Weighing in on Jesus' existence...

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Since it has been mentioned on here a couple times, I think I should weigh in on a historical-critical approach to Jesus' existence. Honestly, I'm as much of a skeptic in my approach to life as I am anything else, and given skeptics' propensity to challenge Jesus' existence, I find myself often having to respond as an ancient historian would.

First, the bottom line: no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus of Nazareth existed. This issue is tricky, because if you look online at things like Wikipedia, et al., you might get the impression that scholars uniformly doubt Jesus' existence. This is just not true. You could go to the premiere academic conference on Religious Studies, survey the Christian, Jewish, and other types of ancient historians who have tenure at any reputable university (hell, just stick with the state universities and the results would be the same) on whether Jesus existed, and the results would be uniform: of course Jesus existed (and remember, half of these profs are atheists and most of the rest are agnostic). What he was, however, is another question.

[Please remember, the following are historical arguments, I'm purposefully staying away from theology so please don't start any theological arguments, I'm just trying to be helpful by analyzing this issue as a historian would].

The first and foremost argument for Jesus' existence is that is existence is contextually credible. That is, Jesus was simply not remarkable for his day. There were many many apocalyptic preacher movements around this time preaching things like "the Son of man will come in this generation" or "you all will see the day when the son of man will come and restore things". We know Jesus said these types of things. Simply not remarkable and perfectly credible taken in the context of first century palestine.

Second, the claims made by Jesus' followers about his resurrection and miracles are not even that unique. Preach this message to a Roman, Syrian or Egyptian, and they would have said, hmm, okay, just like [so and so]'s followers claimed, or just like [such and such] revival myth. None of the claims of Jesus or his followers were THAT unique in context.

Third, given Jesus and his followers unremarkable claims, it is not that strange to only have a handful of references to the historical Jesus, but what we have is enough to establish his existence. We have two references by Josephus, one casual mention in book 20 about James "who was the brother of Jesus", and one in book 18, which mentions that Jesus was a "sophos" who taught and gained a following among Jews. Despite what you'll read on the internet, the scholarly consensus about this passage is that it is original to Josephus, but that it does have some Christian additions, such as "he was the Messiah", something Josephus never would have said. But the passage is so schizophrenic in Greek that it is widely regarded as having a core element to it, roughly that Jesus was a wonderworking teacher who gullible people believed. No Christian would have added that part. There are other later Talmudic references to Jesus, which are probably not all that helpful. The only other significant early reference outside Christianity was Tacitus, who mentions Jesus, whom Pontius Pilate crucified. It is doubtful he is getting this info from anything other than official Roman sources. There are some references from Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, but I'll pass on those for now since they are more helpful for reference to the Jesus movement and not to the life of Jesus.

The final consideration I would mention (not particularly a historical one) is one I don't want to spend a lot of time on, but there IS the remaining evidence of Christian traditions, which is schizophrenic at best. How does the message go from Jesus preaching about the Son of man coming in his generation and his disciples witnessing it, to Jesus dying and being preached as a resurrected God who is to be believed in? Skeptics say that this shift in the message arose out of the cognitive dissonnance of the disciples, who were so disappoined in their unfulfilled expectations that Jesus would overthrow the Roman empire, that they shifted the message to one of Jesus and faith in Jesus. I've heard several skeptics say that this is what happened, and at the same time say out of the other side of their mouth that Jesus never existed. This is completely inconsistent. If Jesus never existed, what precisely was the basis for this disappointment-catalyzed cognitive dissonnance. Was this cognitive dissonnance based in the disappointment in thier own collective imagination? Or was it based in their disappoinment in an apocalyptic preacher who failed them, of whom there were several in that time period? If you take this sort of approach, clearly the latter is more likely, which leaves you with an apocalyptic preacher who gained a following, went to Jerusalem and was killed by the Romans. Nothing so unusual about that. What is strange to me is that skeptics and atheists have such an intense stake in the idea that Jesus never existed. Seems to me that Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher would suit them just as well.

[MikeWaters]

who are these people who argue that Jesus did not exist, and what is their argument?

are we talking about Cody Judy-types here?

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

who are these people who argue that Jesus did not exist, and what is their argument?

are we talking about Cody Judy-types here?

No, I'm talking about skeptic types. Other end of the spectrum. A lot of them are atheists or agnostics who are probably to some extent in reaction against a Christian background. I suspect thinking Jesus never existed makes them feel better for some reason, because I have met several who argue with almost evangelical fervor that Jesus never existed. Their argument is usually one from silence, that we don't have enough solid evidence that he existed.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Atheists sometimes have their own fundamentalist fervor. I've met more than one who was the mirror image of a bible thumper. They tend to not appreciate the irony.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Atheists sometimes have their own fundamentalist fervor. I've met more than one who was the mirror image of a bible thumper. They tend to not appreciate the irony.

Yes, I have as well. This is a great point, but to those who would jump on this point and say, "Yeah, all academic types are a different kind of evangelical", I would clarify.

I was very surprised to find upon entering grad school that by and large professors engaged in academic pursuits are very honest in their work. I do see *some* evangelical fervor in the classroom, but in scholarly work based in science (historical method, literary criticism), I have found most work to be very balanced and well grounded in widely acknowedged methods. The simple fact is that if their work weren't balanced, their peers would jump all over it for what it is. That's how academia works.

I know you know this, I'm just responding to those who would misuse your clearly valid point in order to rip on the academy. This is one of those "inches" that folks like to run a mile with.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

I was very surprised to find upon entering grad school that by and large professors engaged in academic pursuits are very honest in their work. I do see *some* evangelical fervor in the classroom, but in scholarly work based in science (historical method, literary criticism), I have found most work to be very balanced and well grounded in widely acknowedged methods. The simple fact is that if their work weren't balanced, their peers would jump all over it for what it is. That's how academia works.

Amen, brother. Amen.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

who are these people who argue that Jesus did not exist, and what is their argument?

are we talking about Cody Judy-types here?

I have read Harold Bloom address the issue. He was not so much arguing that Jesus did not exist as marvelling at how widely his existence is assumed given the scant historical record. Neither Josephus nor Tacitus was a contemporary, and there is consensus that some later tampering occurred at least with the longer passage in Josephus' work. Neither were the authors of the Gospels contemporaries.

Everything CH writes seems reasonable to me and I doubt Harold Bloom would disagree. A true skeptic would not so much take the position Jesus did not exist as raise the question and play devil's advocate or analyze all sides of the issue before drawing a conclusion, as CH has done.

[non sequitur]

I've read accounts of the similarities between Jesus and the Eygptian God Horus. Are those similarities coincidental or is that academic significance to those parallels?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I've read accounts of the similarities between Jesus and the Eygptian God Horus. Are those similarities coincidental or is that academic significance to those parallels?

I can't answer this specific question but I do understand that many of Jesus' attributes are drawn from a pagan tradition. Of course, that there is evidence for a mythical Jesus does not necessarily deny a kernal of truth to the story, including that a rabble rousing Jew named Jesus lived in Judea during Augustus' time and was executed.

[MikeWaters]

I think the account of Jesus is much more intriguing than that of the rabble-rousing carpet muncher who didn't let his kids listen to rock'n'roll.

I've always thought there was a kernal of truth to the latter.