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.

[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.

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.

For several reasons.. TRADITION not being the least of them., and DESIRE FOR EVIDENCE is another. The vast majority of them have a religious bias to their viewpoint. You will notice most are theologians, not historians. The group of people who push back tend to be historians. I am not talking the 'Acharya S' types, who I think is off in left field someplace and not dealing with any kind of reasonable scholarship at all... but the more rational ones.

[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.

For several reasons.. TRADITION not being the least of them., and DESIRE FOR EVIDENCE is another. The vast majority of them have a religious bias to their viewpoint. You will notice most are theologians, not historians. The group of people who push back tend to be historians. I am not talking the 'Acharya S' types, who I think is off in left field someplace and not dealing with any kind of reasonable scholarship at all... but the more rational ones.

All of the Jesus Mythers are atheists ... all of them. And there is no evidence to support their contentions.

You would do well to apply your standards to your own position. Then again, it wouldn't be much a conspiracy if you did.

[stubbornone]

Hi Mithrae,


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.

Really, so after 2,000 years and with one in July and ending at 1100, its too far off to be accurate by ancient standards of time ... where not so much as a watch was available to Paul?

If something is not exacting by modern standards it must be wrong?

Its called searching for minutia.

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

Yep, and as I have already provided links to several examples of extra-Biblical evidence that sort of makes your point not just moot ... but deliberately obtuse too boot.

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

Yep, its been absolutely nothing that convinced people , Ph.D's no less, for millenia.

Tell me, why is your argument not just this?



You atheists keep talking about evidence, yet you present none and deliberately seem to avoid exactly what you ask for? Why should anyone treat your position with even a grain of respect? Because of all the evidence you have presented that Jesus was fake?

And that is your hyposthesis, isn't it?

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.

Agh, it has been proven. We know who wrote the Bible, and what I claimed, in the modern age of google is easily verifiable.

Perhaps we should discuss the chinks in your logic?

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.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your thesis and is merely a pot shot at Catholics.

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.

I am, and indeed, you did just that above, ignoring the same argument again ... first demanding precision, then denying that it is important?

THe chinks in your logic again.

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

See above.

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.

Right, because NONE of this exists.

http://www.jesustheevidence.com/whatsin.html

Amazingly enough, a simple google search using the words 'Jesus' and 'Evidence' produces plenty, but here we are claiming that there is none at all?

Once again, tell me, why is your argument valid? Why is it NOT merely an argument from absurdity? One in which all evidence is simply and stubbornly ignored?

Why is it anything more than simple anti-religious hysteria? [/img][/url]

[Goat]

All of the Jesus Mythers are atheists ... all of them. And there is no evidence to support their contentions.

You would do well to apply your standards to your own position. Then again, it wouldn't be much a conspiracy if you did.

One must wonder if Tom Harpur, and ordained minister is an atheist.

I would have to say that coming to the conclusion that a person is a myth wouldn't drive someone way from the religion who relies on it's historical reality. So, your claim that those people who doubt the existence of a historical Jesus are all atheists are, in fact, can be documented to be incorrect. Such is life.

I personally do not know if a 'historical Jesus' existed. I will say that the extra biblical evidence presented is weak at best, forgeries at worst, and dependent on Christians for much of it.

I am sure that if a historical Jesus existed, his 'existence' has little if any comparison with the 'gospel Jesus'.

[historia]

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.

I can certainly appreciate the point you are making here. I would suggest, though, that until you can provide an alternative hypothesis that better explains the available data, simply quibbling over the evidence is at best a kind of half-argument.

This is the same tactic that Creationists, Holocaust deniers, and other conspiracy theorists take when defending their "theories," and is why others here have labeled your arguments as such.

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.

I would expand and clarify this point.

There have always been thinking Jews and pagans who have stood "outside of tradition," been critical of Christianity, and yet never denied that Jesus was a "real person."

In the 1800's, some skeptics began to question the historicity of Jesus, and that position gained some ground in academic circles. However, early in the 20th Century, with the emergence of critical historical Jesus research, scholars discarded this 'Jesus Myth' hypothesis as inadequate. Today it is near universally rejected by scholars.

In recent years, some amateur historians and atheists have attempted to resurrect this long-ago-discarded theory and popularize it on the Internet. And so here we are.

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?

There are any number of reasons why interpolations can end-up in a manuscript. Scribes can accidentally copy marginal notes into the main of the text, for example. In this case, we might suppose that an over-zealous scribe wanted to replace the original (rather neutral, if not somewhat negative) reference to Jesus in Antiquities with one that was more positive.

