Jesus was a Historical Figure

Bart Ehrman (Skeptical Scholar) on Jesus' Existence

In this thread I will argue that belief in Jesus' existence as a historical figure is warranted based on the information we have. Note that this debate is a separate debate from the existence of God, the resurrection, and the nature of Jesus, so please don't comment on those in this thread. Other than that, all I ask is that all keep a respectful attitude and if I make any grammar/spelling mistakes in the OP to please let me know. Now on to arguments.

References to Jesus in 1st to 3rd century secular, Jewish, and Pagan history:

Some of the strongest evidence for Jesus (IMHO) comes from the references to him by Jewish, Pagan, and secular historians from the first to third centuries.

While some may find it ridiculous that these are considered authoritative even though none of the historians were contemporaries to Jesus, consider the following:

1) If you reject what these historians say about Jesus because they were "too late", you should reject everything else they say too. Within that context, historians reported facts centuries after they happened and are still considered authoritative on the issue both by professional scholars of their work in the present day and their audience at the time.
2) You should also be willing to reject the existence of multiple other historical figures if you reject the evidence for Jesus from these historians because it was "too late". Examples include Hammurabi, Zoroaster, and Emperor Tiberius.
3) Multiple eyewitnesses were still alive for some (most?) of them to interview and gather information from. We also don't know how long they were working on the text before its known publication date. Some of the work on these texts took place over decades.

Now, let's move on to specific examples:

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, c.93 AD

Now, most Scholars agree that this is a partial interpolation, and there are various "restorations" out there. For the most part, all legitimate scholars do agree that Josephus referred to Jesus as a historical figure in this passage. Other objections I will deal with as they come.

Also of note is a shorter passage which refers to Jesus as the "Brother of James":

There are no real objections to this passages' authenticity I've seen.

Tacitus, Annals, c.115 AD

Objections will be addressed as they come.

Mara Bar Serapion, 200 AD or earlier

There are additional, more minor/later references to Jesus, including Suetonius, the Talmud, and Pliny the Younger (who many consider a major reference). These were not significant enough (again, IMHO) for me to list here, but feel free to bring them up.

Textual evidence for a historical Jesus in the Gospels (or, the Criteria of Authenticity)

Various criteria have been listed as reasons to trust some or all of the Gospels on Jesus' existence. I will not focus on specific issues these can (or have) prove or disprove, but I may list examples which give us reason to believe the Jesus in the Gospels is at least a real person who they exaggerated, if not who they accurately reported the life of. Below I will list some criteria and what they mean, and possibly some examples:

1. The Criterion of Embarrassment. The gist of this criterion is that if an act of Jesus in the Gospels is unflattering to him, there is more reason to believe it is authentic. Examples of this include Jesus' death, at least one case of Jesus healing somebody over 2 phases, Jesus appealing to John the Baptist during his Baptism, and Jesus' appeal to minorities.
2. The Criterion of Multiple Attestation. This one's pretty simple. The idea is something which is attested by more independent sources is more likely to be true. Since all the Gospels attest to Jesus as real from at least 2 sources, there is little else relevant in terms of examples.
3. The Criterion of Dissimilarity.The idea behind this one is that the farther something Jesus says is from his sociological context, the more likely it is to be authentic. I haven't really looked into this one so I don't have much on me in terms of examples, but I'm sure they exist.
4. The Criterion of Martyrs. This is similar to 1 and 3. According to this criterion, the more likely a teaching or act of Jesus' was to get early Christians prosecuted, the more likely it is to be authentic. Since admitting belief in any of Jesus' miracles as well as the concept of him as the Son of God could get one killed in various ways for various crimes, large portions of all of the Gospels are to be trusted under this criterion.

Was Jesus a rip-off?

Finally, I'd like to address the claim that Jesus was fabricated based on various Pagan heroes and Gods. While I don't have time to defuse any examples (but will if they are brought up), I would like to list some basic criteria any legitimate example SHOULD meet

1) Did the character come before Jesus?
2) Can you give a geographical explanation for a bunch of first-century Jews finding out about this hero/God?
3) Did this hero/god actually come down to earth in a physical, human form?
4) Did this character perform miracles, at least one of which (besides resurrection and virgin birth) matches Jesus?
5) Did this character claim to be (a) God?
6) Did this character offer revolutionary moral teachings?
7) Did this character actually die?
8) If the answer to 7 is yes, was this character *resuscitated* or resurrected?
9) Can you gather all of above answers from primary sources, which have been proven (either textually or paleographically) to date to before the time of Jesus?

If you can answer "yes" to all nine questions, then lay it on me!

As you might be able to guess, further objections to Jesus' historicity will be addressed as they come.

