Was Jesus a real person?

[Memammal]

In my opinion saying "most" scholars agree in reference to anything bibical is akin to saying most jouralist agree is reference to matters of science. There is actually a small pool that has done peer reviewed work on the historicity of Jesus. If we could limit this discussion to focusing on specific work that directly, not loosely, addresses the issue I think it would be helpful. People like Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman, Joseph Hoffman, Richard Carrier, and Philip Davies (to name a few) have worked specifically on the issue we are discussing and do not fall into any category of being polite, dismissive, or etc.

 

And in addition, linked from the Jesus Mysteries forum I came across another site that could be useful as basis for the discussion here as it presents and compares a variety of ideas, in addition to many manuscripts of that time: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

 

Having browsed over the opinions of all of the authors referenced above, I can conclude that there are broadly three groups of opinions:

Fringe myth theories;

A majority middle position that points towards Jesus as a historical figure, some sort of teacher/preacher/healer/activist who was crucified; with the Pauline (and to a lesser degree Johannine) Christology as instrumental in the apotheosis of Jesus and the foundation of Christianity and the early church (with the other apostles playing their respective parts);

And lastly another fringe position that supports a divine, incarnated Jesus Christ.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Memammal

[Ten oz]

 

 

Having browsed over the opinions of all of the authors referenced above, I can conclude that there are broadly three groups of opinions:

Fringe myth theories;

A majority middle position that points towards Jesus as a historical figure, some sort of teacher/preacher/healer/activist who was crucified; with the Pauline (and to a lesser degree Johannine) Christology as instrumental in the apotheosis of Jesus and the foundation of Christianity and the early church (with the other apostles playing their respective parts);

And lastly another fringe position that supports a divine, incarnated Jesus Christ.

That describes hundreds if not thousands of people who lived during the 50 some odd year period in which there may have been a Jesus. If the question was whether or not Jesus was modelled after or inspired by various real people than I agree 100% the answer is probably yes. Just as Huck Finn was inspired by a kid Mark Twain had known. However Huck Finn never existed and the question is whether or not Jesus specifically existed. Not whether a person or persons similar may have existed. For me that is a very important distinction. To what specific extent was there an individual "some sort of teacher/preacher/healer/activist who was crucified" whom we can say was more probably than not was Jesus? A specific individual whom is directly responsible for the origin.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Ten oz

[Memammal]

If the question was whether or not Jesus was modelled after or inspired by various real people than I agree 100% the answer is probably yes.

That is not what the majority of these authors/scholars are implying, nor what I conveyed. They simply have their own individual perceptions of the same historical figure. That is not uncommon. Many historians have differed about the persona of historical figures, even recent ones like Princess Diana or Nelson Mandela for example.

 

Just as Huck Finn was inspired by a kid Mark Twain had known. However Huck Finn never existed and the question is whether or not Jesus specifically existed. Not whether a person or persons similar may have existed. For me that is a very important distinction.

Although I previously agreed with you in reference to the status of the Jesus character as somewhat similar to that of Huck Finn in the sense that they both might have been loosely based on an actual historical person, I think we need to be a bit more specific. It was only Mark Twain who knew this kid and who used him as the inspiration for his character, no other authors. The same cannot be said of the Jesus character. Quite a few first and second century scribes have thought it worth their while to write about what appears to be one and the same character, "Biblical" Jesus.

 

To what specific extent was there an individual "some sort of teacher/preacher/healer/activist who was crucified" whom we can say was more probably than not was Jesus? A specific individual whom is directly responsible for the origin.

Surely one can assume that this Jesus character must have done something (enough) to draw attention. He seemingly had some kind of following. He was (wrongfully?) sentenced to death, so he must have been seen as some kind of threat (either to the Romans or to the other Jewish sects). Let us again use Nelson Mandela as an example. He was relatively unknown when he and his colleagues were caught and detained. The longer he stayed in prison though, the more the perception grew that he was wrongfully incarcerated, the more of a folk/political hero he became not only in South Africa but (more importantly) also internationally. As a prisoner he was never seen or heard, yet his influence was immense. Consider the socio-political atmosphere during the time that Jesus allegedly held public gatherings where he conveyed a message of hope to the poor, the sick, where he spoke of immanent change. One can easily imagine that after he was crucified by the socio-political regime and when the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70CE started to unfold, that his legacy was ripe for the picking by the likes of Paul & Co.

[Ten oz]

That is not what the majority of these authors/scholars are implying, nor what I conveyed. They simply have their own individual perceptions of the same historical figure. That is not uncommon. Many historians have differed about the persona of historical figures, even recent ones like Princess Diana or Nelson Mandela for example.

