Did Jesus (the man) actually exist?

[Eran of Arcadia]

No, my point is that although we cannot (from a historical point of view) attribute to Jesus all the things said abnout him 15 years after his death, the fact that such claims exist at all really do tend to confirm his existence. As for the example: if we didn't have Dianetics, or any offical record of L. Ron Hubbard's life (and lived in a society where such wasn't unusual), but we did have the writings of Scientologists 15 years later that spoke of him, that would would be evidence (if not conclusive, then not to be discounted merely for being religious) of his existence.

Or are we to say that no one from that time who left no writings existed?

 

[shadow2k]

No, my point is that although we cannot (from a historical point of view) attribute to Jesus all the things said abnout him 15 years after his death, the fact that such claims exist at all really do tend to confirm his existence. As for the example: if we didn't have Dianetics, or any offical record of L. Ron Hubbard's life (and lived in a society where such wasn't unusual), but we did have the writings of Scientologists 15 years later that spoke of him, that would would be evidence (if not conclusive, then not to be discounted merely for being religious) of his existence.

Or are we to say that no one from that time who left no writings existed?

If a scientologist told me of a conversation with Hubbard that they had...15yrs after Hubbards allegedly lived? If that were to be the first source of proof, and only source for another 25yrs, I'd seriously have to question whether he lived...and the sanity of the man who was telling me the tale.

Sure, lots of peope existed for who we have no evidence for. But we're talking about one specific person, and whether there is proof for him. Apparently religious texts are all we have for people who lived in the time of Jesus. So at that point, I'd scrutinize whether they are a credible historical account of this man having existed.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But bear in mind that Paul's epistles don't just mention Jesus, but the entire following that grew from his preaching. I mean, here there was a whole church devoted to someone, and although a lot can be added to embellish someone's life in 15 years, I have trouble believing that they made him up entirely that quickly, when they could have done most of what they wanted to accomplish with real people. There were a heck of a lot of people who seemed to think he existed. And the epistles of Peter mention that he knew Jesus - Peter would be the best source as he did claim to be Jesus' closest follower. Just because Peter held some unverifiable religious beliefs doesn't mean that everything he said was wrong.

 

[Sidhe]

I study in litterature and one fact I can tell you is that "writing" in those days was not common... and there's reason why people asume that he lived... it's because all (or almost) the big texts that come from those ancients era are oraly transmited before an erudite write the story down because it has become so popular. The fact that people like Paul wrote down actual letters (or they seem to be called like that) is a good indication that there was something there...

I can't agree with the assertion of widespread illiteracy here.

The dead sea scrolls tend to deny your notion about the texts not being written down too.(see link below)

My RE teacher asserted that literacy in Judea was surprisingly common and it is thought that remained with me for years, this thread is an interesting read about how writing was not merely the preserve of Elites but also the preserve of the common man in some case in writing as well as reading too, some commoners could even write in several languages.

http://www.basarchive.org/sample/bswbBrowse.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=29&Issue=4&ArticleID=4

The credentials of the author:-

Alan Millard
Alan Millard is professor of Hebrew and ancient Semitic languages at the University of Liverpool. He co-edited the Dictionary of the Ancient Near East and is the author of two popular books, Treasures from Bible Times and Discoveries from the Time of Jesus (Lion, 1985 and 1990). Among scholars, he is known for having co-published the text of the Atrahasis myth, a Babylonian flood account.

Let us turn from religion and governmental inscriptions to more personal ones. In first-century A.D. Jerusalem it was customary to leave the body of a deceased relative in the family cave tomb for a year, then collect the bones and put them into a box, or ossuary (now a familiar term, following the publication in this magazine of the ossuary inscribed “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus&#8221.c Some ossuaries were wooden and have decayed, but many were made of stone and survive. On stone ossuaries the names of the dead were often scratched with something pointed, perhaps a nail, or they were scribbled in charcoal. The way the names are written makes it clear these notices were, for the most part, not the work of professional scribes, but of family members wishing to identify their relatives for posterity.
These ossuary inscriptions, especially the so-called graffiti inscriptions that were scrawled by non-professionals, testify to a higher level of literacy in Jesus’ Israel than is sometimes supposed. Even those people who had difficulty writing plainly and clearly knew how to read and were prepared to make a stab at writing, even on something as important as the ossuary of a family member.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Literacy itself may have been somewhat common, but writing comprehensive histories of the minor figures of an area probably wasn't so much. And given that I don't think we have the diaries and journals and musings of the average people in great detail, it is not surprising that we don't have any that mention Jesus specifically.

