Contrary to some circles on the Internet, very few scholars doubt that Jesus existed, preached and led a movement. Scholars' confidence has nothing to do with theology but much to do with historiographic common sense. What movement would make up a recent leader, executed by a Roman governor for treason, and then declare, "We're his followers"? If they wanted to commit suicide, there were simpler ways to do it.
One popular objection is that only Christians wrote anything about Jesus. This objection is neither entirely true nor does it reckon with the nature of ancient sources. It usually comes from people who have not worked much with ancient history. Only a small proportion of information from antiquity survives, yet it is often sufficient.
We recognize that most people write only about what they care about. The only substantive early works about Socrates derive from his followers. The Dead Sea Scrolls extol their community's founder, but no other reports of him survive. The Jewish historian Josephus claims to be a Pharisee, yet never mentions Hillel, who is famous in Pharisees' traditions. Israeli scholar David Flusser correctly observes that it is usually followers who preserve what is most meaningful about their teachers, whether the leaders were Buddha, Muhammad, Mormon leader Joseph Smith or African prophet Simon Kimbangu.
Interestingly, however, once ancient writers had reasons to care about Jesus, they did mention him.
Josephus, the only extant first-century historian focused on Judea, mentions both Jesus and John the Baptist as major prophetic figures, as well as subsequently noting Jesus' brother, James. Later scribes added to the Jesus passage, but the majority of specialists agree on the basic substance of the original, a substance now confirmed by a manuscript that apparently reflects the pre-tampering reading. Josephus describes Jesus as a sage and worker of wonders, and notes that the Roman governor Pilate had him crucified. On the cause of crucifixion Josephus remains discreet, but mass leaders were often executed for sedition -- especially for being potential kings. Perhaps not coincidentally, Jesus' followers also insisted, even after his death, that he was a king. Josephus was not a Christian and does not elaborate, but his summary matches other sources.
Writing even earlier than Josephus, Syrian philosopher Mara bar Sarapion claimed that Jesus was a wise Jewish king. Tacitus later reports on events from 31-34 years after Jesus' ministry, associating Roman Christians with him and noting that he was executed under Pontius Pilate. These and other sources provide only snippets, but they address what these sources cared about. By comparison, Tacitus mentions only in passing a Jewish king on whom Josephus focused (Agrippa I); nor was Tacitus interested even in Judea's Roman governors. Tacitus's mention of Pilate in connection with Jesus' crucifixion is Roman literature's only mention of Pilate (though Pilate appears in Josephus and an inscription).
From Jesus' followers, who were interested, we naturally learn much more. Fifteen to 30 years after Jesus' ministry, Paul wrote much about Jesus, including an encounter that Paul believed he had with the risen Jesus probably within a few years of Jesus' execution. Rightly or wrongly, Paul staked the rest of his life on this experience. Other early Christians also preserved information; some 30-40 years after Jesus' ministry, Mark's Gospel circulated. Luke reports that "many" had already written accounts by the time Luke writes. Luke shares with Matthew some common material that most scholars think is even earlier than Mark. Only a small minority of figures in antiquity had surviving works written about them so soon after their deaths.
What can the first-century Gospels tell us? Certainly at the least they indicate that Jesus was a historical figure. Myths and even legends normally involved characters placed centuries in the distant past. People wrote novels, but not novels claiming that a fictitious character actually lived a generation or two before they wrote. Ancient readers would most likely approach the Gospels as biographies, as a majority of scholars today suggest. Biographies of recent figures were not only about real figures, but they typically preserved much information. One can demonstrate this preservation by simply comparing the works of biographers and historians about then-recent figures, say Tacitus and Suetonius writing about Otho.
