Ask a Theologian IV

[Plotinus]

Have you read David Fitzgerald's book "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All"? What is your assessment on his research and the assertion that Jesus never existed based on his findings?

I've never heard of it, but on the basis of what you've said here I don't feel the need to evaluate his research in the same way that I don't feel the need to evaluate the findings of creation scientists, Moon landing deniers, and the Flat Earth Society.

 

[Ajidica]

Building off of Whiskey's question, what evidence do we have of Jesus' existence? I remember you saying that just about everyone agrees that Jesus existed, but what non-biblical sources do we have?

 

[Plotinus]

Not many, but the biblical sources are quite enough to make it beyond reasonable doubt that he existed. I've commented on this before, as here.

 

[Cutlass]

This is another vexed issue that I don't know much about. I think that preferred biblical translations generally reflect theological stances rather than denominations themselves. For example, evangelicals typically use the NIV, no matter what denomination they are. Fundamentalists typically use the AV, again no matter what denomination they are. More middle-of-the-road and liberal people are likely to use the NRSV. But then these things aren't set in stone - I went to a service at a very evangelical church last week and they were using the ESV rather than the NIV I would have expected.

I think that the NIV is a bad translation, for reasons I've given before, so I wouldn't encourage anyone to use it. I would say that if your aunt is a Christian then presumably she already has a Bible, and what you're thinking of getting her is a presentation-type Bible rather than an everyday reading sort of one, in which case the AV might make the most sense whatever translation she normally uses. But that's just a best guess. Otherwise I think the NRSV is a good all-purpose translation that no-one is likely to object to unless they have a weird dogmatic insistence upon another one, which is probably unlikely to be the case with your aunt.

Actually, I was thinking a large print bible, because she can barely read her current one with a lighted magnifying glass. She's near blind at this point.

 

[timtofly]

I've never heard of it, but on the basis of what you've said here I don't feel the need to evaluate his research in the same way that I don't feel the need to evaluate the findings of creation scientists, Moon landing deniers, and the Flat Earth Society.

There is a PDF online and it is pretty compelling. He does make some great points and it is not "out there" like your other examples. It is about a 90 page book and well written and precise.

 

[Plotinus]

There is a PDF online and it is pretty compelling. He does make some great points and it is not "out there" like your other examples. It is about a 90 page book and well written and precise.

What would you say are his best arguments, then?

 

[Moss]

Not sure if this has been asked before but have you found that studying theology has influenced your own views and morals? If so, in what way?

 

[timtofly]

What would you say are his best arguments, then?

To me: In (MYTH No. 3: Ancient historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus.); I had never heard that there were 3 Jesus' during that time frame. Some of what he said has already been mentioned by you and others in this forum.

He does a great job on casting doubt about historical, archeological, and even the travels that were described to Jesus.

It still is a catch 22 though. No one takes the word of eyewitness, so destroying the credibility of eye witnesses, seems a mute point to me. They are there to take or leave. If someone felt desperate enough to make fun of a person to take the Bible as literal, and God cannot keep error out, and later say eyewitness are rubbish any way, seems to say that God should not have used eyewitnesses to begin with.

Spoiler :

Eyewitnesses may or may not have been used. There may or may not be a God. The Bible may or may not be the biggest hoax in History. History itself has been tricked into being dedicated to before and after a CE. It is unfortunate that God used humans to record history intead of Just writing it into every one's brain like the 3 laws of robotics. One is free to choose what they want to believe and do not want to believe. If an agnostic is right, then no one has to worry. If a Christian is right, then only he has to worry. I think the biggest MYTH that historical "Christianity" did was drive home the idea that it should be "forced" on others. Jesus did come to fulfill the law. He did not come to establish it or pass it on. A True Jewish Messiah would have done just that. He would have established an earthly kingdom. My theory is that it was supposed to stay a "national" secret, yet go out and "influence" the world. As history seems to indicate, it did just the oposite.

 

[Masada]

Have you read David Fitzgerald's book "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All"? What is your assessment on his research and the assertion that Jesus never existed based on his findings?

