Did Jesus Exist?

This information was originally posted at Message 20 a couple years ago. I include the relevant portions here unchanged: There were non-Biblical mentions of Jesus by three roughly 1st century historians or qualified writers: Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius. For reference purposes I quote the relevant passages here.This one from Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews 18:63-64, possibly written around the 80's AD, is widely believed to be a later Christian insertion: There is less agreement about this passing reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20:9.1. It seems impossible to establish its authenticity: Tacitus writing around 100 AD mentions Christians in Annals 15.44, but it is believed by some to be a later Christian insertion, and even if genuine he is clearly merely repeating what he has heard: Suetonius around 120 AD mentions a "Chrestus" in his The Lives of the Caesars 5.25.4, and while perhaps confirming the existence of Jews who followed Christ it provides no evidence of Jesus, and in fact errs in describing him as instigating disturbances long after he supposedly died: --Percy

For me the question of Jesus' existence comes down to how much Paul made up. Paul may or may not have based his teachings upon a real person, but we will likely never know for sure.The writings of Paul are the oldest we have about Jesus, obviously predating the Gospels by a good bit. It is instructive that Paul mentions almost none of the biographical information contained in the Gospels. I believe he includes that Jesus was crucified at one point, and at another that he rose on the third day. I believe he also mentions the 12 apostles in one or two places. But of Joseph, Mary, Herod, John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus, the Roman census, the last supper, the beloved apostle, the tomb, the rock before the tomb, and a host of other details, Paul says nothing.This leads to the suspicion that the Gospel accounts are fabrications based upon older oral traditions and writings that haven't survived and that were more sketchy but not, for the most part, based upon fact. Certainly there are events in the Gospels that would not have escaped the notice of historians like Josephus had they actually taken place.--Percy

There are many faiths, many of which have had and have now many believers. The number of believers a religion has had over time is not a measure of the historical authenticity of their articles of faith.--Percy

How do the writings of, say, St. Augustine (or pick your author) comprise evidence for the existence of Jesus?--Percy

I have vague recollections of trying to track down a quote about Jesus or Christians by an early writer and not being able to find it. I finally concluded it didn't really exist, since such a fabulous passage, if it existed, should be easy to find. I wonder if maybe it was Suetonius and that you're referring to the same passage. Can you find it anywhere?--Percy

It is only evidence that that intelligent man believed another man existed. Where is the evidence that he was correct in that belief?For historical evidence that Jesus was a real person you have to go back to original sources of the 1st century AD and perhaps a short while after. Archeological evidence is also relevant.--Percy

From a faith perspective, sure. In a historical context, no. Are you referring to the immediate followers of Jesus in the 1st century while he was still alive? If so, then if these followers existed of course they they were following a real person. Nothing else would make sense. But where is your historical evidence that they existed? That Jesus existed?There are two significant problems for the historical Jesus. One is that the oldest source, Paul, mentions almost none of the details of the later Gospels. The increase in detail over time is a well known component of the mythic process, best exemplified by the tales of Robin Hood, King Arthur and William Tell.The other is that the credibility of the Gospels is called into question because some of the events they relate could not possibly have escaped the notice of historians of the period like Josephus, yet they somehow managed to fail to attain any historical notice. John the Baptist features more prominently in Josephus's works than Jesus (see Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119).--Percy

I think you're referring to the Suetonius passage I quoted back in Message 18. Ramoss said there's another Suetonius passage, but I suspect it of being one that though referred to at some sites on the web doesn't really exist.AbE: I see above that Ramoss has added the reference. Great to have it!--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 01-05-2006 02:45 PM

But we're talking about the Jesus of History, not the Jesus of Christian faith. In a historical context, for each of these individuals who believed you must ask what is the evidence that their belief was correct. For Christian faith, sure. For history, no.Faith, you seem to be forgetting the first line of the opening post: Moving on: From a historical perspective, the Gospels, written many decades after Jesus's death, contain contradictions and inconsistencies. Most of the details of the Gospels are missing from the earlier eplistles of Paul. Is Iraquis martyring themselves in today's Iraq enough evidence for the truth of their beliefs? Copies are fine as long as they can be examined and interpreted. And it would be a poor historian who would ignore archaeology.Faith, you're trying to turn this from a historical discussion into a debate about faith. If you want to discuss the Jesus of faith, start your own thread. This thread is about the Jesus of history.--Percy

