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?

[Goat]

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?

Nah, it's a strong lack of external evidence outside the gospels for Jesus, and a strong amount of contradiction inside the Gospels.. as well as a large amount of 'pious fraud' .

After reviewing E.P Saunders 'The Historical Figure of Jesus', I was pretty disappointed. While an interesting and well written scholarly work on aspects of early Christianity. While stating he is looking at 'recovering the historical Jesus', he makes the assumption that Jesus exists, and goes from there. He is very interested in pushing his concept of Jesus, and really picks and chooses what he presents.. dealing with actual evidence for a historical Jesus is not something he covered, except with a few off the cuff remarks that doesn't deal with it in any detail.

It's certainly more scholarly, but as for addressing the evidence for the actual existence of Jesus.. well.. it falls far short of that.

[Haven]

I definitely feel much of the motivation for the denial of a historical Jesus rests in both hyper-skepticism and a strong sense of anti-theism. For some atheists, it is an article of faith based on nothing but an animus toward anything vaguely alluding to the religious. This type of emotionally driven skepticism is at best arational, and in my opinion can often reach the height of irrationality, invoking a dogma on par with the most fundamental of fundamentalist believers.

On the other hand, I do think a reasonable case can be advanced for skepticism as to a historical Jesus. Biblical scholar Robert Price, a former evangelical and self-described "Christian atheist," notes both the lack of contemporaneous textual evidence for a historical Jesus, as well as the many parallels between the Jesus story and myths of pagan deities such as Horus and Bacchus. Price believes Jesus was likely constructed from Jewish, Persian, and Greco-Roman archetypes during the mid first century.

While I tend to agree with the mainstream academic view (that Jesus was historical), I do think mythicists such as Price have some point behind their opinions.

[Flail]

I definitely feel much of the motivation for the denial of a historical Jesus rests in both hyper-skepticism and a strong sense of anti-theism. For some atheists, it is an article of faith based on nothing but an animus toward anything vaguely alluding to the religious. This type of emotionally driven skepticism is at best arational, and in my opinion can often reach the height of irrationality, invoking a dogma on par with the most fundamental of fundamentalist believers.

On the other hand, I do think a reasonable case can be advanced for skepticism as to a historical Jesus. Biblical scholar Robert Price, a former evangelical and self-described "Christian atheist," notes both the lack of contemporaneous textual evidence for a historical Jesus, as well as the many parallels between the Jesus story and myths of pagan deities such as Horus and Bacchus. Price believes Jesus was likely constructed from Jewish, Persian, and Greco-Roman archetypes during the mid first century.

While I tend to agree with the mainstream academic view (that Jesus was historical), I do think mythicists such as Price have some point behind their opinions.

My view is that many atheists argue against the historical Jesus for the simple purpose of pointing to the absurdity of claims that Jesus was a God with supernatural powers based upon the nebulous available source material. Such arguments demonstrate that if the evidence that Jesus existed as a human being is scant to non-existent, then the evidence that Jesus was a 'God' is ever more untrustworthy and preposterous. Atheists who argue that Jesus never existed are merely making the point that the entire virgin birth/miracles/resurrection dogma is obviously the stuff of hyperbole, myth and legend.

I have no trouble with the claim that Jesus existed as a human being like the rest of us because frankly it doesn't matter to me. The fact is that someone wrote the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible and so I can take whatever philosophical lessons I find valuable from those words regardless of whether I am reading the words of the real man Jesus or a storyteller/philosopher using Jesus as a pen name.

[historia]

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.

Here's a short video in which the late Christopher Hitchens lays out the two pieces of evidence that he believes establishes that Jesus of Nazareth was likely an historical figure. It's about three minutes long.

Now, after watching that, you might disagree with Hitchens. Maybe you need more evidence. But that begs the question: How much evidence is needed before we can say that Jesus (or any other person) merely existed? What threshold needs to be met?

The answer, of course, is that there is no universally agreed upon threshold of evidence for "proving" someone existed. Each of us can devise our own personal -- and therfore entirely arbitrary -- criterion, of course. But why should everyone else accept that? And, once evidence is forthcoming, what prevents you from merely moving the goal posts?

To even phrase the question in this way, though, is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of historical (and scientific) inquiry. I'm afraid you're expecting someone to provide an answer to the wrong question.

[historia]

Atheists who argue that Jesus never existed are merely making the point that the entire virgin birth/miracles/resurrection dogma is obviously the stuff of hyperbole, myth and legend.

If that is ultimately the point, why not then just make that point? Why go further and say that Jesus didn't exist at all?

From a purely tactical point of view, doesn't overstating the case in this way -- by adopting a radical theory near universally rejected by scholars -- actually weaken the overall argument?

It reminds me of some in the Arab world who, in their zeal to oppose Israel, go on to deny the Holocaust. Does that bolster their position, or merely make them look silly?

[Flail]

Atheists who argue that Jesus never existed are merely making the point that the entire virgin birth/miracles/resurrection dogma is obviously the stuff of hyperbole, myth and legend.

