Was Jesus a real person?

[Memammal]

Ovid created the character we know as Jesus Christ as a metaphoric response to Augustus becoming emperor, TADA!

Citations...references..?

 

...he just states that it is more likely than not that the mythical tales of Jesus in the gospels were based on a man who probably really lived- a charismatic 1st-century Jewish rabbi who preached apocalyptic prophecies etc...

More or less how I see it (as I stated before)...an Essene preacher preaching & living according to Essene beliefs, very much like John The Baptist.

 

I would actually like to know whether or not the crucifixion actually happened. That is probably one of the most brutal climaxes in the entirety of the Bible, I'd like to know if a man really went through this kind of thing willingly and was really nailed up on a cross.

Afaik there is no secondary (or objective) historical proof of this. It would seem that the various Jewish sects around that time (Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots & Essenes) despised each other. There are numerous references in the gospels to Jesus' fall-outs with either of the other sects, also mentioning of him making an extensive detour in order to not travel through an area occupied by one of these sects. Both the Zealots (actively) & Essenes (passively) were seen as anti-Roman, while Pharisees & Sadducees might have been more moderate. According to the gospels he was first subjected to the Sanhedrin (a Jewish judicial body that would have consisted of pro-Roman factions at that time, i.e. possibly Pharisees & Sadducees) and then taken to Annas, the previous high priest, and Caiaphas, the high priest of the time. In order to get an understanding of all the socio-religious-political factors that could have influenced the alleged death penalty, I suggest reading up on Caiaphas here. While reading it, keep in mind that Jesus might have reacted as any staunch Essene rabbi would have. These parts are worth quoting:

Caiaphas considers, with "the Chief Priests and Pharisees", what to do about Jesus, whose influence was spreading. They worry that if they "let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation." Caiaphas makes a political calculation, suggesting that it would be better for "one man" (Jesus) to die than for "the whole nation" to be destroyed.

Caiaphas' legal position, therefore, was to establish that Jesus was guilty not only of blasphemy, but also of proclaiming himself the Messiah, which was understood as the return of the Davidic kingship. This would have been an act of sedition and prompted Roman execution.

[Ten oz]

Right, I personally have never read a single book or article by Ehrman. I've just watched some of his lectures on youtube which gives you the jist of his positions, reasons, arguments, etc. Nothing he cites is really evidence at all, but rather just anecdotal conjectures about what is likely to be the case based on a body of scriptural/canonical knowledge and what is understood about history (which is all any scholar or historian can really do on these matters). He doesn't claim this very strongly I don't believe, he just states that it is more likely than not that the mythical tales of Jesus in the gospels were based on a man who probably really lived- a charismatic 1st-century Jewish rabbi who preached apocalyptic prophecies etc. I would actually like to know whether or not the crucifixion actually happened. That is probably one of the most brutal climaxes in the entirety of the Bible, I'd like to know if a man really went through this kind of thing willingly and was really nailed up on a cross.

Bart Ehrman opinion is stronger than what you are describing; much stronger. In the op-ed he wrote in 2012 called "Did Jesus Exist" he likens those who do not believe Jesus to have been real to Obama Birthers, call scholars whom do not agree with him mythicists, and states unequivocally "Jesus was real".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

 

Whether or not Jesus is loosely base on someone or is a compliation of a few different people is too nuanced for me. Every fictional character ever written in some way shape or form is loosely based (look, personality, profession, etc) on people who influenced the writer. The Great Gatsby was inspired by people F. Scott Fitzgerald has seen at parties on Long Island's North Shore. The plot of The Great Gatsby is also centered around real places and steeped in real culture. All that said Jay Gatsby is a complete work of fiction. Jay Gatsby never existed.

 

Proving any historical figure existed is a challange. However that should be an excuse to lower the bar of what information passes as proof. The probably with the historicity of Jesus is that Jesus only exists as a character in Christian works. If there were things writen about Jesus by Jewish peoples and Romans the case for Jesus having lived would look much stronger. Instead there is only one reference to Jesus in Roman texts and that reference, which isn't contemporary, is actually a description of who Christians were and not about Jesus directly. Instead the gospels are all we have and those are religious texts where miracles are listed side by side with descriptions of Jesus and authorship of the writings is more or less unknown.

[Memammal]

Are you referring to Josephus writings re Jesus? He referred to Jesus, his crucifixion and the origin of Christianity, albeit with later interpolations being added, no?

 

PS. I just noted that you referred to Tacitus as the other Roman source very early in the thread. So as per another post from page 1 of this thread, there seem to be 3 external references to Jesus, i.e. other than the gospels (both in and outside the Bible).

