Doubting Jesus' existence?

[historia]

Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?

Why has the belief that Jesus never existed (the 'mythicist movement') gained in popularity in recent years among some atheists and agnostics?

Is it merely a kind of preemptive strike at Christianity, as Ehrman contends above? Or are there other factors driving this movement?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I would say this argument is in part a reaction to Christian claims of biblical inerrancy. Also a lack of familiarity with and distrust of biblical scholarship. I think for many making these arguments they aren't aware of the differences between theology and secular scholarship. Perhaps they don't realize that, even accepting the existence of Jesus, the biblical texts give little if any reason to believe the claims they make and the claims of Christianity.

I see this as part of a need to deny everything about the bible and not give an inch to those arguing on the side of Christianity. And even to those who aren't arguing on the side of Christianity - the best Jesus myth debates I've seen have been largely between atheists. There's a tendency in some people to assume your debate partner takes an extreme view, in the atheist who presumes all Christians to be advocates of biblical inerrancy, or the Christian who equates any questioning of the gospel accounts with denial of all known history. I think more time debating and more exposure to different positions works to temper such attitudes over time.

[Goat]

Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?

Why has the belief that Jesus never existed (the 'mythicist movement') gained in popularity in recent years among some atheists and agnostics?

Is it merely a kind of preemptive strike at Christianity, as Ehrman contends above? Or are there other factors driving this movement?

My own skepticism is not properly phrased that way. I wouldn't say 'Jesus didn't exist'.,. I would say 'there is a lack of evidence that Jesus actually existed'. One thing that fuels my skepticism is the modification of evidence by early church fathers to provide 'evidence' of Jesus'... if there was good evidence, why make things up and modify things?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?

Why has the belief that Jesus never existed (the 'mythicist movement') gained in popularity in recent years among some atheists and agnostics?

Is it merely a kind of preemptive strike at Christianity, as Ehrman contends above? Or are there other factors driving this movement?

My own skepticism is not properly phrased that way. I wouldn't say 'Jesus didn't exist'.,. I would say 'there is a lack of evidence that Jesus actually existed'. One thing that fuels my skepticism is the modification of evidence by early church fathers to provide 'evidence' of Jesus'... if there was good evidence, why make things up and modify things?

That argument would only work if the modifications were done by those who knew that Jesus did not exist. Since these modifications were done well after the fact, that in turn would require an ongoing secret conspiracy of those who 'knew the truth' and kept it hidden. Since most of the alleged 'Jesus existed' claims are really 'Christianity existed' claims, there is really no need to think they are forgeries.

The scholarly consensus on the famous Testimonium Flavianum is that it is probably a later modification by a zealous Christian of a passage in Josephus recounting material obtained from Gospels. In short it amounts to evidence that the Gospels existed at the end of the 1st century when Josephus wrote.

[Thatguy]

It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?

Let's say that I doubt that Hannibal existed. I might think that it was more likely than not that later generations of Romans invented this character in order to warn of the Empire's vulnerability, to motivate them to keep vigilant and expect unexpected threats. I might argue about the paucity of contemporaneous evidence for Hannibal, I might argue that the story of elephants crossing the alps is scientifically suspect, I might look at the number of embellishments or contradictions in the various Hannibal stories. I might point to the acceptable practice of fabrication in ancient historical writing.

What I would expect might be some major opposition from most historians. But basically it would be a straightforward discussion of what evidence exists and how that evidence is interpreted by historians. I wouldn't expect many to get irate that I'm attacking and maligning the vast majority of decent, hardworking, honest folks who draw many of their values from Roman thinkers.

That sort of reaction, that questioning the sufficiency of historical evidence is so outrageous, such an assault on religious people, that it's beyond the pale of reason and must be motivated by malicious intent, tends to confirm the questioner's doubts. That type of reaction makes it appear that the people defending the historical reality of Jesus are doing so because they consider Jesus's existence to be a tenet of sacred faith, not to be questioned by any person of breeding and taste.

That isn't to say that those making the claim aren't overstating their claim. If the evidence is scant, it does not support certainty that Jesus was entirely mythical. That many elements of the stories of Jesus appear mythical does not mean that there was no element of truth to them.

But the topic's too overwrought with emotion, so the debate often sounds more like personal attack on motivations than rational discussion of history.

[McCulloch]

I remain agnostic about whether or not Jesus actually existed. I've heard and read arguments on both sides and have remained unconvinced by either. However, it is clear to me that if Jesus did exist, it is highly improbable that he in any meaningful way resembled the portraits of him in the Christian gospels.

