The Great Jesus debate. Did he exist at all - and if he did, what reasons do we have to believe he was divine?

[EllieArroway]

Madhairday and I have been plotting behind the scenes to have this debate as we think it will be interesting, both for us and for others.

Mad is a Christian & I am an atheist. I will leave it entirely up to her to present her case.

Mine is:

It's impossible to conclude that Jesus actually existed at all given that there's simply no evidence to work with. I am aware that the majority (although not all) of scholars, both secular & religious, have concluded that he did exist, but this is for inferential reasons not evidential ones, so the issue is nowhere near as cut and dried as many people suppose.

While I am generally happy to accept that there was some man, probably called Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus, who lived in the Galilean region at the beginning of the 1st century & who may have died by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans - I don't feel that this is particularly significant or justifies anyone in believing that he was divine.

I also believe that nearly all of the "Jesus story" - the nativity, the miracles, the resurrection etc is complete myth and never happened at all.

I have continually pointed out on many threads that "There's no evidence that Jesus existed" and been called ignorant and so forth. So, this is my opportunity to make my case and demonstrate that this is, in fact, a correct statement.

So, I'm kicking of this (hopefully) interesting discussion with:

There is no evidence that Jesus the man existed. Discuss

(By the way, this is an open discussion for anyone to join in, ask questions, make points etc, it's not just for Mad and I).

Morning all! :)

A few things: on Luke-Acts, yes, I'm very happy with the majority scholarly view (that Luke-Acts is a single composition, written some time in the late 1st c, maybe even going into the 2nd as one of my tutors argues). Yes, Luke used various sources, he says this in his Prologue. I've got no problem with that.

On Justin Martyr; again, yes, happy to agree that Trypho is probably a literary device - no problem there. Where in the text does the character of Trypho complain at lack of historicity of Jesus & the events? He objects to the idea of the incarnation, and that objection is discussed with reference to the Hebrew Scriptures, but I can't see where he asks for evidence of the historical Jesus. I might just have missed it, it is pretty long!

It's also worth quoting Origen here; this is the part of Contra Celsum that you referred to, Ellie. It's fairly long but I think, as it's an argument that follows a particular line of logic, we need to quote it in full:

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says neverthelessbeing, although against his will, not far from the truththat these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure. (that's the whole of ch. XLVII).

So, a few things to note:

This chapter is in the middle of a section about the theological meaning of Jesus' baptism; the chapters before and after this one talk about Jesus' baptism, and the opening of the heavens. Origen notes that Celsus already accepts the ministry of John the Baptist. He then mentions Josephus as a witness whom Celsus would consider reliable, and says, look, Josephus acepts the ministry of John the Baptist too. Then he gets on to the real question of the chapter, which has nothing to do with John the Baptist. It's like remembering John the Baptist, and then Josephus, sparks off a train of thought.

This chapter is all about the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE from a perspective of 'how could God allow this?' Origen notes that Josephus says that God allowed the fall of Jerusalem to happen to punish people for the execution of James in 62CE. Now we might think that's a terrible view of God, but it is how Josephus thinks. Origen says here, 'well, you're nearly right, the fall of Jerusalem did happen because of the execution of a good man, but it wasn't Jmaes, it was his brother Jesus.' Again, terrible view of God - but it's how Origen thinks.

Origen notes that Josephus doesn't believe in Jesus as the Christ - which makes sense given the stuff we've already said about Josephus' famous Jesus-passage being heavily redacted.

