Did Christ really exist ?

[blü 2]

And yet most historians that address the question find the case unconvincing.

Yes, even Bart Ehrman, whom I admire, thinks there was an historical Jesus. However, the spine of his arguments boils down to the two hardy perennials, James the brother of the Lord (Paul) and "everyone who's looked into it thinks so", which is simply an argument from authority.

Yet the account of Paul is not about an historical Jesus but a gnostic demiurge (like John's) who pre-existed in heaven with God and while there created the material universe, something God, being totally pure spirit would never do.

And the account of Mark, which the other three gospels use, can be explained without the need for an historical figure. Matthew and Luke indeed go to enormous lengths to play the game of "messianic prophecy in the Tanakh". For example, the author of Matthew

─ requires Mary to have been a virgin because the LXX in translating Isaiah 7:14 had rendered Hebrew 'almah, young woman, as parthenos, virgin;
─ invents the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to "fulfill" Micah 5:2
─ invents the unhistoric 'Massacre of the Innocents' story to get Jesus into Egypt to "fulfill" Hosea 11.1.
─ and absurdly sits Jesus across a foal and a donkey to ride into Jerusalem "to fulfill prophecy" (Matthew 21:2-5) in Zechariah 9.9.​

So I remain on the fence, looking for something decisive to show an authentic historical figure, but not holding my breath. There may have been an historical Jesus, there may not have been. And if there was, we know very little about him.

 

[1213]

... the respected historian Will Durant said:"That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel"....

I think that is a good point. And I think it is also good to notice, if the disciples were persecuted as told in the Bible, it would be reasonable to assume that the rulers tried everything to destroy any writings about Jesus. That is why it would be no miracle, if we don’t find much evidence from that era.

 

[blü 2]

I think that is a good point.

But Will Durant's point ─ "powerful", "appealing", "lofty", "inspiring" ─ given one agrees with it at all, would apply equally to a fictitious as a real Jesus.

Indeed, Harry Potter has a fair claim to those adjectives, no?

if the disciples were persecuted as told in the Bible, it would be reasonable to assume that the rulers tried everything to destroy any writings about Jesus. That is why it would be no miracle, if we don’t find much evidence from that era.

While it's well documented that the Christians of coming centuries showed remarkable enthusiasm for burning the books of classical Greece and Rome, I don't know any historical basis for the claim that this was Jewish practice in 1st century Judea.

What evidence are you basing your remark on?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, even Bart Ehrman, whom I admire, thinks there was an historical Jesus. However, the spine of his arguments boils down to the two hardy perennials, James the brother of the Lord (Paul) and "everyone who's looked into it thinks so", which is simply an argument from authority.

That is simply not true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You seem to be making some sort of assumption/assertion about my beliefs, which I have not actually stated.

Possibly.

On the other hand you offered:

I've read a number of books by those arguing he was nothing but a myth...some tough arguments, many of which contradict the idea that Jesus' story was unique in the Roman world. ...

So, a couple of questions:

• What were these tough arguments that you found worthy of honorable mention?
• Would you agree that Price is an outlier among his peers and why do you think that might be?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Whether someone is an outlier or the middle of the mainstream is irrelevant to me

Apparently.

 

[Brian2]

Not. This 'fulfilment' is a Christian interpolation.

He could have fulfilled them if they are Messianic prophecies and if He is the Messiah who did and said what the gospels tell us.

 

[blü 2]

That is simply not true.

It is not his complete argument, but I didn't suggest it was.

 

[Brian2]

Out of curiosity, which gospel is dated to the mid 50's?

I was wondering which gospel (apart from John) which was dated to after 70 AD.
This site argues for early synoptic gospels and ends by suggesting that the gospel of Luke was around in 55AD.
13 Good Historical Reasons For The Early Dating of The Gospels | Is Jesus Alive?
Interestingly if Luke got some of his information from earlier gospel attempts then there were earlier gospels.

