A Question of Existence

[vovat]

Did Jesus ever actually exist? To the majority of scholars, both Christian and otherwise, this is essentially a non-question. It seems to have been pretty much universally accepted throughout the Common Era that Jesus, whether the Messiah or not, was at least an actual person who lived in first century Palestine and was executed by the Romans. It appears that the first serious questioning of the very existence of Jesus only dates back to the eighteenth century, and has been pretty widely dismissed since then. But is this due more to the available facts or simply to wishful thinking? Christianity has been a majority religion for centuries, and Jesus is also considered an important prophet in Islam. Even some people who totally reject Christian belief like the idea of Jesus having been a real person, as many of his teachings are of value even outside their religious context. Still, there doesn't appear to have been all that much evidence for Jesus that dates back to the time when he actually lived. The known Gospels appeared some time after Jesus' death, and while they could have conceivably been based on eyewitness accounts, they presumably weren't actually written in their present form by direct witnesses. The Gospel accounts themselves, however, are generally believable. Sure, they contain accounts of miracles, but there are plenty of reports of real people having worked what at the time were thought to be miracles, and many myths have developed about confirmed historical personages. There were stories that Alexander the Great had been born of a virgin and that Nero had come back to life after dying (a belief quite likely reflected in Revelation), and I don't know of any comparable movement arguing that they never existed. The verisimilitude of the Gospels could simply mean that they were written by good authors, however, and we know that some of the historical details don't quite add up. Not only does Luke's account of the census during which Jesus was born not really make sense, but this census didn't occur until AFTER the death of Herod the Great, whose presence was significant to Matthew's story of the birth of Jesus. Still, since the carpenter-turned-preacher apparently didn't do much of any significance until he was around thirty years old, we can expect the details of his birth to be sketchy, and full of invented details.



What about evidence from historians of the time? The problem here is that Jesus would have been of only marginal interest to anyone not directly involved with his life or part of his then-small following, and he apparently never ventured outside Palestine during his lifetime. Some of the most cited and argued mentions of Jesus appear in the works of the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. He makes reference to Jesus having been a miracle worker in the time of Pontius Pilate, and to James being the brother of Jesus. The latter passage is generally considered authentic, but the former is more suspicious. The form in which this account now exists says that Jesus was "the Christ," something that a Jew like Josephus wouldn't have believed. Some argue that the passage was basically authentic but was doctored by devout Christians, while others think the entire passage was an addition by later Christians. Pliny the Younger and Tacitus both mention Jesus, but only in the context of what the Christians of the time believed. That Suetonius' reference to "Chrestus" is actually talking about Christ is a bit of a stretch, as Chrestus was a common name at the time.



The earliest known writings about Jesus in the Bible itself are the letters of Paul, who did appear to regard his Messiah as an actual flesh-and-blood person who lived in the recent past. He doesn't give many details of the man's life, however; and he seems to consider himself an equal of the apostles who knew Jesus personally, even though he admits to only having seen the Christ in spiritual form. Then again, do we know whether Peter and James accepted Paul as an equal authority? The Book of Acts seems to suggest that they did, but the authenticity of this book has been questioned. The letters refer to various divisions of Christianity even this early on in its existence. Just look at 1 Corinthians 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." Paul criticizes this division, but chances are that each of these groups had their own beliefs about Jesus, and Paul's own teachings were almost certainly not universally accepted. And who knows what Paul included in his letters that DIDN'T survive, some of which are alluded to in the ones that did?

I've also seen suggestions that Jesus did exist, but his character wasn't much like that shown in the Bible, or that he was actually a composite of different historical figures. One idea I've come across a few times is that Jesus led a violent rebellion against the Romans, which would presumably be a welcome one to self-styled Christians who join the NRA and support war. Still, if the real Jesus was THAT different from how he's shown in the Gospels, can he even really be considered the same person? The name Yeshuah or Joshua, of which "Jesus" is a Greek translation, had been a quite common one among Jews for a long while. The revolutionary who was freed in the Christian founder's place is referred to as Jesus Barabbas, or "Joshua, Son of the Father." Since there isn't any evidence outside the Bible to the practice of Pilate freeing one prisoner from crucifixion, it's been proposed that Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Barabbas are actually the same person, having been divided into two separate figures by the Gospel writers. Really, I suppose this is pretty much all speculation at this point. I suppose Occam's Razor would say that Jesus having existed is the simplest explanation, but perhaps we'll never really know.

Comments

[brostron.livejournal.com]

I agree with the last sentence. I think that as you suggested most scholars think that the idea that Jesus did not exist is a bit crackpot. I think that the most convincing evidence for his existence is that once you strip away all of the obvious additions and supernatural events from the synoptic gospels, you're left with a depiction of a rather marginal Jewish apocalyptic. There are lots of things in the gospels such as Jesus's appearing to have been a follower of or influenced by John the Baptist that the writers take pains to explain away. If Jesus were fictional, then I think people would have created a more heroic character. Also, James is said by Paul among others to have been the leader of Jesus's followers in Jerusalem after Jesus's death and to have been the brother of Jesus. Wouldn't people have been even more dismissive of a group led by someone who worshipped his imaginary brother than they already were?