Conclusion

Based on the above evidence, and absence of any legitimate objection to Jesus' historicity, I believe it is safe to conclude that Jesus existed. Questions such as "did the miracles happen", "are the Gospels reliable", and "who was Jesus" are beyond the scope, possibly I will create/comment on another thread about them. I welcome anybody to refute my conclusion and evidence.

 

Jesus clearly existed; that has never been in doubt at any type of high level. He is also a historical figure, as he is relevant to the history of our planet. Believing any of the "miracles" rumored about him is illogical, as there is no basis for proof.

 

Personally, I don't believe it matters unless you're trying to do something as far as finding a religion, etc. And at this current stage in life, I don't believe religion is a strong factor that I need, but I believe he was a person, and I disbelieve most of these so-called "Miracles".

 

The only basis of proof for the existence of Jesus is the same source that claims he performed miracles.

 

No, using the Historical Method, numerous claims/writings of the existence of Jesus have been made, even by the people that hated him. Historians have concluded that a man named Jesus exist, whether he performed the miracles that the bible entails is a different matter where evidence has not been garnered.

 

The problem with these "historical" accounts was the fact that they were written years after his death. None of them witnessed "Jesus" and are relying on second hand accounts. Some of the accounts on Jesus contradict each other.

He might of been a real person but we don't really know based on the surviving historical accounts. That is why you are trying to argue for his existence to begin with. We have no physical evidence Jesus has ever existed either.

We don't use second hand accounts in a court of law. Why do you think that is?

 

Read what malak said.

 

Read what Terran said.

Even the gospels were written after Jesus' death and resurrection.

 

Yeah, I'm a devout Catholic and I have to admit that Jesus doing his miracles doesn't follow from him being real. Obviously it builds on that, but it doesn't follow from it.

If you are referring to the Gospels, then I disagree but that is beyond the scope (feel free to create a separate discussion, which I'll gladly discuss my views on). If you are referring to the secular references, then I point out numerous flaws in that objection before I list them in the OP.

Do you reject the accounts of Josephus, Tacitus, Mara, and Pliny? Did you consider my defenses above? Can you list your problems with my defenses?

I argue for his existence "to begin with" because multiple fringe scholars and hack apologists advocate, incorrectly, that he didn't exist, and many atheists (and some Christians) accept it all in spite of the evidence that he did. Saying the Christ Myth is a valid hypothesis because people are trying to refute it is like saying ID is a valid science because it contradicts the mainstream, proven science of evolution.

Physical evidence is unnecessary. The idea that physical evidence is the only form of evidence that can give us certitude is a modern idea, and non-applicable to Jesus' case.

Because we're in an age where it's easy to produce a first-hand account. Back then, there were few ways of getting primary information, and less still ways of getting it down.

The issue of the Gospels as a firsthand account is beyond the scope, but if you wish to get into that, don't hesitate to create another thread or PM me.

 

I have very little doubt that the gospel stories are loosely based upon the preachings of a deluded, messianic, first-century Jewish rabbi; however, the mythical elements of these stories do not have any basis in this man's actual life and are based upon earlier myths and legends. Because the character of Jesus Christ has become so mytholigized, I think it would be a betrayal of terms to call this figure historical. The Jesus Christ of the gospels has more in common with the gods of Mystery cults than he does with any historical person.

 

It's funny because I was thinking about this the other day, I'd just like to clarify I am in no way Christian.

However, as Malak has pointed out - historians do agree that there was a Jesus. Was he crazy or the son of god? No, I don't believe so. I think he was simply a man who realized that there were problems with society at that time and he saw a possible way to remedy this. What better way to convince your followers that you're speaking the truth, than dying for your spoken word?

I think he was a very intelligent man that addressed a problem, who has helped the world in some ways and has inevitably also led to some problems (but only through the human interpretation of his word).

 

Regardless of how authoritative the Gospels are (and how many different naturalistic hypotheses you combine into one worldview), the majority of the historical evidence is that Jesus still existed. Even if you only believe the Gospels are loosely based on the figure, there is still a ton of evidence for his existence from secular sources, and those secular sources can tell us key things about Jesus. I guess what I'm objecting to is your idea that even if he existed Jesus somehow doesn't deserve the title "historical" because the Gospel accounts are (according to your view) so wildly distorted. I think we get enough evidence and information to warrant the title from the secular references.

As for your mystery cult idea, can you list a figure which meets my above criteria?

 

In My opinion, Jesus was a kind of "Mao Zedong" A leader who can make people do his will and so on, but is revered to the point that stories are invented around him, and people forget his faults.

In fact, I read somewhere that Jesus never claimed to be the son of god, but after he died, his followers began Christianity.

 

Jesus the rabbi, I'm sure. Not Jesus the Christ.

Like what? If we look at the sources you provide, the only thing we can learn (ignoring the forged passage of Josephus) is that there was a preacher named Jesus who was called King of the Jews and executed.

