Historicity of Jesus

[Grog]

Was Jesus a Historical person or only a myth. I have heard of evidence that he actually was real but never seen any (I haven't looked that much for it). What do real historians say?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Was Jesus a Historical person or only a myth. I have heard of evidence that he actually was real but never seen any (I haven't looked that much for it). What do real historians say?

Historians are divided on the reality of Jesus. The primary reason for this being that there are no contemporary accounts or records of the man. The earliest writings about him and his life come about a minimum of a century after he is alleged to have died. And the themes of his story are a little too conveniently set up in a manner that would've been familiar to someone in a Greco-Roman upbringing of the time. (Lending credence to the notion that Jesus the man never really existed, and his story was actually a mythological amalagation.)

Furthermore, the only historian who makes even a brief reference to him was a Jewish historian by the name of Flavius Josephus, who was born four years after the alleged death of Jesus, fought against the Romans in the Great Jewish Revolt (until he was taken prisoner by the Romans, at which point, he supplied intelligence on his fellow Jews.) After which, he wrote a number of Jewish histories aimed at a Greco-Roman audience. However, scholars point out inconsistencies which would suggest that the brief mention of Jesus by Josephus were retconning on the part of early Christian copyists.

Most other early mentions of Jesus don't show up until later in the Roman era, and consist mostly of references to this group of folk who refused to worship the Emperor, sprang up in Rome and Judea, and had this silly superstition about their god, Christus.

For those looking for the 'real' Jesus, it is really bizarre that someone as allegedly important as he was has no mention in the Roman records, or undisputable mention in Jewish histories of the time, since they do make reference to a number of other troublemakers in the region at the time.

[Guardsman Bass]

The earliest accounts of what could be called "Christian doctrine" are some letters supposedly from Paul dated to the early 50's C.E. After that, Mark is dated, as the earliest of the Gospels, to around 70 C.E. Even Paul's account, however, is nearly 20 years after Christ's supposed death, and it doesn't mention any details of Christ's life. Mark's is almost 40 years- two generations later, back in those days (people died young and had children young). This ignores that fact that, as mentioned above, there is no contemporary mentioning of Christ by non-Christians at the time or the events that supposedly coincided with his birth and death (earthquakes, darkness for three days). Tacitus's is one of the earliest, in (I believe) about 135 C.E.

[Chmee]

Hm ... because I just started re-reading my copy of Cornwell's The Winter King that a friend *finally* returned, I was thinking of starting a topic on "Christ vs. Arthur", which one people believed there was more historical evidence for the existence of. Maybe it doesn't need a separate topic, though.

[Rye]

Historians are divided on the reality of Jesus. The primary reason for this being that there are no contemporary accounts or records of the man. The earliest writings about him and his life come about a minimum of a century after he is alleged to have died.

No, this is bullshit. Mark was written around 65-80AD, with the hypothetical "Q" document being predicted between 40 and 80 CE. The Epistles mention christians and heretics being around, and they're from around 50-60 CE.

Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus (I know there are interpolated parts, so don't start that with me, it's one thing to say his original view was altered, it's another thing entirely to suggest that everything referring to Jesus was added) around 93 CE. In the 10th century arab version (likely not full of christian interpolation), it says this:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

Tacitus also mentions him in 115 CE. Obviously, neither Josephus nor Tacitus could've met the man, and were just relaying what the christians were telling them. But they soundly refute your claim of the first writings being a century after his death.

And the themes of his story are a little too conveniently set up in a manner that would've been familiar to someone in a Greco-Roman upbringing of the time. (Lending credence to the notion that Jesus the man never really existed, and his story was actually a mythological amalagation.)

I find this unconvincing, I find it much more likely that people would mythologise a man that really existed, or possibly a few real men into one character. Sure, the Gospels are full of mythology, and that can't be ignored, but to go from that to "he was invented" is a bit of a stretch.

