Debating whether it's historical fact that Jesus existed

[Oscar Wilde]

Not necessarily in the biblical sense, but existed.
Don't know if this guy is right with what he posted here, can anyone help me?

His statement

His statement:It is now generally considered a historical fact that Jesus existed (and has been for what? two centuries after a brief 'Jesus Myth' phase in the 18th century?)

His evidence

"Excuse me, I was mistaken with regard to the 'Jesus Myth' phase in 18th century. It belongs, seriously, to the 19th century, although there were a few French writers who classed Jesus and Christianity as myth in the 18th. According to the late NT scholar R. E. Brown[1] German historian B. Bauer was the first serious scholar to propose the idea that Jesus never existed in Christ and the Caesars (1877). Nevertheless, 60 years ago in the mid-20th century H. E. Fosdick could assert:

Doubt concerning the historicity of Jesus was a passing vogue of the nineteenth century; no serious scholarship now upholds it.
--The Man From Nazareth, Harper & Brothers, 1949, p. 22



Similarly, the Encyclopedia Britannica, after dicussing the various non-Christian sources (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and the Talmud) for Jesus' existence, states:

These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.
--Ency. Brit. Volume 22, 1990, p. 360.



NT scholar Bart Ehrman discusses these same sources and suggests that Josephus alone is evidence enough that Jesus existed[2]. There is no real debate about this in contemporary scholarship and hasn't been for a long while. Scholars may debate what Jesus taught or what he did, or over various reconstructions of his life and message[3], but to say he never existed is out of the question. M. A. Powell expresses this quite forcefully:

Anyone who says that today--in the academic world at least--gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
--Jesus As a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, Westminister John Knox Press, 1998, p. 168.










[1] An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, 1997, p. 818
[2] Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 61: 'From this reference we can learn that there was indeed a man named Jesus.'
[3] J. D. Crossan, for example, lists a few of the positions of modern scholarship in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1991, pp. xxvii-xxviii: 'There is Jesus as a political revolutionary by S. G. F. Brandon (1967), as a magician by Morton Smith (1978), as a Galilean charismatic by Geza Vermes (1981, 1984), as a Galilean rabbi by Bruce Chilton (1984), as a Hillelite or proto-Pharisee by Harvey Falk (1985), as an Essene by Harvery Falk (1985), and as an eschatological prophet by E. P. Sanders (1985).'
His own position is that Jesus was something like an itinerant Cynic preacher."

[Darth Wong]

Quote mining is not research. None of those are contemporary sources, and one of the few contemporary sources who claimed to see Jesus (IIRC Josephus) also claimed that he saw Augustus ascend to Heaven upon his death (again, IIRC). You'll have to look into that, but the point is that there are precious few contemporary sources who would attest to Jesus' existence or significance. If he existed, he did not make the big splash that his followers described in the NT, otherwise there should be more contemporary documentation of his life.

The fact that various writers in the 19th and 20th centuries say he's real doesn't mean anything.

Remember that for the purposes of Christians, Jesus must "exist" in two ways: not only must there be a person named Jesus in Nazareth at that time, which is not difficult to believe, but he must have also done enough of the things attributed to him in the Bible to make him a historical figure rather than a largely mythical figure which is loosely based on a real person.

Take King Arthur as an example: when people ask whether King Arthur existed, it really isn't enough to show that someone named Arthur might have been king at some point in England in the dark ages. You need to show that it's really the same guy we've heard stories about. If the stories are almost all fabricated, ie- if there was no Round Table and no Camelot and no Merlin, then you could not really say that the King Arthur of legend actually existed.

[Thanas]

Quote mining is not research. None of those are contemporary sources, and one of the few contemporary sources who claimed to see Jesus (IIRC Josephus) also claimed that he saw Augustus ascend to Heaven upon his death (again, IIRC).

Josephus is no contemporary source, given that he writes during the reign of Vespasian. And I'd be most interested in the source of Augustus ascending.

We have little contemporary source for the vast majority of Roman history, btw.

You'll have to look into that, but the point is that there are precious few contemporary sources who would attest to Jesus' existence or significance. If he existed, he did not make the big splash that his followers described in the NT, otherwise there should be more contemporary documentation of his life.

We do not know a lot about very important persons in general about the roman empire. Here is a fun fact - we only know the names of roughly 12-25% of Roman senators who ever existed. What makes you say that we would have better documentation for a non-roman religious leader than for most Roman statesmen for that time?

