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?

[99percentatheism]

could you remind us when and where the first mentions of Jesus' supernatural aspects are found, specifically the virgin birth and the resurrection?

Paul recounts a couple of early Christian formulas in his writings, including:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

For Paul to be passing on this tradition about the resurrection, which he himself received, it must have developed very early in the Christian movement, if not from the very beginning.

Matthew and Luke are the first to mention the virgin birth, of course. I don't know if we really have any idea where they, in turn, got it from. It's interesting that their birth narratives are so different, and yet the virginity of Mary is common to both. That says to me that specific idea might have developed fairly early, too.

Based upon the convoluted blathering and diatribe that are contained in Paul's letters, together with his claim of a visitation with the long dead Jesus while on the road to Damascus, I discount all things Paul as nonsense...he was just weird.

How fascinating. I, as a former atheist, and still atheist to every other version of deity except the Trinity. see Paul as quite the intellectual. The Orthodox Jew turned Christian apologist. His arguments and letters are far from wierdness. Actually to many, many, many, academics and scholars, their opinions would be in conflict with yours.

That Tacitus refers to the Christians as "enemies of mankind" (as well as many others epithets) shows your opinion of Paul and his fellow believers, is nothing new.

[Chase200mph]

could you remind us when and where the first mentions of Jesus' supernatural aspects are found, specifically the virgin birth and the resurrection?

Paul recounts a couple of early Christian formulas in his writings, including:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

For Paul to be passing on this tradition about the resurrection, which he himself received, it must have developed very early in the Christian movement, if not from the very beginning.

Matthew and Luke are the first to mention the virgin birth, of course. I don't know if we really have any idea where they, in turn, got it from. It's interesting that their birth narratives are so different, and yet the virginity of Mary is common to both. That says to me that specific idea might have developed fairly early, too.

Based upon the convoluted blathering and diatribe that are contained in Paul's letters, together with his claim of a visitation with the long dead Jesus while on the road to Damascus, I discount all things Paul as nonsense...he was just weird.

How fascinating. I, as a former atheist, and still atheist to every other version of deity except the Trinity. see Paul as quite the intellectual. The Orthodox Jew turned Christian apologist. His arguments and letters are far from wierdness. Actually to many, many, many, academics and scholars, their opinions would be in conflict with yours.

That Tacitus refers to the Christians as "enemies of mankind" (as well as many others epithets) shows your opinion of Paul and his fellow believers, is nothing new.

LOL…. But those same opinions are also used to discredit the greater part of Scriptures which were rejected and omitted from the bible because they resembled Paul’s misguiding’s. In other words, the creators of the bible agree with Flails depiction of Paul....they just needed Paul because his writings were the oldest placing them almost within a life time of the mythical lifetime of Jesus. Paul’s accounts do NOT describe an earthy event at any time…Paul is such a freak! Paul speaks of a magical world and the event of Jesus….nothing written in his dream land encounters suggests otherwise. Paul never met Jesus….Paul is just another anonymous author whose dream like encounters do NOT match any of the other anonymous authors renderings in the bible.

[theopoesis]

I am convinced that Jesus existed, but the more important question we must ask is who this Jesus who existed actually was. Where extreme skepticism has denied the historical Jesus altogether, milder skepticism has sought to uncover the true Jesus beneath the gospel narratives, using the tools of historical scholarship. I believe one reason people deny the historical existence of Jesus is because these scholarly efforts have uncovered such vastly different pictures of the same man. I will illustrate by dialoguing with ThatGirlAgain's reconstruction of the historical Jesus.

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.

Generally, I'm going to agree with Schweitzer, that anyone attempting to reconstruct a "historical Jesus" does so in a way that they simply construct the Jesus that they more or less already believed in. Thus, I find it no surprise that a debater who rejects Christianity reduces Jesus to merely an apocalyptic preacher (you are in good company with the likes of Ehrman or Schweitzer himself). Likewise, the reader will not be surprised that I, a Christian, will construct a Jesus much more in line with Christian teaching. However, so that the reader is not deceived into thinking yours is the only possible historical reconstruction, I'll present an alternative and suggest some flaws with your own.