Furthermore, the only historian who makes even a brief reference to him was a Jewish historian by the name of Flavius Josephus, who was born four years after the alleged death of Jesus, fought against the Romans in the Great Jewish Revolt (until he was taken prisoner by the Romans, at which point, he supplied intelligence on his fellow Jews.) After which, he wrote a number of Jewish histories aimed at a Greco-Roman audience. However, scholars point out inconsistencies which would suggest that the brief mention of Jesus by Josephus were retconning on the part of early Christian copyists.

Already addressed this. Note that you would've had a 96 year old Josephus writing stuff about Jesus if your earlier statements were true.

For those looking for the 'real' Jesus, it is really bizarre that someone as allegedly important as he was has no mention in the Roman records, or undisputable mention in Jewish histories of the time, since they do make reference to a number of other troublemakers in the region at the time.

There's few historical documents from the late Second Temple era, so this is a bit of an argument from silence. The magic described in the NT was made up, but I honestly suspect Jesus was based on a real person, much like Gilgamesh or Robin Hood, or Unas.

[Solauren]

I recall reading somewhere that Jesus's life parellelled with Julius Caesar
(in terms of where he went and in what order)

[weemadando]

Seeing as there is NO contemporary mention of Jesus in any Roman documents, inscriptions or other works, given his apparent significance and the events at the time of his death, I find it VERY surprising that if he WAS a genuine figure that he wasn't mentioned.

[Frank Hipper]

I thought that even most Christian scholars doubt the Josephus account, ascribing it to much later creative editing?

[tharkûn]

Seeing as there is NO contemporary mention of Jesus in any Roman documents, inscriptions or other works, given his apparent significance and the events at the time of his death, I find it VERY surprising that if he WAS a genuine figure that he wasn't mentioned.

Much of the Roman records didn't survive the Jewish revolt. From a pagan Roman perspective Jesus would have been a rabble rouser who was put to death to appease another set of rabble rousers by a Roman governor at the arse end of the empire. A cult arose that followed the dead man, but they paid their taxes and did not challenge Roman authority anywhere near as much as other groups. I'm curious as to what type of records you think should exist given carnage of the Jewish revolt.

[Arancia a Orologia]

I'll try to dig up the source, but I read some historian who used evidence in the Bible and other works written between 10 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. to put a definitive date on when Jesus actually lived, and it was something like 5 C.E. was his actual birth to 30 something C.E.. For some reason Google keeps freezing on me and I don't have the source book-marked, but I'll try to dig it up.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Historians are divided on the reality of Jesus. The primary reason for this being that there are no contemporary accounts or records of the man. The earliest writings about him and his life come about a minimum of a century after he is alleged to have died.

No, this is bullshit. Mark was written around 65-80AD, with the hypothetical "Q" document being predicted between 40 and 80 CE. The Epistles mention christians and heretics being around, and they're from around 50-60 CE.

Okay, fine, my mistake, I accept that. However, this still suggests that the first writings about Jesus didn't start cropping up until at least a generation after he was alleged to have died.

Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus (I know there are interpolated parts, so don't start that with me, it's one thing to say his original view was altered, it's another thing entirely to suggest that everything referring to Jesus was added) around 93 CE. In the 10th century arab version (likely not full of christian interpolation), it says this:

The 10th century Arabic version was written by a Christian Arab named Agapius, who was a Melchite bishop of Hieropolis. Furthermore, Agapius' did not seem familiar with Josephus' original work firsthand, as his titling of Josephus was an approximation.

Tacitus also mentions him in 115 CE. Obviously, neither Josephus nor Tacitus could've met the man, and were just relaying what the christians were telling them. But they soundly refute your claim of the first writings being a century after his death.

Tacitus mentions that there were Christians in Rome during Nero's reign, and that they worshipped a 'Christus' who was executed by Pilate. He comes some eighty years after the alleged death of Jesus. This isn't proof of Jesus' existence, as the earliest Gospels, were written just fifty or sixty years prior to Tacitus. Tacitus' brief statement on 'Christus' could just as easily been taken from conversation with a Christian.

