Did the man "Jesus" exist?

[ant]

overlooked the more thorough research that Robert Tulip posted.

I will need to read the entire book. Based on what Robert posted, I see thorough theory and speculation in motion and not cited historical documentation that can be evaluated based on the criterion that scholars recognize.

Also, I agree with one thing that immediately caught my eye in Robert's post - Jesus was not responsible for the spreading of Christianity. I never once said I believed that.

I believe that Jesus was more than likely a jewish apocalyptist who lived among other apocalyptists of his time.

I am interested in and appreciate what Robert has posted.

Thanks

[Robert Tulip]

Only that they do not meet the standards for historical accuracy

By who's standards? Your personal standards or agreed upon standards by biblical scholars?

Hi Ant, I'm glad you seem eager to explore this surprising question objectively. It really is quite astounding that the standards agreed by biblical scholars for considering the existence of Jesus Christ are actually quite different from the standards applied in the rest of history.

The existence of Jesus Christ is something of a 'no go' area for historical evidence. Earl Doherty is probably the best source to understand the depth of the problem, but he is treated as a pariah among the dominant 'historical Jesus' school, where the argument from incredulity often passes for logic. People say they cannot imagine that Jesus did not exist. I once held that view myself. But looking at the evidence, fabrication is far more plausible.

Earl's website, http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/, gives the gist of main arguments in his books, and hopefully will encourage interested readers to look to the full account in Jesus Neither God Nor Man, which is exhaustive, forensic, logical, well-referenced and compelling. All the old canards such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and others are thoroughly demolished.

What we find though, is that orthodox historians treat serious study of this question with ridicule and ignorance. They routinely say the Christ Myth Theory has previously been disproved so they don't have to do it again. But when you look for the disproof, it proves utterly elusive.

Jesus is a sacred taboo. He should be analysed with the standards of history, which are neither those of an individual or those of Bible believers. As the last bastion of miraculous faith, Jesus provides the promise of the supernatural, enabling believers to retain an obsolete magical view of the universe. It is all really rather unethical, because true ethics should be based on evidence.

Traditionally, heretics were threatened with the line from 2 John 1:7 "deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."

This bullying tactic of accusing skeptics of being in league with Satan is not really in conformity with normal standards for history, but religion has up till now been regarded as a special case.

When considering the plausible credibility of a source, scholars utilize 3 criteria: Independent attestation - (maintains that traditions that are attested independently by more than one source are more likely to be reliable than those found in only one source.); criterion of dissimilarity - traditions that appear to work against the vested interests of the Christians who were telling them are more likely to be historically accurate than those that Christians may have “made up” to suit their own purposes; criterion of contextual credibility - argues that no tradition about Jesus can be accepted as reliable if it cannot plausibly be situated in a first-century Jewish Palestinian context. Once again, HOWEVER BRIEF, Christ is mentioned in the sources I previously indicated. All are independent sources All had no vested interests to mention Christ in efforts to promote Christianity, apocalypticism, or any type of mysticism for that matter. All can plausibly be situated in the jewish/Palestinian context of the historical Jesus. What exactly are the scholarly standards you are referring to? Are you saying these sources are all in on the "myth"? Why would pagan sources all be in cahoots about this? Why are these sources considered accurate on other unrelated accounts but inaccurate when mentioning Christ?

No, these independent sources are not 'in on the myth'. They are either late or fraudulent. Have a look at Doherty's website, especially his discussion of Josephus. In my view, as I explain in the thread I linked above in my post about Origen, the non-mention of the Testimonium Flavianum by Church Fathers for three centuries after Josephus supposedly wrote it is utterly implausible if it were genuine. Christians would have leapt on this independent testimony, but they do not, because it did not exist. Equally heavy doubt surrounds all other supposed independent testimony. There is none because Jesus was fictional.

[ant]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for acknowledging that I attempt to remain objective when considering this particular topic. I'd like to think I do.

It really is quite astounding that the standards agreed by biblical scholars for considering the existence of Jesus Christ are actually quite different from the standards applied in the rest of history.

What differences are there?
From a pure historical perspective, scholars agree that evidence having a high degree of validity are manuscripts that contain disinterested comments about the existence of the character in question and are as close to the context of that person's time.

The unanimous consensus among mainstream biblical scholars, with recognized scholastic credentials of course, is that Paul authored his writings. They contain "off the cuff" comments related to Christ.
What is the evidence that backs an assertion that biblical scholars are wrong to consider Paul's mentioning of Christ to be embellished, or a patent lie?

