Toto

Why is this almost certain, given that there are no contemporaneous records?

But they didn't. If Jesus had been leading a rebellion, his followers would have been crucified along with him. Crucifixion was the punishment for rebellion. Christians tend to exaggerate the martyrdom of early Christians, but even they do not report a habit of crucifying Christians.

Naivete

Jesus may have existed but I have my doubts that Jesus Christ the son of God ever existed. There might have been a man that has a name like Jesus or similar that was crucified for tax evasions and encouraging others not to pay taxes as well. This could have started a movement that led to the myth of Christianity. When people ask me if I think Jesus existed I say it's probable but if they ask if Jesus Christ existed I'd say that it's not very probable.

Chili

The good point here is your distinction between Jesus and Christ. Jesus was the particular and Christ the universal. If this is true then they both must necessaily exist but not in the extreme physical or Christ could not be the Universal except in the myth. The beauty of this is that each one of us can be identified as this Jesus because we are 'the Christ' already -- and just have to crucify our own 'be-Jesus-hero' to realize this.

diana

Interesting point, that. How often are atheists/agnostics asked why they even bother asking questions about the bible and life of Jesus and what history says &ct because obviously they don't believe so why do they care? Obviously, we're out there--those of us who don't believe but are very interested. But it would seem to me that the deck is stacked heavily in the believers' favor concerning scholarly representation in this area.

Well stated.

My position is that there is no evidence that even a poor rabbi named Jesus existed. If he'd been all that, we'd have had some evidence, and no doubt plenty of unrelated secular substantiation of some of the more awesome things he was said to do. We don't have it. I know it's an argument from silence, but we're talking about the most profound, deafening silence in history here. So maybe there was a man upon whom the stories were built, but there didn't need to be, even. And if he wasn't the son of God &ct, it simply doesn't matter.

I'm not convinced there was even a person behind the myths. I'm kinda a "soft JMer," I suppose. However, my position is still considered extreme by most. But the very extremity of it forces people to look at the basis for their own beliefs a bit closer, because how could I not be convinced that Jesus was the son of God, let alone that such a person even lived?

At least, stumbling upon a JMer early on made me dive into the subject headfirst. The possibility that no Jesus existed period had never even occurred to me.

I think most Christians are ignorant of how silent history is on the subject, and how very strange that is. I think it's important to point out the possibility of MJ to people, at the very least. If they're interested, they'll take it from there.

d

David Bowden

Hope this isn't too far off-topic. Just out of curiosity, I'd like to pitch a few questions for anybody who's more steeped in Classics/Jesus-Myth literature than I am:

Did anyone in Late Antiquity suggest that the biblical Jesus was entirely fictional? What is the earliest surviving JM-ish argument?

Do all Jewish writings from late antiquity accept his existence (minus the theologically controversial stuff, of course)? Do Jewish thinkers today even care whether he existed?

More broadly, was there anyone in antiquity who was openly skeptical regarding the existence of any purported historical figures, whether or not those alleged figures had a larger-than-life or supernatural role to play? If so, how did they argue against the existence of such figures?

Pardon the pedantic interruption: I think cweb means Aristophanes, not Sophocles. While Socrates and Sophocles were contemporaries, and both lived in Athens, none of Sophocles' surviving writings mention Socrates. Aristophanes, who was a younger contemporary of both men, wrote the play "Clouds" which satirizes Socrates and may have influenced, and at the very least seems to have reflected, popular Athenian sentiment against the philosopher at the end of Socrates' "career."

Interestingly, while Aristophanes' mockery may have influenced the citizens to condemn Socrates, even Plato, who strove to rehabilitate Socrates' reputation, admired the playwright's skill and, if I remember correctly, is said to have slept with a copy of his plays close at hand. Plato even includes Aristophanes in one of his most famous dialogues, the Symposium.

Mallow o' the Marsh

Q: Why not stay within the mainstream and just believe in Christ?

A: The mainstream isn't always right.

