Did Jesus exist?

[unknown soldier]

Did Jesus exist as a real person, or is he a fictional character created by the early Christian sect? If Jesus did exist, then how much was he like the Jesus of the New Testament? Was the "real" Jesus so different from the Biblical Jesus that the Biblical Jesus is essentially a myth like Osiris or Thor?

My position on the issue of the historicity of Jesus is that although I wouldn't say he was not historical, I'm not convinced by the evidence that he existed either. As I see it, the biggest problem for historical-Jesus studies isn't so much that Jesus didn't exist but that good reasons to think he existed don't exist. In other words, historical-Jesus proponents have not met the burden of proof.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #70]

I see your argument for a historical Jesus amounts to: you can know Jesus existed because the Bible says so.

Well no! I think we have demonstrated that it would be you who, claims to know what you think know, "because the scholars tell you so"! As for me, I have enough sense to know, the Bible does not tell us anything at all. Because, I have enough sense to know, the Bible is a collection of writings by different authors down through the years. For one to say such a thing, sort of demonstrates one, who has a complete lack of knowledge of what they want to be so critical of.

Next, I am not making an argument for an historical Jesus. Rather, I am insisting that there would be an abundance of evidence in support of an historical Jesus, while you are insisting, "that good reasons to think he existed don't exist". I think we have demonstrated this to be in error. The way in which we have demonstrated this to be in error, is because I have continued to point out these facts, evidence, and reasons, while you simply explain to us what your "scholars" have to say. This goes on to demonstrate the difference between one who thinks for themselves, as opposed to one who continues to simply take the word of others.

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #70]

I see your argument for a historical Jesus amounts to: you can know Jesus existed because the Bible says so.

Well no! I think we have demonstrated that it would be you who, claims to know what you think know, "because the scholars tell you so"! As for me, I have enough sense to know, the Bible does not tell us anything at all. Because, I have enough sense to know, the Bible is a collection of writings by different authors down through the years. For one to say such a thing, sort of demonstrates one, who has a complete lack of knowledge of what they want to be so critical of.

Next, I am not making an argument for an historical Jesus. Rather, I am insisting that there would be an abundance of evidence in support of an historical Jesus, while you are insisting, "that good reasons to think he existed don't exist". I think we have demonstrated this to be in error. The way in which we have demonstrated this to be in error, is because I have continued to point out these facts, evidence, and reasons, while you simply explain to us what your "scholars" have to say. This goes on to demonstrate the difference between one who thinks for themselves, as opposed to one who continues to simply take the word of others.

In that case I see your argument for a historical Jesus amounts to: you can know Jesus existed because I say so.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #72]

In that case I see your argument for a historical Jesus amounts to: you can know Jesus existed because I say so.

I really do not know what you are failing to understand? In our conversation, I have not attempted to make an argument for an historical Jesus. Nor, have I made the argument that, "I can know Jesus existed". Rather, I have demonstrated, that we can "know" there is an abundance of evidence in support of an historical Jesus, while you insist, "that good reasons to think he existed don't exist". The difference is, I am pointing to real historical facts, and evidence, while you are simply regurgitating what your "scholars" have to say, and cannot even defend what you are, regurgitating.

[Mithrae]

Hmmm. So you tell me I'm wrong about your apparent reason to reject my argument for a historical Jesus, yet you don't bother to explain why I'm wrong. I want you to be concise, but not that concise! So please post your main reason(s) you find my argument to be unconvincing, and I'll try to go over them.

For the record, I agree with you. I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy. I'm saying this up front because I want you to take the following criticism as it's intended rather than as an attempt to discredit what you're saying in general.

First, at the broad point that you're levelling the question, "did Jesus exist" is an academic question and is going to be addressed by appeals to scholarship. In an aggregate sense, scholars have thought of and addressed all of the things you're bringing up. They might be wrong about important bits of it (and if you and I are right, they must be), but it's not because they're overlooking something easy or stupid and it's definitely not because they're a bunch of liars. Those are the arguments of creationists, anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers. If you find yourself making those arguments, stop if you want to be taken seriously.