 

Ten oz:

Instead there is only one reference to Jesus in Roman texts and that reference, which isn't contemporary, is actually a description of who Christians were and not about Jesus directly.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Memammal

[Ten oz]

Are you referring to Josephus writings re Jesus? He referred to Jesus, his crucifixion and the origin of Christianity, albeit with later interpolations being added, no?

 

PS. I just noted that you referred to Tacitus as the other Roman source very early in the thread. So as per another post from page 1 of this thread, there seem to be 3 external references to Jesus, i.e. other than the gospels (both in and outside the Bible).

 

Many scholars believe the Josephus qoute is a fake. In both writing style and language (words used) it doesn't match anything else every written by Josephus.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

 

Tacitus describes Christians and not documenting Jesus as a person. Christian's existed during his time (not Jesus) and he was referencing their motives for actions some 50yrs prior.

 

All we have for sure are gospels and even those are not contemporary.

[Memammal]

Having now read through the first few pages of this thread, there really is not much to add to what have been written already. I.m.o. this thread was resurrected in vain.

[Eise]

From Wikipedia:

 

A plurality of New Testament scholars, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not, although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels. While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions, such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

 

 

Bold by me.

 

Further:

 

Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.

 

 

 

But I have spent already more than enough time in this.

[Willie71]

If the crucifixion was real, then Jesus would have been 80+ years old at that time. The historicity of the birth to the destruction of the temple is an impossible amount of time for Jesus to be about 30 at the time of the crucifixion. Needing to throw out the birth timeline to make the crucifixion work, or throwing out the crucifiction to make the birth work makes no difference. It could not happen as described in the bible, especially since two incompatible birth stories are presented.

[kisai]

Then why say he probably did?

 

Because there's things about him that don't fit into his follower's supposed prophecies. For instance, he was actually born in Nazareth, but the prophecies call for Bethlehem. So his followers had to make up a story that there was a census that forced the birth to be in Bethlehem. If Jesus was fictional, it would have been easier just to say he was born in Bethlehem.

[Ten oz]

From Wikipedia:

 

 

Bold by me.

 

Further:

 

 

But I have spent already more than enough time in this.

The plurality argument is incentuous. Many accept Jesus must have been real purely because so many others do which in turn perptuates other to do the same. In itself stating that many bibical scholars agree with something provides no evidence but rather purely seeks to bias perspective.

 

Because there's things about him that don't fit into his follower's supposed prophecies. For instance, he was actually born in Nazareth, but the prophecies call for Bethlehem. So his followers had to make up a story that there was a census that forced the birth to be in Bethlehem. If Jesus was fictional, it would have been easier just to say he was born in Bethlehem.

To my understand both Matthew and Luke read that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. So I am not sure what you are referencing. Can you elaborate?

[Memammal]

If the crucifixion was real, then Jesus would have been 80+ years old at that time. The historicity of the birth to the destruction of the temple is an impossible amount of time for Jesus to be about 30 at the time of the crucifixion.

The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans around 70 CE many years after the alleged crucifixion and after everything that reportedly transpired since then...according to the book of Acts. Why are you relating the crucifixion to the destruction of the Temple?

Edited September 6, 2016 by Memammal

[Willie71]

The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans around 70 CE many years after the alleged crucifixion and after everything that reportedly transpired since then...according to the book of Acts. Why are you relating the crucifixion to the destruction of the Temple?

 

I got myself mixed up, Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple the day before the crucifiction, but it wasn't destroyed for 40 years.

[kisai]

 

To my understand both Matthew and Luke read that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. So I am not sure what you are referencing. Can you elaborate?

 

The census of Quirinius which Luke claims to have been the reason for Jesus' birth in Bethlehem actually took place 10 years earlier. Its placement in the gospels is a fabrication in order to align Jesus' post-mortem deification with prophecies. There is no reason to take an expectant mother on a four day walk on a highway.

 

However, the fabrication does point to the actual existence of Jesus. Had he been wholly fictional, it would have been simpler just to have him born and live in Bethlehem.

Edited September 6, 2016 by kisai

[Memammal]

^ I would not read too much into anything concerning the birth of Biblical Jesus. Matthew and Luke are quite far apart in their respective telling of this story, while none of the other gospels even mention it. The gospel of Mark is widely recognised not only as the oldest gospel but one of the probable sources for both Matthew and Luke's gospels. Mark never refers to a baby- or young Jesus but starts with the baptism of Jesus as an adult. It appears that the gospel of Matthew refers to Nazareth as a place where Jesus later relocated to and where he first started preaching.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Memammal

[Ten oz]

 

The census of Quirinius which Luke claims to have been the reason for Jesus' birth in Bethlehem actually took place 10 years earlier. Its placement in the gospels is a fabrication in order to align Jesus' post-mortem deification with prophecies. There is no reason to take an expectant mother on a four day walk on a highway.