And the themes of his story are a little too conveniently set up in a manner that would've been familiar to someone in a Greco-Roman upbringing of the time. (Lending credence to the notion that Jesus the man never really existed, and his story was actually a mythological amalagation.)

I find this unconvincing, I find it much more likely that people would mythologise a man that really existed, or possibly a few real men into one character. Sure, the Gospels are full of mythology, and that can't be ignored, but to go from that to "he was invented" is a bit of a stretch.

Fine, I'm willing to admit that there might've been a minor someone, or an amalagation of minor someones who were drawn together to form the person we now know as Jesus. The name (or at least the names we draw it from Yeshua or Joshua) were apparently very common in first century Judea. It is not a stretch to believe that they drew together a number of different stories from different men, (which is to say that they still made him up. A story "inspired" by real events is still largely fictional,) or that an otherwise inconsequential doomsday cultist was elevated to prominence though exaggeration from repeated oral storytelling.

Furthermore, the only historian who makes even a brief reference to him was a Jewish historian by the name of Flavius Josephus, who was born four years after the alleged death of Jesus, fought against the Romans in the Great Jewish Revolt (until he was taken prisoner by the Romans, at which point, he supplied intelligence on his fellow Jews.) After which, he wrote a number of Jewish histories aimed at a Greco-Roman audience. However, scholars point out inconsistencies which would suggest that the brief mention of Jesus by Josephus were retconning on the part of early Christian copyists.

Already addressed this. Note that you would've had a 96 year old Josephus writing stuff about Jesus if your earlier statements were true.

Again, fine, I accept the error in my "century" statements. However, the Antiquities were still published sixty years after the alleged death of Jesus.

[weemadando]

Much of the Roman records didn't survive the Jewish revolt. From a pagan Roman perspective Jesus would have been a rabble rouser who was put to death to appease another set of rabble rousers by a Roman governor at the arse end of the empire. A cult arose that followed the dead man, but they paid their taxes and did not challenge Roman authority anywhere near as much as other groups. I'm curious as to what type of records you think should exist given carnage of the Jewish revolt.

The problem is that such a significant figure leading what was a popular revolt prior to his death would have received at least SOME attention in records beyond the local area.

[Enforcer Talen]

http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html this and http://www.jesusneverexisted.com I find interesting sources for arguments against his existence.

Take them as you will.

[tharkûn]

The problem is that such a significant figure leading what was a popular revolt prior to his death would have received at least SOME attention in records beyond the local area.

I am unaware of any claims; Christian, Jewish, Roman, or other; that Jesus was leading a revolt. The whole turn the other cheek, pay taxes to Ceasar thing, etc. don't sound much like a revolt. The Christian tradition is that Jesus was a teacher/demagogue who had it in for the Jewish religous authorities. What source/tradition claims Jesus was leading a revolt?

[weemadando]

Revolt is probably the wrong term, but for someone to have that much of a following and be causing the local authorities, up to and including the provincial governor so many hassles - all of this mentioned in the Bible no less - then you have to wonder why the name of the rabble-rouser never turns up.

[The Grim Squeaker]

One theory is that he was just another prophet (like Moses) who's deciples decided to continue to preach his teachings but with him as a central figure.

Most of his teachings of morality parallel those of other prophet's, especially those from the time of the decline of the second temple when corruption was rampant and moral behavior completly corrupt.

[Rocker5150]

I'm starting to lean on the side that he never existed. His stories were stolen from earlier religions and applied to him in order to help push Christianity. Since there is no possible way that they were original to Jesus, one has to question his existance. If he did live, he was obviously a false/self-fulfilling prophet.
I wonder if there has ever been proof of his non-existance in early Biblical writings. I'm thinking anything that would show Jesus as having never lived would possibly have been hidden or destroyed by the Church. I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but that does seem plausable. I would like to see what the radical fundies would do if they were to learn that Jesus was only a manufactured symbol. Of course, most would never believe it despite any evidence.