You've most recently mentioned, for example, that all of Paul's "gospel" was established via personal revelation. Once again, I happen to think you're right, but there are scholars that disagree for reasons that are based on accepted ways of examining and interacting with the evidence. Samuel Byrskog writes the following in his excellent essay, "How do we Know that Jesus Existed?" from the Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus:

A third way of employing Paul’s letters as sources is to identify his use of Jesus tradition. We have already noticed his reference to tradition in 1 Cor 15:3. This is a tradition about Jesus, and there is reason to trust it historically, but Paul does not identify it as Jesus tradition. In fact, he does so only on three or four occasions, in 1 Cor 7:10–11; 9:14; 11:23–25; and possibly 1 Thess 4:15–17.26 On all three or four occasions he attributes the tradition directly to the Lord, and this raises the question whether he in fact thought of it as a personal revelation. At least 1 Cor 11:23–25 does not warrant this conclusion. Paul uses technical terminology for receiving and passing on tradition and formulates in a way that is strikingly reminiscent of what is known as Jesus tradition in Luke 22:19–20. His reference to tradition at this point is significant, because it places the words of Jesus within a small narrative context. As is well known, there are two different strands of the tradition concerning the Lord’s Supper, the other one being recorded in Mark 14:22–24/Matt 26:26–28, but it seems historically reasonable to assume that Paul gives testimony to an early conviction that Jesus had celebrated a particularly important evening meal together with his disciples towards the end of his life.

Once an academic argument such as this has been published in an accepted way, opposing scholars aren't allowed to ignore it. One may dismiss it as long as one does so explicitly, but then the dismissal becomes a part of the reasoning.

I would have thought of the three Corinthian passages chapter 11 seems to most clearly suggest that Paul treated it as revelation that he "received from the Lord." Whether or not he was being entirely forthcoming is another question of course; the difference in the versions seems to be mostly that Paul and Luke explicitly treated it as a ritual of remembrance, which may have been the important innovation which Paul attributed to revelation and didn't wish to dilute by acknowledging that he was merely 'fixing' the previous story. By contrast in chapter 15 Paul says of the message that he had received it, but not from whom; and while we can surely suppose that he viewed the core details of Christ's death "in accordance with the scriptures" and resurrection as being part of his revelation, can the same be said of the comparatively mundane details of who he then appeared to in what order? This being the absolute core of Paul's gospel surely we would expect him to emphasize that he had received it directly from the Lord, unless those more mundane details had indeed been received from older tradition?

7:10-12 also stands out as being the only occasion on which Paul attributes a moral teaching directly to the Lord. If he were preaching a non-earthly Jesus and a purely revelatory message he obviously could have done this on innumerable other occasions... but didn't. This issue of divorce also happens to be one of if not the most noteworthy points on which the Jesus of Mark and Matthew agrees more with Shammai than Hillel (if either of those teachers existed, of course ) which would probably be quite significant to an alleged student of Gamaliel perhaps otherwise inclined to take a more 'liberal' stance. It seems to me there's an excellent prima facie case there for supposing that Paul was making the distinction between his other moral reasoning based on scriptures etc. (cf. v17, v25) and a genuine Jesus tradition on divorce in 10-11 which - if he really had been taught by Hillel's grandson - perhaps compelled him to rethink his views.

My advice is to pick something smaller to debate that you think scholars have wrong that, though small, is important to the overall discussion. "Paul's gospel is based exclusively on personal revelation" or "James isn't the literal brother of Jesus" might be good examples. My fingers aren't broken, I guess, but I'd also like to see a discussion about exactly which pericopes (if any) from the Gospels are considered historical and if there are ways beyond mere plausibility that scholars use to discern between the commonly accepted, "Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan River," and just-as-commonly rejected "Jesus came back to life after being dead for three days."

I don't know about scholars but it seems to me a similar line of reasoning applies to the resurrection as to Jesus' baptism. While he only occasionally touches on Jesus' actual life Paul obviously did preach an earthly, human Jesus born of a woman under the law and descended from David according to the flesh etc., but his treatment of the resurrection strongly suggests that he did not consider it a physical resurrection: "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body.... the last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (1 Cor. 15:35-46). We don't know what, if anything, Mark originally said about the post-resurrection appearances (though it does say that the body was gone), but in Matthew and in Luke/John we see two different and apparently contrived approaches to emphasizing a bodily resurrection. In Matthew we have not merely a missing body, but one which was carefully guarded and miraculously restored, and in Luke/John we have the scenes of Jesus eating and having his disciples touch his wounds. So by the same reasoning with which we conclude the likelihood that Mark's earlier and more 'embarrassing' account of Jesus' baptism by John is closer to the historical reality, it would seem that Paul's preaching of a spiritual resurrection is likely closer to the earliest Christian belief. In fact if Paul's comment in 1 Cor. 9:1 implies that seeing the risen Christ was taken as a sign of his blessing by the early community, that could go a long way towards explaining how the belief gained traction as devotees managed to persuade themselves that they had indeed received such a vision! (And Paul's own disputed claim to have received such a vision might have been a catalyst spurring the trend towards belief in a physical resurrection instead, though Paul himself seems to have recognized the potential difficulties by insisting that he was the 'last' and 'least' of the apostles.)