What was true of biographies in general could be even more true of biographies about sages. Members of sages' schools in this period typically preserved their masters' teachings, which became foundational for their communities. Memorization and passing on teachings were central. Oral societies were much better at this than most of us in the West today imagine; indeed, even illiterate bards could often recite all of Homer from heart. None of this means that the Gospels preserve Jesus' teaching verbatim, but by normal standards for ancient history, we should assume that at the least many key themes (e.g., God's "kingdom") were preserved. Indeed, many of the eyewitnesses (such as Peter) remained in key leadership positions in the movement's earliest decades.
One significant feature of these first-century Gospels is the amount of material in them that fits a first-century Galilean setting. That setting differs from the Gospel writers' own setting. The Gospel writers updated language to apply it to their own audiences, but they also preserved a vast amount of information. This is merely a sample; specialists devote their lives to the details.
Yet, valuable as examining such historical evidence is, we must return to where we started. Logically, why would Jesus' followers make up a Jesus to live and die for? Why not glorify real founders (as movements normally did)? Why make up a leader and have him executed on a Roman cross? To follow one executed for treason was itself treason. To follow a crucified leader was to court persecution. Some people do give their lives for their beliefs, but for beliefs, not normally for what they know to be fabricated. Jesus' first movement would not have made up his execution or his existence. How much they actually remembered about him is a subject for a future post.
Byron Williams: Constantine Christianity or the Teachings of Jesus?
The dozens of parallels between Jesus and other agricultural gods of that time and place (such as Horus, Tammuz, and Mithra) suggest this is Just Another Agricultural God. For example, Tammuz, a dying-and-reborn god of grain, was embodied in bread, the immanent manifestation of the deity on earth. Bread--combining grain and yeast--was real magic. We know that the God is always born at bakeries, "houses of bread," because they were sacred, too. Bakeries served an area and there were many of them. So they'd always expect that the God would be born at this sacred place where bread was made. But you wouldn't say "house of bread" then; that's English. The way you'd say it is "Beth-le-hem." (For a Biblical scholar, you'd think this guy could at least speak Hebrew....)
Another parallel to previous religions is the Holy Spirit being female. The Latin, Greek, and Hebrew all use a feminine ending for what is commonly translated as the (sexless) Holy Spirit. So you have a Divine Father and a Divine Mother conjoining to create the Divine Son, who then dies and becomes the Divine Father again. A very popular image in agricultural religions of the area and in many places since. And it's still a Divine Mystery.
He is clearly writing to groups propagating the spiritual-mystic esoteric philosophy of the greek systemn of that culture in which he had been reared . His terms, as has often been noted, are those that were current coin in the Egypto-Hellenic Mysteries. his Lord Jesus Christ, even when he says"this Jesus whom we have seen" is not a man of flesh, but a divine radiation of light in consciousness. For Paul had never seen any physical Galilean Christ Jesus, but only the flashing light of an inner mystical illumination. You must not amend the so called Gospels totally beyond recognition. The names by which the "brethren" were designated by those who held them in contempt and derision was the Ebionites. From any Encyclopedia one can learn that these were a sect of Jewish Christians who were close to the original band of Palestinian Christians all were described as hostile to Paul by none other than Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Tertullian. Explain this to me please without any mumbo jumbo. thank you
This is patently false. There are many respected historians who think that he probably did actually exist and there are many who think that he was more than likely a fictional character who was based on earlier messiah myths. The fact of the matter is that there is definitely not even evidence to "prove" that he existed. Personally, I am agnostic about the historicity of Jesus although I am about as sure as anyone can be that he didn't perform any miracles. I have never been presented with even a remotely plausible reason to believe that the natural order of things can be suspended in such manners.
Now, on to the question of whether "many" or "few" historians or other scholars express doubts about the historical Jesus -- how many are "many" ? Maybe you know of some I'm not yet aware of. My impression is that, generally speaking, academics tend to defer to the opinions of specialists, and that among the specialists on Jesus, Christian theologians and Biblical scholars, there is still unfortunately a very strong Christian influence, a very strong party line, the line represented here by Keener, which says that Jesus existed, that's that, and if you doubt it you're labeled either as ignorant or kinda kooky or both. Merely wanting to discuss the matter as if there were any doubt at all is enough to make you a pariah in some academic circles. Some academics still express doubts, but they get grief for it. And some of the leading mythicists do not have jobs in academia.