 

Although I previously agreed with you in reference to the status of the Jesus character as somewhat similar to that of Huck Finn in the sense that they both might have been loosely based on an actual historical person, I think we need to be a bit more specific. 1 - It was only Mark Twain who knew this kid and who used him as the inspiration for his character, no other authors. The same cannot be said of the Jesus character. Quite a few first and second century scribes have thought it worth their while to write about what appears to be one and the same character, "Biblical" Jesus.

 

2 - Surely one can assume that this Jesus character must have done something (enough) to draw attention. He seemingly had some kind of following. He was (wrongfully?) sentenced to death, so he must have been seen as some kind of threat (either to the Romans or to the other Jewish sects). Let us again use Nelson Mandela as an example. He was relatively unknown when he and his colleagues were caught and detained. The longer he stayed in prison though, the more the perception grew that he was wrongfully incarcerated, the more of a folk/political hero he became not only in South Africa but (more importantly) also internationally. As a prisoner he was never seen or heard, yet his influence was immense. Consider the socio-political atmosphere during the time that Jesus allegedly held public gatherings where he conveyed a message of hope to the poor, the sick, where he spoke of immanent change. One can easily imagine that after he was crucified by the socio-political regime and when the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70CE started to unfold, that his legacy was ripe for the picking by the likes of Paul & Co.

1 - The Same cannot be said for Jesus. Twain was at least contemporary to and knew the kid he used as inspiration. There are ZERO authors who can be cited that know Jesus or lived during his time. Paul, Luke, and Matthew are the only sources we have the attempt to say Jesus lived and describe his life. Other references list either describe who christians are and not specific can any claims about Jesus or have debatable authenticity. Paul, Matthew, and Luke are our primary sources. With that said authorship of Matthew and Luke are not entirely known and Paul's inspiration, source of knowledge, and singularity (may have been more than one Pauline author) are not fully known. So While I agree the same can't be said for Jesus as is said for Huck Finn I believe the case is the opposite of what you implied. With Mark Twain we can at least conform dates, locations, and known him to be a contemporary source.

 

2 - I don't assume that. Why should I assume that?

[Memammal]

@ Ten oz: No, Paul, Luke, and Matthew are not the only sources and I did elaborate on why it can be assumed. I am stepping out of this debate. Everything that could have been said, were probably said already. Perhaps the myth theorists and their supporters have an agenda for insisting that there was never a real Jesus-like figure, I don't know. The majority opinion of the extensive list of authors/scholars who have studied it, speaks for itself. I have my personal opinion about it which is something that I arrived at by applying my mind and that I thoroughly thought through.

[Ten oz]

@ Ten oz: No, Paul, Luke, and Matthew are not the only sources and I did elaborate on why it can be assumed. I am stepping out of this debate. Everything that could have been said, were probably said already. Perhaps the myth theorists and their supporters have an agenda for insisting that there was never a real Jesus-like figure, I don't know. The majority opinion of the extensive list of authors/scholars who have studied it, speaks for itself. I have my personal opinion about it which is something that I arrived at by applying my mind and that I thoroughly thought through.

It isn't a matter of myth or fact. We simply don't know is a reasonable answer.

[Memammal]

...Or we simply don't want to know?

 

You can approach it in a number of ways, either argue against it by conjuring up some conspiracy theory, be super sceptic and insist on indisputable evidence (which, if you follow the same rigorous approach, would refute the existence of numerous "historic" figures), or to weigh up all the contributing factors and see how these puzzles best fit together...i.e. what is the most likely scenario? I think most historians and archaeologists work by means of the last-mentioned approach, don't you think? By constructing the most viable explanation with the (some times very little) evidence at their disposal..?

[Tim88]

Many accept as a matter of fact that Jesus, as described by Christianity, was a real person and it is only his divinity that is up for debate. I grew up believing as much. As an adult I realized that I have never read credible information that proved a historical Jesus. In discussions with people through the years I have found that challanging a real life historical Jesus quickly becomes battles where I am asked to prove he wasn't real person. Ultimately there seems to be a general lack of proof either way. So I ask the forum for thoughts. Is the Christian story of Jesus based on an actual living man named Jesus who live around 2,000 years ago?

 

 

Here is what I find to be a compelling explanation for why a historical Jesus most likely did not exist.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

 

Ok I finally got around to watching that video.

To my surprise, I see that Richard Carrier's opinion was swayed by Earl Doherty, just as it also happened to me.

And he next produced an additional book which supports Doherty's theory.

