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.

[Miles]

.

My impression is that at the very least Jesus was modeled after a real person, or maybe several people. Whether or not "Jesus" was his real name or not is up for question, and that some of the deeds and events ascribed to "him" may have been concocted by whomever and/or derive from the stories or myths about others.

Unfortunately, for the concerned believer it's unlikely that any of these issues will ever be resolved.



.

[unknown soldier]

.

My impression is that at the very least Jesus was modeled after a real person, or maybe several people.

I've thought of that too, and I think it's a very good theory. The Jesus of the gospels is very generic in a lot of ways. Many Jewish men of that time probably were itinerant, apocalyptic preachers who saw themselves as messiahs sent by God to save the Jews from the Romans. The character of Jesus should then come as no surprise; he was a man of his time. Since there were so many of these self-appointed messiahs many of whom were executed by the Romans, it seems quite plausible that the early Christian sect molded them into one Christ. If that's the case, then yes, there was a historical Jesus. In fact, there were many of them!

Whether or not "Jesus" was his real name or not is up for question...

It's essentially certain that there was a Jesus because Jesus was a popular name at that time. Of course, we don't know if any one of them were the particular Jesus who inspired the New Testament.

You would think that God could have come up with a more unique name for his son to stand out more.

...and that some of the deeds and events ascribed to "him" may have been concocted by whomever and/or derive from the stories or myths about others.

Here's an excerpt from a book I wrote about Jesus:

Egyptian mythology is another possible source of the version of hell that Jesus taught. The Tale of Khaemwese, an Egyptian story, describes a rich man who dies and is sentenced to eternal punishment. He was sentenced to this punishment because while he was still alive he lacked charity. A poor man, by contrast, dies and enjoys a blessed state. 46 This story is very similar to the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16:19-31. Although I don't think Jesus ever traveled to Egypt as an adult, it is very possible that Jesus heard The Tale of Khaemwese from traders from Egypt.

I think it's a sure bet that the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is based on The Tale of Khaemwese. So if Jesus really did teach the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, then he knew something about pagan mythology. If not that, then his creators were influenced by pagan mythology.

Unfortunately, for the concerned believer it's unlikely that any of these issues will ever be resolved.

With the evidence for Jesus available to us, all one can do is argue one's position on the historicity of Jesus hoping to convince others. Christians, of course, need a historical Jesus for salvation, so they cannot accept a mythological Jesus no matter how good the arguments for a mythological Jesus might be.

[Mithrae]

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.

You're obviously familiar with this question, so many of the points to be raised in response should be fairly predictable: Most notably, that the threshold of scepticism applied to Jesus' existence may be much higher than is generally applied to other ancient teachers. So possibly a good place to start the discussion would be to identify and briefly explain your reasoning regarding, say, three figures from ancient history whose existence you would consider fairly probable, plausible and fairly improbable (say, 80-90% probable, 50/50 and 20-30%).

For example, to give a vague idea off the top of my head, if asked I might pick Socrates (~90%), Hektor of Troy (~50-60%) and a 'historical Herakles' (~10-30%).... or Paul of Tarsus (~90-95%), King David (~60-70%) and Moses (~10-30%). But the reasoning behind these selections is rather important to establish some kind of baseline; without that, any assessment about the 'burden of proof' regarding Jesus will likely be rather arbitrary.



Secondly - and perhaps helpful for the exercise above - as Historia suggested in a thread which you linked to recently it's important to note that merely saying "that's not good enough" isn't really any kind of reasoning at all: Discounting a piece of evidence or even moreso the sum total of all available evidence should require an evaluation of the alternative theory/s accounting for that evidence. That's where the Jesus-myth theories really fall apart to my mind, since they require numerous different ad hoc or speculative arguments to account for the available data, not many of which seem particularly likely even in isolation let alone combined into a single theory!

In other words the question isn't "Does the evidence pointing to the existence of Moses exceed some arbitrary threshold?" but rather "Given all the available data, how likely is (or how well is it explained by) the scenario in which Moses exists versus the scenario in which he doesn't?"

[unknown soldier]

You're obviously familiar with this question, so many of the points to be raised in response should be fairly predictable: Most notably, that the threshold of scepticism applied to Jesus' existence may be much higher than is generally applied to other ancient teachers. So possibly a good place to start the discussion would be to identify and briefly explain your reasoning regarding, say, three figures from ancient history whose existence you would consider fairly probable, plausible and fairly improbable (say, 80-90% probable, 50/50 and 20-30%).