 

[Sidhe]

Literacy itself may have been somewhat common, but writing comprehensive histories of the minor figures of an area probably wasn't so much. And given that I don't think we have the diaries and journals and musings of the average people in great detail, it is not surprising that we don't have any that mention Jesus specifically.

I agree, maybe I missed something of the context, didn't read a ways back, but I figured he was trying to assert that lieracy was rare.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I said that literacy was rare; I appear to be mistaken (especially as the Gospels imply that many were literate) but even so it was a society that relied less on writing than ours does.

 

[Azash]

He lived, he came up with stuff, he got nasty looks and was executed, nutty people thought he was divine. End of IMHO.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Nutty people thought he was divine. End of IMHO.

I think it is a little unfair to refer to those in the ancient world who believed in the supernatural as "nutty". Bear in mind that they lived in a society, and a world, very different from ours. The first followers of Christianity, in particular, came from a society that had suffered greatly at the hands of imperial rulers and had long been waiting for a deliverer, and Jesus seemed to fit the description that some had developed as that deliverer.

 

[shadow2k]

Ok, well here's the thing.

Writing was either widespread, or it wasn't. Jesus was either famous in that area, or not. But in the end, regardless of which one was really true, neither serve as proof of anything, which is what I'm really interested in. Both are theories as to why proof doesn't exist. But don't actually prove anything in and of themselves.

@Eran - I think it would be easier to not use a real man for such tales. In using someone who didn't actually exist as the center of the story, there's no way to prove the story isn't real. You can't track down the people who knew the guy and find out he wasn't anything special.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But then, the Gospel writers took care of those who would claim that Jesus wasn't so special. They quoted him as saying that " a prophet isn't honored in his own land" and said even his family members had trouble believing him.

Besides, you are assuming intentional deceit on the part of early Christians, and I have a little trouble buying that. Why go to so much trouble making up a religion that both the local and the imperial rulers would dislike so much, when there are already plenty around? I think in general deception and intentional deception is far less of a part of organized religion than is embellishment and the natural process of myths growing out of an event.

 

[Masquerouge]

They quoted him as saying that " a prophet isn't honored in his own land" and said even his family members had trouble believing him.

That's Floyd Landis you're talking about, right?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That's Floyd Landis you're talking about, right?

Of course.

But to reiterate, I can see, within 15 years (or even less) all the things attributed to Jesus coming about through accidental embellishment or whatever you want to call it, but I can't see his entire existence coming about naturally in such a short time. So to say that he didn't exist is to call Paul and Peter and everyone else liars, to say that they intentionally fabricated the whole thing. Which I have a little trouble seeing, to be honest. They may have been mistaken about a lot of things, but religious people are often a lot more sincere than nonbelievers give them credit for.

 

[shadow2k]

But then, the Gospel writers took care of those who would claim that Jesus wasn't so special. They quoted him as saying that " a prophet isn't honored in his own land" and said even his family members had trouble believing him.

Yes, and people would deny him through all time, until he rises again and so and so...

I mean, it really just sounds like a way to cover your story. Like if I tell you that Mob and I spoke in PM's, and he told me he's not really religious. But hey, don't say anything, because he'll get upset with me. (True story, I swear! )

You know I'm lying, but if you go to Mob and ask him, he'll tell you I'm full of fit. And of course, he's telling you the truth. Yet, I already told you he'd deny it. But it's still true, I swear.

 

[shadow2k]

Of course.