 

He presents some of Doherty's arguments, and I think that he adds some of his own, for example I think that Doherty had not noticed that Philo of Alexandria had written about a similar Jesus already - that was also new to me. Maybe I should clarify that in a one hour speech, it isn't feasible to present all, or even many, arguments; he presented only a small fraction of the facts that should be considered.

 

For example when discussing Paul and "the Lord's supper", he didn't find the time to point out that Paul's details of the actual ritual not only were "received from the Lord" but may be based on the same source as the Didache. And the Didache is a topic on itself, I was shaken when I read it.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

Also he didn't have time to elaborate on the denial by some early Christians of some basic features of the "historical" Jesus.

e.g. from the phrase "central case of the crucified man and his cross" on https://web.archive.org/web/20070704232342/http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CritiquesGDon-2.htm

 

And Carrier discovered, after considering Doherty's arguments, many new pieces of evidence that strengthen that opinion.

Similarly I noticed a few pieces of the puzzle myself, as they relate to things that had been bothering me when I still believed that Jesus was historical - such as how the New Testament can have so many passages that are ambiguous about which lord is meant, some even obviously confounding Jesus with the Father. One may say that is normal, it's the Trinity - but there is evidence that the Trinity doctrine was not established at the start, and I find it improbable that a religion that was started by a preacher on Earth so quickly confounds the Jewish God with that man. If instead the New Testament started with mystery teachings about heavenly beings that did not take much care about who is who, then the initial vagueness as well as the following development of a Trinity teaching is more natural (compare https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/how-ancient-trinitarian-gods-influenced-adoption-of-the ).

And I was struck by apparently very ancient Christian paintings of "the mother of God with her child".

Compare for example http://www.earlychristians.org/index.php/origins/item/678-the-devotion-to-the-virgin-mary-in-the-early-church/678-the-devotion-to-the-virgin-mary-in-the-early-church

and http://www.albatrus.org/english/religions/pagan/pagan_origin_mary_worship.htm

The explanation of a so early mother and child worship in the church, in my opinion does not (arguably, this is a "protestant view") fit well with the bible account, following a historical Jesus.

It fits, I think, better with an originally mystery-based Jesus, and a diverse Christian community that had Greek and Egyptian influences mixed with the Jewish prophecies right from the start.

 

The effortless findings of additional supporting materials is in my opinion a feature of a good, promising theory.

 

Back to the video, while it was interesting for me, I do not expect much convincing power from such a video (and insufficient to be "compelling"), compared to a book such as by Doherty with over 300 pages of discussion of evidence (and possibly Carter's own book). But it's a good "primer"

 

So, contrary to my intention, I stayed on a little here and did give some of my ideas about this topic, as I ended up spending time on it again.

 

[edit: rephrase, added better links, repaired link]

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tim88

[Tim88]

PS concerning the video of Carrier's presentation in the OP, I still read a little more, and I came, by chance again (it's indeed a very small world!) on the following phrase (emphasis mine):

 

"the only way to kill mythicism is to prove that Paul knew of a historical Jesus. Given almost all scholars (all until Carrier's so far unexplained conversion) already think this is proven, the argument is unlikely to develop."

- https://web.archive.org/web/20070704231459/http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CritiquesGDon.htm

 

"unexplained"?

[Memammal]

Seems as if I just cannot get out of this discussion so easily..?

 

...for example I think that Doherty had not noticed that Philo of Alexandria had written about a similar Jesus already - that was also new to me.

Please elaborate on Philo Of Alexandria's writings about "a similar Jesus".

 

For example when discussing Paul and "the Lord's supper", he didn't find the time to point out that Paul's details of the actual ritual not only were "received from the Lord" but may be based on the same source as the Didache. And the Didache is a topic on itself, I was shaken when I read it.

Perhaps this will settle you down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

 

Also he didn't have time to elaborate on the denial by some early Christians of some basic features of the "historical" Jesus.

e.g. from the phrase "central case of the crucified man and his cross" on https://web.archive.org/web/20070704232342/http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CritiquesGDon-2.htm

That is a very long article...perhaps you can quote the relevant part that you were referring to, or convey the argument..?

 

Similarly I noticed a few pieces of the puzzle myself, as they relate to things that had been bothering me when I still believed that Jesus was historical - such as how the New Testament can have so many passages that are ambiguous about which lord is meant, some even obviously confounding Jesus with the Father. One may say that is normal, it's the Trinity - but there is evidence that the Trinity doctrine was not established at the start, and I find it improbable that a religion that was started by a preacher on Earth so quickly confounds the Jewish God with that man.