Let's begin with the historical context of the first century in Judea, recognizing that many contemporary Jewish groups were critical of the Temple authorities. This is evident in the Psalms of Solomon, in the Qumran sect, and in several messianic movements of the day.

There is some evidence that John the Baptist was part of an anti-temple movement, and rather strong evidence that Paul was anti-temple, as he redefined the temple as the individual bodies of believers in which the Spirit dwelt (1 Cor. 3:9-10, 1 Cor. 6:19-20. Gal. 2:9 may refer to the apostles as the pillars of the temple, etc.). Paul's views are shared by many early Christians across the board (see 1 Peter 2:4-9, Hebrews 3:6, Epistle of Barnabas 16:7, Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Ephesians 9:1, etc.). The question then becomes, could Jesus, who was baptized by John the Baptist, leader of what might be interpreted as a counter temple movement, have been the founder of a counter-temple movement himself, especially given the fact that early Christians seemed to hold such counter-temple views. The trajectory of John the Baptist -> Jesus -> Christianity would suggest such a possibility.

We see evidence for Jesus interpreting himself in this way throughout the gospels, in his acts and his teachings. To note his acts, Jesus dispensed forgiveness (which was usually declared by the priest after a sacrifice was made in the temple), Jesus and the disciples dispensed alms (traditionally reserved as a role for the temple cult), and Jesus famously overturned the tables in the temple, which many scholars interpret as a sign against the temple and as the reason why Jesus was executed. Regardless, the latter action is multiply attested in each gospel.

This also fits with the teachings of Jesus, where the canonical gospels and the Gospel of Thomas depict Jesus as teaching about the destruction of the temple. The Gospel of John suggests that Jesus was speaking about his body (John 2:19). Multiple gospels have independent attestation that Jesus was accused of claiming that if the temple was destroyed, he would rebuild it in three days (Mark, Mattew, John, Acts, Thomas). Now, if we take the standard dating of the writing of the gospels, this occurred after the temple was already destroyed, but was not rebuilt within three days. It seems plausible that the early Christians, who did not change or erase the second half of the prophecy, believed that Jesus was originally speaking of himself as a temple.

Did Jesus interpret himself as a temple, and if so what does this mean? We do have many recorded teachings and acts of Jesus which indicate that he was reinterpreting the entire temple cult around himself. So, for example, John 7:37-39, which occurs during the feast of booths. Traditionally on the last day of this feast, Jews would go to the temple to the presence of God where there would be a water libation and a wine libation poured on the altar. At this time, it was traditionally believed that the Spirit of prophecy could come upon one of those who was present. John 7, in the last day of the feast, Jesus tells people to come to him instead of coming to the temple. He claims he will give water, in the same way that water pours out from the altar. And, as some translate John 7:37 as saying, "out of his navel will flow rivers of living water." As some Jewish texts considered the temple to be the navel of the earth, the connection between the creation and its creator, Jesus could be claiming to be that connection. So Jesus takes a cultic event and says, no come to me, I'm the temple, I'll give you what it does. And John interprets this as the gift of the Spirit, which was given in prophecy at the feast of booths.

Let's take a more well-known example, the Lord's Supper. Here, Jesus is reinterpreting the Passover meal as applying to himself as a sacrifice to create a new covenant. This is multiply attested in Paul and the Synoptics (and it may be indirectly referenced in John). It is widely attested as a practice of early Christians, in Christian and pagan literature. And here again Jesus reinterprets the entire cult around himself.

So what does that leave us in terms of the historical Jesus? The historical Jesus fit his context and the trajectory of his movement as part of an anti-temple movement. He claimed to be the locus of God's special presence on earth, a temple that replaced the corrupt second temple cult. His anti-temple overturning of the temple explains his crucifixion, and his teaching in which he explained himself as the temple explain the development of high Christology. Specifically, his claim to rebuilt the temple in three days explains the expectation of a resurrection on the third day. The is all plausible in explaining the events of Jesus' life, the relation between John the Baptist, Jesus, and the early Church, and the way Jesus fit within Jewish culture. It is multiply attested in canonical and non-canonical sources. And it fits fairly well with Christian theology, as opposed to the apocalyptic preacher depiction.