[unknown soldier]

First, at the broad point that you're levelling the question, "did Jesus exist" is an academic question and is going to be addressed by appeals to scholarship. In an aggregate sense, scholars have thought of and addressed all of the things you're bringing up. They might be wrong about important bits of it (and if you and I are right, they must be), but it's not because they're overlooking something easy or stupid and it's definitely not because they're a bunch of liars.

Actually, I do accept quite a bit of what scholars say regarding Jesus. For example, I have no dispute with them regarding the dating of the gospels. That said, I think that Bible scholars ate not the experts they may claim to be. According to Hector Avalos, a Bible scholar himself, modern Biblical studies are a "liberal-Christian apologetic" as he documents in The End of Biblical Studies.

Those are the arguments of creationists, anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers.

The evidence for Jesus is nowhere near as good as that for climate change or for evolution. It's simply not a fair comparison to compare Bible scholars to climate scientists or evolutionary biologists.

If you find yourself making those arguments, stop if you want to be taken seriously.

It's not my goal to be taken seriously. The pursuit of truth is not a popularity contest. My goal is to attain a knowledge of the truth regardless of how well received that truth may be.

You've most recently mentioned, for example, that all of Paul's "gospel" was established via personal revelation. Once again, I happen to think you're right, but there are scholars that disagree for reasons that are based on accepted ways of examining and interacting with the evidence.

If Paul was wrong saying that he received all his knowledge from revelation, then he was a liar. The last I checked, known liars are not normally considered to be credible sources of information.

My advice is to pick something smaller to debate that you think scholars have wrong that, though small, is important to the overall discussion.

I see no reason why we can't "dispute the details." Craig Evans, for example, says there was a Nazareth when Jesus lived because Evans was there! Evans doesn't seem to understand that a Nazareth today does not prove a Nazareth in the year 1.

I've been reading Richard Carrier's Jesus from Outer Space this week. He frequently mentions Plutarch's Isis and Osiris and it took me more effort than I would have liked to track down an English translation. It turns out that the Loeb Classical Library edition of Plutarch's Moralia is in the Canadian public domain ("Life+50") and an excellent scan from the University of Toronto is available in the Internet Archive. If you prefer, there's a translation from the nineteenth century at Google Books.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm too busy studying math to get that involved in Biblical studies.

[Mithrae]

You've most recently mentioned, for example, that all of Paul's "gospel" was established via personal revelation. Once again, I happen to think you're right, but there are scholars that disagree for reasons that are based on accepted ways of examining and interacting with the evidence.

If Paul was wrong saying that he received all his knowledge from revelation, then he was a liar.

The trouble is that he never says that he "received all his knowledge from revelation" - quite the opposite in fact* - so if there is a liar here it's obviously not Paul. I was thinking of answering your previous response to me and had got halfway through a reply, but when I see the half-truths, distortions and single-line caricatures of complex topics here and in posts such as #70 and #72 (and going back to #60 and beyond), it reminds me that it's just not worth my time.



* Edit: Since I can't sleep and for the benefit of our hypothetical readers, Paul explicitly states that he was "violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it" (Gal. 1), obviously therefore having heard and despised its teaching long before God "was pleased to reveal his Son in me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles." He'd obviously already heard some of what the church was preaching to Jewish converts, but here (and more extensively in 2:1-10) Paul describes his particular revelation/innovation as being the gospel for the Gentiles. That he believed this core gospel message to the Gentiles came by divine revelation is clearly stated (v11-12), but equally obvious is the fact that when he went to visit Cephas and Jesus' brother James (v18-19) it wasn't just to chat about the weather! This very chapter which serves as the foundation for the claim that Paul "received all his knowledge from revelation" pretty explicitly says the exact opposite, that he extensively heard others' claims regarding Christ both before and after the revelation of his gospel to the Gentiles.