It differs from book to book, author to author, and there are well documented reasons for this (not only between synoptic gospels and the gospel of John, but also between the synoptic gospels themselves). There are noticeable exceptions where one would find extraordinary descriptions/references in unexpected places, but these could easily be attributed to interpolations.

 

EDIT: I like to add this article which you should find interesting: The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus (note its reference to Philo Of Alexandria).

 

And I was struck by apparently very ancient Christian paintings of "the mother of God with her child".

Compare for example http://www.earlychristians.org/index.php/origins/item/678-the-devotion-to-the-virgin-mary-in-the-early-church/678-the-devotion-to-the-virgin-mary-in-the-early-church

and http://www.albatrus.org/english/religions/pagan/pagan_origin_mary_worship.htm

The explanation of a so early mother and child worship in the church, in my opinion does not (arguably, this is a "protestant view") fit well with the bible account, following a historical Jesus.

It fits, I think, better with an originally mystery-based Jesus, and a diverse Christian community that had Greek and Egyptian influences mixed with the Jewish prophecies right from the start.

I don't see anything peculiar about this. The gospel of Luke, in particular, paints Mary in a very special light. Here is an excerpt from an article that may provide an explanation for what you alluded to: Many people, Protestants particularly, object to the figure that Mary has become. She is seen almost as a goddess figure, possibly derived from the fact that many Pagans became Christians in the early centuries of the church and they believed in goddesses, so Mary became to them the goddess. Many people would say that was something that went wrong with Christianity... Christian theology has always maintained that she was a human being and not God, but nevertheless, she was a human being in a very important and intimate place in the story of Jesus. There have been many images of Mary through the centuries. Some have derived from the Bible, such as the image from the book of Revelation showing Mary with a crown of 12 stars. She represents the early church with the 12 tribes of Israel represented by the stars. There have been images of Madonna and child; Mary seated in a chair with the child on her lap. Some of these images look very similar to images that we know about from some of the pagan goddesses at the time. Isis, for example, was seated in such a chair with the infant Horus on her lap in the same way. When Christianity was spreading across the Empire, it's clear that it deliberately took images from the pagan world in which it lived and into which it spread and used those images. Old holy wells and shrines were turned into Christian shrines. In Egypt a shrine of Isis was deliberately and self-consciously re-created as a shrine of Mary. One of the important cities for Mary was Ephesus, where the goddess Diana was worshipped. It's not surprising that Mary drew upon the imagery associated with the goddesses, because that was the imagery the people knew.

​(BBC/Religions/Mary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/virginmary_1.shtml)

 

"the only way to kill mythicism is to prove that Paul knew of a historical Jesus. Given almost all scholars (all until Carrier's so far unexplained conversion) already think this is proven, the argument is unlikely to develop."

 

"unexplained"?

Could you please just remind me again why you would query the quoted part?

Edited September 17, 2016 by Memammal

[John Cuthber]

36 pages in, surely we are forced to conclude that the answer must be either "we don't know" or "no".

 

If there was valid historical evidence someone would have cited it by now.

This thread is going nowhere.

[Eise]

36 pages in, surely we are forced to conclude that the answer must be either "we don't know" or "no".

No. It must be: he probably existed, but we cannot be 100% sure.

 

If there was valid historical evidence someone would have cited it by now.

I think you are confusing history with physics. What does count for historical evidence?

 

In the Christ case:

- mentioning by Paul that he met Jesus' brother, James

- mentioning by Josephus of James, whose brother was called 'Christ'

- mentioning of John the baptist by Josephus

- mentioning of John the baptist by in a few gospels

 

Oh, of course, they were all Christian forgeries...

 

And then Paul grounding churches based on an apocalyptic theology, that pretty well fits some points the oldest gospels agree upon about what Jesus preached.

[Memammal]

No. It must be: he probably existed, but we cannot be 100% sure.

I agree.

 

- mentioning by Paul that he met Jesus' brother, James

- mentioning by Josephus of James, whose brother was called 'Christ'

Mark 6:2-3 says: "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, "Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?"

 

Galatians 1:19: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother."

 

In Antiquities, book 20 chapter 9, Josephus mentions James the brother of Jesus and Annas the High priest:

"Upon the death of Festus ( 62 A.D.), Emperor Nero sent Albinus to be procurator of Judea. But before he arrived, King Agrippa appointed Annas to be High priest. He was the son of the elder Annas. (Note: The elder Annas referred to here is the same Annas of the New Testament Gospels.) The elder Annas had been high priest himself for a time. He had five sons all whom secured the priesthood. Annas the younger, however, was a brute who observed the ways of the Sadducees who are known as being cold-hearted when they sit in judgement. With Festus dead and Albinus still traveling, Annas thought he could have his own way. Calling forth the members of the Sanhedrin, he brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and others with him. He accused them of violating the law, and ordered that they should be put to death by stoning."