[vovat.livejournal.com]

If Jesus were fictional, then I think people would have created a more heroic character.

Yeah, I can see that, although I guess there's the possibility that the people who wrote the Gospels knew that any great hero is flawed. The Greek demigod heroes had tragic flaws out the wazoo, and that doesn't mean they actually existed. On the other hand, none of them were supposed to be the perfect, sinless representation of God on Earth, so it does seem like they could have made him more impressive if he'd been a fictional construct.

Also, James is said by Paul among others to have been the leader of Jesus's followers in Jerusalem after Jesus's death and to have been the brother of Jesus. Wouldn't people have been even more dismissive of a group led by someone who worshipped his imaginary brother than they already were?

Yes, and it seems like most of the arguments by those who consider fictitious have to account for the clear references to Jesus' brother. Their arguments really aren't much stronger than those of the Catholic Church for how Jesus' brothers could have actually been some other sort of relatives. While I haven't studied classical Greek or anything, I understand that the term used did literally mean "brother."

[bec-87rb.livejournal.com]

As a protestant, I have no problem with Jesus having lots of brothers, in fact. Although, after his wife had been impregnated by God, where does that leave poor Joseph? That's a tough act to follow.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

True, but since there wasn't any sex involved in being impregnated by God, she might have preferred the other conceptions.

also

[burningofroissy.livejournal.com]

(http://media.photobucket.com/image/eric gets owned/SneauxFof/EricGetsOwned.jpg?o=1)

Re: also

[vovat.livejournal.com]

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Even some people who totally reject Christian belief like the idea of Jesus having been a real person, as many of his teachings are of value even outside their religious context.

I know! This so tickles me and is one of the reasons I count myself firmly among The Guy's followers-- the fact that even people who don't Believe in him can't help respecting him as a person, it seems. The guys from Monty Python were actually quite sweet about it in The Autobiography of Monty Python (proper title I can't remember), when they were describing the planning process behind "taking on Christianity" and how they all independently came to the conclusion that they couldn't actually make fun of Jesus because he was too cool, so that's why they created Brian. Heck, even Phillip Pullman can't quite take down Jesus himself (if you read the summary of his new Taking-Down-Christianity work-in-progress, it seems more of a criticism of St PAUL in the end), though I bet he'd like to think he could. :P Sorry, I randomly go off on Phillip Pullman a lot, I know. It's this thing I have. I can't even remember if he spells Philip with one or two ls, but I don't care.

[bec-87rb.livejournal.com]

Funny you posted this - I spent Saturday in an all-day lecture by a biblical historian who professors at Chapel Hill, and he addressed that very question - he says mainline biblical scholarship, even among atheists such as himself, is that Jesus most probably did exist, in the sense that there was a Jew from Palestine named Jesus who preached around 30 AD, and that he was probably crucified by the Romans for it.

He says that, given the Jewish expectations of the coming Messiah at the time, if they were going to claim Jesus was the Messiah, it would have been more likely they would have supressed the fact of a crucifiction at the hands of the occupying Romans, not made it central to the religion. The Messiah was to be a "reincarnation" of King David, a liberator, a military ruler, a mighty king. According to this professor, by being crucified, Jesus would have not fit the parameters of the promised annointed one. He says this points to it being an actual event.

[suegypt.livejournal.com]

I find this interesting. I, too hear very few people say that Jesus, the man, didn't exist, and plenty who say the Christ did not. Probably because neither can be proved.

I think there's a whole faction who believe that Jesus is analogous to Rosa Parks as being hand-picked by the movement to best fit the image of the purported functionary. (Sorry for the $3 words, I'm in physical pain right now. Advil Be Thy Name!)

God being his own tautology

[bec-87rb.livejournal.com]

Here's the really interesting part, to me - no matter if he were God, some guy picked by the movement, the actual Jewish messiah, or some nutjob who happened to catch on? It still works.

What I mean is, he still started a religion that was to sweep the world, cause historical upheaval, elevate and save millions, bring others low into misery and death. He started a religion with planet-wide repercussions, so history vindicates him as Someone of Great Import, no matter his origin.

Let's say he was a schizophrenic, a demented doomsday prophet who got squashed by the authorities when he declared himself King of the Jews - if God plans human affairs, particularly large-scale ones, the fact that people are still talking about this guy and his life says God had a hand, in which case, the details about whether Mary was a virgin, et cetera, are moot - God raised up a religious leader, and it happened to be a crazy guy. And that's in line with the old testament God, you know? God played favorites. He picked David to be the role model king of the Isrealites, then he raised him to the kingship. When you're talking about an omnipotent being, everything is a fait accompli?

Re: God being his own tautology

[suegypt.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, my dear grasshopper.

Many times, many times I have wondered, what is the difference between Jesus and David Koresh? Words? Actions? Does it matter? Do we really need the person at all, or just the message? If all we need is the message, why can't we assemble it on our own from our message kits?

Of course, one needs to consider the totality of the message that comes from each messenger, coupled with the actions of that person. Actions, as the Buddha says, are our only true possessions.