This site also has alot of information about the Christ Myth:

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html


-Kevin

[Elfdart]

Does the Jesus story have any basis in fact? Probably some of it -kind of like Beowulf. I don't believe the resurrection part and I don't buy the fire-breathing dragon. Of course, I know the cherry tree story is bullshit but that doesn't mean George Washington didn't exist.

[Stark]

It depends what you mean by 'real'. I've got little problem believing there was a Jewish cult leader named Jesus whose radical views were used by others after his execution to establish Christianity - but you'll have to get some pretty impressive evidence to got me accepting the biblical account(s).

[The Dark]

I'll try to dig up the source, but I read some historian who used evidence in the Bible and other works written between 10 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. to put a definitive date on when Jesus actually lived, and it was something like 5 C.E. was his actual birth to 30 something C.E.. For some reason Google keeps freezing on me and I don't have the source book-marked, but I'll try to dig it up.

Best date for death I've found is April 3, 33 CE. This is based on textual evidence that he was executed during Pesach, on the day after the first night after the vernal equinox, which occurred on April 7, 30, and April 3, 33. The latter is more likely because there was also an eclipse visible from Jerusalem that year, explaining the darkening of the sky associated with his death.

It's not possible to accurately date his birth, as the two birth narratives are mutually exclusive based on archaeological and historical evidence. Based on Luke, it was in 6 CE, as it was in the year of the first census since Quirinus became governor of Syria. If Matthew has the date right (the events are almost certainly wrong), Jesus would have been born roughly 6 BCE, as he was supposed to have been 2 when Herod died in 4 BCE. So, according to those, Jesus would either have been 27 or 39 when executed. However, John claims Jesus was around 30 when he began his ministry, and preached for at least 3 years (as he went to Jerusalem for Pesach three times after beginning his ministry), so either Luke is wrong or both Matthew and John are wrong.

Revolt is probably the wrong term, but for someone to have that much of a following and be causing the local authorities, up to and including the provincial governor so many hassles - all of this mentioned in the Bible no less - then you have to wonder why the name of the rabble-rouser never turns up.

Considering there were roughly a dozen people claiming to be the Jewish Messiah during the timespan of Jesus' alleged life, and that Pilate was removed from office for being unnecessarily cruel, I'm not surprised that Jesus' name fails to appear in records. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 makes it even less surprising, since all sorts of records were destroyed, and most of the rest were taken to Rome, where they were destroyed in the fall of the Western Empire.

Other Messianic figures we do have names of include: Simon (beheaded by Gratus), Athronges, Menahem, Simon bar Giora, Judas the Galilean, Theudas, Jonathan the Weaver, Lukuas, and Simon ben Kosiba. The difference lay in how they approached things. Athronges waged a guerilla war for two years against the Romans. Judas the Galilean formed the Zealots. Theudas' group was attacked by the army of the procurator Fadus. Menahem broke into Herod's armory, stole weapons, and captured the palace in Jerusalem, only to be betrayed by Eleasar. Simon bar Giora led the revolt in 67 against the Romans. The Weaver became leader of the Sicarii after the fall of the temple. Lukuas led a rebellion in Cyrenacia. Ben Kosiba likewise rebelled against Rome. The key difference between Jesus and the other claimed Messiahs was that Jesus' following was primarily pacifistic in its formative years, whereas others were in open rebellion. A criminal is much less likely to be heavily recorded than a rebel.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Ah, Straight Dope answers.

[Mange]

Bandoli has a great summary of the various historical sources that are commonly cited as evidence for a historical Jesus:

http://www.bandoli.no/historicalrecords.htm

[Rye]

I thought that even most Christian scholars doubt the Josephus account, ascribing it to much later creative editing?