If that is ultimately the point, why not then just make that point? Why go further and say that Jesus didn't exist at all?

From a purely tactical point of view, doesn't overstating the case in this way -- by adopting a radical theory near universally rejected by scholars -- actually weaken the overall argument?

It reminds me of some in the Arab world who, in their zeal to oppose Israel, go on to deny the Holocaust. Does that bolster their position, or merely make them look silly?

Good point. I for one have no problem believing that Jesus existed as a person in history. As I said, it makes absolutely zero difference to me whether he existed or was the product (totally or partially) of someone's storytelling imagination. But I do think it serves to make the point that you really can't believe anything about Jesus beyond mere speculation because the source material is so lacking. And if Jesus was a man like you and me, what possible difference does it make if he said the words attributed to him or some first century story teller? But Jesus as God? Please, come on....

[catalyst]

Atheists who argue that Jesus never existed are merely making the point that the entire virgin birth/miracles/resurrection dogma is obviously the stuff of hyperbole, myth and legend.

If that is ultimately the point, why not then just make that point? Why go further and say that Jesus didn't exist at all?

From a purely tactical point of view, doesn't overstating the case in this way -- by adopting a radical theory near universally rejected by scholars -- actually weaken the overall argument?

A lot of atheists making the assertion that the biblical Jesus of Nazareth never existed, are former Ministers, Pastors, Priests etc. Dan Barker is one such example and I mention him only because he is probably better known than other examples I could give. Rather than it be merely a radical theory as you state, don't you think it could well be a rational and logical conclusion they reached when studying and researching information pertaining to Judeo-christianity? Whether people like to believe it or not, removing ones-self from a religion that has consumed a good part of your life, is NOT easy peasy, in fact it is one of the most difficult things psychologically, one can do. Sometimes, even when looking into information to cement ones "faith", it can cause ones faith to come crashing down around them. At that point, one can choose to keep the blinkers on, or acknowledge the new information for exactly what it is....and that what it is.. is not necessarily what you wanted. If one is honest with themselves though, the blinkers come off.

The fact could be that these atheists have actually researched perhaps more than the scholars you refer to. Perhaps too many of these scholars have chosen to keep their blinkers on despite the information to the contrary as to "jesus of nazareth's" existence. Ignorance IS supposedly "BLISS" after all.

I don't believe the jesus of nazareth character existed, not only due to the "supernatural" elements as mentioned by Flail, but also from some long hard research into the matter; 15+ years of it, so it wasn't fleeting for me not to believe in "jesus" or his actual existence any more. The most difficult aspect of it all was to take the blinkers off. It was far easier to "choose" to believe, until my own conscience got the better of me and at that point, I could not continue living with what was, a "comfy" lie. A little ironic don't you think that the words in John 8:32 ...were KEY to my personal exodus from christianity. "seek ye the truth and it shall set you free"... too funny...lol... it was good to know that those sentences are in the DSS 4Q163 too.... - dated to circa 150BCE.

It's obvious that before the time of Jesus of Nazareth's purported life, there were MANY a messianic style figure running around the traps. Much of the NT - the claimed words of wisdom of the character were done PRIOR and a lot better. The "Sermon on the Mount" is one such example. A high percentage of information in the "Gospels" are nothing more than dodgy copy from many of the 927 Dead Sea Scrolls, and unfortunately for whomever wrote the "Gospels", they obviously didn't take into account future events; that this info would be dug up 1500 + years later, for people to SEE where this "character" and the supposedly unique things he is claimed to have said, have an entirely different beginnings and they had nothing to do with some god/man hybrid figure supposedly born around 2012 odd years ago.

It reminds me of some in the Arab world who, in their zeal to oppose Israel, go on to deny the Holocaust. Does that bolster their position, or merely make them look silly?

It's not just "some of the arab world", there are a lot of people who do deny the Holocaust. Unfortunately many a westerner christian ALSO deny it, purely because they identify with Hitler having been a Christian and also the fact that many a concentration camp was supported by The Vatican. I don't deny the Holocaust but I do reckon like with most atrocities such as the holocaust, genocides....wartime "collateral damage", even natural disasters, the numbers, depending on who's doing the reporting, get more than a tad embellished....whether to increase OR decrease the body count.

I don't see how it can remind you of the jesus not existing situation. At least with holocaust, genocide, "collateral damage" and natural disaster, there is at least ONE corpse to show SOMETHING actually happened.

Catalyst.

[Flail]

Atheists who argue that Jesus never existed are merely making the point that the entire virgin birth/miracles/resurrection dogma is obviously the stuff of hyperbole, myth and legend.

If that is ultimately the point, why not then just make that point? Why go further and say that Jesus didn't exist at all?

From a purely tactical point of view, doesn't overstating the case in this way -- by adopting a radical theory near universally rejected by scholars -- actually weaken the overall argument?