Anat

David, it is unclear what Jews of antiquity thought about the reality of Jesus' existence. Jewish sources mention 2 different people by the name of Yeshu as well as one person named ben-Stada, each of whose biography has some similarity to Jesus', though one of them lived a century before the supposed time of Jesus and one about a century later. It is unclear whether Yeshu is a derivative of Yeshua (=Jesus) or the acronym of "yimah shmo w'zikhro" (may his name and memory be obliterated, common expression for one who leads Jews to apostasy, but also one who persecutes Jews).

So if these references are to be taken as they are, they are referring to other people, which leaves no reference to Jesus in Jewish sources of antiquity. If these are supposed to be references to Jesus, they seem to be based on hearsay, by someone who had no idea when Jesus was supposed to have lived and what he was supposed to have done.

graymouser

Indeed. Aristophanes tells the story of the origin of love (the hermaphrodites) in Symposium. And, the legend goes, that Socrates himself stood up and took a bow when Aristophanes was lowered representing him in "The Clouds." For further Aristophanic ephemera, we know that the version of "The Clouds" that is preserved was a rewrite done around 418 BCE, because the original play failed to win first prize in its original 421 BCE presentation at the festival.

-Wayne

Vinnie

The natural reason is 1) they belive the evidence points this way, or the lack of evidence points this way.

A second reason is 2) that its easy to adopt a sensationilist viewpoint if it "seems" logical. Lots of people did this with my Jesus was gay article that popped up in tons of places on the internet.

As a Biblical proverb says: the first to present himself seems right till another comes along and questions hims." So thinking you stubmled upon some great evidence that most of the Jesus scholars in the world missed is appealing.

We must admit its impossible to reconstruct Jesus or discuss this issue as if he was anyone else. The Christians and the impact of this early religion make it impossible. The repugnanc of fundies make it more appealing to tell them Jesus never existed as well.

A third reason is many mythicists start off confusing the historicity of the Jesus of the Gospels with the historical Jesus. Some (a minority IMO) even blatantly fail to bifurcate between the two! First impressions are a bitch (though this is applicable to Jesus scholars as well!).

Of course this "Jesus" is nothing like what the public thinks when they hear "Jesus" so in effect this Jesus certainly does NOT exist and never did!

But why is it even important? If we agree that either 1) there wa no Jesus or 2) he was just a cruicified Jewish guy who cares? If people denie the existence of John the aptist historians would chastize them but you aren't going to ruffle feathers or piss people off by doing so. The existence of other figures is of no consequence to anyone. If we agree about Jesus on this then the issue is irrelevant. But its "Jesus" so its not.


We have extremely few at this board so don't feel left out.

Though I am as MAINSTEAM as they come on this issue a consensus in Jesus research is not equivalent to a physics consensus by any stretch of the imagination. Though it has importance as the level of knowledge and reasearch of an acedemician like Koester is immensely greater than posters on this board whose knowldge base pales in comparison.

Also Jesus mythicists accept a number of consensus views: Gospel not written by eyewitnesses, are late and anonymous, contain lots of fiction, contradictions, are textually unstable, Markan priority, Q, Johannine dependence or independence, Pauline forgery, and so on.

How many here accept only 7 epistles as genuinely Pauline? Most should. How many can form good, specific and detailed arguments as to why right now without doing any research or consulting books to figure ou why they belueve what they do at the moment? Less of them is my guess.

I agree in a respect though. The status quo is Jesus existed and was mythologized heavily. But what ultimately matters is the evidence itself for truth seekers.

The evidence is far better for Jesus' existence than not. But thats the only reson why the cosnensus view is valid. But my opinion is that mythicism is just another long debunked sensationalist view that still attracts a fringe minority for some reason.

Vinnie

Craigart14

Personally, I neither know nor care whether a man named Yeshua (a common name in the Judea of 2,000 years ago) was an active preacher (a common profession in that time and place) and was crucified (a common occurrence under the Romans) by Pontius Pilate. There's very little evidence for his existence and even less against it. However, I don't believe he performed any miracles (people in his day believed in all sorts of miracles, and I don't hear any Christians arguing in support of the other miracle workers) or rose from the dead (it just doesn't happen). The existence of a historical Jesus would prove none of the claims made in his name by people who never met him. It would also justify none of the violence.

Craig