As for Jesus, yes, there is little doubt that he existed and was crucified. No historian I know of today denies it. What is debatable is the extent and the details of his life, but everyone I know agrees that he existed, founded a sect and was crucified. The sources we have (Tacitus, Josephus as well as the christian ones) justify that assesment as they are all in synch about those details (though parts of Josephus are fabricated).

[Darth Wong]

As I said, I wouldn't want anyone to use my vague recollection as a source, and I never advertised it as such. The point I was trying to make was that Jesus the Christian Saviour is not necessarily validated unless you can show that enough of the stories about him are based on factual events to say that he was a real person, rather than a mythic figure based loosely on a real person.

[Thanas]

As I said, I wouldn't want anyone to use my vague recollection as a source, and I never advertised it as such. The point I was trying to make was that Jesus the Christian Saviour is not necessarily validated unless you can show that enough of the stories about him are based on factual events to say that he was a real person, rather than a mythic figure based loosely on a real person.

Ah, I get that. But the question of the OP was not whether he existed in the biblical sense (aka Jesus the saviour), but whether there was a real person once called Jesus of Nazareth. And that is pretty much a given nowadays.

[Samuel]

As I said, I wouldn't want anyone to use my vague recollection as a source, and I never advertised it as such. The point I was trying to make was that Jesus the Christian Saviour is not necessarily validated unless you can show that enough of the stories about him are based on factual events to say that he was a real person, rather than a mythic figure based loosely on a real person.

Ah, I get that. But the question of the OP was not whether he existed in the biblical sense (aka Jesus the saviour), but whether there was a real person once called Jesus of Nazareth. And that is pretty much a given nowadays.

Well, how common a name was Jesus and how big was Nazareth?

[Thanas]

How many do you know that were crucified by roman soldiers?

[Akkleptos]

Considering that most of the written testimony that we've got from ancient times in Europe was -during most of the Middle Ages- almost exclusively in the power of the Church, in monasteries where they could copy AND edit them to fit Christian doctrine where they saw fit; and that few or no originals from that era have survived intact until today, it is highly doubtful that any reference to Jesus in any historical source we could find today could be regarded as faithful, since the copyst monks had quite a strong motivation to... er... retcon the stuff that didn't agree with the views of the Holy Church.

There are some references, for example in Flavius Josephus The Jewish Wars, where certain rebellions circa 70 AD were attributed to the instigation of "some Chrestos", which could be identified as Jesus, whom many early Christians back then still believed would be back shortly (he would have been dead for a couple of decades by then).

As for Nazareth, some sources say that the very existance of the place cannot be traced as far back as the period when Jesus is said to have lived in, and in fact was created well after the 5th century, in part for pilgrims who wanted to see this "Nazareth" place when they went to the Holy Land. Acording to these sources, the name came from a corruption (or intentional alteration) of "Nazirite", a Jewish religious group who supposedly were especially pious.

Having said that, a historical Jesus quite likely existed in reality, but he probably was very different from the biblical Jesus, considering most of what is today considered to be Christian doctrine came actually from Paul, who, according to some, was not even a Jew but an Idumean prince, educated in the then pervasive Greek tradition, who didn't even know some basic facts about Jewish religion (hence the heresy of the Trinity, salvation for the Gentiles, and some other stuff he said that was plain contrary to Jewish tradition.)

Thanas: you may want to take a look at The Wars of the Jews (or The Jewish War) and the Jewish Antiquities.

[Akkleptos]

ADDENDUM: Some of these retcons would have had a lot to do, for example, with painting the Romans as innocent victims of the Sanhedrin's plot to have Jesus offed as soon as possible, when in fact it would have been the Romans who were interested in crucifying Jesus as a rebel to the Empire, for which the crucifixion was the standard punishment to apply.

Supposedly, he would have been crucified as a thief (upright position) because of his deeds at the Temple (you know, overturning the merchants' stalls -which some authors speculate might have been an attempt -by him as well as his followers- at stealing some of the weapons of the Sanhedrin's-own religious police) rather than as a rebel against the Cæsar (upside-down cuicifixion, you know, "debellare superbos"). Also, something strange must have happened, because in the latter case, his body would have been thrown to the "fossa infamia", for vermin to feast on with the carcasses of other traitors and criminals, according to Roman Law (Thanas... your expertise would come in handy here ... I may be just repeating balderdash I read) when, as we're told today, it was taken to a private sepulchre.

