Did the man "Jesus" exist?

[Robert Tulip]

The lack of biographical details would have invited speculation and fabrication

The writings related to the life of Socrates are not biographical.
Why the different standards to weigh the evidence?

It seems Ant has not heard of Plato, who did write biographical material about the trial and death of Socrates, while also expanding on the Socratic method using Socrates as a character in his extensive dialogues. Also, The Clouds by Aristophanes, as I mentioned before, includes hostile biographical commentary about Socrates.

The argument that there was not a single person Socrates is pure rhetoric. Ant might as well argue that there is no Plato, no Aristotle, no Alexander the Great or Caesar, or for that matter no place Greece or Israel.

Applying the same standards (to repeat) to Jesus as we apply to Socrates, we find no eye witness accounts by known individuals, and massively more opportunity and motive for invention by the Christ cults. The only reason anyone believes in Jesus is traditional authority. rather like some people probably believe in the Lady of the Lake, who raised Sir Lancelot in the Arthurian romances. The gospels set the genre for the Grail Legends of knights in shining armor. Jesus is as real as Don Quixote.

[Robert Tulip]

It's become somewhat fashionable these days to argue that Jesus never existed because it's an audacious claim and goes well with rejection of Christianity as a religion. Granted, there are some interesting arguments in favor of mythicism, but I don't entirely trust the attitude behind it. It seems almost trendy. How can anyone, especially non-scholars, take such a confident stance that Jesus never existed when this is the polar opposite of the established scholarly position for hundreds of years.

It may be fashionable in some internet circles, but the observation that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is an argument that is banned from mainstream media and universities by a rigorous censorship designed not to offend the sensibilities of true believers. It is quite extraordinary that so-called 'fashionable' writers on this topic are never interviewed or mentioned in broad public contexts except with derision, and are certainly never invited to speak in any place where the church has power or to be published in peer reviewed literature or by mainstream presses. Hardly trendy or fashionable.

The censorship is circular, much as occurs in any paradigm shift. The gatekeepers of the old paradigm are able to intimidate institutions to not discuss this topic, and then use that intimidation as evidence for the falsity of the argument. The absence of logic is truly astonishing. Prominent bigots such as NT Wright are able to get away with the vilest slurs, implying that asking for evidence of the existence of Jesus has the same credibility as questioning NASA's moon landings.

Geo has a good point regarding trust of the attitude behind mythicism. There is a wide spectrum of views, as expected in any newly emerging paradigm. The ongoing suppression of the topic as heresy means that the nuances are not widely understood. There are many attitudes. One of the most prominent is French philosopher Michael Onfray who argues against the existence of Jesus as part of a broad attack on Christian ethics, as part of the 'new atheist' line that religion should be abolished. I regard Onfray as a nihilistic fool. My own attitude on this topic is one that certainly gets no public coverage, namely the argument that Christianity should base itself on evidence in order to reform its ethics.

[ant]

It seems Ant has not heard of Plato, who did write biographical material about the trial and death of Socrates,

There also is biographical material on the trial and death of Jesus.
When the gospels are read side by side to compare and contrast what can reasonably be determined as a true account of the details of Christ's trial/crucifixion, and what can be thrown out, based on appropriate criteria, scholars have determined it is highly probable a man named Jesus was tried and put to death. My whole point in attacking the truth of the existence of Socrates is to show that if one wishes, one can cast doubt on his life and times in the same manner as Mythicists selectively doubt Christ's existence.

The argument that there was not a single person Socrates is pure rhetoric.

As is the argument the historical Jesus did not exist.

Applying the same standards (to repeat) to Jesus as we apply to Socrates, we find no eye witness accounts by known individuals, and massively more opportunity and motive for invention by the Christ cults.

Mythicists have concluded that the artistic (which they predominantly are) literary style of the writings on Socrates are eyewitness accounts are trusting the sources are not making it up. Based on the political climate of the time, it is a reasonable conjecture that they were fabricating a figure like Socrates for the sake of spreading a political and philosophical school of thought. The context of their time is rich for this possibility. Mythicists have chosen to ignore this possibility as well.

You still have not answered my question re peer review.
Has the author's research been peer reviewed? If it has, I'd like to know.
If not, well, one must consider the source of all information, as you know.

Thanks, Robert.

[ant]

It's become somewhat fashionable these days to argue that Jesus never existed because it's an audacious claim and goes well with rejection of Christianity as a religion. Granted, there are some interesting arguments in favor of mythicism, but I don't entirely trust the attitude behind it. It seems almost trendy. How can anyone, especially non-scholars, take such a confident stance that Jesus never existed when this is the polar opposite of the established scholarly position for hundreds of years.