The crux of the argument isn't that there as a historical Jesus, but that there must be a theological reason for the Fall of Jerusalem. Josephus accepts that James is a holy man, so his execution would cause severe punishment; how much more holy is Jesus, as the Messiah, so how much worse the punishment on those who had him murdered. Again, that might be repugnant logic and frustrating use of 'history' to modern people, but it's how Origen thinks. To Origen, it's how logic works - note the sentence 'If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses.' To Origen, logic dictates that if one witness (Josephus) thinks that the fall of Jerusalem happened becaues of the death of a holy man (James), how much more logical is it to say that a whole load of witnesses (the churches) think that the fall of Jerusalem happened because of the death of an even holier man (Jesus). It's a classic 'light to heavy', 'how much more' argument, and it's all about the fall of Jerusalem - that's what's being thrashed out here, from the POV of theodicy (why does God allow evil / suffering); the historicity of Jesus is way out of range - no-one cares about it in this passage!

Long post, but I thought I'd answer one thing properly rather than lots of things superficially.

I agree with your post entirely, Niminy! :)

You talk about Josephus' account being hearsay - but you don't actually know for certain this is the case. It is attested by many that Josephus was actually unlikely to have got his source material from Christians - the textual criticism of the TF, in addition to proving the majority of the language and style as Josephan, has also shown that the author seems to know little about Christians and much more about Jesus.

RT France puts it like this
"[T]hat explanation will not do. Firstly, the distinctively non-Christian terminology we have noted suggests that Josephus is giving his own account. Secondly, there is no reason whatever for Josephus to even mention Jesus and Christianity at this point in his work at all unless he was convinced that the career and execution of Jesus was an actual event which occurred during the governorship of Pilatus. And thirdly, Josephus, a Jew who lived for much of his life in Palestine, is in a very different situation from Tacitus to know whether what he is told is true or not, and to have an interest in checking what he is told. Nor does the rest of his work encourage us to believe that he was in the habit of talking to Christians or using them as source of information.

If then . . . Josephus did originally include an account of Jesus in his record of the governorship of Pilatus, we have every reason to be confident that he had his own good reasons for believing what he wrote to be true."

You say I have remained silent on Tacitus et al, I have said several times that I think they are useful sources in the sense of the historicity of early Christianity, and that in the time they were written there was little question of proving the historicity of Jesus - it was a given. So they show what some early churches were up to, and in that they testify to the reality of Jesus as the founder of that movement. I don't think they are far removed enough to be compared to material only proving that someone is following some random person who may or may not have existed and may or may not be who the followers think he is. I think a lot of the early christian writings are in the same line of usefulness, and again would have no need to 'prove' any historicity as such.

Agreed too, niminy, and Holo, v interesting post about Celsus, I'm not very familiar with Origen so it's something I should read around more on - so much reading on all these subjects!

Origen makes most people's heads explode, to be fair!

.......and in that they testify to the reality of Jesus as the founder of that movement

No they don't!! They testify to the fact that there were believers of that. The difference is huge.

Example: Plutarch reports in The Vita Pompeii that a group of Cicilian pirates worshipped Mithras. He says: "They were accustomed to offer strange sacrifices on Olympus and to observe certain secret rites, of which that of Mithra is maintained to the present day by those by whom it was first established" It's spookily similar to the kind of passages that Tacitus, Pliny and allegedly Josephus offered.

So, may I assume from this that this is good evidence that Mithras existed? And if you won't accept this as evidence for an existant Mithras, then you have no business accepting those sources as evidence for Jesus.

We have accounts, probably numbering in the thousands, from all over the place telling us about groups of believers and what they believed in. Religions of the type that Christianity was were ten a penny, and we hear (in great detail in some places) all about them. And I can guarantee that in not one of those cases would you accept those accounts as proving the historicity of whatever God they worshipped. You would be quite willing to dismiss it as the hearsay it so clearly is. To refuse to consider the "evidence" for your Jesus in the same way is intellectual dishonesty and blatant confirmation bias. Sorry, but it just is.

No, I absolutely do not accept that the Josephus account is anything other than an obvious and rather pathetic fraud. But it has little to do with the quest for an historical Jesus, since he offers no evidence that Jesus existed anyway.

Yes - we DO KNOW IT'S HEARSAY! Goodness me. He wasn't alive when Jesus was - how can it be anything else! He doesn't say where he gets the information from so we cannot substantiate it. That is what hearsay means.