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 theological controversy that lead to the Council of Nicea concerned the nature of Jesus' divinity, and was in no way, shape, or form an argument over the "fleshly Jesus." Both sides in the Arian debate believed that Jesus was a real, historical, flesh-and-blood human being.

Some Christians in the early church (often called Docetists) did deny that Jesus had a physical body. They nevertheless believed that Jesus was a real, historical person. This position emerged rather early in the history of Christianity, and had been settled (at least in the minds of the orthodox) centuries before Nicea. So it has no meaningful bearing on the "context" of the time period in question here.

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.

I'm afraid this claim is simply false. As far as we know, not a single pagan or Jewish critic of Christianity ever leveled the accusation that Jesus didn't exist. Not a single Early Church Father had to defend the existence of Jesus, and nowhere do such arguments exist in their writings.

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

Actually, read that website again more carefully and you'll see that the author provides very little, if any, evidence to support his claims.

You seem like a smart and thoughtful person, Nickman. Unfortunately, it appears that your opinions on this topic are shaped by websites that are providing grossly misleading and inaccurate information, leaving you misinformed on a number of important points.

I would encourage you to put aside these unreliable sources and read scholarly works on this topic. I can recommend a few books, if you are so inclined.

[historia]

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.

Perhaps you can clarify your point here, Goat. On the one hand you're arguing that there are "so many" and "such extensive" modifications to non-biblical works. But then in the next sentence you acknowledge that there is only one known example of this. Which way would you have it?

Using a pseudonym when writing was a fairly common literary technique in the ancient world, emerging from a time and a culture that had very different ideas about authorship and authority than we do today. It is not, at any rate, a phenomenon unique to Christian authors, and so does not tell us much about their specific "motivation."

[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.

Perhaps you can clarify your point here, Goat. On the one hand you're arguing that there are "so many" and "such extensive" modifications to non-biblical works. But then in the next sentence you acknowledge that there is only one known example of this. Which way would you have it?

Using a pseudonym when writing was a fairly common literary technique in the ancient world, emerging from a time and a culture that had very different ideas about authorship and authority than we do today. It is not, at any rate, a phenomenon unique to Christian authors, and so does not tell us much about their specific "motivation."

When it comes to the actual Bible, is it not true there have been changes in specifically the end of Mark,and quite extensively in the Gospel of John? Is not things stuffed into the Gospel of Mathew too, and that is the biblical items.

If you are so insistent about the validity of the evidence.. I have to ask you this.

What extra biblical evidence do you think is so convincing, and WHY?: I mean.,.. have you actually LOOKED at it??? People throw out Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny, and have no clue about that is said... or how it could relate to a historical Jesus at all.

[Nickman]

I can certainly appreciate the point you are making here. I would suggest, though, that until you can provide an alternative hypothesis that better explains the available data, simply quibbling over the evidence is at best a kind of half-argument.

What more do we have than available evidence? I can't conjure up more evidence. So, I use what is there.

This is the same tactic that Creationists, Holocaust deniers, and other conspiracy theorists take when defending their "theories," and is why others here have labeled your arguments as such.

What theory have I put forth? I sense here that some of the posters have no idea what a conspiracy is, and labeling my argument that is honest and undecided is far from conspiracy. In this argument or debate the people I am debating are in the camp of Jesus' historicity as if it is confirmed. I can argue from both sides for and against so, since the opposition is arguing in the affirmative position for Jesus, I am providing evidence to the contrary. I know many people on this forum who, over the years, have argued for a certain point , and when I look at their usergroups, the position they are taking is not congruent with their usergroup. Perfect example I gave to Truth 101, I may be an atheist but I can debate for or against the trinity even though I don't believe in it. If the textual evidence is forthe trinity, then I honestly have to follow the evidence and will do so. This in no way means I believe in it and it surely doesn't show a conspiracy. I look at evidence, and thus far in this debate I have not seen evidence for Jesus' existence, even though I know of some good arguments which no one has provided. Its not up to me to provide such when I am debating the opposition. When those arguments are made on this forum, I will agree that they are good evidence but I will aslo show the evidence to the contrary which may cast doubt on them. This is why I find the evidence inconclusive.

I would expand and clarify this point.

There have always been thinking Jews and pagans who have stood "outside of tradition," been critical of Christianity, and yet never denied that Jesus was a "real person."

In the 1800's, some skeptics began to question the historicity of Jesus, and that position gained some ground in academic circles. However, early in the 20th Century, with the emergence of critical historical Jesus research, scholars discarded this 'Jesus Myth' hypothesis as inadequate. Today it is near universally rejected by scholars.

In recent years, some amateur historians and atheists have attempted to resurrect this long-ago-discarded theory and popularize it on the Internet. And so here we are.