It's one thing to doubt the interpolations, but another thing to say the whole thing was fabricated. Another Josephus account references "the stoning of James, the brother of Jesus."

This site also has alot of information about the Christ Myth:

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html

That site says this, on its first page, no less:

What you'll discover here is that Christianity inherited everything from the Pagans. The core of Christianity -- the worship of a dying Godman who is resurrected, ascends into heaven and brings salvation to mankind -- was also the core of a number of ancient Pagan religions that began in the Near East two thousand years before Jesus.

Christian theology borrowed more than the archaic myth of the dying-resurrected Godman. Initiation by baptism, communion with the God through a holy meal that represented the flesh of the dead God, the Holy Spirit, monotheism, and immortality of the soul were all core beliefs of many ancient faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture.

Christianity also borrowed elements of Jesus' mythology: the virgin birth, the miracles (including turning water into wine, walking on water, and especially healing the sick) were all common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religions. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more. And they had them centuries before Christianity was a twinkle in Saint Paul's eye.

Things I see wrong with this:

Christianity accurately reflected the Judaism of the time, so you cannot say it is "entirely pagan" since it conformed so much to Judaism.
Judaism was one of the earliest monotheisms.
Pharisees already believed in an afterlife, so no, the christians didn't steal that either.
Virgin birth is jewish to the core. Check the book of Enoch, for example, all the christian supposed "pagan" themes exist in jewish mythology already.
For more regarding these arguments, visit here.

http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html this and http://www.jesusneverexisted.com I find interesting sources for arguments against his existence.

They seem to be based on Earl Doherty's long refuted arguments from silence and dodgy history, also neither are written by actual scholars. To be honest, when Jewish and other historians conclude that Jesus probably existed, along with StraightDope, I tend to side with them. They have nothing to gain and a better knowledge of the historical data than I.

[hypernova]

Seeing as there is NO contemporary mention of Jesus in any Roman documents, inscriptions or other works, given his apparent significance and the events at the time of his death, I find it VERY surprising that if he WAS a genuine figure that he wasn't mentioned.

LMAO, um yes there are Roman documents.

also your forgetting jewwish documents, such as the sanhedrin and phariseas "GD this jesus he's too GD popular".

or the the texts that have been put into the bible, and luke the writer of Luke, was himself a physican(roman education might I add) and in those days that qualifies him as a complete scholar.

about the pagan stuff, they might just have taken it from the jewish texts (or what we might call the old testament), gosh golly wehockers nvr thought of that now did we, and that dates back around 4000BC minimum.

and for people say stuff like this or thats not accurate, well its damn well more(or just as much) acurate then the stuff your using.

[Rye]

Seeing as there is NO contemporary mention of Jesus in any Roman documents, inscriptions or other works, given his apparent significance and the events at the time of his death, I find it VERY surprising that if he WAS a genuine figure that he wasn't mentioned.

LMAO, um yes there are Roman documents.

No there aren't, within his lifetime. No firsthand accounts at all.

also your forgetting jewwish documents, such as the sanhedrin and phariseas "GD this jesus he's too GD popular".

Nope, not while he was alive.

or the the texts that have been put into the bible, and luke the writer of Luke, was himself a physican(roman education might I add) and in those days that qualifies him as a complete scholar.

Luke was written 80-130 CE, with parts copied from Mark and Q, as well as Josephus, he was not an eyewitness and states as much. Where did you get the information that he was a physician and a complete scholar? I was under the impression that very little was known about the Gospel writers.

about the pagan stuff, they might just have taken it from the jewish texts (or what we might call the old testament), gosh golly wehockers nvr thought of that now did we, and that dates back around 4000BC minimum.

Learn to type, for fuck's sake. No, everything people claim is pagan about christ is not found in the OT. As I said, the virgin birth themes are mostly in the book of Enoch, which are considerably closer to the time the gospels were written.

and for people say stuff like this or thats not accurate, well its damn well more(or just as much) acurate then the stuff your using.

What?