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?

[historia]

I find your example of John and John Adams to be boardering on the absurd.

It's not bordering on the absurd, it is absurd. That's the point. The analogy was meant to show the absurdness of catalysts' argument.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't address her argument at all.

The argument she made was that, because the gospels say Jesus was a faith healer, and because there were other faith healers in that area at that time, there could not have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Which part of that illogical argument would you care for me to address?

Let's back up here a second. As I pointed out before, history (the dicipline) works like any other field of human inquiry: You begin with an observation, you proceeed to form a hypothesis, and then attempt to verify that hypothesis.

Nonsense.. absolutely and utter nonsense.

Surely, you are not suggesting here that the process of creating hypotheses to explain historical (or scientific) data is "absolute and utter nonsense"?

Read C. Behan McCullagh's Justifying Historical Descriptions (1984), a classic in the area of historiography, particularly the section "Arguments to the Best Explanation." This is how historians work.

E.P Sanders is selling an eschological Jesus, and ignoring anything that disagrees with the understanding of Jesus he is promoting.

Listen, every historian is faced with sources that contain conflicting and superfluous information. This is probably even more true of modern people and events than ancient ones, since there are just more sources. You have to choose which data you think is the most accurate.

Sanders is not ignoring the rest of the data -- as if this were mere bias or ignorance on his part. He has a methodology for only using those parts of the available data that are considered most likely to go back to Jesus himself. He briefly discusses this in the text. Did you not read that part?

While very learned and well written, it does NOT address the subject of actual evidence that Jesus existed, taking it as a given, while admitting the evidence is scant. That ISN'T what you advertised it to be.

You had asked me what I considered to be "good books" on the subject. I gave you a biography of scholarly works. What exactly was I "advertising" it to be that it turned out not to be?

As I said already, you may well want to look at some of the other texts that dive more into methodology, since that is the area where I think you have the most questions.

That is a hypothesis, and all we can say is that some of the believers in Jesus constructed a eschatlogical prophet.. .. others constructed a Jesus that was a rebel against Rome.....

Those are not mutually exclusive ideas. In fact, any Jewish eschatological prophet declaring that God would soon bring about the restoration of Israel, and the overthrow of pagan rule, would have been a rebel against Rome, at least from the Romans' point of view.

There were plenty of people at this time who believed God would soon restore the nation of Israel; plenty of would-be messiahs that met their death proclaiming that very idea. We know that from Josephus and other writings of this time.

Why is it so hard, then, to believe that there was an actual historical Jesus of Nazareth who did the same? Why would the early Christians have needed to "construct" an eschatological prophet? Why invent a 'mythical' prophet?

The question before you, then, is this: Does that hypothesis explain the available data better than the mythicist hypothesis?

It is neither better or worse.

If you honestly believe that, and not just saying this as a kind of rhetorical come back, then more power to you. I disagree, of course. But that's not the point that I'm trying to get across to you.

The point that I'm trying to get across here is that this (the above) is the question at hand. Deciding which hypothesis best explains the available data is how historical inquiry works. It's not about devising some arbitrary criterion or threshold for what "proves" Jesus existed. It's about finding the most likely or probable explanation for the available data.

That's all I want you to understand.

Or maybe just read Ehrman's new popular-level book Did Jesus Exist? It approaches the question from the angle you are expecting, rather than these scholarly works, which ultimately address that issue, just not as directly as you would maybe like.

I found that too.. it was BADLY written,... extremely bad... I had not read any of his previous books, but on the sample of this one, I am not going too..

Now you're just starting to sound obstinate. I've only had a chance to read the introduction -- I'll order it here shortly, and read it, before deicing how good his arguments are -- but it was not badly written at all.

The thing is that, this is the kind of book you're apparently looking for. It approaches the topic in a way that scholarly works on Jesus are not; that is, it explains to the non-historian how historians actually do their work, and specifically how they do that for Jesus of Nazareth.

[Goat]

I find your example of John and John Adams to be boardering on the absurd.