Which tells me that the debate is far from over and there are reasons to believe Jesus existed and reasons to believe he didn't and was made up. I stand in the middle until we can get a clear cut. In this specific debate I am arguing on one side even though I am in the middle. I could argue the other side too. Being in the middle doesn't make for much debate, now does it? Im arguing the evidence against a historical Jesus, just because I can. Which I think should be a telltale sign that the evidence can go both ways. When someone provides evidence that I know is accurate and helpful for the opposition, I will agree with it.

There are any number of reasons why interpolations can end-up in a manuscript. Scribes can accidentally copy marginal notes into the main of the text, for example. In this case, we might suppose that an over-zealous scribe wanted to replace the original (rather neutral, if not somewhat negative) reference to Jesus in Antiquities with one that was more positive.

Which means you have no idea if what your actually reading is or is not accurate. If you cannot verify accuracy, then claims in the affirmative are dishonest. Interpolations can also be consciously dishonest to gain ground for whatever purpose. We know Eusebius most likely placed the interpolation into Josephus and there is no other good reason for doing so other than the agenda of gaining creedence for the Jesus story in a well-known and respected historian.

If JESUS had enough evidence for his existence then why did a church icon have to put false information about Jesus into a historical document?

The theological controversy that lead to the Council of Nicea concerned the nature of Jesus' divinity, and was in no way, shape, or form an argument over the "fleshly Jesus." Both sides in the Arian debate believed that Jesus was a real, historical, flesh-and-blood human being.

Some Christians in the early church (often called Docetists) did deny that Jesus had a physical body. They nevertheless believed that Jesus was a real, historical person. This position emerged rather early in the history of Christianity, and had been settled (at least in the minds of the orthodox) centuries before Nicea. So it has no meaningful bearing on the "context" of the time period in question here.

This was the time when the interpolation was made. So there is some sort of correlation here. At the time Christianity is about get a catapult into the mainstream, but not without opposition. Rome was reluctant to give up their pantheon and in order to have some creedence for this "monotheistic" idea, there needed to be some historicity.

I'm afraid this claim is simply false. As far as we know, not a single pagan or Jewish critic of Christianity ever leveled the accusation that Jesus didn't exist. Not a single Early Church Father had to defend the existence of Jesus, and nowhere do such arguments exist in their writings.

Ill agree here, but I do ask why Eusebius had to forge an accou n into Josephus that deal with Jesus' existence, and making Josephus out to be a person who agrees with Christology?

Actually, read that website again more carefully and you'll see that the author provides very little, if any, evidence to support his claims.

You seem like a smart and thoughtful person, Nickman. Unfortunately, it appears that your opinions on this topic are shaped by websites that are providing grossly misleading and inaccurate information, leaving you misinformed on a number of important points.

I would encourage you to put aside these unreliable sources and read scholarly works on this topic. I can recommend a few books, if you are so inclined.

My opinions are based on a wide variety of evidence. This is why I am undecided. I find it hard to believe that we would have so many documents, even gospel documents, that have been manipulated by the Christian agenda if Jesus were to have 100% confirmation of his existence. I also think we cannot confirm or reconcile the extra-biblical with the biblical accounts to speak of the same person. If we were to take Josephus, for example, and claim it is authentic we would still have to realize that the two Jesus' we see are different. The gospels themselves are externally contradictory to each other. Yet in some cases they read verbatim. This leads me to honestly say that if Jesus was real, his story is not accurate and lacking support. We cannot honestly say that Jesus did this or that without faith. Nothing from extra-biblical accounts gives creedence to the actual event of Jesus' life. There are some better accounts such as Tacticus. It was written in 116ad after gospel works are said to already be in circulation, so claiming that his account is genuine is a faith matter. The entire amount of literature we have concerning this event of Jesus existence are not 100% confirmed and cannot be. There is always another variable to the story, either self-contradictory or blatantly forged. The entire existence of Jesus relies on a haphazardly put together origin.

[Nickman]

@ Historia

I have dug up a little more and have found, with help, a conversation between Justin Martyr and Trypho . You can find Justin's full account here. So the church has needed a reason to give evidence for Jesus existence. Even among Jews his existence was denied, and who better to forge a document for Jesus' existence than a Jewish historian?

When I had said this, my beloved friends those who were with Trypho laughed; but he, smiling, says, "I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things; but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. For if you remain in that mode of philosophy, and live blamelessly, a hope of a better destiny were left to you; but when you have forsaken God, and reposed confidence in man, what safety still awaits you? If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God. But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

[Nickman]

@ Historia

Might I add that this was less than a hundred years after Jesus' supposed existence by a Jew, who saw no evidence of Jesus.