upon and built upon until a few clergy decided that this is the story were gonna accept. The specifics Paul speaks of pertaining to Jesus are common to the time. Anyone from that time could have the same story that Paul vaguely speaks of.

Those are reasons to suppose that Jesus didn't pardon a condemned adulteress, didn't rise from the dead, and may not even have been born of a virgin! They are not reasons to suppose that the man didn't even exist - and in fact it's blatantly obvious that he must have existed if Paul met his brother.

Even the gospels offer some evidence regarding Jesus' existence of course; so to be saying that it's "not in the affirmative" suggests that there are some contrary points which overbalance the affirmative case made by Paul, Josephus, the gospels and the Jerusalem origins of a movement claiming James' brother Jesus as its founder.

What contrary points are you hinting at?

The gospels are externally contradictory to each other. We also see in some places events copied verbatim by other gospel writers. Why would you need to do this if you had knowledge of his earthly life. We know that Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark, and Luke borrows from Matthew. John uses some of all three here and there but with a Greek twist which is seen by the logos explanation.

None of which would imply that the man didn't exist. Mark was perhaps written by the interpretor of Peter, and its comments on Jewish customs, use of simple agricultural parables and disputes between members of the major sects of Judaism in the early 1st century are largely what we might expect of an historical Jesus. Attempts to extract a non-historical meaning from the gospel are strained at best, from what I've seen. Conflicting and legendary material surrounding the likes of Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Einstein or Elvis do not imply that those individuals did not exist; it seems strange to imagine that's a logical argument in the case of Jesus.

Josephus speaks of a James who is a high priest in the sanhedrin which is inconsistent with the James in the NT. How can anyone honestly say that these are one in the same? The mentions of a person named Yeshua (a popular name) are also inconsistent with the Jesus in scripture. You cannot reconcile the two as the same person. The Jesus in Josephus is not spoken of in the same light. One of the mentions is a forgery which we have already established, so qll your left with is the occurence of the name Jesus in association with the high priest James who is called anointed. The high priest is an anointed position. The James of scripture is never a high priest. These rae the contrary points that cast doubt on the idea of Jesus being a real person or at least that the mentions in Josephus are not the same guy.

Yes, I noticed your earlier attempts to argue against the normal understanding of Josephus by applying English grammar to a translation of a Greek work. Fortunately for us both (though you seem to have missed it) one of our members actually knows what he's talking about:

• Student wrote:
  *[On a purely grammatical note, in the Greek text of 20.9.1, the word ‘christ’ cannot refer to James. In the phrase Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χ�ιστοῦ all the words, including Jesus, are in the genitive case. This agreement in case requires the term “the one called christ� to be applied to the genitive Ἰησοῦ.]

So I'm still waiting for this evidence you hinted at which counter-balances the affirmative evidence for Jesus' existence from the gospels, from Josephus and above all from Paul and from the demonstrable Jerusalem origins of a movement claiming James' brother Jesus as its founder.

Remember your "thinking people" who you said "look at all of the evidence and realized it is not in the affirmative for his existence."

Or was that merely rhetoric on the same level as "blatant forgeries" by early church fathers, and Paul's letters "do not speak of his earthly life"?

[stubbornone]

Nickman
You keep appealing to scholars and the few that have your same presuppositions. The NT can be interpreted in any way a person wants it to be.

It is not clear cut.

Please show how the NT could portray a Jesus that is anything other than what it reports him to be?

It is not clear cut? Really?

Please show how you are right on that assertion.

Trinity vs non-Trinity. Now that was simple.

Yep, Mormons have the God head, and Catholics have the trinity ... both have the same three aspects.

Guess what happens if you are Mormon? Yep, you take the God head.

Guess what happens if you are Catholic? Yep, you take the trinity.

Guess what happens if you are atheist? Potato, potato, agh ... lets call the hole thing off.

The inability to make your own decision based on scripture and find a faith community that believes as you do ... or at least one that doesn't get wrapped around the axle about something that isn't integral to the Bible - all Christian religions believe that there are three aspects to the trinity, The Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, each has a role ... and as you relationship deepens you depend on those three aspects as you relate to God.

Of course, the inability to form and support conclusions ... hardly the stuff of failures in others. Merely in those looking for excuses to not try.

Atheists form conclusions based on all evidence. In the case of the bible, we don't just accept a certain flavor we can swallow. We deny the bible because there is no good reason to accept it as anything more than mere myth. Faith is gullibility and that is something we don't normally fall into. We make informed decisions by looking at what is presented and either confirming that info or concluding that the info cannot be verified. If it can't, then there is no reason to believe it as true.

You keep talking about evidence, but then you never present any. The simple fact of the matter is that everything that we CAN verify in the Bible has been verified. From such an evidential basis, you then posit that it is more honorable, or more intelligent, to basically claim that the rest is a lie.

The problem is that the evidence can neither confirm nor deny. Christians follow that burden of support, and attempt to close that gap to maximum extent possible. Atheists, such as yourself, while claiming evidence, never actually present any. And yet here you attest that you strongly reject something ... based on evidence ... but you cannot present that evidence.

It's basically like saying, I don't believe in gravity ... based on the evidence. Therefore my position is logical.

The very concept of logic is obviously turned on its head, and as we see, when we apply your standards to another subject - you reject them entirely - while asking us to treat your doubt as if its fact rather than merely opinion?

Why do we believe in God, there is certainly an aspect of faith to it.

Why don't you believe in God? Well, based on what I routinely see from atheists, there isn't much more to it than faith ... and that faith leads to all kinds of confirmation biases ... not the least of which is the Jesus Myth.

Now tell me, what exactly is good or logical about a faith whose sole purpose seems to be just rejecting everyone else's faith on often supercilious claims?