[John Cuthber]

No. It must be: he probably existed, but we cannot be 100% sure.

 

I think you are confusing history with physics. What does count for historical evidence?

 

In the Christ case:

- mentioning by Paul that he met Jesus' brother, James

- mentioning by Josephus of James, whose brother was called 'Christ'

- mentioning of John the baptist by Josephus

- mentioning of John the baptist by in a few gospels

 

Oh, of course, they were all Christian forgeries...

 

And then Paul grounding churches based on an apocalyptic theology, that pretty well fits some points the oldest gospels agree upon about what Jesus preached.

OK, thanks for clarifying that you don't realise that "we cannot be 100% sure." means the same as "we don't know"

 

Were those Historical reports contemporary?

If not they don't count as valid evidence (and it's more like evidence in law than evidence in physics).

 

And, of course, if it's plausible that they are forged then, we are back to "we don't know".

Had you not realised that?

 

 

It's no wonder this has gone on for 36 pages if people can't recognise that they don't know the answer.

[koti]

We don't know for sure but the question is incomplete. If it was more specific there wouldnt be 36 pages of discussion. It is very plausable that a guy named Jesus existed from whom it all started. I would imagine that he might have been someone similar to our modern Deepak Chopra. In a case that this is the question asked, its no big deal, what does it matter to anynody if he existed or not. The question implies though, that we might be trying to find out if a Jesus who changed water into wine and walked on water existed. Or is the question asking if Jesus from The Big Lebowsky existed?

[Tim88]

Seems as if I just cannot get out of this discussion so easily..?

 

Please elaborate on Philo Of Alexandria's writings about "a similar Jesus".

 

Perhaps this will settle you down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

 

That is a very long article...perhaps you can quote the relevant part that you were referring to, or convey the argument..?

 

It differs from book to book, author to author, and there are well documented reasons for this (not only between synoptic gospels and the gospel of John, but also between the synoptic gospels themselves). There are noticeable exceptions where one would find extraordinary descriptions/references in unexpected places, but these could easily be attributed to interpolations.

 

EDIT: I like to add this article which you should find interesting: The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus (note its reference to Philo Of Alexandria).

 

I don't see anything peculiar about this. The gospel of Luke, in particular, paints Mary in a very special light. Here is an excerpt from an article that may provide an explanation for what you alluded to: Many people, Protestants particularly, object to the figure that Mary has become. She is seen almost as a goddess figure, possibly derived from the fact that many Pagans became Christians in the early centuries of the church and they believed in goddesses, so Mary became to them the goddess. Many people would say that was something that went wrong with Christianity... Christian theology has always maintained that she was a human being and not God, but nevertheless, she was a human being in a very important and intimate place in the story of Jesus. There have been many images of Mary through the centuries. Some have derived from the Bible, such as the image from the book of Revelation showing Mary with a crown of 12 stars. She represents the early church with the 12 tribes of Israel represented by the stars. There have been images of Madonna and child; Mary seated in a chair with the child on her lap. Some of these images look very similar to images that we know about from some of the pagan goddesses at the time. Isis, for example, was seated in such a chair with the infant Horus on her lap in the same way. When Christianity was spreading across the Empire, it's clear that it deliberately took images from the pagan world in which it lived and into which it spread and used those images. Old holy wells and shrines were turned into Christian shrines. In Egypt a shrine of Isis was deliberately and self-consciously re-created as a shrine of Mary. One of the important cities for Mary was Ephesus, where the goddess Diana was worshipped. It's not surprising that Mary drew upon the imagery associated with the goddesses, because that was the imagery the people knew.

​(BBC/Religions/Mary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/virginmary_1.shtml)

 

Could you please just remind me again why you would query the quoted part?

 

Haha it seems that we both got stuck in this discussion a little longer than intended.

 

About Philo of Alexandria, it's 23 minutes into the video. Carrier says that according to Philo there was a Jewish belief about a celestial being called Jesus, who was the first born of God, the celestial image of God, God's agent of creation, and his high priest.

I will have a look at the link you provided.

 

And I don't know what you mean with "settle down", but concerning Paul and the Didache, indeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache#Eucharist adds nicely to my remarks. If there was a historical Jesus, there should be a "jump" from Jewish to Christian teachings on key Christian topics.