Earl Doherty is probably the best source to understand the depth of the problem,

What are Earl Doherty's credentials? What is his background and how long has he been researching historical biblical matters?
Why is he a "pariah" as you state?

People say they cannot imagine that Jesus did not exist.

Which people? If we are talking about Christians or Catholics, I do not doubt the validity of your claim.
If we are talking about historical scholars who have devoted their lives to researching and concluding, based on the available evidence we have to work with, then I must say that they too believe that Jesus more than likely existed.

All the old canards such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and others are thoroughly demolished.

This claim creates a slippery slope.
Historical evidence is based on the discovery of ancient texts, artifacts, and inscriptions. The criterion I previously outlined is used to determine the validity of the discovered source. If Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny's mentioning of Christ is to be thrown out as a canard, then why not simply doubt all their writings? What is to stop us from doing that?
How do we know if what Caesar Augustus wrote was embellished, fabricated, etc? Where do we stop?

He should be analysed with the standards of history, which are neither those of an individual or those of Bible believers.

Biblical scholars that study the historical Jesus and are not of any faith utilized agreed upon standards within the scholarly community. Doherty is outside mainstream scholarship, just as creationists are out of mainstream science. Which brings me to this question:

What are the similarities between Doherty and other Mysticists of his type, and Creationists? I would outline the similarities for consideration.

I will look at Doherty's website further. It is interesting and I would not entirely dismiss his research. I'm sure you agree that it is not above placing side by side with a scholar like Bart Ehrman. It is true that from a pure evidentiary standpoint, we have little record of Jesus to go by, besides of course the gospels themselves. However, to dismiss him in the fashion that Doherty seems to be doing seems a bit of a stretch at this point.

I'd like to finish a couple of books I'm reading before I look into Doherty's latest. Structure of Scientific Revolutions being one of the two

[lady of shallot]

I will gratefully turn this discussion over to Robert Tulip and Ant. I must say though that it is a little disquieting that Ant challenged me (weaker of the two?) instead of Robert's scholarship.

I will just say that no matter the depth of research and understanding through the efforts of Robert or anyone else who cares to take the trouble to do the exploration of the cosmic framework, someone like Ant is very unlikely to undertake it.

That is o.k. to me for him to have the belief system he does, I just wonder as on other threads on the religion v. atheism forums why such people keep arguing with atheists? Why is it so important that we not be?

[ant]

I will gratefully turn this discussion over to Robert Tulip and Ant. I must say though that it is a little disquieting that Ant challenged me (weaker of the two?) instead of Robert's scholarship.

I will just say that no matter the depth of research and understanding through the efforts of Robert or anyone else who cares to take the trouble to do the exploration of the cosmic framework, someone like Ant is very unlikely to undertake it.

That is o.k. to me for him to have the belief system he does, I just wonder as on other threads on the religion v. atheism forums why such people keep arguing with atheists? Why is it so important that we not be?

I don't think it is Robert's scholarship I am questioning. Is Robert Tulip "Doherty" as well? If that's the case, then yes, I am questioning "Robert;s scholarship."

Comic framework? That is too vague to respond to. One can only wonder what I am overlooking "cosmically."

A person's theological/religious position does not bother me. Ideologues and generalizers do.

I've concluded, with relative ease, that some individuals on this forum have different views than mine.
I can not learn from people who think like me.

I am sorry if I upset you.

[geo]

Also frankly I have never understood why it was such a big deal if there was a Jesus that he was crucified. Lots of people were.

The existence of Jesus Christ is something of a 'no go' area for historical evidence. Earl Doherty is probably the best source to understand the depth of the problem, but he is treated as a pariah among the dominant 'historical Jesus' school, where the argument from incredulity often passes for logic. People say they cannot imagine that Jesus did not exist. I once held that view myself. But looking at the evidence, fabrication is far more plausible.

Earl's website, http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/, gives the gist of main arguments in his books, and hopefully will encourage interested readers to look to the full account in Jesus Neither God Nor Man, which is exhaustive, forensic, logical, well-referenced and compelling. All the old canards such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and others are thoroughly demolished.

I always wonder how the lack of evidence for Jesus should be interpreted. Given that Jesus was likely an itinerant street preacher, perhaps one of many, proclaiming the end of the world during this time, wouldn't we expect there to be little if any historical evidence for his existence? As Lady says, lots of people were crucified at this time. Do we have historical evidence for any of them?