Now we'll see a few differences...

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

Can an argument from silence be considered valid? If Paul does not mention the miracles, does he not know stories about them? If Paul does not mention his own mother, can we assume Paul did not have one?

Furthermore, doesn't removing the supernatural elements as a methodological measure necessarily eliminate the possibility of a miraculous Jesus? Certainly here, the presuppositions of one's faith come into play.

…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)

If Jesus was part of a counter-temple movement, this can be interpreted as an apocalyptic movement (see the end of Ezekiel for example, where the restoration of a holy temple is an apocalyptic act, or see Daniel's discussion of the end of sacrifice at the end). If Jesus did interpret himself as a temple, as the completion and surpassing of the old cultic tradition, as the fulfillment of the law, and as the sacrifice which instantiates a new covenant, all of which are apocalyptic acts, is it not plausible that he also considered himself to be the Son of Man, who was the primary apocalyptic agent in many apocalyptic works?

Now take a closer look at all this sacrifice business:

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

But in the original passover a lamb was sacrificed in order to avert the plagues and judgment of God. Jesus as the Paschal lamb seems to link the animal sacrifice on Yom Kippur with the lamb killed to protect Israel during the first passover. In fact, the sacrifice of Jesus is interpreted as the fulfillment of the entire religious history and cultic practice of Israel, which is fitting with my interpretation.

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

Are you referring to the need to mix repentance and faith with sacrifice? For Christians would teach this too.

* A painful, human sacrifice – definitely against the rules

Unless you interpret Isaiah 53 as many early Christians did.

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

Yet Jesus reinterpreted himself as priest, temple, and sacrifice, and claimed his death was by his own will. A sacrifice performed by a priest in the temple of his body. That's part of the entire counter-temple theology he presented.

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.

Or, if Jesus was part of a counter-temple movement, and did interpret himself as a reconstitution of the holy practices of Israel and of the temple itself, then the sacrifice business could be central to the understanding of the historical Jesus, and not an invention of the later church.

So, back to the OP:

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

If two people (ThatGirlAgain and myself) can use historical analysis and the tools of historical reconstruction to reconstruct two entirely different pictures of Jesus, which both seem to conform to our presupposed view of who Jesus was, it makes it seem as if the Jesus of history is nothing more than an ideological chess piece. Claims of the historical existence of Jesus are thus nothing more than ideological claims.

In my opinion, then, and contrary to EduChris, we need not suggest that "mythicist" movements are entirely due to ignorance, but rather that they could in some instances be due to a degree of exposure to scholarly work on historical Jesus studies, which itself seems unable to develop any widely accepted understanding of Jesus apart from his existence. However, existence devoid of content seems meaningless, so why believe in Jesus at all?

That being said, I do believe there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, but I must also suggest that it is impossible to divorce the "Jesus of history" from the "Jesus of faith", as one's faith inevitably shapes one's historical reconstruction. Perhaps the "mythicist" approach, then, is simply a stronger move towards atheism, towards a lack of faith in Jesus, an atheism that no longer strives to salvage a historical Jesus as a cultural necessity as the first quest for the historical Jesus did. Instead, this new movement seeks to eradicate Christ, and by proxy Christianity, from all of culture and history.

[Quath]

Most atheists I know assume that Jesus was real. They just take the whole resurrection story as an urban legend that got out of control. Either Jesus died and the body was lost in a mass grave or he did get up after a few days. But in that second case, it is no more of a miracle than any of the common stories of people getting up at their funeral like this story.

So there is no real ideological reason for an atheist to want Jesus to be real or imagined. It makes no difference. But it is a similar question as to whether King Arthur, Robin Hood, or Hercules were ever real people or based on real people.

[His Name Is John]

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.

I would have given you tokens had you not already been given a donation.

Great post.