You're typing those words don't make it so, Faith. That's just a bald assertion.The fact of the matter is that you are applying standards of faith to the study of history. Historians don't reach conclusions about authenticity based upon how many people believed something. Where is your evidence of those that followed him? Outside the Gospels they are unknown to history. And as mentioned earlier, willingness to die for a cause is not a measure of the validity of a cause. Many have died for stupid causes. You're reacting emotionally. Actually, there's a lot to be said. The study of the Gospel accounts alone fills libraries. Many of these books were written by people who believe as you do, and evidently felt there was a lot to say. Josephus's region of study was Judea. What was a Roman backwater was Josephus's entire world. The Romans themselves kept excellent records, not all of which have survived, of course, but certainly no mention of any of the events of the Bible, if they ever existed, survive. The evidence from Josephus's writings indicates that rather than not believing Jesus was the Messiah, he had never even heard of Jesus.--Percy

Everything you mention has already been addressed in this thread. Instead of ignoring what people have written and just enumerating your claims again you must instead address what people have said. Many religions have many believers, so if you think that has historical significance regarding authenticity of beliefs then you have to argue the case, not throw your hands up in frustration.The Christian religion does not have a monopoly on inspired writings, and anyway, historical authenticity is not established by how inspired believers find the writings of their religion.Many have martyred themselves for false causes, and continue to do so today. Christianity does not have a monopoloy on martyrdom. In fact, the mantle of martyrdom would seem to have passed to other religions these days. Oh, yeah, sure, right! That's why you're here and upset already.Just keep your focus on the topic, Faith. Deal with every little historical detail one at a time and the rest of the discussion will take care of itself very nicely, and you won't feel the need to run off in huff for the umpteenth time. Well, that has been one of my points, that you're treating this as a discussion about faith instead of history. Check the history section of you library and you'll find it doesn't deal with supernatural events. It deals with facts to the extent they can be established.By the way, keep in mind that even if sufficient facts have not survived to reliably conclude whether Jesus existed, that doesn't mean it can be concluded that he did not exist. History is well aware that much of human history has somehow avoided leaving a record that has survived to the modern day.--Percy

Nothing in the quoted passage represents an effort to get rid of God. The words "God" or "Lord" or "Elohim" or "Jehovah" do not even appear in the passage Mini Ditka quotes in his Message 84. The passage points to a couple contradictions to support its claim that Acts is neither accurate nor contemporary. First it says that Acts presents Paul as subordinate to the Jerusalem church while Paul's epistles make clear that he didn't see himself as subordinate. Second it says that Paul mentions no apostles, an astonishing omission given their prominence in the Gospels, and notes the strange reference in 1 Corinthians 15:5 where Paul refers to the "twelve", but doesn't name them apostles, and refers to Peter separately from the twelve: On the basis on contradictions such as these, the passage gives Paul precedence since he wrote earlier and concludes that Acts attempts to protray a unified church that did not in fact exist during Paul's ministry.Now once you're finished damning everything and everyone who holds a different viewpoint from you as evil and nefarious, for I may as well concede after all this time that preventing you from doing so is a fool's errand, perhaps you could address the specifics that I've highlighted here, for I see where effective counterarguments could be made. For example, Jesus might have appeared to Peter first, then Peter joined the other eleven apostles at which time Jesus appeared to all twelve of them.--Percy

Saying Jesus doesn't exist is not the same thing as saying God doesn't exist. You cannot automatically equate the two. I myself am an example of this distinction, since I believe in God, but I believe it possible that Jesus is fictional. Good question. To answer it we'd have to delve into the specific texts a bit. Let me know if you'd like to do that. More on this later. No one is calling anyone liars or idiots or attempting to discredit Christianity. When someone holds a different opinion from you, that does not mean they're calling you a liar or an idiot or trying to discredit you.Have you thought about whether it really makes much difference to the existence of Jesus if the early church around the time of Paul was unified or not? I think that's probably the most pertinent issue regarding this point. Well, what's a day worth if it doesn't include Faith going off the deep end again. Except that it isn't that simple. When I provided you that point I was giving you the beginning of a thread of a discussion, not a conclusion. Placed in context with the absence of mention of the apostles in Paul's epistles, and leaving the Gospels aside since they hadn't been written yet, anyone reading that passage would not conclude that Peter was a member of the twelve.--Percy