As to this:
"The fact of the matter is that there is definitely not even evidence to 'prove' that he existed."
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a subjective matter, not a matter of fact.
The unimportance of whether or not Jesus existed is important enough to an amazing number of people for them to take the time to mention it.
"Even if jesus did exist as some deluded rabbi, this existence speaks nothing to the divine nature of the claims that are made by his followers."
The article by Dr Keener also does not address anything supernatural. Although he sometimes writes on theological subjects, this particular article has a strictly historical orientation.
I started to participate in debates over whether or not Jesus existed only a couple of years ago. I had been raised a Protestant, became an atheist in the 1970's, before I was full grown, and although since then I have studied history with great interest, I tended to avoid Jesus as an historical subject.
That changed in part because so many people discuss whether or not Jesus existed. Discussions on this topic can be struck up all over the place. I'd rather talk about Livy or Charlemagne but it's hard to find people interested in one of them.
And it seems to me that Keener, and Bart Ehrman, and others, are interested primarily in stopping a debate over whether or not Jesus existed. Otherwise they'd take the trouble more often to mention the names of the non-kooky academics who aren't entirely sure. More: http://thewrongmonkey.blogspot.com/2012/07/they-come-in-huge-throngs-to-tell-us.html
Unlike Asian faiths its not philosophical ...its a fragle house of glass.
Its phony and false
e.g. "There is no evidence that the popes wrote or substantially changed these documents."
I see tom, then to what purpose calling together the councils of Nicea and Rome?
I suggest you Google "The decree of pope Saint Damasus I"...and "Council of Rome Bible"
You are severely programmed boy. Christians always have two or three alternate stories with which to confront TRUTH and Facts.
Denial is NOT a river in Egypt.
I certainly would not make the claim that he never lived. I'd just like to see some credible documentation that he did.
Anytime you run across one, don't hesitate to YANK THAT CHAIN...this is the right of all thinking, reasonable people.
On the other hand Noah and the Ark did not happen as it is described in the Bible. There is no way it is any more than a story. There isn't enough water to cover the earth. The middle of the earth isn't made of water, The heavens aren't a hard shell that can be opened so water can pour down. The wooden box is not big enough to hold 2 of each kind of animal (or 14 of each) plus food for them for a year. You can do the math.
It is fascinating to learn about similar stories in the mythology of other cultures and times.
Oh, and as the story goes, it was 40 days and nights, not a year. I also find good Biblical scholarship fascinating. No math required.
There is more than one question.
"[,,,] but, 'Who was Jesus?'"
If we determine that Jesus did not exist, then we have answered your question. The answer it that case would be: A legend, a fictional character.
TheWM states there is more documentation for establishing Julius Caesar, but fails to mention that nearly all—if not all—of the earliest texts available now were written many hundreds of years after Caesar. Regarding the New Testament, however, there are hundreds of manuscripts, or portions of them, available now about which there is no dispute that they were written within 150 years of Jesus’ life—some within a century. And early texts within a few hundred years that have been preserved to this day number in the thousands. The comments of JazzGuitar72, like TheWM’s, are not in line with the facts.
As for owlafaye’s remark, it only underscores what is really going on here—the seared consciences of unbelievers reject obvious truth: that ultimately they will all face God in judgment of their sins, that the only Mediator who can spare them that judgment is the Lord Jesus Christ, and that all who turn to God in genuine repentance, and have faith in and trust Jesus for forgiveness of sins will have eternal life. It is only a fierce determination to hold on dearly to their beloved sins that prevents them from seeing the Truth. Thus, the atheists’ disconnect. I pray God is gracious toward them, and grants them repentance and faith.
Actual scholars question everything about the existence or not of Jesus. They do not start with the conclusion that Jesus must have existed and must have been divine the way seminarians do.