Firstly, the distinctively non-Christian terminology Pardon? On what planet is..."for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure" not Christian. It's ONLY a Christian who would write this. It's ONLY a Christian that would describe anything Jesus said as "the truth". Would the resolutely Jewish Josephus write this as his own opinion? He decided it was "true" did he and that Jesus "did wonderful things"? Yet didn't convert or even mention this "truth" ever again? How utterly ridiculous.

And, by the way, if Josephus was familiar enough with Jesus that he was willing to call him a "wise man" (on a par with Solomon, for goodness sake!) and a "doer of wonderful works" (on a par with Elijah!) and that he was crucified by Pilate, then you'd think he might mention to his readers that this wonder worker managed to walk out of his tomb three days after he was crucified! I suppose you don't think it was "relevant". Or maybe Josephus didn't know - in which case his source of information is rubbish because it failed to pass on the single most important fact about this amazing man, so we must be even more dismissive of it as historical evidence.

And no way does an airy "Well, they didn't need to mention the TF" explain in any remotely adequate way the fact that it's not mentioned by any of the early church fathers for 200 years. Not once. When you consider the extent to which they were all defending the faith against hostility and doubt, using Josephus extensively to do so, it beggars belief that every last one of them would fail to mention a passage within the most famous of historical records that refers to their god as "a wise man" and a "doer of wonderful works".

These people spent their lives defending their faith, extensively using Josephus to do so, ferreting out anything that could cast Christianity & Jesus in a good light. But the ONLY reference anywhere that's remotely nice about them is "of no use"? And you're not attributing this apparent lack of interest to just a few - you're assuming it of all of them, in spite of the fact that

No. Nothing you've said has even begun to persuade me that you're right. And if I'm going against the grain, I don't care.

Oh - and the James line is probably faffed with too. If you take out the "Christ" in the TF then what is ".....the one they call the Christ" actually referring to? It implies that he's differentiating that Jesus with others he mentions (as he does) and that the readers will know who he's talking about. Why? If Christianity and Jesus is so unknown that (according to you) they warrant a small paragraph and nothing more, then his readers wouldn't have a clue who he was talking about - unless he'd mentioned the same person earlier in the text and identified him as "Christ". But, if we take that out (as we must) then the James line really makes no sense.

intellectual dishonesty - I'm sorry, that came out much ruder than I intended. I'm not saying you're being dishonest - just not being entirely honest with yourself about whether you'd accept the same kind of evidence for someone else's God. I'm at work writing lines at a time so my mind is wandering a bit. Sorry.

Hello :)

Ellie, to me, the explanation that 'doer of wonderful works' isn't neccessily a compliment makes sense - just look at Simon Magus. You are making the links of 'wonder worker / wise man' with Elijah and Solomon, but those links didn't neccessarily exist in the first few centuries CE. It could just as easily have meant 'charlatan, cheap purveyor of parlour tricks.' Lots of times in the NT people are told off or looked down on for setting much store by miracles.

On James in Josephus: why is it a problem for Josephus to say 'James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ'? Surely, if anything, this line suggests that Josephus doesn't believe in Jesus as Christ (as we already know, as he's saying that other people call Jesus 'the Christ', not him. In the NT period nicknames were used a lot -just look at the naming of the disciples in the Gospels.

Also the translation of 'doer of wonderful works' is closer to 'doer of paradoxical works' or mysterious, closer in meaning to sorcery, iirc.

Have to go cook tea. :)

Yes - the phrase in Greek is 'paradoxa erga' (erga = works)

Trying to fathom out school forms - confused!

Yes, 'paradoxa erga' is quite ambivalent, I think. Though would need Hellenistic Greek lexicon to be certain.

'Wonder-worker' (in a gosh how miraculous sense) would be Thaumaturgus, like Gregory Thaumaturgus.