A thorough review.

tl;dr: the book is bunk

 

[Perfection]

Is there any theological/philosophical concept that scares the crap out of you?

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

In Taoism, the Tao has a cosmic role not unlike the Logos in Greek philosophy - it is a principle that underlies the world and gives it order. So I suppose that logos in John 1 is sometimes translated as "Tao", or identified with the Tao, to make that point and that cultural connection. Of course this can be a dangerous thing to do, because there are also big differences between Logos and Tao, among which are the fact that Logos is something comprehensible and rational - indeed the source of all reason - whereas the Tao is meant to be incomprehensible. The Tao Te Ching starts with a statement of its unstateability.

When I first came across dao as a translation for logos, I thought it was nuts, for the reasons stated. On reflection, I came to realize it was a masterstroke. The translators didn't just use the words of John's Gospel: they used its method. The original author took a word that already carried a heavy metaphysical meaning, and subverted the narrative of Hellenistic philosophy; he begins in his readers' world but immediately challenges them to redefine a key part of their worldview. That is what the use of dao does for readers with a Chinese worldview.

It also gives wider Christian vocabulary a much more Chinese feel. For example, preaching is jiangdao: a speech about the Dao, the Way. To an English speaker, that almost feels like full circle back to the earliest days of Christianity (when it was known as the Way), though the connection would not be apparent in either Greek or Mandarin.

I think that the NIV is a bad translation, for reasons I've given before, so I wouldn't encourage anyone to use it.

Could you link please? I tried searching the forums, but drowned in countless text references.

For example, evangelicals typically use the NIV, no matter what denomination they are..... I went to a service at a very evangelical church last week and they were using the ESV rather than the NIV I would have expected.

I think those days are over. The ESV has had a big impact on the more conservative end of the market. The 1978 NIV is being replaced this year by a less conservative revision. So it seems very likely there will be divergence over the next few years.

So both conservative evangelicals and liberals will be using revisions of the old RSV.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

A thorough review.

tl;dr: the book is bunk

Wasn't he the same guy who wrote that review trashing the historical accuracy of the movie Agora?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Wasn't he the same guy who wrote that review trashing the historical accuracy of the movie Agora?

Yes.

What are the viewpoints of Authoritative Modern Scholarship on Jesus' primary message - was he mainly an eschatological prophet or a morality teacher?

 

[Plotinus]

Not sure if this has been asked before but have you found that studying theology has influenced your own views and morals? If so, in what way?

Not on morality, but I'm sure that studying philosophy has, since it helps to consider the rational justifications for what we believe. Certainly studying theology has been useful in shaping my views on religion, particularly on its truth value, but again I think philosophy has been useful with that. I'd say it's harder to believe in the truth of Christianity once you understand how Christianity developed and how its doctrines developed, as it seems that one can explain the fact that people believe these things quite adequately without having to suppose that they are true.

To me: In (MYTH No. 3: Ancient historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus.); I had never heard that there were 3 Jesus' during that time frame. Some of what he said has already been mentioned by you and others in this forum.

There were lots of Jesuses at the time - it was a very common name. (It's the same as Joshua.) Even the Gospels mention other Jesuses (Jesus Barabbas). Josephus tells us about various Jesuses.

It still is a catch 22 though. No one takes the word of eyewitness, so destroying the credibility of eye witnesses, seems a mute point to me. They are there to take or leave. If someone felt desperate enough to make fun of a person to take the Bible as literal, and God cannot keep error out, and later say eyewitness are rubbish any way, seems to say that God should not have used eyewitnesses to begin with.

I don't really see the point here: most secular scholars do not believe that there are any eyewitness accounts of Jesus, but they still believe Jesus existed. They also don't think that the Bible is errant. So an argument that the Bible is inerrant or does not contain eyewitness accounts, while laudable in combating fundamentalism, isn't going to have much success in undermining the belief that Jesus existed.

