Did Jesus Really Exist? (Historically)

[notthecheatr]

I believe he did simply because the year says 2011 A.D (anno domini), year of our lord, if we can date all the back 2011 years ago, then there must be some truth there, the entire world uses 2011, so this must mean something, right?

The only thing that means is that we use a standard frame of reference for calculating dates, which is convenient for people to be able to do. This standard frame of reference has been around for a long time which makes it useful. However, it's not precise; Jesus was certainly not born in 1 A.D.; in fact, we're not sure exactly which year he was born in, if he was born at all (which I think is probable but not necessarily true; the myths must have come from somewhere, but there is no definite proof that Jesus actually did exist).

Personally, I think it's probable that there really was a Jesus. Not because I generally believe the myths of the Bible (I don't) but because the gospels were written so shortly after the event allegedly happened that I would expect to see historical authors criticizing them for being factually incorrect if there had not been a real Jesus. He was probably some kind of anti-establishment hippie, who was crucified for his seditionist activities and immortalized among some of the Jews because of his courage in being killed this way. In later decades, the myths of miracles and resurrection were added to whatever truth there was in the tale. Jesus went from being a normal nutter to being the entire focal point of the "true Jewish" religion, which would now be called Christianity.

But that's only my opinion, the best I can imagine. It's entirely possible that Jesus didn't exist at all, that even his very existence is a fiction. We don't exactly have physical evidence, or primary sources, in this debate.

[grandpa]

The only thing that means is that we use a
standard frame of reference for calculating dates, which is convenient
for people to be able to do.
This standard frame of reference has been around for a
long time which makes it useful.

I'm sure we use terms of religious origin to write certain things, too, even if it doesn't have a religious meaning. Once I debated secularism and religion. A Christian simply highlighted this bad practice of religious names, noting how Wednesday has origins in the name Odin, and how this clashes with my idea of secularism.

Grandpa h.

[notthecheatr]

I'm sure we use terms of religious origin to write certain things, too, even if it doesn't have a religious meaning. Once I debated secularism and religion. A Christian simply highlighted this bad practice of religious names, noting how Wednesday has origins in the name Odin, and how this clashes with my idea of secularism.

Grandpa h.

Certainly, one would hardly conclude that Odin actually existed (or Frigga, Thor, Saturn, etc.) on the basis that we have days named after them.

This begins to take on cultural, rather than religious, significance, which is probably why it was decided that "C.E." and "B.C.E." should be used rather than "AD" and "B.C." But myself, I've never really cared either way. So long as it's understood that these are cultural terms, not religious, does it matter what we choose to call things? We can maintain relics of our cultural heritage whilst not maintaining their religious significance.

[Joanna The Mad]

Yeah, Dan, I especially like the one about have no thought for tomorrow, rid yourself of all earthly belongings and follow me or some such nonsense. Sounds like the moonies.

I have to agree with "Who cares?" At this point I don't think it matters to christians if jebus actually existed any more than it matters to mormons if joe smith actually existed. Humans apparently have the capacity to believe anything if eternal life is involved. They say prostitution is the oldest business but I think it's religion. Promise the people what they want and they'll beat a path to your door.

I don't know, Peter, I think it does matter. Maybe they won't admit it in your face, but when they're by themselves, contemplating about God, thinking about how their messiah didn't even existed... They'll freak out!

[Peter]

I don't know, Peter, I think it does matter. Maybe they won't admit it in your face, but when they're by themselves, contemplating about God, thinking about how their messiah didn't even existed... They'll freak out!

You might be right but that's probably what they all need - a good freakout... and an enema. Is it a sin to give yourself an enema? Anybody?

Sorry, getting off track here.

[barts]

Passage in The Annals by Tacitus (56-117 AD)
“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts, whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate.”
The scholars have reason to believe this is not forged. (f.e. the passage fits well in the context, Tacitus’ style, no Christian forgers would have made disparaging remarks about Christianity..)

Now, the theory of Jesus non-existence is now dead as a scholarly question. The theory is seen as a reaction against the Christian faith with little objective value.

Source: VAN VOORST, R. Jesus Outside The New Testament. 2000.

Further to the passage above from Wikipedia,

There is disagreement about what this passage proves, since Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.

Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote that: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."

Tacitus may have used official sources from a Roman archive. Tacitus drew on many earlier historical works now lost to us in the Annals. The description of the suppression of Christianity, calling it a superstition for instance, is not based on any statements Christians may have made to Tacitus. However if Tacitus was copying from an official source some would expect him to not incorrectly label Pilate a procurator, as he was a prefect.

Charles Guignebert argued "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".

R. T. France concludes that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he has heard through Christians.

Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity, the source of which remains unclear. Christus was a Jew and a criminal whom Pontius Pilate had executed. He authored a new religious movement that began in Judea and was called Christianity which was widespread around the city of Rome during Nero's reign.

Max Radin concludes, based on the text from Tacitus, that these facts can be known from a non Christian source: Jesus was a real person, approximately when his death occurred by execution and that Pilate was his judge.