It may be fashionable in some internet circles, but the observation that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is an argument that is banned from mainstream media and universities by a rigorous censorship designed not to offend the sensibilities of true believers. It is quite extraordinary that so-called 'fashionable' writers on this topic are never interviewed or mentioned in broad public contexts except with derision, and are certainly never invited to speak in any place where the church has power or to be published in peer reviewed literature or by mainstream presses. Hardly trendy or fashionable.

The censorship is circular, much as occurs in any paradigm shift. The gatekeepers of the old paradigm are able to intimidate institutions to not discuss this topic, and then use that intimidation as evidence for the falsity of the argument. The absence of logic is truly astonishing. Prominent bigots such as NT Wright are able to get away with the vilest slurs, implying that asking for evidence of the existence of Jesus has the same credibility as questioning NASA's moon landings.

Geo has a good point regarding trust of the attitude behind mythicism. There is a wide spectrum of views, as expected in any newly emerging paradigm. The ongoing suppression of the topic as heresy means that the nuances are not widely understood. There are many attitudes. One of the most prominent is French philosopher Michael Onfray who argues against the existence of Jesus as part of a broad attack on Christian ethics, as part of the 'new atheist' line that religion should be abolished. I regard Onfray as a nihilistic fool. My own attitude on this topic is one that certainly gets no public coverage, namely the argument that Christianity should base itself on evidence in order to reform its ethics.

These accusations are very conspiratorial and demand evidentiary proof.
Any discerning mind would demand something tangible to chew on before accepting the validity of these accusations.

I have discussed this purely from a historical perspective and have outlined what criteria is utilized to draw reasonable conclusions about historical figures from early antiquity.

I have also, as any reasonable person would, put to question the credentials of this particular author of the mythicist stance on the historical Jesus, and have asked if his work has been subjected to peer review. No doubt, rational, logical minds such as those on this forum would both appreciate and demand that research of this nature be subjected to vigorous peer review.

[Robert Tulip]

It seems Ant has not heard of Plato, who did write biographical material about the trial and death of Socrates,

There also is biographical material on the trial and death of Jesus.
When the gospels are read side by side to compare and contrast what can reasonably be determined as a true account of the details of Christ's trial/crucifixion, and what can be thrown out, based on appropriate criteria, scholars have determined it is highly probable a man named Jesus was tried and put to death. My whole point in attacking the truth of the existence of Socrates is to show that if one wishes, one can cast doubt on his life and times in the same manner as Mythicists selectively doubt Christ's existence.

Well yes, but these scholars assume the point at issue. When critical historiographical methods are applied the case collapses. The gospels are mutually contradictory, and far too late to count as evidence. The whole passion story is garbled for religious motives in order to show how Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. The comparison with Socrates requires that we apply apologetic obtusity in order to avoid listening to actual evidence and reason.

The argument that there was not a single person Socrates is pure rhetoric.

As is the argument the historical Jesus did not exist.

It only seems rhetorical if you apply the obtusity method, systematically avoiding expert dialogue. We should discount the expertise of those who hold to the Historical Jesus as a faith commitment, which generally sits prominently in the background of true believers.

Applying the same standards (to repeat) to Jesus as we apply to Socrates, we find no eye witness accounts by known individuals, and massively more opportunity and motive for invention by the Christ cults.

Mythicists have concluded that the artistic (which they predominantly are) literary style of the writings on Socrates are eyewitness accounts are trusting the sources are not making it up. Based on the political climate of the time, it is a reasonable conjecture that they were fabricating a figure like Socrates for the sake of spreading a political and philosophical school of thought. The context of their time is rich for this possibility. Mythicists have chosen to ignore this possibility as well.

This sounds plausible at face value, but scratch the surface and it is farcical. The Greek philosophers are known individuals whose entire approach was centered on critical rational enquiry. If they made up Socrates some one would have called them on it.

Unlike Christianity, the Greek philosophers had no need to say that anyone who questioned the existence of Socrates was a Satanist (2 John 1:7). Christianity had to apply this bullying to its critics because it was engaged in mass deception, passing fiction off as fact.

You still have not answered my question re peer review.
Has the author's research been peer reviewed? If it has, I'd like to know.
If not, well, one must consider the source of all information, as you know.

Thanks, Robert.

I mentioned the corruption of the peer review process in my last post. Non church-aligned journals generally have no interest in the topic, because of its explosive philosophical and political and religious content, so there are no suitable journals. Before getting to church-aligned journals publishing papers exploring this topic, it would be most useful if some university somewhere would invite prominent mythicist writers such as Earl Doherty to visit their institutions for a friendly dialogue. To my knowledge, this has never happened. In such a poisonous atmosphere, where the entire question of the existence of Jesus is ruled inadmissible as a topic of serious scientific enquiry, and where the church retains significant clout to end the theological career of anyone with atheist leanings, it does not surprise me at all that we find subconscious repression occurring whereby arguments deemed heretical are denied oxygen. The debate has not yet reached a critical mass which would push it into the public domain.