 

About the denial section on https://web.archive.org/web/20070704232342/http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CritiquesGDon-2.htm , I found it too long to just refer like that so I indicated the location with 'from the phrase "central case of the crucified man and his cross"', which also tells you the topic of the denial by Minucius Felix. If you have Firefox (or similar), click on the Menu button, "Find", then paste and click on the arrow button to get to that section.

 

Concerning the explanations that you offered: yes, sure, those were the historical reconstructions that I grew up with; they are based on the logical assumption that Christianity originated from a single location at a single time, as one should expect as result of a historical Jesus.

 

Such reconstructions are one way of putting the pieces together, but some pieces don't seem to fit well and it's each one's opinion if the emerging picture looks plausible. And then to compare that with alternative reconstructions, how good or bad the pieces fit and how plausible that resulting picture looks, in comparison with the one tat we were all familiar with.

 

And now I have found what may be a fair representation of the status quo of scholarly debate on this topic -as a good follow-up of the first post- and that is Ehrman vs. Carrier:

http://astore.amazon.com/richardcarrier-20/detail/0062204602

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794

[..] What does count for historical evidence?

 

In the Christ case:

[..]

- mentioning of John the baptist by Josephus

- mentioning of John the baptist by in a few gospels

[..]

 

?? Then you could also add for example the historicity of Herod and Pontius Pilate as evidence.

We don't know for sure but the question is incomplete. If it was more specific there wouldnt be 36 pages of discussion. It is very plausable that a guy named Jesus existed from whom it all started. I would imagine that he might have been someone similar to our modern Deepak Chopra. In a case that this is the question asked, its no big deal, what does it matter to anynody if he existed or not. The question implies though, that we might be trying to find out if a Jesus who changed water into wine and walked on water existed. Or is the question asking if Jesus from The Big Lebowsky existed?

 

It would indeed be too simple to ask if by chance there once was a guy with the name Jesus - the answer is surely Yes, no doubt about it.

At a minimum, I think, "historical Jesus" implies a first century man on earth called Jesus who founded the Christian religion.

As I understand it, a "historical Jesus" implies a single person who said and did at least some of the things ascribed to him, at those times and places, and without whom there would not have been Christianity. In short, a Jesus who mattered for history.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Tim88

[koti]

 

It would indeed be too simple to ask if by chance there once was a guy with the name Jesus - the answer is surely Yes, no doubt about it.

At a minimum, I think, "historical Jesus" implies a first century man on earth called Jesus who founded the Christian religion.

As I understand it, a "historical Jesus" implies a single person who said and did at least some of the things ascribed to him, at those times and places, and without whom there would not have been Christianity. In short, a Jesus who mattered for history.

 

So if I understand correctly, the question at hand is that we are looking for past existence of a single person who is responsible for 2 thousand years of global hallucination. I would like to express my subjective opinion that this question is not of big relevance to me and I'm suprised that it seems relevant to many people here.

I was brought up to live for higher reasons than searching for people to crucify them for their faults.

[Memammal]

About Philo of Alexandria, it's 23 minutes into the video. Carrier says that according to Philo there was a Jewish belief about a celestial being called Jesus, who was the first born of God, the celestial image of God, God's agent of creation, and his high priest.

Yeah, but I was wondering about other sources apart from having to rely on Carrier. This blog/article sums up my own contention with this claim:

One of the major points that Carrier alleges, in his presentation, is that we have evidence that there was a pre-Christian, Jewish belief in a celestial being which was actually named Jesus, and was the firstborn son of God, in the celestial image of God, who acted as God’s agent of creation, and was God’s celestial high priest... Now, as I’ve said, I haven’t yet read On the Historicity of Jesus, and it is fully possible that Carrier addresses some of my contentions there, but I find his entire claim that there was a pre-Christian, Jewish belief in a celestial Jesus to be almost entirely unsupportable. Carrier’s primary source for his claims about the pre-Christian Jesus Myth comes from the works of a prolific and highly respected Jewish philosopher and theologian, Philo Iudaeus of Alexandria. Carrier cites several passages from Philo, but the most important one– the only one which Carrier can use to support his claim that this proposed pre-Christian celestial being was actually named Jesus– comes from a work known as On the Confusion of Tongues, sections 62 and 63... A plain reading of the primary sources shows that Philo never makes mention of a celestial being named Jesus, in any of his works; and that Philo’s paraphrase of Zechariah 6:12 in On the Confusion of Tongues has nothing to do with Joshua son of Jehozadak. I cannot see how Richard Carrier’s particular mythicist hypothesis can stand without a pre-Christian, Jewish belief in a celestial being named Jesus, and Carrier has not successfully demonstrated that such a belief actually existed. On Carrier’s pre-Christian Jesus Myth

 

And I don't know what you mean with "settle down", but concerning Paul and the Didache, indeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache#Eucharist adds nicely to my remarks. If there was a historical Jesus, there should be a "jump" from Jewish to Christian teachings on key Christian topics.