[Thanas]

Considering that most of the written testimony that we've got from ancient times in Europe was -during most of the Middle Ages- almost exclusively in the power of the Church, in monasteries where they could copy AND edit them to fit Christian doctrine where they saw fit; and that few or no originals from that era have survived intact until today, it is highly doubtful that any reference to Jesus in any historical source we could find today could be regarded as faithful, since the copyst monks had quite a strong motivation to... er... retcon the stuff that didn't agree with the views of the Holy Church.

You will of course show that every source was influenced in such a way? Because I only know of one, and then of course in that one (Flavius Josephus) most only consider part of it faked. Meanwhile, Tacitus nearly drips with derison about the christians.

So please provide a list of retcons regarding this topic and your evidence for it. By and large, ancient sources were not retconned - particularly because medieval monks largely couldn't read latin very well.

Seriously, just going "A Monk did it"? I also love how you declare yourself the supreme arbiter about a very complicated process, a process that takes years to complete (I am talking about editing a source). "It is highly doubtful".....highly doubtful that you ever have gained any knowledge in the field.

[Akkleptos]

You will of course show that every source was influenced in such a way? Because I only know of one, and then of course in that one (Flavius Josephus) most only consider part of it faked. Meanwhile, Tacitus nearly drips with derison about the christians.

Oh, I didn't mean any and all sources. I meant sources that had something to do with the base of the Christian faith, or the ones that might entail the potential for heresy or schism. That's where the censors would have been more meticulous. Especially considering that after Constantine and the Council of Nicæa, the Christian religion became pretty much a raison d' État for an Empire in which the Church would eventually become a power that could put even an emperor in his place (e. g. Theodosius' excommunication and penance, after the Thessalonica massacre, in 390). So, in such a situation, it would be quite feasible that the Christian Hierarchy would be more than motivated to instruct the copying monks to leave certain things out or include others, when it came to texts that might have a special religious significance.

As of providing evidence, I'll try, though I'm no historian, to offer some examples.

The technical term for this is interpolation.

Thus "interpolation" seems to imply, first, a fixed text and, secondly, a conscious or deliberate purpose to alter or twist the meaning and intention of a text, the interpolator's aim being to slip his meaning under cover of a mind having greater authority or higher standing than his own, so securing for his own opinion or judgment a market-value above its intrinsic worth. For example, a Christian student of the second century inserted in the text of Josephus (Ant. XVIII., iii. 3) the well-known passage regarding Jesus. His object was to make Josephus a witness to Christ. This is an interpolation in the rigorous sense.

Some examples, regarding the New Testament:

2 Corinthians:

Werner Georg Kummel would like to view the letter to be a whole composed by the apostle Paul on one occasion (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 287-293).

<snip, listing of opposing opinions and inconsistencies>

Kummel allows that 6:14-7:1 is interpolated yet still maintains that it is Pauline. However, Joseph Fitzmyer has argued that 6:14-7:1 is an interpolation from a document at Qumran in an essay reproduced in The Semitic Background of the New Testament, pp. 205-217. There are three reasons to posit that the passage is interpolated: "the paragraph radically interrupts the chain of thought between 6:13 and 7:2," the passage is "a unit intelligible in itself," and "six of the key-words in the passage are not found elsewhere in the New Testament." Fitzmyer argues that references to triple dualism, the opposition to idols, the temple of God, separation from all impurity, and the concatenation of Old Testament texts point to a Qumranic origin for the interpolated fragment.

Or a nice list from an analysis of John's Gospel here. An excerpt:

4:2
This verse is too small to affect the page pattern, but it is clearly a late interpolation.
The Greek word for "although" (καιτοιγε) occurs only here in the New Testament, which is unusual for a document displaying such a limited vocabulary. Also the verse states that Jesus did not baptize, contradicting 3:22. Perhaps the interpolator was trying to portray Jesus as superior to John the Baptist here.

Also, about the classics, it's interesting how both Tacitus and Suetonius mention Christians... only once. Regarding what is arguably the same incident (the burning of Rome, Nero). And both never mention them again.

Marcus Aurelius reference to Christians, in Meditations 11:3 has also been disputed.

There's a nice list, complete with excerpts, here. Also, there's this issue of an apparently over-eager monk who in the 11th century changed -in a rather clumsy way- the Greek "good guys" for "Christians", i.e. the Chrestianos issue @ textexcavation.com (PDF).


So, yeah, I tend to take texts from the antiquity that deal with Christians and Christianity with a grain of salt.