A lot of atheists making the assertion that the biblical Jesus of Nazareth never existed, are former Ministers, Pastors, Priests etc. Dan Barker is one such example and I mention him only because he is probably better known than other examples I could give. Rather than it be merely a radical theory as you state, don't you think it could well be a rational and logical conclusion they reached when studying and researching information pertaining to Judeo-christianity? Whether people like to believe it or not, removing ones-self from a religion that has consumed a good part of your life, is NOT easy peasy, in fact it is one of the most difficult things psychologically, one can do. Sometimes, even when looking into information to cement ones "faith", it can cause ones faith to come crashing down around them. At that point, one can choose to keep the blinkers on, or acknowledge the new information for exactly what it is....and that what it is.. is not necessarily what you wanted. If one is honest with themselves though, the blinkers come off.

The fact could be that these atheists have actually researched perhaps more than the scholars you refer to. Perhaps too many of these scholars have chosen to keep their blinkers on despite the information to the contrary as to "jesus of nazareth's" existence. Ignorance IS supposedly "BLISS" after all.

I don't believe the jesus of nazareth character existed, not only due to the "supernatural" elements as mentioned by Flail, but also from some long hard research into the matter; 15+ years of it, so it wasn't fleeting for me not to believe in "jesus" or is actual existence any more.

It's obvious that before the time of Jesus of Nazareth's purported life, there were MANY a messianic style figure running around the traps. Much of the NT - the claimed words of wisdom of the character were done PRIOR and a lot better. The "Sermon on the Mount" is one such example. A high percentage of information in the "Gospels" are nothing more than dodgy copy from many of the 927 Dead Sea Scrolls, and unfortunately for whomever wrote the "Gospels", they obviously didn't take into account future events; that this info would be dug up 1500 + years later, for people to SEE where this "character" and the supposedly unique things he is claimed to have said, have an entirely different beginnings and they had nothing to do with some god/man hybrid figure supposedly born around 2012 odd years ago.

It reminds me of some in the Arab world who, in their zeal to oppose Israel, go on to deny the Holocaust. Does that bolster their position, or merely make them look silly?

It's not just "some of the arab world", there are a lot of people who do deny the Holocaust. Unfortunately many a westerner christian ALSO deny it, purely because they identify with Hitler having been a Christian and also the fact that many a concentration camp was supported by The Vatican. I don't deny the Holocaust but I do reckon like with most atrocities such as the holocaust, genocides....wartime "collateral damage", even natural disasters, the numbers, depending on who's doing the reporting, get more than a tad embellished....whether to increase OR decrease the body count.

I don't see how it can remind you of the jesus not existing situation. At least with holocaust, genocide, "collateral damage" and natural disaster, there is at least ONE corpse to show SOMETHING actually happened.

Catalyst.

Well stated. I agree. Believers often incorrectly assume that anyone who doubts the Christian dogma "just hasn't tried, or researched, or been to church or read the Bible"...wrong...most of us on this site have done all of the above and in great depth and earnestly....and have come to the honest, heart felt conclusion that when it comes to Jesus the stories don't hold up to fact or reason....not by a long shot. In fact, in my early experience of Jesus and the faith, it was surrounded by stage setting, sermonizing and emotional trappings to such an extent that reasoned thought was difficult (which I suppose was the point of all the gaudy crapola). But once I went to college and learned to think for myself, do my own research and study, it gradually became clear that I had been fed a whole line of BS.

[historia]

Rather than it be merely a radical theory as you state, don't you think it could well be a rational and logical conclusion they reached when studying and researching information pertaining to Judeo-christianity?

I don't doubt the sincerity of those who believe this mythicist hypothesis. I just find that their arguments are based on a grand number of misconceptions. And that what they are really arguing against is not the historical Jesus, but rather traditional Christian ideas about Jesus.

The fact could be that these atheists have actually researched perhaps more than the scholars you refer to.

I'm always suspicious of any claim that non-experts somehow have better insight or knowledge than experts in any field, or that those experts are merely "blinded" by their "orthodoxy." Creationist make the same retort.

I don't see how it can remind you of the jesus not existing situation.

They are both, at their heart, conspiracy theories.

[Goat]

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.

Here's a short video in which the late Christopher Hitchens lays out the two pieces of evidence that he believes establishes that Jesus of Nazareth was likely an historical figure. It's about three minutes long.

Now, after watching that, you might disagree with Hitchens. Maybe you need more evidence. But that begs the question: How much evidence is needed before we can say that Jesus (or any other person) merely existed? What threshold needs to be met?

The answer, of course, is that there is no universally agreed upon threshold of evidence for "proving" someone existed. Each of us can devise our own personal -- and therfore entirely arbitrary -- criterion, of course. But why should everyone else accept that? And, once evidence is forthcoming, what prevents you from merely moving the goal posts?

To even phrase the question in this way, though, is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of historical (and scientific) inquiry. I'm afraid you're expecting someone to provide an answer to the wrong question.

Very simple.. some non-Christian discussion that happened before the writing of the gospels... using the date of 65 for Mark.. I thought that the Ossuary of James would have sufficed, if it didn't turn out to be a forgery. Heck, I would be flexible and accept anything up to the destruction of the Jewish temple..