It actually dovetails quite nicely with my own theory as well as those of a number of scholars/authors referenced earlier. It sets the Pauline-Christology-of-redemption- (or divine) Jesus apart from a more likely Jesus-of-a-Second-Temple-Jewish-sect, a sect whose customs and rituals might have been (partly or fully) inherited by the early Christian church. Just consider the strong resemblance with the Essene customs, for example. You have to understand and appreciate the significant dogmatic differences between the various Second Temple sects and between them and earlier Judaism. For me it makes perfect sense and serves to support parts of the synoptic gospels and thus a likely historical Jesus.

In the Christ case:

- mentioning by Paul that he met Jesus' brother, James

- mentioning by Josephus of James, whose brother was called 'Christ'

- mentioning of John the baptist by Josephus

- mentioning of John the baptist by in a few gospels

This (from earlier in the thread) should be added: Tacitus on Christ

[Eise]

OK, thanks for clarifying that you don't realise that "we cannot be 100% sure." means the same as "we don't know"

 

Thanks for clarifying that there is a gliding scale from '100% sure that not ...', 'no idea at all', 'pretty sure that ....', 'nearly sure that ...', 'it is proven that ...' You do as if 'nearly sure...' is the same as 'do not know at all'.

 

Were those Historical reports contemporary?

If not they don't count as valid evidence (and it's more like evidence in law than evidence in physics).

 

If we would use that criterion, we should rewrite a lot of books about antiquity.

 

And, of course, if it's plausible that they are forged then, we are back to "we don't know".

Had you not realised that?

Historians have methods to recognise forgeries, or better, to filter probable true descriptions of historical events. Christians would not be very glad with what historians have to say about Jesus.

 

It's no wonder this has gone on for 36 pages if people can't recognise that they don't know the answer.

 

Of course one of the reasons why these discussions are so endless, is that the historical base of Jesus' existence is small. But the other one is the emotional resistance that there could be a historical basis for Christianity's development. But modern day Christianity has not much to do with the portrait that historians have of Jesus: an apocalyptic preacher, spreading the message that the end of days was coming very soon, possibly in his own life time. Paul had to bend his theology pretty hard, when some of the people in his churches were worried about people that already died before the final days: were their souls saved or not?

 

This (from earlier in the thread) should be added: Tacitus on Christ

 

Thanks, forgot that one.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Eise

[John Cuthber]

 

Thanks for clarifying that there is a gliding scale from '100% sure that not ...', 'no idea at all', 'pretty sure that ....', 'nearly sure that ...', 'it is proven that ...' You do as if 'nearly sure...' is the same as 'do not know at all'.

 

 

If we would use that criterion, we should rewrite a lot of books about antiquity.

 

Historians have methods to recognise forgeries, or better, to filter probable true descriptions of historical events. Christians would not be very glad with what historians have to say about Jesus.

 

 

Of course one of the reasons why these discussions are so endless, is that the historical base of Jesus' existence is small. But the other one is the emotional resistance that there could be a historical basis for Christianity's development. But modern day Christianity has not much to do with the portrait that historians have of Jesus: an apocalyptic preacher, spreading the message that the end of days was coming very soon, possibly in his own life time. Paul had to bend his theology pretty hard, when some of the people in his churches were worried about people that already died before the final days: were their souls saved or not?

 

 

Thanks, forgot that one.

TLDR

How does it differ from "we don't know".

(Here's a hint- if we do know, then you can tell me the answer and if you can't tell me the answer it's because we don't know.)

[koti]

TLDR

How does it differ from "we don't know".

(Here's a hint- if we do know, then you can tell me the answer and if you can't tell me the answer it's because we don't know.)

I guess what he/she ment is that there are different levels of probability of things being true or untrue while we dont know the answers. Edited September 18, 2016 by koti

[John Cuthber]

I guess what he/she ment is that there are different levels of probability of things being true or untrue while we dont know the answers.

There are different levels of probability. And it's only when we get to really quite high probabilities that we talk about "knowing".

I don't "know" what's on the menu in the canteen at work tomorrow- but I do ""know" that it will include chips.

Since this thread has offered nothing like that level of probability, we don't "know" the answer.