[lady of shallot]

[

These accusations are very conspiratorial and demand evidentiary proof.
Any discerning mind would demand something tangible to chew on before accepting the validity of these accusations.

.

Anti, I have not looked up your biographical data but I am assuming you live in the United States? The validity of Robert Tulips statement is evident from the content of all information appearing in the press and other media in this country. I don't know if there is a conspiracy or not but I do know no one ever speaks publicly about the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus. The most I have ever heard is that Nazareth and Bethlehem were not towns at the purported time of Jesus' life. This was probably on the history channel. Which one time also had a program disputing the exodus of Jews from Egypt.

Why do not many discerning minds demand something tangible before accepting the validity of the historical Jesus?

[ant]

Hi, Robert

Well yes, but these scholars assume the point at issue. When critical historiographical methods are applied the case collapses. The gospels are mutually contradictory, and far too late to count as evidence. The whole passion story is garbled for religious motives in order to show how Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. The comparison with Socrates requires that we apply apologetic obtusity in order to avoid listening to actual evidence and reason.

Why are you making the claim that biblical scholarship and its scholars base their work on general assumptions based on a point they are trying to make? Scholarly research is based on criteria that is rigorously applied to historical evidence. The sources available for examination are screened by the 3 criteria i've repeated here ad nauseum. You seem to have a near complete misunderstanding of how that criteria is applied. Contradictory evidence in multiple sources does not, I repeat, DOES NOT, collapse the entire body of evidence. There are natural differences inherent in all accounts of events, oral AND written. This is not unusual for historians to encounter. If we did it your way, it would become necessary to throw out nearly all of oral and written history. You either are saying it does because you have an ax to grind with religion, or you simply do not have a complete understanding of how the 3 criteria are applied.

I do not entirely disagree with your assertion that there were motives behind altering Christ's story to make it fit old testament prophecy However, mythologizing figures posthumously was not uncommon in Christ or Socrates time . But that is a different issue. We are talking about the historical evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus and not what the possible motives were of those that may have added to the story of his life. Continuing to dismiss the evidence by screaming 'MOTIVE!' is propping up a strawman to beat.

It only seems rhetorical if you apply the obtusity method, systematically avoiding expert dialogue. We should discount the expertise of those who hold to the Historical Jesus as a faith commitment, which generally sits prominently in the background of true believers.

Huh??
Vague and too general. Please qualify:
Exactly who is it that is avoiding expert dialogue? Evidence?
What is the "obtusity method?"
Who is holding to the historical Jesus because of a commitment to faith? Bart Ehrman? Evidence?

The Greek philosophers are known individuals whose entire approach was centered on critical rational enquiry. If they made up Socrates some one would have called them on it.

The prominent greek philosophers at the time were against the political/social structure of Greece. They would not have renounced themselves for creating a fictitious character that could espouse the views of their school of thought, and remain safe from prosecution and execution.

Unlike Christianity, the Greek philosophers had no need to say that anyone who questioned the existence of Socrates was a Satanist (2 John 1:7). Christianity had to apply this bullying to its critics because it was engaged in mass deception, passing fiction off as fact

.

Umm, naturally the Greek philosophers were not attempting to disseminate religious doctrine. Your point is moot.

You are making the mistake of conflating all the books of the new testament and in the process, you are missing the distinct meaning of each as it relates to the existence of the historical Jesus. You are beating Christianity in general with a stick, while ignoring the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus (synoptic gospels and pagan sources). This is a common tactic of those who's beef is Christianity in general.

There is an Athenian myth that Plato's birth was divinely conceived.
It has been speculated that the reason why this myth didn't stick to Plato was because he was not a religious itinerant with a large following. Otherwise, the myth would have stuck for obvious reasons. Nevertheless a divine conception is part of Plato's lore. Why aren't you scrutinizing the possible non-existence of Plato for this?

[ant]

[

These accusations are very conspiratorial and demand evidentiary proof.
Any discerning mind would demand something tangible to chew on before accepting the validity of these accusations.

.

Anti, I have not looked up your biographical data but I am assuming you live in the United States? The validity of Robert Tulips statement is evident from the content of all information appearing in the press and other media in this country. I don't know if there is a conspiracy or not but I do know no one ever speaks publicly about the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus. The most I have ever heard is that Nazareth and Bethlehem were not towns at the purported time of Jesus' life. This was probably on the history channel. Which one time also had a program disputing the exodus of Jews from Egypt.

Why do not many discerning minds demand something tangible before accepting the validity of the historical Jesus?