[ThatGirlAgain]

I remain agnostic about whether or not Jesus actually existed. I've heard and read arguments on both sides and have remained unconvinced by either. However, it is clear to me that if Jesus did exist, it is highly improbable that he in any meaningful way resembled the portraits of him in the Christian gospels.

If one reads between the lines in the Synoptic Gospels, one can find the story of a preacher saying things that would have been familiar to and resonate with a lower class Jewish audience of the day. The message this preacher delivers is this:

* The restoration of true righteousness – moral living and charitable works – in place of the literalist interpretation of the Law as the means of justifying the people as worthy of a messiah who would save them from oppression

* The resurrection of the dead for the purpose of being judged by the Son of Man (as per Daniel), with the good being rewarded and the evil punished, as the means of redressing the imbalances of history

* The institution of the kingdom of God, the promised messianic age, when evil and suffering will no longer exist

These principles are fully in line with the Prophets, especially Amos the first prophet, and with the apocalyptic sentiments of the time. The criticisms leveled at the Pharisees by Jesus are much more applicable to the Shammai school that would have been predominant in the putative era of Jesus than to the resurgent Hillel school that was dominant in era of Gospel writing. If Jesus was born when Matthew said, he would have grown up when the much less literalist Hillel was the voice of the Pharisees.

Remove the supernatural elements and miracles (of which Paul is unaware anyway),

…change all those third person Son of Man references to refer to an actual third person coming in the future (as they almost seem to do now),

… have the body of this executed troublesome preacher disappear (and thereby give credence to the idea of a universal resurrection)

…and you have an entirely believable scenario of someone who thought of himself as a prophet seeking to reform Israel like the prophets of old.

Now take a closer look at all this sacrifice business:

* Jesus as the Passover Lamb – sorry, that is not a sin atonement sacrifice

* A sin atonement sacrifice that is fully effective in its own right – sorry, did not exist in Judaism

* A painful, human sacrifice – definitely against the rules

* A sacrifice performed by goyim instead of in the Temple by priests – forbidden!

There is no way anyone would make up such an improbable story. But if this holy man who was expected to usher in the messianic age and all that entailed instead got executed by the Romans, this sacrifice business and subsequent ‘resurrection’ is a good way of explaining away that uncomfortable fact.


Bottom line: IMO it sounds a whole lot like there may very well have been an historical Jesus who preached a lot of the things that appear in the Synoptic Gospels.

[connermt]

Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?

Why has the belief that Jesus never existed (the 'mythicist movement') gained in popularity in recent years among some atheists and agnostics?

Is it merely a kind of preemptive strike at Christianity, as Ehrman contends above? Or are there other factors driving this movement?

From my experience with people who deny jesus existed, it's mostly due to the supernatural nature that's associated with jesus being the son a god, and god at the same time.
Most wouldn't know or even care if a guy named jesus existed as the story goes sans the supernatural aspects of his personality. He would simply be another long dead man of the era.
When one starts making claims of walking on water, rasining the dead, cheating death, etc, that's when the red flags start to go up

[Quath]

I use to doubt he existed because a lot of the stories seemed to be copies from other mythologies and urban legends at the time. So it just seemed made up.

But then after going through a good course on the New Testament, I saw a way to peel back the made up stuff and see a core story of a Jewish rabbi who preached the return of God and thought he may be the Son of Man. So i thought he was probably a real person.

But then I read more about how early Christians had many different views on Jesus. Some treated him as if he had only spiritually appeared and not materially. So then I wondered if Jesus had been made up again.

So I am kind of in the middle on this one. I have no dog in this race, so I don't really care which is true. But I am curious and hope this can be resolved one day.

[EduChris]

...Why has the belief that Jesus never existed (the 'mythicist movement') gained in popularity in recent years among some atheists and agnostics?...Is it merely a kind of preemptive strike at Christianity, as Ehrman contends above? Or are there other factors driving this movement?

A number of factors are present, but probably all of the following are involved:

1) Ignorance - most people just don't have the facts

2) Cultural arrogance - the notion that our Western standards of history are "objective" and trustworthy, whereas ancient writers are not

3) Misplaced faith in scientism, with a corresponding decrease in understanding of, and appreciate for, philosophical critiques of scientific interpretations

4) Fear - if Jesus existed, then there is a chance that the gospels contain a core of accurate historical information about Jesus; and this in turn might very well upend the atheist's entire worldview