For example, to give a vague idea off the top of my head, if asked I might pick Socrates (~90%), Hektor of Troy (~50-60%) and a 'historical Herakles' (~10-30%).... or Paul of Tarsus (~90-95%), King David (~60-70%) and Moses (~10-30%). But the reasoning behind these selections is rather important to establish some kind of baseline; without that, any assessment about the 'burden of proof' regarding Jesus will likely be rather arbitrary.

Well, Paul of Tarsus no doubt existed because we have some of his writings, and the same goes for Josephus. Moses, on the other hand, was in all probability a legendary figure because we have no evidence for him outside the Bible much less any physical evidence for a mass exodus of Jews from Egypt.

But I'm wondering how my opinion on the existence of these figures bears on the historicity of Jesus. I do know that it's common for apologists to try to trap those skeptical of Jesus' existence by attempting to demonstrate that those skeptics accept the existence of some figure of antiquity for whom the evidence is no better than the evidence for Jesus. In other words, the ploy is to discredit the skeptic by making the skeptic appear to be special pleading accepting the historicity of some figure based on the same evidence we have for Jesus yet doubting Jesus existed!

This ploy won't work on me because one, I do not have the burden of proof; those who claim a historical Jesus have the burden of proof. And two, I'm not special pleading because I would not be convinced that any figure existed if all we had for that figure was the same as we have for Jesus. I am consistent.

Secondly - and perhaps helpful for the exercise above - as Historia suggested in a thread which you linked to recently it's important to note that merely saying "that's not good enough" isn't really any kind of reasoning at all: Discounting a piece of evidence or even moreso the sum total of all available evidence should require an evaluation of the alternative theory/s accounting for that evidence.

Again, no skeptic has any burden of proof. You have that burden, and if you fail to convince people, then that is your problem, not theirs. You can complain about the skeptics all you want, but it won't make a good case for your claim that Jesus existed.

That's where the Jesus-myth theories really fall apart to my mind, since they require numerous different ad hoc or speculative arguments to account for the available data, not many of which seem particularly likely even in isolation let alone combined into a single theory!

Can you post an example of a Christ-myth theory that suffers from those faults?

In other words the question isn't "Does the evidence pointing to the existence of Moses exceed some arbitrary threshold?" but rather "Given all the available data, how likely is (or how well is it explained by) the scenario in which Moses exists versus the scenario in which he doesn't?"

I thought we were discussing Jesus, not Moses.

Anyway, much of my doubt rests on the ambiguity of the evidence for Jesus. We have many stories and testimonies about Jesus, but we have many stories and testimonies about mythological figures too. It seems that we privilege Christian beliefs in Christ over pagan Greek beliefs in Hercules.

[Miles]

This ploy won't work on me because one, I do not have the burden of proof; those who claim a historical Jesus have the burden of proof. And two, I'm not special pleading because I would not be convinced that any figure existed if all we had for that figure was the same as we have for Jesus. I am consistent.

Again, no skeptic has any burden of proof. You have that burden, and if you fail to convince people, then that is your problem, not theirs. You can complain about the skeptics all you want, but it won't make a good case for your claim that Jesus existed.

Nice catch, and brings to mind Hitchens's razor, a consequence of the failure of the burden of proof: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."


.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #0]

Did Jesus exist as a real person, or is he a fictional character created by the early Christian sect?

Exactly, what "early Christian sect" are you talking about? Are you talking about the Apostles, who would have claimed to have followed Jesus, who did not really exist? Or, are you claiming there would have been those who created not only Jesus, but also the Apostles who would have been fictional as well?

If you are saying the Apostles really existed, and they simply made up some sort of fictional story concerning some sort of Jesus which never existed, right in the face of those who would have known there was no such character in history, then it is truly an incredible feat on their part for this "Jesus" character to become the most influential character the world has ever known!

On the other hand, if you are suggesting the Apostles never existed, then you would have to be suggesting, there would have been those who would have not only made up the "Jesus" character, but also the Apostles. Not only would they have to make up the Apostles, they would also have to have a hand in creating the letters we have contained in the New Testament. This would mean that all the letters we have contained in the NT would have to have been fabricated in some sort of way?

