MovieChat Forums > Jesus Christ Discussion > Did a historical Jesus exist?

Did a historical Jesus exist?


I've always thought so.

But Richard Carrier presents some interesting ideas that are worth considering:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13890

As a primer to this article, Carrier cites several prototype dying-and-rising gods that predated Jesus:

Osiris
Dionysus
Zalmoxis
Inanna
Adonis
Romulus
Asclepius
Baal
Hercules

He's not in favor of Mithras belonging in this category, as are other mythicists, but it's an impressive list nonetheless.

And, last thing, it's an interesting topic as long as one is not twisted in knots trying to defend a personal faith in a supernatural Jesus. I still lean toward historical Jesus, but Carrier makes his case and it's intriguing.

reply

There is no contemporary corroboration. He exists only in the bible.

reply

https://historyforatheists.com/2017/09/jesus-mythicism-1-the-tacitus-reference-to-jesus/

Part 4. Has quite a large section on Carrier and his dismissal on Tacitus being an extra-Biblical source to the historicity of Jesus. He is hardly the renowned historian, he himself and others make him out to be.

reply

Thanks, I'll make a point to read his take.

Though Carrier isn't the only one, Lowder and Stein have their ideas on Tacitus:

https://scientificmethod.fandom.com/wiki/A_Silence_that_screams:_No_Contemporary_Historical_Accounts_for_Jesus

It feels like a large jigsaw puzzle that no matter whose pieces you use, you're going to be missing a few at the end.

reply

It's useful to have a look at the translation of the Josephus (37-100 AD) passage on Jesus. It is obvious that the lines referring to Jesus were a later fraudulent Christian insertion:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3

2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews[8] were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,[9] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[10] as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty.


The relevant passages in Tacitus (56-120 AD) were written in 116 AD more than eighty years after the death of Jesus. Richard Carrier's opinion is that Tacitus wasn't talking about Jesus. You can find more here:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/17187

I have already had this conversation with Billy Slater about Josephus including copying and pasting the Josephus passages so he could see for himself.

Billy Slater says that he believes the Bible to be the literal word of God and so it cannot be wrong. Everything he says should be considered with that in mind.



reply

I don't think the dying-and-rising god template precludes the existence of a historical Jesus. But I have no doubt that rising-and-dying gods were part of the cultural transmission in that period and that broad geographical area.

I absolutely believe that the Jesus story we were handed down is a reiteration or culmination of pre-existing religious tropes. That's how storytelling works. It's memetic. Especially when its chief form of communication is oral. It gets passed on, reshaped for new audiences, bits get redacted or embellished by the teller. &c.

But I think it was a myth -- including elements of pre-existing myth -- that was grafted on to a real human being who bears no useful resemblance to that myth. I agree with the mainstream Biblical scholars who believe there is evidence of such grafting in the source material itself -- such as the classic Why bother inventing a fictional census to transport a Nazarene couple 100 miles to Bethlehem if he wasn't real at all?

That said, I think it's entirely possible the mythicists are entirely right. I doubt we'll ever have a definitive answer.

reply

"Why bother inventing a fictional census to transport a Nazarene couple 100 miles to Bethlehem if he wasn't real at all?"

Indeed. And I've noticed that each of the 4 Gospels, and in addition the Gospel of Thomas, include some manner of response to what must have been widely known: That Jesus was born out of wedlock, a bastard child. Else why spend time combating the notion if Jesus was going to be made up out of whole cloth? Or why have Jesus subservient to John the Baptist (another thorn in the authors side that would need to be nuanced so as to not be embarrassing), etc.

None of that is a firm argument for the existence of Jesus, but it does require consideration.

Just as the stories of a King Authur floated around for decades in song and storytelling, until finally written down, the stories of Jesus were passed around until some unknown authors decided to create various narratives about who he was and what he was about (each having their own take of course).

And how people can become fictionalized! Take Jesse James, one of the most vile human beings that ever existed. He started out an outlaw folk hero, until his degeneration was so extreme that even the hometown folk finally had to denounce him. Yet a mere 20 years after his death he was (somehow and quite inexplicably) reinvented and turned back into a folk hero -- someone to be admired and looked up to. This myth lasted until near the end of the 20th century (or perhaps longer I can't remember) until documents turned up reminding everyone of who James really was.

This is perhaps the takeaway of it all: People need their myths and legends. Never mind the facts.

reply

Yeah. I don't think I disagree with any of that. I certainly don't come down strongly on either side of the argument. All I'm really certain about is that if there was a historical Jesus, it is impossible for us to know anything concrete about him.

And to quote Doctor Who: 'In the end, we're all stories.'

reply

These Biblical scholars think so:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/showsreligion/

PBS documentary From Jesus to Christ - The First Christians (1998)

reply

Thank you for the link, I'm about halfway finished and will return to it later today or tomorrow.

I've always felt that actual historical figures made it all the more easy for people to mythologize and that was what happened with Jesus. The earlier dying-and-rising gods were something for the people of Jesus day to draw from, to reimagine and augment as they saw fit.

As apart from obvious myths (e.g., the Greek Gods).

reply

You're welcome. The Old Testament seems to incorporate some elements of much earlier mythological stories that were adapted as required, I agree.

reply

There is the Flavian Conspiracy, by which Octavian and his line created/curated the early church for its own benefit, mainly subservience to the Roman regime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Messiah

reply

Read THIS, ignorant public school educated Atheists...

"Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that a historical human Jesus existed. Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

reply

Public school sounds like something you skipped out on.

If you actually read my comments on this discussion you'd see that I, currently, believe that a historical Jesus existed.

reply

he cant discern and separate the difference between accepting a historical figure existed, and accepting the miracles and supernatural. bless Guitar King and his slow mind

reply

Why are you pretending I mentioned anything about miracles and the supernatural, you unhinged jackass? My post was solely on the HISTORICITY of Jesus' existance.

reply

because you referred to atheists. and most atheists accept this may be the case.

lol calls me unhinged, has a caps rage.

reply

I'd say your QUOTE was solely on the historicity of Jesus existence, but your POST included this comment:

"Read THIS, ignorant public school educated Atheists..."

Which is particularly ignorant, since atheists not only can, but often (perhaps even mostly) DO believe in the existence of a historical Jesus.

In other words, one can believe that a historical Jesus existed without believing in a supernatural Jesus, or God for that matter. Atheism has nothing to do with it.

reply

and all scholars agree Joseph Smith existed. that doesn't make moronisms interpretation on god and rules true.

ignorant Christian school clown.... learn how logic works........

reply

Frankly as far as I am concerned, Jesus was real and he was God's son who came to live the perfect life that humans aren't capable of so he could die for the sins of all humanity to relieve the wrath of God. I know many people here will reject this. But frankly either Jesus was the son of God or he was the biggest fraud there ever was. I believe he was the son of God and may everyone here that doesn't believe in him on here let go their unbelief and commit their lives to him.

reply

those arent the only two options about him. he could have been mistaken. everything written didnt happen etc.........

besides that you have all your work ahead of you and need to demonstrate he was the son of god, demonstrate he did any of that etc.

its no different than the 10s of thousands of other religions worldwide and their claims. just that. claims with no evidence

reply

So every so often, I go on a deep dive and read up on the historical Jesus.

Around a decade ago, if I recall correctly, the wikipedia article seemed to conclude that the academic community pretty much concluded that he did not.

A year ago or so, the wikipedia article seemed to conclude that it's fairly agreed-upon that Jesus did exist. And it used references that go back farther than a decade ago lol

Anyways...didn't really add to your discussion, but I found that quite amusing.

reply