 

However, the fabrication does point to the actual existence of Jesus. Had he been wholly fictional, it would have been simpler just to have him born and live in Bethlehem.

While I agree that much in the bible is pure fabrication for the sake of clarity in this conversation it would be help to cite what you're referencing. You are claiming motivation for contradictions. Read like more of a personnel opinion that evidence. Census of Quirinius took place a decade after Herod's death. Luke places Jesus' life during the time of Herod. So if we assume Jesus was a real man neither the gospels or the census of Quirinius are contemporary to his life.

^ I would not read too much into anything concerning the birth of Biblical Jesus. Matthew and Luke are quite far apart in their respective telling of this story, while none of the other gospels even mention it. The gospel of Mark is widely recognised not only as the oldest gospel but one of the probable sources for both Matthew and Luke's gospels. Mark never refers to a baby- or young Jesus but starts with the baptism of Jesus as an adult. It appears that the gospel of Matthew refers to Nazareth as a place where Jesus later relocated to and where he first started preaching.

I agree. Whom inspired who and what there goals were is something argued amongst both scolars who believe in a historical Jesus and those that do not. How can intentional story manipulation for the sake of matching up narratives be proved or even argued successfully? We'd need to know authorship, exact timelines, and have some personal insight into motivations; things we do not have.

[kisai]

 

 

Read like more of a personnel opinion that evidence. Census of Quirinius took place a decade after Herod's death.

 

If information is cited on Wikipedia, I generally don't provide a reference. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. The census could not have taken place until the Romans took direct rule of Judea in 6 AD.

Edited September 7, 2016 by kisai

[Ten oz]

If information is cited on Wikipedia, I generally don't provide a reference. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. The census could not have taken place until the Romans took direct rule of Judea in 6 AD.

Right, it isn't contemporary to Jesus just as the gospels aren't. It also doesn't reference Jesus. Rather the Assumption is Luke used it as a time frame reference. I don't understand how you arrive at the conclusion, from that info, that Jesus was real and born in Nazareth?

[Willie71]

Here's a brief snippet from an interview with Robert M. Price, a very well informed individual on the historicity of Jesus.

 

[Ten oz]

 

The census of Quirinius which Luke claims to have been the reason for Jesus' birth in Bethlehem actually took place 10 years earlier. Its placement in the gospels is a fabrication in order to align Jesus' post-mortem deification with prophecies. There is no reason to take an expectant mother on a four day walk on a highway.

 

However, the fabrication does point to the actual existence of Jesus. Had he been wholly fictional, it would have been simpler just to have him born and live in Bethlehem.

 

 

 

If information is cited on Wikipedia, I generally don't provide a reference. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. The census could not have taken place until the Romans took direct rule of Judea in 6 AD.

Luke places Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. You are stating as fact that Luke is basically a "fabrication". That is not basic knowledge cite on wikipedia. Itr is a specific conclusion you are drawing and have yet to specifically expalin.

[Memammal]

@ Willie71: I watched the video but it seems to specifically address the supernatural side of the Jesus narrative. That, as far as I can tell, is not really the purpose of this thread (most of us probably agree that the supernatural events are most likely all hocus-pocus). So whether the Jesus character was deified through all sorts of mythical side shows is a separate issue and the question (I think) relates to whether there was in fact a historical human that fits the Jesus story.

 

@ Ten oz: As I understood it kisai argued that the Luke part of the nativity story that describes Joseph & Maria as traveling from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the census was (purposefully) fictional (for prophetic reasons), which would then raise the question as to why the story teller(s) would have even bothered with the (fictional) Nazareth part and not placed them in Bethlehem from the outset (as implied in the Matthews gospel) if there was not a real Jesus (from Nazareth).

[Ten oz]

@ Willie71: I watched the video but it seems to specifically address the supernatural side of the Jesus narrative. That, as far as I can tell, is not really the purpose of this thread (most of us probably agree that the supernatural events are most likely all hocus-pocus). So whether the Jesus character was deified through all sorts of mythical side shows is a separate issue and the question (I think) relates to whether there was in fact a historical human that fits the Jesus story.

 

@ Ten oz: As I understood it kisai argued that the Luke part of the nativity story that describes Joseph & Maria as traveling from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the census was (purposefully) fictional (for prophetic reasons), which would then raise the question as to why the story teller(s) would have even bothered with the (fictional) Nazareth part and not placed them in Bethlehem from the outset (as implied in the Matthews gospel) if there was not a real Jesus (from Nazareth).