Spoiler :

Eyewitnesses may or may not have been used. There may or may not be a God. The Bible may or may not be the biggest hoax in History. History itself has been tricked into being dedicated to before and after a CE. It is unfortunate that God used humans to record history intead of Just writing it into every one's brain like the 3 laws of robotics. One is free to choose what they want to believe and do not want to believe. If an agnostic is right, then no one has to worry. If a Christian is right, then only he has to worry. I think the biggest MYTH that historical "Christianity" did was drive home the idea that it should be "forced" on others. Jesus did come to fulfill the law. He did not come to establish it or pass it on. A True Jewish Messiah would have done just that. He would have established an earthly kingdom. My theory is that it was supposed to stay a "national" secret, yet go out and "influence" the world. As history seems to indicate, it did just the oposite.

Is this a quote from the book? Because it doesn't seem very coherent to me. Is the argument anything other than "If Jesus were really the Messiah he would have acted differently"? Because that doesn't prove anything, except possibly that he wasn't the Messiah.

A thorough review.

tl;dr: the book is bunk

That's a very good article. I think the summary of the "Jesus didn't exist" movement is interesting and insightful. The reference to Acharya S is interesting - she is someone who writes in an impressively scholarly style, but once you engage with her and probe the arguments - as I have myself on a couple of occasions - she quickly reveals herself to be just a conspiracy theorist, without any real rigour.

The brief history of the view that Jesus didn't exist, and its relation to mainstream scholarship, is quite correct too.

Without having read the Fitzgerald book (and now I see it's self-published, so it's hardly surprising I hadn't heard of it), it sounds to me from this review that it's really not worth bothering with. And I think I can say that purely on the basis of the passages of the book that the review reproduces, without taking into account the reviewer's comments on them - which are exactly correct.

Is there any theological/philosophical concept that scares the crap out of you?

I can't think of any.

Could you link please? I tried searching the forums, but drowned in countless text references.

Actually I can't find the links either. I will try to track them down, since I remember writing a fairly long piece about this, the details of which I can't recall.

I think those days are over. The ESV has had a big impact on the more conservative end of the market. The 1978 NIV is being replaced this year by a less conservative revision. So it seems very likely there will be divergence over the next few years.

So both conservative evangelicals and liberals will be using revisions of the old RSV.

That's interesting, and a positive development.

What are the viewpoints of Authoritative Modern Scholarship on Jesus' primary message - was he mainly an eschatological prophet or a morality teacher?

I don't think there is a commonly accepted viewpoint on that. Each view would have its proponents, as would the view that he was mainly a miracle worker. I suspect that it may be something of a mistake to distinguish between these categories and try to work out which one Jesus was mainly. It's based on the assumption that Jesus did fit neatly into categories. Whereas it might seem reasonable to suppose that he was highly unusual, given that he spawned an enormous religion after his death and none of the other Galilean preachers, prophets, or miracle workers did. Indeed Jesus seems to have been very unusual in being widely known for doing all three of these things, whereas others seem to have been almost exclusively one or the other.

 

[Gigaz]

Not many, but the biblical sources are quite enough to make it beyond reasonable doubt that he existed. I've commented on this before, as here.

Do you think that there might have been two Jesuses who lived roughly at the same time in Israel - One who was a prophet and one who was crucified for a crime and then rose from the dead? Both were remembered and the two stories merged when all the witnesses were dead. Is that plausible with the historical data?

 

[_random_]

That's interesting, and a positive development.

That seems to be what I've noticed too. The ESV is very popular among the various evangelicals I know. What do you think of the ESV as a translation?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Do you think that there might have been two Jesuses who lived roughly at the same time in Israel - One who was a prophet and one who was crucified for a crime and then rose from the dead? Both were remembered and the two stories merged when all the witnesses were dead. Is that plausible with the historical data?

Well, there is no historical evidence for anyone truly rising from the dead, so probably not.

 

[timtofly]

Well, there is no historical evidence for anyone truly rising from the dead, so probably not.

Scientist and journalist really had it rough that first century?

 

[Gigaz]

Well, there is no historical evidence for anyone truly rising from the dead, so probably not.

Well, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_animation is surely close enough.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Scientist and journalist really had it rough that first century?

Well, if such things had existed.

Well, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_animation is surely close enough.

If that is what you meant, and you were asking whether such a thing happened to someone named Jesus in 1st Century Palestine, sure.