We don't know how much of Cephas and James' views he rejected and how much he accepted or already shared, and given his hints of tension with Cephas, James and the judaizers (2:11-14) Paul was evidently keen to maintain his independence and avoid any impression of inferiority to them by saying "Cephas taught me this" and "James told me that." But even so in some passages we still see fairly clear statements of received tradition, such as Jesus' teaching on divorce and the order of post-resurrection appearances in 1 Cor. 7 and 15 as outlined in the post above.

[unknown soldier]

The trouble is that he never says that he "received all his knowledge from revelation" - quite the opposite in fact*

Just check Galatians 1:11-12 (NRSV):

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

... so if there is a liar here it's obviously not Paul.

Sure, Mith--all anybody needs to do is read my statement "...all of Paul's 'gospel' was established via personal revelation..." and Galatians 1:11-12 along with your denial, and the identity of the person lying should be quite clear.

I was thinking of answering your previous response to me and had got halfway through a reply...

Quit while you're not too far behind!

...but when I see the half-truths, distortions and single-line caricatures of complex topics here and in posts such as #70 and #72 (and going back to #60 and beyond), it reminds me that it's just not worth my time.

I've noticed that apologists like to make these very broad, vague critiques of my arguments especially when they run out of arguments of their own apparently unable to counter.

Since I can't sleep...

I'm sorry if what I've posted has troubled you that much. It appears to be a case of cognitive dissonance.

...Paul explicitly states that he was "violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it" (Gal. 1), obviously therefore having heard and despised its teaching long before God "was pleased to reveal his Son in me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles." He'd obviously already heard some of what the church was preaching to Jewish converts, but here (and more extensively in 2:1-10) Paul describes his particular revelation/innovation as being the gospel for the Gentiles. That he believed this core gospel message to the Gentiles came by divine revelation is clearly stated (v11-12)

If Paul really was persecuting the church (a questionable claim considering that the Romans would not have stood by while a gang of armed Jewish thugs terrorized the occupied land), then what he may have heard about the gospel at that time was obviously very different from his supposed revelations after his conversion.

...but equally obvious is the fact that when he went to visit Cephas and Jesus' brother James (v18-19) it wasn't just to chat about the weather! This very chapter which serves as the foundation for the claim that Paul "received all his knowledge from revelation" pretty explicitly says the exact opposite, that he extensively heard others' claims regarding Christ both before and after the revelation of his gospel to the Gentiles.

I'm afraid that Paul visiting Cephas and James doesn't imply that he necessarily got any information about Jesus from them. If Paul did get some information from them about Jesus, then he lied when he said: "I did not receive it from a human source"!

So Mith, again you make some very blatant errors of logic. You certainly don't seem dumb, so I must conclude that your arguments are based in the attempt to make that which is false appear to be true. Christian apologetics is like that, and that's why apologetics has no real use beyond soothing the doubts of the faithful if it can even accomplish that much.

Allow me to conclude this post by underscoring what I think was the "winning touchdown." I pointed out to you that your arguments for a historical Jesus have no basis in any baseline of evidence that establishes historicity. You failed to post just what kind of evidence and how much of that evidence can let us know that Jesus lived. Your comparing the evidence for Jesus to the evidence for other figures of the past that you think existed does no good because we need to know if those other figures really lived. It's like telling people which house you live in by telling them it's alongside your next-door neighbors' house!

[Mithrae]

Allow me to conclude this post by underscoring what I think was the "winning touchdown." I pointed out to you that your arguments for a historical Jesus have no basis in any baseline of evidence that establishes historicity. You failed to post just what kind of evidence and how much of that evidence can let us know that Jesus lived. Your comparing the evidence for Jesus to the evidence for other figures of the past that you think existed does no good because we need to know if those other figures really lived. It's like telling people which house you live in by telling them it's alongside your next-door neighbors' house!