 

We almost certainly never will (Unless someone unearths a whole stack of ancient literature).

So the answer to the question which forms the title of this thread is "we don't know" and that's not going to change- even if it rattles on for another 36 pages.

[koti]

There are different levels of probability. And it's only when we get to really quite high probabilities that we talk about "knowing".

I don't "know" what's on the menu in the canteen at work tomorrow- but I do ""know" that it will include chips.

Since this thread has offered nothing like that level of probability, we don't "know" the answer.

 

We almost certainly never will (Unless someone unearths a whole stack of ancient literature).

So the answer to the question which forms the title of this thread is "we don't know" and that's not going to change- even if it rattles on for another 36 pages.

I agree, but...

I would rate my personal view on the probability of Jesus being a real person as high. I'd say similar to the probability of me getting up tomorrow and having coffee. Some guy probably existed in 1st century palestine and the "right" conditions led what we have now. I fail to see how this is relevant in any way to anything. The OP question is too general.

[Tim88]

Hi Memammal I now read the link you gave, http://infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/gospel_john.html and it's interesting indeed!

 

The author James Still presents John's difference with the other Gospels as a Hellinization of a historical Jesus based on, among others, Philo. There is an obvious issue in view of Carrier's presentation of some of the same features of Philo's Jesus in Paul's writings as well as in Hebrews:

Paul's writings are dated shortly after Philo, but John is dated much later. James Still seems to ignore Paul's portrayal of Jesus. However, perhaps you can fit that in with a historical Jesus, for concerning the Didache you remark:

 

It actually dovetails quite nicely with my own theory as well as those of a number of scholars/authors referenced earlier. It sets the Pauline-Christology-of-redemption- (or divine) Jesus apart from a more likely Jesus-of-a-Second-Temple-Jewish-sect, a sect whose customs and rituals might have been (partly or fully) inherited by the early Christian church. Just consider the strong resemblance with the Essene customs, for example. You have to understand and appreciate the significant dogmatic differences between the various Second Temple sects and between them and earlier Judaism. For me it makes perfect sense and serves to support parts of the synoptic gospels and thus a likely historical Jesus.

 

Are you suggesting that perhaps Paul created a faith to compete with the followers of Earthly Jesus, and that much later the communities merged so that in the end "John" was influenced by Paul's letters?

 

Probably most scholars assume that there was Essene-based input to Christianity (perhaps related to the missing "Q" document) and that there were different competing Christian sects. It then all comes down to fitting them together on a plausible time and place map, with a plausible cause and effect logic.

 

[edit]: it's unclear to me how you would explain the disagreement between that "Christian" Eucharist celebration and the one of the Gospels - except of course, if you take that away from the "historical Jesus".

 

Yeah, but I was wondering about other sources apart from having to rely on Carrier. This blog/article sums up my own contention with this claim:

One of the major points that Carrier alleges, in his presentation, is that we have evidence that there was a pre-Christian, Jewish belief in a celestial being which was actually named Jesus, and was the firstborn son of God, in the celestial image of God, who acted as God’s agent of creation, and was God’s celestial high priest... [..]

... A plain reading of the primary sources shows that Philo never makes mention of a celestial being named Jesus, in any of his works; and that Philo’s paraphrase of Zechariah 6:12 in On the Confusion of Tongues has nothing to do with Joshua son of Jehozadak. [..]. On Carrier’s pre-Christian Jesus Myth

 

Very good, thanks! I quickly looked for a rebuttal by Carrier, but did not find one. I did find, BTW, his slide presentation:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/Historicity_of_Jesus.pdf

 

I guess that he'd better just remove the phrase (in bold face!) 'actually named “Jesus”' from his presentation; although it's striking there is no need for it and it's probably wrong. Such blunders do more harm than good (it can lead to what he calls the "fallacy fallacy").

Edited September 18, 2016 by Tim88

[John Cuthber]

I agree, but...

I would rate my personal view on the probability of Jesus being a real person as high. I'd say similar to the probability of me getting up tomorrow and having coffee. Some guy probably existed in 1st century palestine and the "right" conditions led what we have now. I fail to see how this is relevant in any way to anything. The OP question is too general.

Well, OK Jesus is a real person in the sense that I met him in a pub in London about 20 years ago. (I didn't think to ask if he had a brother )

He was from Mexico and was born on the 25th of December . His parents thought it was a good name.

However the one who was born in a stable 2000 years ago, turned water into wine + came back to life after a crucifixion was no more real than Harry Potter.

 

But once you ask a question that it's impossible to answer because the question is too poorly defined then the only valid answer is still

"We don't know"