Hi Lady of S

Yes I live in the US

Can you give me some concrete examples of this alleged suppression of people that wish to speak out about the lack of evidence for the historical Jesus? I am curious.

Thanks

[Interbane]

Based on what seems to be hyper-skeptisizm about the existence of certain ancient historical figures, and the exclusion of manuscript evidence attested in multiple disinterested sources, we can start eliminating figures like Socrates from history. We can doubt his existence on the same grounds.
Do you believe Socrates existed? If so, what do you base your belief of his existence on?

Does my life depend on the answer?

The certainty of our answers and diligence in the pursuit of truth change depending on how that question is answered. I believe Socrates existed, yes. I see no branches of cultural evolution surrounding Socrates name that would cause me to be skeptical. What is attributed to him are mundane things. I don't care if I'm wrong either... if Socrates actually didn't exist, it would make no difference to me.

Is there reason to be skeptical of the people who wrote about Socrates? Does Plato mention that Socrates used to walk on water? If so, I would be a bit more skeptical. People aren't generally able to walk on water. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if it were written by someone who supposedly knew Socrates, I'd want more information. I'd want evidence that he was more than just a fabrication of another man's mind.

By the very fact that Jesus epitomizes what we as men write into our fantasy novels makes his personhood questionable. If you don't feel the same way, I'd ask why. Is it unfair to question Mark's/John's/Josephus's writings due to the fantastical elements that are claimed to be true? Not Josephus, in this instance, but when a snowball starts rolling, it can have a hollow core yet still have enough substance to flatten a village. If the story was already being passed from mouth to mouth, I'm sure he would have heard of it. He may have believed it to be true even if it weren't.

Socrates isn't a can of worms. Jesus' life is. Rather than hyper or pseudo-skepticism, I'd say we should be extremely(hyper?) critical. As in, critical analysis.

I like you ant, keep writing.

[Robert Tulip]

There is no need for a conspiracy to explain why the Christ Myth Theory is excluded from public sight, any more than people in the Middle Ages conspired to assert the earth was flat. Ignorant people just assume their belief is true and ignore anyone who thinks differently, especially when the belief is important for their religion. Many believers regard questioning the historical existence of Jesus Christ as personally offensive.

Let's go back to Ant's famous three criteria:

1. 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.)

There is none. As I linked before, and as Ant ignored, Church Fathers discussed the very section of writing by Josephus which presents the only claimed first century independent attestation of Christ, but they did not notice the famous mention of Jesus, even though they would have been all over it like a rash if it were there. This "attestation" was not added for three hundred years, and the reason Eusebius forged the Josephus text about Jesus was simply because it was so very embarrassing for church liars that they had no independent attestation for this guy who was supposedly famed far and wide, publicly crucified as King of the Jews, etc ad pukem.

The Gospels are not independent of each other, any more than various different books by L Ron Hubbard and his acolytes or by the Mormon Church are independent of each other.

By contrast, Plato is completely independent of Aristophanes as contemporary attestation of Socrates. Nothing remotely comparable exists for Jesus. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

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.

This argument was used by Christopher Hitchens to say that he found it incredible that the Gospels include stories that some might think put Jesus in a less than perfect light, and that these texts are evidence that Jesus existed. They are nothing of the sort.

Sir Lancelot of the Lake has an extensive legend of his madness, but that is not evidence for Lancelot any more than the madness of Don Quixote is evidence for historicity. The stated objective of the story of Jesus is to encourage belief. As such, quirky details add to his humanity. People can relate to a character who is unpredictable. This criterion is garbage as far as any real historical evidence is concerned.

But there is one sense in which this criterion is true. Eusebius was a Liar for the Lord. Revealing this deception is against the vested interest of the church, but is obviously historically accurate.

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

In that case you have to junk the whole New Testament on grounds of implausibility. It refers to Nazareth, which did not exist when Jesus lived. Paul never mentions any geographical location for Jesus. The context Paul provides is mythic, not historical.

Now Ant, you have cited these criteria as supposedly supportive of the Historical Jesus hypothesis. In fact, they support the Christ Myth hypothesis. The decisive fact is that Christianity was generated by a cult, just like Scientology or Mormonism. We know both of those are entirely fictional, but are somehow emotionally attractive to large numbers of otherwise intelligent people. Even Mitt Romney looks shifty and implies that hey everyone believes kooky things when pressed (or so I am told).

Sadly, scholarly research about Jesus is mostly far from rigorous. People who have grown up in a cult where JC was their bestest friend are brainwashed, and they bring this rinse cycle in at the foundation of their research, as an assumption that they do not question. They also know that universities and theological colleges are corrupt, and that anyone who is honest about the real evidence on Jesus has little hope of career advancement, so they internalise the prejudices of the community.