As to the notion that "the theory of Jesus non-existence is now dead as a scholarly question", perhaps not, given the different views on how to interpret the Tacitus passage.

[Mr.NoBoddy]

My thing is why wouldn't of he existed? Why would it be so hard to believe there would be a man that was so cool and great that people told all sorts of stories about him. I don't think the church "made him up" I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

[Angry Citizen]

Because there's no evidence of him in contemporary records. The 'conspiracy theory' here is on the side of Jesus's existence, not his non-existence. All you lot have is the Bible.

[Grogybear]

Passage in The Annals by Tacitus (56-117 AD)
“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts, whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate.”
Source: VAN VOORST, R. Jesus Outside The New Testament. 2000.

Also, as is mentioned Tacitus lived from 56-117 AD, which means that by the time he probably said this he would probably have been in his 30's at least - 80 AD or later.
That is not a contemporary source.

As far as I know there are no contemporary sources that indicate that one man called jesus really existed.

Its largely irrelevant. There were other Messiahs around at the time such as Apollonius of Tyana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The jews were expecting a messiah weren't they? So its only natural that any number of crazies or manipulators were happy to don the mantel.

My guess is that there was a man called jesus at some point. He did something that made him slightly memorable (like get executed, maybe call himself a messiah) but the character of jesus and the biblical story is a composite of several messiahs and quite a lot of fantasy.

[grandpa]

Also, as is mentioned Tacitus lived from 56-117 AD,
which means that by the time he probably said this
he would probably have been in his 30's at least -
80 AD or later.
That is not a contemporary source.

I can't say "You are wrong in drawing that conclusion." Clearly that was a while ago. It may not be the same age as the Cyclops, but still pretty old.

Of course, faith doesn't require records of Jesus' existence, so this thread will be considered invalid no matter what we say.

Grandpa h.

[Chris the Chees]

Because there's no evidence of him in contemporary records. The 'conspiracy theory' here is on the side of Jesus's existence, not his non-existence. All you lot have is the Bible.

And it must be remmebered that not one account of Jesus' life in the bible is what we historians reffer to as a 'primary source' i.e. it was not written by an individual who actually was an eye witness to the events described. So what the bible proves, is not that Jesus actually existed, but that a highly prolific and literate Messiah cult had grown around this figure, but it does not tell us if even one of them had ever actually met or even seen this figure in the flesh. Therefore we actually have zero primary sources for the life of Jesus. Not one.

Of course Christians claim that three of the four gospels were penned by eye witnesses, however the earliest gospel (Mark) was written during or slightly after the Roman invasion around 70 a.d, and all the other come some time after that. A gap of this length suggests that it is highly unlikely that one of Jesus' disiples, who witnessed Jesus' ministry depcietd in the Gospels, wrote Mark. Such a span of time requires that the author's age far exceeded average life expectancy of adults their age in Roman provinces during the period. If they were young adults, aged perhaps 25 at 30 A.D (any older than that makes it increasingly unlikely that they would have survived anything like as old as would be necessary) they would likely have a further 30 or so years before they exceeded their life expectancy.

Of course as this source notes, this was an avergae of the entire Roman world, regardless of geographical location, ethnicity, regional economics and social background. So in reality the richer and more prosperous elements of society actually increase the life expectancy the source suggests. In our case we are discussion impoverished individuals of the lower social orders in a conquered province, who actually hold an illegal persecuted religion. Thus their actual life expectancy is likely to be significantly lower.

Thus to have written Mark in 70+ A.D. requires that we make quite a significant leap of faith and accept that these individuals lived a charmed life (though given the religious basis of the source...) and well exceeded their likely life expectancy, and then in their twilight years dredged up 40 year old memories and recalled, in highly precise detail, several years worth of Jesus' ministry. Having conducted numerous individuals in historical projects, I can only say that such a leap of memory is well outside of my experience thus increasing my scepticism of the sources validity.

But still, it does remain on the utter fringe of possibility, but as we have no actual information regarding the author of Mark, it is nothing short of pure and unsubstanciated speculation to even suggest that the author was an eye witness.

The three far more likely possibilities are:

1. There was a figure, or several figures, that had careers as itinerant preachers at the end of the first third of the first century, and that the gospel of Mark is a compelation of various oral traditions surrounding this individual.

2. That the entire story is a collection of fabrications and folk myths/legends, possibly again loosely based on the claims of previous Messiah cults, concocted by St. Paul and his followers.

3. A combination of the previous two.

[Joanna The Mad]

Its largely irrelevant. There were other Messiahs around at the time such as Apollonius of Tyana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The jews were expecting a messiah weren't they? So its only natural that any number of crazies or manipulators were happy to don the mantel.

My guess is that there was a man called jesus at some point. He did something that made him slightly memorable (like get executed, maybe call himself a messiah) but the character of jesus and the biblical story is a composite of several messiahs and quite a lot of fantasy.

Well, it's more than just "a jesus at some point," but indeed, the biblical story probably has little historical value.