To make an extremely long story short, (which is rather impossible) we have those some 2000 years ago, who were somehow able to not only create a fictional character who would be "Jesus", they were also able to create all these fictional Apostles, along with all these 'fictional" letters, which goes on to cause this fictional "Jesus" to become the most influential character in the history of the world, which has consumed the lives of millions of folks, including yourself, who continues to talk about this fictional character, some 2000 years later.

I don't care who you are, or whatever story you pick, this is the most incredible story I have ever heard! If you say, Jesus was a real historical figure who was crucified, dead, buried, and rose again, that is an incredible story. If you say that Jesus never existed, and the Apostles made this "Jesus" up in the face of those who would have known there was no such "Jesus" and this "fictional Jesus" becomes the most influential figure in the history of the world, then this would be even more incredible. If you go on to say, Jesus never existed, and the Apostles never existed, but rather there was those who not only created this "fictional Jesus", along with the "fictional Apostles" along with all the letters we have contained in the New Testament, which goes on to cause this "fictional Jesus" to become the most influential name in the history of the world, then this is incredible beyond imagination.

The whole point here is, there is no doubt something incredible happened some 2000 years ago, which has continued to consume the lives of millions, upon millions of folks, down through these thousands of years, whether they believe the reports contained in the New Testament or, whether they spend, day, after day, on a web site, attempting to cast some sort of doubt. Either way, it is an incredible story!

[Mithrae]

This ploy won't work on me because one, I do not have the burden of proof; those who claim a historical Jesus have the burden of proof. And two, I'm not special pleading because I would not be convinced that any figure existed if all we had for that figure was the same as we have for Jesus. I am consistent.

Again, no skeptic has any burden of proof. You have that burden, and if you fail to convince people, then that is your problem, not theirs. You can complain about the skeptics all you want, but it won't make a good case for your claim that Jesus existed.

Nice catch, and brings to mind Hitchens's razor, a consequence of the failure of the burden of proof: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Your quote seems to weigh rather heavily against the stance Soldier is promoting. If someone asserts an undefined and arbitrary threshold for a burden of proof, it is reasonable to dismiss that position unless and until it is substantiated by being shown to have some kind of epistemic utility or validity.

[Mithrae]

But I'm wondering how my opinion on the existence of these figures bears on the historicity of Jesus.

History doesn't start and stop with the early Christian movement; it's a broad, coherent discipline whose purpose is to gather, analyze and draw conclusions from any available data about the past. Someone who is unwilling or unable to situate their opinions even loosely/informally within a broader framework is obviously failing to engage in that pursuit: Whatever it is that you are doing, it's obviously not history! That doesn't necessarily mean that the opinions of arbitrary scepticism are incorrect of course, any more than the opinions of dogmatic faith are necessarily incorrect; but if someone is not even making a credible attempt at coherent historical analysis, it's difficult to see why anyone else would take their historical opinions seriously.



Given the few examples I provided, it's clear that Jesus sits far more closely and obviously alongside the likes of Paul (who you say "no doubt" existed) and Socrates - with multiple converging, potentially even first-hand lines of evidence regarding some key details of their lives from within a few decades of the fact, along with identifiable influences on subsequent history - than the likes of Priam or David (several centuries' gap before the first known direct or indirect allusions to them) and even moreso figures like Herakles or Moses (poorly- or late-attested figures whose situation in and influence on history is nebulous or non-existent, but with obvious and overriding mythic utility). These and comparison/contrast with various other figures are one of the reasons why I consider the historical existence of Jesus to be somewhere in the order of 90% probable.

[brunumb]

If you say, Jesus was a real historical figure who was crucified, dead, buried, and rose again, that is an incredible story. If you say that Jesus never existed, and the Apostles made this "Jesus" up in the face of those who would have known there was no such "Jesus" and this "fictional Jesus" becomes the most influential figure in the history of the world, then this would be even more incredible.

You actually have that around the wrong way. People have invented countless gods. Think of all the Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Hindu gods that are allegedly fictional beings created by the human imagination. Incredible stories are associated with all of them. No facts or evidence available to convince people they were real but they were accepted as real and worshiped for centuries and even millennia. Not much of a stretch then to consider that a needy people invented a potential messiah with a cohort of supporters and then spun a creaky back story to prop up their new religion. In a world full of ignorance and superstition it's not that hard to see it taking hold, particularly with the right sort of promotion. How did Islam take hold, or closer to the present, the LDS or Scientology? How do you go about dismissing their fictions along with the countless other invented gods?

Here's a take on the existence of the twelve apostles to consider:
https://tinyurl.com/yyjvzbcc