[Goat]

Most atheists I know assume that Jesus was real. They just take the whole resurrection story as an urban legend that got out of control. Either Jesus died and the body was lost in a mass grave or he did get up after a few days. But in that second case, it is no more of a miracle than any of the common stories of people getting up at their funeral like this story.

So there is no real ideological reason for an atheist to want Jesus to be real or imagined. It makes no difference. But it is a similar question as to whether King Arthur, Robin Hood, or Hercules were ever real people or based on real people.

Well, there is one thing to 'assume' something, another to look at the evidence. I personally don't think it is possible to show a historical Jesus DIDN'T exist. I would like to see something that shows he DID indeed exist, out of intellectual curiosity.

I suspect he did.. but suspect and show enough tangible evidence are two different things.

[Regens Küchl]

could you remind us when and where the first mentions of Jesus' supernatural aspects are found, specifically the virgin birth and the resurrection?

Paul recounts a couple of early Christian formulas in his writings, including:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

For Paul to be passing on this tradition about the resurrection, which he himself received, it must have developed very early in the Christian movement, if not from the very beginning.

Matthew and Luke are the first to mention the virgin birth, of course. I don't know if we really have any idea where they, in turn, got it from. It's interesting that their birth narratives are so different, and yet the virginity of Mary is common to both. That says to me that specific idea might have developed fairly early, too.

Based upon the convoluted blathering and diatribe that are contained in Paul's letters, together with his claim of a visitation with the long dead Jesus while on the road to Damascus, I discount all things Paul as nonsense...he was just weird.

How fascinating. I, as a former atheist, and still atheist to every other version of deity except the Trinity. see Paul as quite the intellectual. The Orthodox Jew turned Christian apologist. His arguments and letters are far from wierdness. Actually to many, many, many, academics and scholars, their opinions would be in conflict with yours.

No offense meant, but if you are a former atheist, and still atheist to every other version of deity except the Trinity shouldnt your name than be 97percentatheism ?

That Tacitus refers to the Christians as "enemies of mankind" (as well as many others epithets) shows your opinion of Paul and his fellow believers, is nothing new.

Of course you know that this "Tacitus on Chrestus" passage counts as highly susceptible! We have only copies from the 11th century and it could easily be forged

[Regens Küchl]

Most atheists I know assume that Jesus was real. They just take the whole resurrection story as an urban legend that got out of control. Either Jesus died and the body was lost in a mass grave or he did get up after a few days. But in that second case, it is no more of a miracle than any of the common stories of people getting up at their funeral like this story.

So there is no real ideological reason for an atheist to want Jesus to be real or imagined. It makes no difference. But it is a similar question as to whether King Arthur, Robin Hood, or Hercules were ever real people or based on real people.

To assume the non-existence of a historical Jesus would ruin every form of christianity at once

[historia]

I believe one reason people deny the historical existence of Jesus is because these scholarly efforts have uncovered such vastly different pictures of the same man.

An interesting observation.

Jesus studies, which itself seems unable to develop any widely accepted understanding of Jesus apart from his existence.

That may be a little too pessimistic an assessment. In Jesus and Judaism, E.P. Sanders lays out the "almost indisputable facts" about Jesus:

• 1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
  2. Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed.
  3. Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve.
  4. Jesus confined his activity to Israel.
  5. Jesus engaged in a controversy about the temple.
  6. Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.
  7. After his death Jesus' followers continued as an identifiable movement.
  8. At least some Jews persecuted at least parts of the new movement (Gal. I.13,22; Phil. 3.6), and it appears that this persecution endured at least to a time near the end of Paul's career (II Cor. II.24; Gal. 5.11; 6.12; cf. Matt. 23.34; 10.17).

That leaves a lot to be debated, to be sure. But even among scholars as widely variant as Crossan and Wright, there is much agreement.

[historia]

So there is no real ideological reason for an atheist to want Jesus to be real or imagined.

Exactly. So why, then, has this idea becoming popular among some atheists?

Is there some aspect of modern atheism that somehow leads to this kind of hyper-skepticism? Or is this just a kind of over-the-top criticism of Christianity, perhaps in reaction to fundamentalist certainty?