With the possible exception of Josephus' reference to James, the only thing these outside sources tell us is what the Christians of the time believed. For example, Macrobius, a pagan writer in the 4-5th century Roman Empire, reported on the massacre of the innocents as if it were a historical event; nonetheless, we know today that this massacre almost certainly did not take place. The fact that non-Christian sources referred to the Christians and there teachings does not provide compelling evidence of the truth of these claims.

Sure. Dionysus, for example, was a pre-Christian god who would have been known to the Hellenized Jews of Palestine. He was said to be the son of Zeus and Semele; he was variously called a law-giver and, after being ripped apart by the Titans, he was resurrected.

 

too many religions had a Son of the god, born on the 25th of december,

born to a virgin.. religion is all bullshit, come at me if you disagree

 

Jesus wasn't born on Dec. 25th.

 

Jesus existed, and had a cult following. This much is fact, even within circles of atheist historians.

whether or not he was more than human although, is obviously debatable.

EDIT: The whole reason why The birth of Christ is celebrated on Dec 25th is because Dec 25th was the date of a major Roman Pagan holiday, they just replaced the Pagan holiday with a Christian one to make things easier for schedules. Not because he was actually born then.

 

Well, regardless of *who* you regard Jesus as (which, as I mentioned above, I don't want to get into on this thread, but feel free to dialogue in another thread or through PM's), the majority of evidence suggests a single, revolutionary man named Jesus existed in a similar period of time to the one of the Gospels.

Like that he made revolutionary moral teachings, was crucified, had a cult following, that that cult was still alive in the late 2nd century and actively persecuted, and was called the Christ.

Josephus isn't "forged". At very worst, it is mostly interpolated, but even then we see a useful reference to Jesus' historicity.

And even this is enough to refute your claim that we don't know enough about Jesus to denote the title "historical" on him. There are plenty of characters - some even in modern history - that we know far less of than Jesus AND who have much smaller implications but are still gladly called "historical" by honest historians.

I'm willing to grant that is the case with Pliny (who, as I mention in the OP, I differ from scholars on in that I consider him a minor reference), but Mara and Tacitus clearly refer to it as a historical event, more than simply reporting what Christians believe. What convinces you they were merely reporting the beliefs of Christianity? Because they HAPPEN to correlate with Christian doctrine? Why is that more probable than it simply being a case of multiple attestation?

And I didn't list Macrobius. If you didn't notice, my cutoff for credibility was the late 3rd century (which is granting YOU a lot more wiggle room than most apologists would), and even then I don't cite any authors from the time. If you want to debate the Massacre of the Infants' historicity and its implications, start a separate thread or PM me. I already made clear this thread was for Jesus' existence ONLY. Macrobius is simply too late to give any comparison to the other writers.

Again, you haven't given any reason to believe that they were either reporting it AS what they believed or were not simply a case of multiple attestation.

But, his story was also constantly being changed, well past the time of Christianity.

Works for me. *shrug*

Ah, but were his laws revolutionary?

And how on EARTH did a bunch of Palestinian Jews get their God being crucified by the social high class from that? Yes, that IS a pre-Christian idea, but as multiple scholars point out, there is no reason to believe Jesus was influenced by that.

How was he "resurrected"? Did he merely come back to life, or was he raised in a supernatural, enhanced, but still bodily state?

 

As I've said before, I'm willing to grant you that a deluded rabbi of the name Jesus lived in the 1st century AD. I don't say that there was no historical Jesus, nor do I say that we know to little about him to draw any conclusions; rather, I've made the claim that this historical character has become mythologized beyond the point of recognition. As for Macrobius, I was giving an example of how an event which never took place could come to be regarded as historical and reported as such by secular sources.

Whether Dionysus' specific attributes exactly mirror those of Christ is completely immaterial; the fact is, the legendary and heroic parts of Jesus' story–the virgin birth, sonship of a god, persecution as an infant, performance of miracles, resurrection, descent to the underworld, ascension, and place as a divine judge–are entirely unoriginal.

 

I doubt any second hand accounts. They did not witness Jesus for themselves. We don't have second hand accounts in a court of law for a reason.

Scholars have a reason to advocate for his non existence because the evidence is not reliable to begin with. Saying he existing based off of second hand accounts and gospels is just ridiculous. It is a nice fictional story to read though.

Physical evidence is not necessary but it would certainly strengthen your case. If a piece of carpentry crafted by Jesus was known to exist and documented you wouldn't have to argue your case based off of secondary accounts.

We don't use second hand accounts in a court of law because the person is NOT a witness.

Jesus could of existed (book burning and cities being destroyed was a prevalent thing in the past) but the evidence is just not enough to be convincing.