It's not bordering on the absurd, it is absurd. That's the point. The analogy was meant to show the absurdness of catalysts' argument.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't address her argument at all.

The argument she made was that, because the gospels say Jesus was a faith healer, and because there were other faith healers in that area at that time, there could not have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Which part of that illogical argument would you care for me to address?

Let's back up here a second. As I pointed out before, history (the dicipline) works like any other field of human inquiry: You begin with an observation, you proceeed to form a hypothesis, and then attempt to verify that hypothesis.

Nonsense.. absolutely and utter nonsense.

Surely, you are not suggesting here that the process of creating hypotheses to explain historical (or scientific) data is "absolute and utter nonsense"?

Read C. Behan McCullagh's Justifying Historical Descriptions (1984), a classic in the area of historiography, particularly the section "Arguments to the Best Explanation." This is how historians work.

E.P Sanders is selling an eschological Jesus, and ignoring anything that disagrees with the understanding of Jesus he is promoting.

Listen, every historian is faced with sources that contain conflicting and superfluous information. This is probably even more true of modern people and events than ancient ones, since there are just more sources. You have to choose which data you think is the most accurate.

Sanders is not ignoring the rest of the data -- as if this were mere bias or ignorance on his part. He has a methodology for only using those parts of the available data that are considered most likely to go back to Jesus himself. He briefly discusses this in the text. Did you not read that part?

While very learned and well written, it does NOT address the subject of actual evidence that Jesus existed, taking it as a given, while admitting the evidence is scant. That ISN'T what you advertised it to be.

You had asked me what I considered to be "good books" on the subject. I gave you a biography of scholarly works. What exactly was I "advertising" it to be that it turned out not to be?

As I said already, you may well want to look at some of the other texts that dive more into methodology, since that is the area where I think you have the most questions.

That is a hypothesis, and all we can say is that some of the believers in Jesus constructed a eschatlogical prophet.. .. others constructed a Jesus that was a rebel against Rome.....

Those are not mutually exclusive ideas. In fact, any Jewish eschatological prophet declaring that God would soon bring about the restoration of Israel, and the overthrow of pagan rule, would have been a rebel against Rome, at least from the Romans' point of view.

There were plenty of people at this time who believed God would soon restore the nation of Israel; plenty of would-be messiahs that met their death proclaiming that very idea. We know that from Josephus and other writings of this time.

Why is it so hard, then, to believe that there was an actual historical Jesus of Nazareth who did the same? Why would the early Christians have needed to "construct" an eschatological prophet? Why invent a 'mythical' prophet?

The question before you, then, is this: Does that hypothesis explain the available data better than the mythicist hypothesis?

It is neither better or worse.

If you honestly believe that, and not just saying this as a kind of rhetorical come back, then more power to you. I disagree, of course. But that's not the point that I'm trying to get across to you.

The point that I'm trying to get across here is that this (the above) is the question at hand. Deciding which hypothesis best explains the available data is how historical inquiry works. It's not about devising some arbitrary criterion or threshold for what "proves" Jesus existed. It's about finding the most likely or probable explanation for the available data.

That's all I want you to understand.

Or maybe just read Ehrman's new popular-level book Did Jesus Exist? It approaches the question from the angle you are expecting, rather than these scholarly works, which ultimately address that issue, just not as directly as you would maybe like.

I found that too.. it was BADLY written,... extremely bad... I had not read any of his previous books, but on the sample of this one, I am not going too..

Now you're just starting to sound obstinate. I've only had a chance to read the introduction -- I'll order it here shortly, and read it, before deicing how good his arguments are -- but it was not badly written at all.

The thing is that, this is the kind of book you're apparently looking for. It approaches the topic in a way that scholarly works on Jesus are not; that is, it explains to the non-historian how historians actually do their work, and specifically how they do that for Jesus of Nazareth.

I have it, and I read it.. and YES, it is HORRIBLY written. It's the first thing I read from him, and i don't think I'll read anything else by him.