But to reiterate, I can see, within 15 years (or even less) all the things attributed to Jesus coming about through accidental embellishment or whatever you want to call it, but I can't see his entire existence coming about naturally in such a short time. So to say that he didn't exist is to call Paul and Peter and everyone else liars, to say that they intentionally fabricated the whole thing. Which I have a little trouble seeing, to be honest. They may have been mistaken about a lot of things, but religious people are often a lot more sincere than nonbelievers give them credit for.

Well we really don't know these people at all, except what they tell us about each other.

Why would they lie? Well, look at what they gained. I seem to recall reading some passage, maybe it was indeed Paul's letter...where he talks about how he was treated so wonderfully by the believers, and mentions something along the lines that it was to be expected because of what he knew. Not word for word, and probably a bit off, but the general idea being that because of this story, he expected better treatment than others.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Right, but my point was that you said it would be easier to fake a messiah so that no one could point out the ordinariness of the actual person; now you are basically saying such denials don't matter. But like I said, it comes down more or less to whether one assumes that the earliest Christians were intentionally trying to fabricate a messiah or if they really thought what they said. And I think believers are usually more sincere than nonbelievers realize.

And I believe Peter, and Paul, and lots of others ended up executed for their beliefs. I am not too familiar with the Roman legal system but I think they could have been freed if they had denied their religion. So on the one hand you have certain people liking you (who makes up a religion just for that) and on the other hand you have death.

 

[Azash]

I think it is a little unfair to refer to those in the ancient world who believed in the supernatural as "nutty". Bear in mind that they lived in a society, and a world, very different from ours. The first followers of Christianity, in particular, came from a society that had suffered greatly at the hands of imperial rulers and had long been waiting for a deliverer, and Jesus seemed to fit the description that some had developed as that deliverer.

Yes. I admit my poor wording. Still, I consider that divifying behaviour improper, since, IMO, the nazarene's repeated comments on being "Not the king of this world" statements denying his divinity twisted by his followers, or metaphors badly understood.

Afterthought: The metaphor part got me thinking about this.. When the philosopher says he's the king of a greater kingdom, even though it's seen as "heaven" he's speaking of, could it not just be the needs and minds of the lower social classes of that time he speaks of?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Afterthought: The metaphor part got me thinking about this.. When the philosopher says he's the king of a greater kingdom, even though it's seen as "heaven" he's speaking of, could it not just be the needs and minds of the lower social classes of that time he speaks of?

It could be. I have seen the wide variety of interpretations of Jesus' message throughout history (I even took a course on it in college) and in the absence of clarifying statements from the Galilean himself, most are just as valid as the rest.

 

[shadow2k]

Right, but my point was that you said it would be easier to fake a messiah so that no one could point out the ordinariness of the actual person; now you are basically saying such denials don't matter. But like I said, it comes down more or less to whether one assumes that the earliest Christians were intentionally trying to fabricate a messiah or if they really thought what they said. And I think believers are usually more sincere than nonbelievers realize.

And I believe Peter, and Paul, and lots of others ended up executed for their beliefs. I am not too familiar with the Roman legal system but I think they could have been freed if they had denied their religion. So on the one hand you have certain people liking you (who makes up a religion just for that) and on the other hand you have death.

Hmm...I see your point. But it could be part of the story as well, to add credibility to claims that people in the future would deny him as well.

For example: If Jesus didn't exist, and neither did his family... If you say his own family would deny his divinity, then the fact that I deny it isn't really going to mean much. I obviously knew far less of the man than they did, and even they denied him. Only those with open minds can truly believe, etc...whatever they say.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

For example: If Jesus didn't exist, and neither did his family... If you say his own family would deny his divinity, then the fact that I deny it isn't really going to mean much. I obviously knew far less of the man than they did, and even they denied him. Only those with open minds can truly believe, etc...whatever they say.

That is certainly a plausible explanation, but then so is the idea that he was a charismatic preacher whom his own family didn't follow. hence the problem; we have one data set, which could lead to either of two opposite conclusions.

Now here's a question. Let us assume, for the sake of this hypothetical example, that Jesus didn't exist. Further, let us assume that his existence is nonetheless plausible. What sort of evidence, other than what we now have, would exist if he really did exist?