By the way, the bit about "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." turned out to be Suetonius' Twelve Cæsars. My mistake.

[Thanas]

Also, about the classics, it's interesting how both Tacitus and Suetonius mention Christians... only once. Regarding what is arguably the same incident (the burning of Rome, Nero). And both never mention them again.

Meh. We have little more references when dealing with germanic tribes.

There's a nice list, complete with excerpts, here.

That page is almost worthless.

Also, there's this issue of an apparently over-eager monk who in the 11th century changed -in a rather clumsy way- the Greek "good guys" for "Christians", i.e. the Chrestianos issue @ textexcavation.com (PDF).

True, but that disregards the other Tacitus quote which has not been called in question IMO.

So, yeah, I tend to take texts from the antiquity that deal with Christians and Christianity with a grain of salt.

[Rye]

I'm not sure if "historical fact" is the right word, but in general, it is accepted that Christianity had real historical origins based on a real man and his teachings. That's attested to in different texts that give the same name and same brother.

There was a decent thread on this a while ago involving me, Mange, God Fearing Atheist, Kuroneko, Mike and others going at it. It covers a lot of the Josephus stuff and the weakness of the mythicist position. http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=87801

[Big Phil]

Given that Jesus is the Hellenized version of Hebrew Joshua/Yeshua, at what point did people start referring to him as Jesus rather than Joshua, and why?

[Thanas]

Given that Jesus is the Hellenized version of Hebrew Joshua/Yeshua, at what point did people start referring to him as Jesus rather than Joshua, and why?

That is probably due to the fact that most early christians spoke greek, having been born in hellenized regions - even Israel was heavily hellenized.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Also, about the classics, it's interesting how both Tacitus and Suetonius mention Christians... only once. Regarding what is arguably the same incident (the burning of Rome, Nero). And both never mention them again.

Meh. We have little more references when dealing with germanic tribes.

This does little to assuage any concerns I may have about the historical certainty of Jesus' existence... it simply makes me wonder if historians have low requirements if they'll accept the existence of certain Germanic tribes and Jesus based on equally slim pickings.

[Thanas]

Also, about the classics, it's interesting how both Tacitus and Suetonius mention Christians... only once. Regarding what is arguably the same incident (the burning of Rome, Nero). And both never mention them again.

Meh. We have little more references when dealing with germanic tribes.

This does little to assuage any concerns I may have about the historical certainty of Jesus' existence... it simply makes me wonder if historians have low requirements if they'll accept the existence of certain Germanic tribes and Jesus based on equally slim pickings.

I am curious - what requirements do you think historians should have?

[TithonusSyndrome]

This does little to assuage any concerns I may have about the historical certainty of Jesus' existence... it simply makes me wonder if historians have low requirements if they'll accept the existence of certain Germanic tribes and Jesus based on equally slim pickings.

I am curious - what requirements do you think historians should have?

I couldn't say for certain, I know absolutely nothing about the kind of methodologies that history demands as a field of study. All I know is that two fleeting references from two different people seems like insufficient data to build a case from.

[Thanas]

With respect, but as you are not a professional, I doubt that you can judge the cases. These cases are better documented than most things we know about history. For example, we know next to nothing about most usurpers. Are we therefore to conclude these do not exist and that no usurpations happened? No, what you do is that you say that the sources are a bit problematic, talk about the problems a bit and then conclude that in your opinion, based on the available evience, this is what happened or you simply say you do not know. History is always in flux, that's what makes it so interesting.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Of course I'm not a professional and my opinion alone isn't enough to decide historical issues, I was prepared to concede that from the start. However, saying "we simply don't know" doesn't seem distinguishable in practice from "there's nothing convincing enough to say this happened and so our default assumption must be that it did not, for the time being." If there's some distinction I'm missing then I'm ready to stand corrected, but are two fleeting references in a sea of little embellishments built up over time really enough to overcome that default position and meet the burden of proof?

[Thanas]

Of course I'm not a professional and my opinion alone isn't enough to decide historical issues, I was prepared to concede that from the start. However, saying "we simply don't know" doesn't seem distinguishable in practice from "there's nothing convincing enough to say this happened and so our default assumption must be that it did not, for the time being." If there's some distinction I'm missing then I'm ready to stand corrected, but are two fleeting references in a sea of little embellishments built up over time really enough to overcome that default position and meet the burden of proof?

If they were alone? Maybe, maybe not. But based on the fact that other evidence leads to a logical narrative - namely the start of christianity - then those problems can be overcome.