[spiritualrevolution]

this is jesus everyone,

i have taken over this body to tell you all that whether or not i existed is unimportant. even, if i didn't exist it wouldn't matter,

the most important thing is that we all follow the golden rule and the converse of that, and we also learn to forgive, not only for any wrongdoings but also for unfairness caused by random chance, or as some may believe, fate/"god's will",

i must also say that when the author's of the bible wrote it, they forgot to put a disclaimer at the very start of the book, which is to say that there are infinitely many views on morality and the afterlife, and the bible just offers one perspective of morality and afterlife that author's thought at the time the bible was written.

you must make your own spiritual journey to discover what is moral and what might be in the afterlife, and remember that the bible is not the only place, nor is it the only place to start.

those who wish to follow my example, spread this message.

[catalyst]

Bumping this up for my own benefit. (so that I have a reference point to post my replies). I hope to finish ALL replies to Historia, Mithrae and also Theo at some point tomorrow my time. Historia, I have finished my reply to you already but not yet completed that to Theo or Mithrae as yet. I would like to post them all in a "job lot" as they all cover similar and overlapping points, so that is what I have decided to do.

I do apologise for the delay but have had family issues to deal with.

Catalyst.

[JoeyKnothead]

Dang what a great thread!

Seems I hafta change my opinion with each new post

[catalyst]

Just an update... to bump it..(pour moi) but also to let anyone who's actually interested what's happening.

So far, I have completed my reply to both Historia and Mithrae....they were easy breezy. I am in the final stages of completing my reply to the "double whammy" sent my way by Theo....and when the reply to Theo IS posted, perhaps it will be understood why HIS portion of my replies have taken so long.

PS... to Educhris... I only noticed your little barb on reading the last page. I have a special little comment "just for you" coming as well. I just didn't want you to think I was IGNORING you, hon.

Cat.

[Mr.Badham]

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.

You said "hope". This means you are religious.

Don't worry. I mean Stop worrying. Stop caring. Stop plannning. Start living. Start moving. Start doing. Start taking start giving. Party!!!!!

[Mr.Badham]

...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

1) What facts? Religious people always claim to have the facts, without feeling the need to provide them. All we need is one fact. Please give just one.

One religious fact!!

2) Western standards of History? I hope we don't base anything on history. What would be the point?

3) What are young people afraid of?

[The Nice Centurion]

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?

I suspect you are from the USA or at last follow the developement of USA scholarship about the existence of Jesus.

For Jesus mythicism growing is rather a north american, than a worldwide phenomena.

For example; In europa this issue is seldom touched. I think that this is mostly out of ignorance.

Than; Islamic countrys dont dare to push the subject fot not to hurt their own mythology of which "Prophet Isa" is a not unimportant part.
Theoretically an islamic country could even have you stoned as beimg Anti-Islam if you claim that Jesus never existed.

When russia was a communist country, they here and then touched the subject for more propagandistic then scientific reasons.
But NOW russia is an orthodox christian country again (BossPatriarch of the church is ex KGB agent like Putin and helps spread the state propaganda against Ukraine) and needs Jesus to substitute its dictatorship.

Africa? They have other matters to solve. Nigeria for instance is 45% christian, 55% muhamaddan. To solve the matter of rape they had to make laws that serve the death penalty & castration for child rape and woman rape.
So where are they to find time to suspect that Jesus never existed?

China? Methinks that Winnie the Pooh (Xi outlawed the Great Bear because they look like twins) would find it unnescessary politically uncorrect to anger other states with developing Jesus mythicism.

And so on. Jesus Mythicism is mainly american. May spread around the world sometime, though.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still the topic question is legit, why at all in recent decades it came to a massive growing of scientists and amateurs that prefer Jesus mythicism before Jesus historicism.

This seems to lie in the fact that parts of the USA tend to free themselves extremely fom stubborn conservatism and embrace history science development more than slavish respect for religion.

Nuff said!