Actually those comments were the first real glimmer of hope that you might be starting to understand a reasonable way of approaching the topic, which I'd repeatedly been trying to bring to your attention throughout eight pages of discussion Obviously you yourself have consistently failed to outline any baseline of evidence that 'establishes' historicity - unless it was meant to be your rather idiosyncratic gold standard that Paul, David, Daniel and anyone else existed if there are extant writings attributed to them and not if there aren't - and in describing it in those terms you're apparently still thinking in binary, pass/fail terms as if there were an absolute epistemic standard to appeal to. And yes, granted, it came across a bit like King George turning around to lecture President Washington on the importance of universal franchise, but it was quite an encouraging sign nonetheless and I'd recommend that you continue that line of thought in your next thread: Detail the precise baseline of evidence which you think should be used to 'establish' historicity so we can assess which ancient folk measure up and decide whether the fringe position on Jesus' existence is based on a reasonable standard... or if a comparison to fringe positions in other areas is more apt

[unknown soldier]

Actually those comments were the first real glimmer of hope that you might be starting to understand a reasonable way of approaching the topic...

I'm very slow.

...which I'd repeatedly been trying to bring to your attention throughout eight pages of discussion.

Can you post a link to an example of when you mentioned a baseline for historical evidence? I don't recall seeing one.

Obviously you yourself have consistently failed to outline any baseline of evidence that 'establishes' historicity...

That might be because for the most part, I am not making an effort to establish historicity. I did post what I think is a reasonable argument for a historical Jesus with the understanding that it might be wrong. When I posted that argument, I don't remember you claiming it violated any standards of historical evidence.

...unless it was meant to be your rather idiosyncratic gold standard that Paul, David, Daniel and anyone else existed if there are extant writings attributed to them and not if there aren't - and in describing it in those terms you're apparently still thinking in binary, pass/fail terms as if there were an absolute epistemic standard to appeal to.

I'd say that we can know for certain that written documents have authors unless you can explain how a written document need not have an author. What we call those authors is not terribly important as long as we make clear that we are referring to the authors of those documents.

And yes, granted, it came across a bit like King George turning around to lecture President Washington on the importance of universal franchise...

I don't know what you're talking about here for one thing. Also, I don't see how it adds to what you're trying to say. So we have an example here of why your posts can be so confusing and unwieldly. Please just say what you need to say and make sure that what you post is clear and makes sense.

Detail the precise baseline of evidence which you think should be used to 'establish' historicity so we can assess which ancient folk measure up and decide whether the fringe position on Jesus' existence is based on a reasonable standard... or if a comparison to fringe positions in other areas is more apt

Once again, you are shifting the burden of proof. Apparently you don't want that burden. I wonder why.

But hey--I'm game! As far as the Jesus of Christian faith is concerned, we need some evidence that a Jewish Jesus existed in the early first century in Roman-occupied Israel. This Jesus preached an impending apocalypse and in so doing garnered a large number of followers many of whom hoped he was the Messiah who would free them from Rome. He was crucified by the Romans around 30 CE, but his followers continued to believe he was alive and in heaven and would some day soon return to judge the world.

Now, the evidence we need for this Jesus should be unambiguous in that it supports a real Jesus rather than a mythical Jesus. I'd like to see writings that can be dated to the early first century authored by people who did not know each other that a Jesus like the one described above existed.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #79]

I would like to use this post to reply to something you said in this post, along with something which you say in previous post. In post #77 you say,

all anybody needs to do is read my statement "...all of Paul's 'gospel' was established via personal revelation..." and Galatians 1:11-12 along with your denial, and the identity of the person lying should be quite clear.

The "denial" you are speaking of would be this,

The trouble is that he never says that he "received all his knowledge from revelation" - quite the opposite in fact*

Now, Let's think about this. The OP, along with this thread deals with the historicity of Jesus. In other words, do we have evidence to support a real, historical Jesus? Now let's look at the passage you supplied, which was Galatians 1:11-12,

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel, (not Jesus) that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it, (the gospel, not Jesus) from a human source, nor was I taught it (the gospel, not Jesus), but I received it (the gospel, not Jesus) through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

The point is, Paul was claiming that his knowledge of the "gospel" came to him by revelation, not his knowledge of Jesus. In other words, this passage does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate Paul would not have had a knowledge of a real historical Jesus, before this "revelation.

Now, to what you have to say in this post,

I'd like to see writings that can be dated to the early first century authored by people who did not know each

Is this to suggest that the writings we have in the NT were authored by those who, "knew each other"?