 

[Brian2]

The Illiad is full of magic but Troy really existed.
The Arthur saga is full of magic but historians belief that a king existed in Britain who united at least some tribes.
There may have been a house of Nibelungen.

Sagas and legends often get embellished with magic. The task is to find the truth between the lines.

That does not mean that any magic in the stories is not true.

 

[Brian2]

Who dated them that way?

More conservative scholars who rely on the internal and external evidence without assumptions that the destruction of the temple prophecy means they were written post 70 AD.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Apparently.

An appeal to authority? okay. Just because someone is mainstream does not mean they are right; being an outlier does not mean they are wrong...as I think you said before, so I'm not sure what your point is.

I happen to believe one ought to read and consider the arguments offered, and to try to understand them...and frankly, I have no great need to make a choice between any number of positions that various authors have staked on any of the subjects I've read about.

And in the field of historical interpretation of limited texts and even more limited artifacts, there's a good possibility that MANY have good, valid points, but don't have the whole truth of the matter...and again, I can hold those contrasting points of view in mind with exploding because I know I don't have to pick one or another.

...tough arguments...

okay, maybe a bad choice of words...arguments that are interesting to think about, some of which are difficult to follow or are not easy to resolve without information that I am not privy to...I point to Carrier here, and his attack on historicity using Bayesian statistics.

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not interested in taking on advancing the mythicist position: I don't hold it, but neither do I not hold it.

 

[Brian2]

But Ehrman would ridicule your idea that "Paul wrote at a time very close to the death of Jesus" too.

Pauls writings are two decades after Jesus. Ask Ehrman.

2 decades may be right, but Paul was around and became a Christian long before he wrote epistles.

 

[Brian2]

It makes their testimony third-hand at best...could be accurate...or not...or some degree in between...

That's historians for you. Even Luke says he got his information from witnesses and those who were there from the beginning so even he as a historian was no eye witness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Respected first century historian who wrote about Christ are:
Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus

All of them but one wrote about Christians, not about Jesus himself.

And with Josephus, out of his two passages that mention Jesus:

- the remarkable one is a later forgery.
- the one that seems genuine doesn't make Jesus seem remarkable at all; Josephus describes him as "the so-called Christ."

So Josephus seems to suggest - though IMO not definitely - that Jesus was a real person, but not that he was a literal god-man.

 

[Wandering Monk]

All of them but one wrote about Christians, not about Jesus himself.

And with Josephus, out of his two passages that mention Jesus:

- the remarkable one is a later forgery.
- the one that seems genuine doesn't make Jesus seem remarkable at all; Josephus describes him as "the so-called Christ."

So Josephus seems to suggest - though IMO not definitely - that Jesus was a real person, but not that he was a literal god-man.

Yeah, the Arabic Josephus document is much more toned down about Jesus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The gospels are dated to between 20 and 40 years after Jesus death, except for John's gospel which was written late in the century.

Who dates them to those ranges?

65-80 Gospel of Mark
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-130 Gospel of Luke
90-120 Gospel of John

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[Brian2]

Who dates them to those ranges?

65-80 Gospel of Mark
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-130 Gospel of Luke
90-120 Gospel of John

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

The more conservative scholars.

 

[Brian2]

All of them but one wrote about Christians, not about Jesus himself.

And with Josephus, out of his two passages that mention Jesus:

- the remarkable one is a later forgery.
- the one that seems genuine doesn't make Jesus seem remarkable at all; Josephus describes him as "the so-called Christ."

So Josephus seems to suggest - though IMO not definitely - that Jesus was a real person, but not that he was a literal god-man.

Just who Jesus was is a matter of belief. Josephus was a Jew, and so "the so called Christ" is to be expected.

 

[firedragon]

More conservative scholars who rely on the internal and external evidence without assumptions that the destruction of the temple prophecy means they were written post 70 AD.

Earlier you said "The gospels are dated to between 20 and 40 years after Jesus death, except for John's gospel which was written late in the century."

So which scholars dated them in which date range? after 70 AD or between 20-40 years after Jesus? They are two different dates you had given.