In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today -- is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?
That is the claim made by a small but growing cadre of (published ) writers, bloggers and Internet junkies who call themselves mythicists. This unusually vociferous group of nay-sayers maintains that Jesus is a myth invented for nefarious (or altruistic) purposes by the early Christians who modeled their savior along the lines of pagan divine men who, it is alleged, were also born of a virgin on Dec. 25, who also did miracles, who also died as an atonement for sin and were then raised from the dead.
Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds -- thousands? -- of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.
Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?
The view, however, founders on its own premises. The reality -- sad or salutary -- is that Jesus was real. And that is the subject of my new book, "Did Jesus Exist?"
It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate.
It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line. But historians can never dismiss sources simply because they are biased. You may not trust Rush Limbaugh's views of Sandra Fluke, but he certainly provides evidence that she exists.
The question is not whether sources are biased but whether biased sources can be used to yield historically reliable information, once their biased chaff is separated from the historical kernel. And historians have devised ways of doing just that.
With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.
Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).
Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah. But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well that he was crucified. The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.
One may well choose to resonate with the concerns of our modern and post-modern cultural despisers of established religion (or not). But surely the best way to promote any such agenda is not to deny what virtually every sane historian on the planet -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, agnostic, atheist, what have you -- has come to conclude based on a range of compelling historical evidence.
Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.
Bart Ehrman is the author of 'Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth,' now available from HarperOne.
John Dominic Crossan: Why Did Jesus Go To Jerusalem? A Holy Week Reflection
Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jesus Many Faces - The Historical Jesus | From Jesus To Christ ...
Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? to be published in hardback ...
And even if concrete, provable evidence exists, the fanciful tales associated with him are pure buncombe. People do not rise up through the sky, unassisted, period. In my view, the best thing that ever happened to the New Testament was what Thomas Jefferson did to it.
And the backstory? God, Himself? Can't prove that one, at all, Mr. Ehrman.
Considering the multi-dimensional nature of words, symbols and the universe at large and even sometimes man, to maintain this false dichotomy of either Jesus exists or Jesus does not exist completely ignores what the contents actually mean.
It may be likened to a professional mechanic who knows how to rebuild gasoline enjoins however has never seen or driven a car.
Metta,
Ananda… http://twelve-limbs.blogspot.com/
That is because there is not truth to Christianity that can be damaged! There has been tons of evidence to disprove a lot of claims in the bible! Do your research! I will anti-pray for you to gain some reason!
"I was certain this would be a great book, the very best in its category. And I said this, publicly, many times in anticipation of it. It’s actually the worst. It’s almost as bad, in fact, as The Jesus Mysteries by Freke & Gandy (and I did not hyperlink that title because I absolutely do not want you to buy it: it will disease your mind with rampant unsourced falsehoods and completely miseducate you about the ancient world and ancient religion). I was eagerly hoping for a book I could recommend as the best case for historicity (but alas, that title stays with the inadequate but nevertheless competent, if not always correct, treatment in Van Voorst’s Jesus Outside the New Testament and Theissen & Merz’s The Historical Jesus). I was also expecting it to be a good go-to rebuttal to the plethora of bad mythicism out there, so I could just refer people to this book every time they ask me why (for example) Freke & Gandy suck[...]"
More, much, much more, here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026
Paul did NOT write about Jesus and knew nothing about him. The brother (James) was was also the name of the brother of Jesus of Damneus (the High Priest that Josephus writes about). Strange coincidence? or post-added?
Attis was ALSO a "crucified messiah", as was Horus and Mithras.
Bart Erhman is NOT a historian but achieved his PhD in THEOLOGY.
2. Oh, of course he did. He may not have known Jesus personally, but he certainly knew of Jesus as an historical person who was descended from David, had siblings, had human friends and followers, broke bread with said friends, and was executed - in addition to any theistic ideas he had as well. As for James, there's no reason to think that the two Jesus' there in Josephus (the only place a son of Damneus is mentioned) must be the same person. Jesus (technically Yeshua,)was the most common name in first century Palestine.
3. No, no, and no. If you can quote a specific pre-Christian source, or a citation about such a source (preferably one I can read in full), I'll reconsider. Even then, you'd still need to demonstrative a causal link between the two.
4. True, and to a certain extent, a valid criticism. However, theological/biblical studies overlaps a lot with historical study because of the nature of textual criticism in particular, and there's also the simple fact that Ehrman is but one voice amongst many others with degrees in history who agree with him.
http://www.atheistguidebook.org/kapyong/nomention.html
There is a couple of DOZEN writers who could have mentioned Jesus, but did NOT do so. It's easy to explain away ONE writer, but when DOZEN of writers from that period failed to do so, it brings Jesus' existence into doubt.
BTW -
I wrote that essay under the name of Kapyong.
'Kapyong' is a pseudonym for ME, Toby J Whiteman.
Toby
In your specific case of Philo, given we know remarkably little about Philo's own life (dating where exactly he was at any given time is basically impossible), it's hard to take his lack of attestation at all seriously as a threat to the existence of Jesus. His seeming obliviousness to Christianity in general is further evidence for this - no one disputes the existence of Christianity as a movement in the first century regardless of origins, and yet Philo makes no mention of it either. Either he was oblivious or for whatever he reason he did not commentate/record it himself. An argument from silence is just that - silence.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "
It most certainly CAN be, especially if :
* evidence is expected
* there are many examples of the lack
Which is exactly the case with Jesus -
* we would expect someone would write about him
* there are MANY examples of lack
Consider the claim that a UFO landed briefly on the white house lawn.
If we found NO mention of it in the news, no eye-witnesses, no physical evidence etc.
then the lack of evidence WOULD mean evidence of lack.
The MANY writers, including contemporaries DOES aregue strongly against a historical Jesus.
Toby
Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120 CE.
Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus,
Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies),
Plutarch wrote on moral issues,
Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues.
If Plutarch knew of Jesus or the Gospel events, it is highly likely he would have mentioned them.
Toby
Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic and satirical books and letters (and tragedies) in Rome.
Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings.
In fact,
early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they FORGED letters between him and Paul.
How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising VOID in Seneca's writings?
More evidence that Jese did not exist.
Toby
I mean, using Paul as a historical record? Paul invented Christianity. Of course he is making stuff up as he goes.
It really is amazing. Guys can just make up stuff. Write a book. And declare it Gospel. Happened back then. Happening even now.
Why were the Greek myths made up?
Why were the Egyptian myths made up?
Why was the Bhagavad Gita made up?
Why was the Book of Mormom made up ?
Seriously - history is full of myths that people believed.
Toby