I know Robert comes down on the side that Jesus never existed, and it's an intriguing idea. I still think it's more likely that a man named Jesus lived and was crucified, and his life was the basis for the myths that followed. One point in favor of this approach is that many aspects of Jesus' life are too strange or otherwise inconsistent to have been fabricated. For example, the idea that Jesus was crucified and that he cried out, asking why God has forsaken him, is largely inconsistent with the mythos of a god or demi god. It takes a lot of rationalization to work these kinds of details out. Why invent such details in the first place?

Edit: Lady, I hope you continue to participate in this discussion. I always enjoy your posts.

[ant]

I still think it's more likely that a man named Jesus lived and was crucified, and his life was the basis for the myths that followed.

Reconstructing historical figures from antiquity is tricky business indeed. The surviving manuscripts are copies, of copies, of copies. That is why scholars develop certain criteria to determine their validity.

Biblical scholars agree that it is highly probable that Jesus existed. The portrait and teachings of the man transmogrified when documented over the course of years gone by. That is not a farfetched hypothesis.

I think where Mysticism runs into trouble is its attempt to dismiss each and every written account of Jesus (aka "poisoning the well"). That simply is contrary to what mainstream scholarship recognizes. Having said that, I can now arbitrarily dismiss near all of antiquity when the spirit moves me to (no pun intended).

It's a bit uncanny how Mysticists can insist on the validity of much of their speculative assertions and not find themselves in a similar camp that Creationists share.
Odd

[geo]

I still think it's more likely that a man named Jesus lived and was crucified, and his life was the basis for the myths that followed.

Reconstructing historical figures from antiquity is tricky business indeed. The surviving manuscripts are copies, of copies, of copies. That is why scholars develop certain criteria to determine their validity.

Biblical scholars agree that it is highly probable that Jesus existed. The portrait and teachings of the man transmogrified when documented over the course of years gone by. That is not a farfetched hypothesis.

I think where Mysticism runs into trouble is its attempt to dismiss each and every written account of Jesus (aka "poisoning the well"). That simply is contrary to what mainstream scholarship recognizes. Having said that, I can now arbitrarily dismiss near all of antiquity when the spirit moves me to (no pun intended).

It's a bit uncanny how Mysticists can insist on the validity of much of their speculative assertions and not find themselves in a similar camp that Creationists share.
Odd

I'm confused by the term, "Mysticist." I think you mean mythicist?

In any event, I wouldn't be inclined to compare mythicists with Creationists. That seems unfair. If you read Robert's posts, you won't see claims that Jesus definitely never existed, only that he interprets the evidence that way. I don't believe Robert's arguments for a reformed Christianity rely on Jesus never having existed.

[ant]

I still think it's more likely that a man named Jesus lived and was crucified, and his life was the basis for the myths that followed.

Reconstructing historical figures from antiquity is tricky business indeed. The surviving manuscripts are copies, of copies, of copies. That is why scholars develop certain criteria to determine their validity.

Biblical scholars agree that it is highly probable that Jesus existed. The portrait and teachings of the man transmogrified when documented over the course of years gone by. That is not a farfetched hypothesis.

I think where Mysticism runs into trouble is its attempt to dismiss each and every written account of Jesus (aka "poisoning the well"). That simply is contrary to what mainstream scholarship recognizes. Having said that, I can now arbitrarily dismiss near all of antiquity when the spirit moves me to (no pun intended).

It's a bit uncanny how Mysticists can insist on the validity of much of their speculative assertions and not find themselves in a similar camp that Creationists share.
Odd

I'm confused by the term, "Mysticist." I think you mean mythicist?

In any event, I wouldn't be inclined to compare mythicists with Creationists. That seems unfair. If you read Robert's posts, you won't see claims that Jesus definitely never existed, only that he interprets the evidence that way. I don't believe Robert's arguments for a reformed Christianity rely on Jesus never having existed.

Yes (dang it!) I mean "mythicist"

I guess then I am directing my talking points at those who conclude from this Mythicist branch that Jesus was just a fabricated myth.
I dont buy that - yet.
The mythicist angle is outside the more accepted mainstream scholarly institution that is unanimous in its interpretation of evidence that Jesus more than likely existed. It is not the minority position.

As is the case of an institution as obscure as mythicism, said institution will produce its own expert personnel who will seek recognition as the newfound authority as opposed to the institution with a stronger foothold. Doherty is seeking such status. Adherents will follow shortly thereafter.

[DWill]

I've talked with Robert a lot over the past several years, and I hope he knows that I think his "Thanks" count is justified. But I also want to say, "Go Ant!" This isn't because of your opinions, but because of the standards of evidence you're asking for.