I understand the argument but he/she is calling it a fabrication and assigning motive for purposely making it up. We don't even know for sure who wrote Luke so making assumptions about the motivations of specific sections of the story outlined is a rather large leap. I would like a bit more explanation than merely stating that it is so. Sure there is a contradiction there but there are contradictions in nearly every gospel. It's an extrapolation and doesn't uniquely exist as a definitive contradiction.

[Marpot]

i'm having a hard time believing he was something more than a cult owner or a fictional character

[Tim88]

I understand the argument but he/she is calling it a fabrication and assigning motive for purposely making it up. We don't even know for sure who wrote Luke so making assumptions about the motivations of specific sections of the story outlined is a rather large leap. I would like a bit more explanation than merely stating that it is so. Sure there is a contradiction there but there are contradictions in nearly every gospel. It's an extrapolation and doesn't uniquely exist as a definitive contradiction.

 

Wow this thread already nears infinite length... for me too much to go through, but as you are the OP, likely you know it someone already referred to this overview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

 

Notably Doherty's book The Jesus puzzle is worth studying, as it has a scientific approach to the issue. Based on some indications he got the idea that perhaps Jesus never really existed, and next he tested that hypothesis by looking for evidence that could falsify or render more support for it. But likely that has already been discussed in this thread.

 

Edit: here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty#The_Jesus_Puzzle

Edited September 8, 2016 by Tim88

[Willie71]

@ Willie71: I watched the video but it seems to specifically address the supernatural side of the Jesus narrative. That, as far as I can tell, is not really the purpose of this thread (most of us probably agree that the supernatural events are most likely all hocus-pocus). So whether the Jesus character was deified through all sorts of mythical side shows is a separate issue and the question (I think) relates to whether there was in fact a historical human that fits the Jesus story.

 

@ Ten oz: As I understood it kisai argued that the Luke part of the nativity story that describes Joseph & Maria as traveling from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the census was (purposefully) fictional (for prophetic reasons), which would then raise the question as to why the story teller(s) would have even bothered with the (fictional) Nazareth part and not placed them in Bethlehem from the outset (as implied in the Matthews gospel) if there was not a real Jesus (from Nazareth).

Yes, I agree with you on the limits of this video. Price has done a pretty good job of debunking a single historical Jesus person in his books and lectures. Given that there were several timelines as to when Jesus would have lived, and Paul's writings never put him on earth at all, I can't see much reason to believe there was a real Jesus who inspired the writings decades later. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man was one of the more influential books in my historicity journey. I recommend it to anyone new in this journey. Carrier wrote a pretty good book on this topic as well, and I referenced it quite a few pages back. Any pro historical Jesus perspective that I have seen is mostly apologetics, or the argument from incredulity. Edited September 8, 2016 by Willie71

[Eise]

Yes, I agree with you on the limits of this video. Price has done a pretty good job of debunking a single historical Jesus person in his books and lectures. Given that there were several timelines as to when Jesus would have lived, and Paul's writings never put him on earth at all, I can't see much reason to believe there was a real Jesus who inspired the writings decades later.

 

Well, Paul mentions that he met James, brother of Jesus (in one of the epistles whose authenticity is not disputed). That is pretty close. Especially because Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews also mentions James, and that he had a brother Jesus who was called Christ. This phrase is found in several independent versions of Josephus' texts, even those without the obvious Christian insertions.

 

For historians of antiquity, this is more or less a smoking gun. If you do not accept this, you will have to deny a lot of more persons who are supposed to be historical.

 

Mythicists of course have a great strategy here: if a text seems to hint to the existence of Jesus, then it is a later Christian insertion.

[Tim88]

 

Well, Paul mentions that he met James, brother of Jesus (in one of the epistles whose authenticity is not disputed). That is pretty close. Especially because Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews also mentions James, and that he had a brother Jesus who was called Christ. This phrase is found in several independent versions of Josephus' texts, even those without the obvious Christian insertions.

 

For historians of antiquity, this is more or less a smoking gun. If you do not accept this, you will have to deny a lot of more persons who are supposed to be historical.

 

Mythicists of course have a great strategy here: if a text seems to hint to the existence of Jesus, then it is a later Christian insertion.

 

[edit:] Probably that phrase by Paul is disputed, where is it?

 

Further, the Josephus section is disputed, in part because it does not exactly mention "James, the brother of Jesus". See the last part of the page http://www.christianorigins.com/doherty-muller.html

Edited September 9, 2016 by Tim88