I've just looked it up in my huge NT and early Christian lexicon this one and paradoxa is hardly used in the NT at all; only in the Gospels to describe Jesus' actions in Luke 5:26; the NRSV translates it as ?We have seen strange things today.? In the Lk 5 ref, it's the Gentile bystanders who witness an exorcism that say this, not Jesus' followers. There are a few other refs, in Origen and 1 Clement and also Philo (the fact that Philo uses it suggests trongly that it's not Christian in-language in the same way that, eg, 'signs' is in John).

Interesting stuff to ponder...

Good stuff Holofernes.

This thread is making me feel very nostalgic for my university days.

Holo really interesting posts! (Especially the head-exploding Origen one )

Ellie, to me, the explanation that 'doer of wonderful works' isn't neccessily a compliment makes sense - just look at Simon Magus. You are making the links of 'wonder worker / wise man' with Elijah and Solomon, but those links didn't neccessarily exist in the first few centuries CE. It could just as easily have meant 'charlatan, cheap purveyor of parlour tricks.' Lots of times in the NT people are told off or looked down on for setting much store by miracles

Sounds very scholarly, but it's not correct.

The links for "wise man"/"doer of wonderful works" with Solomon & Elijah come directly from Josephus, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting the idea that they didn't exist before the 2nd C. They exist within the very book we're talking about, written in the late 1st C.

Josephus uses the term "wise man" a few times, quite sparingly - and always as a term of great honour, Solomon for one. It is extraordinarily odd that he would use the same rare term of great respect for a man who held no particular interest for him (so we are told, as an explanation of the lone, short paragraph in a massive work).

It's hardly beyond the stretch of imagination that Eusebius, writing 200 or so years later, and hoping to sound like Jospehus would note the way he refers to other great men and apply it to Jesus. This is considerably more likely than that Josephus put Jesus on a par with Solomon - which is ridiculously unlikely.

Also the translation of 'doer of wonderful works' is closer to 'doer of paradoxical works' or mysterious, closer in meaning to sorcery, iirc

Are you suggesting that that's what Jospehus was accusing Elijah of when he uses the exact same description for his amazing feats? Elijah!? Clearly, in that instance he wasn't alluding to sorcery, but wonderful things - Eusebius would have known that. We are talking about an active forgery. Eusebius wasn't such a cretin that he didn't at least try to sound authentic.

But he did screw up - the use of "poietes". Josephus only ever used this in AJ & his other works to mean poet. Apologists try to get round this with some garbled crap about how he faffed around with words sometimes and this could account for him doing so here. But that is not the point. "Poietes" used to mean "doer" in the sense J used it here, but hadn't for a long time. Never mind whether he faffed with words - did he have a habit of resurrecting old, out of use meanings for words for no apparent reason?

And, frankly, if a Christian interpolator (fraudster) saw a reference to Jesus's works & interpreted it as meaning "sorcery" wouldn't he have simply changed it? We're expected to believe he inserted a load of nonsense about the Messiah & resurrection, but left behind a reference to Jesus doing "sorcery"? I hardly think so.

And I don't really understand why looking at the NT to see whether there's any similar language between that and J has the remotest relevance. Is anyone suggesting that the writers of the NT might have written the TF? No. We're suggesting that it was Eusebius 200 years later. And what do we find when we do look in that direction - voila! Parts of the TF are so Eusebian that the apologists have no option but to acknowledge it - attempting to write it off with the remarkably silly defence of "Well, you see, Eusebius immersed himself so deeply in Josephus that his writing style was influenced by him". Right. Hmmm. Odd that this style of writing from E that J influenced is only in relation to things said in the TF. We see no other evidence of that throughout Josephus.

On James in Josephus: why is it a problem for Josephus to say 'James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ'? Surely, if anything, this line suggests that Josephus doesn't believe in Jesus as Christ (as we already know, as he's saying that other people call Jesus 'the Christ', not him. In the NT period nicknames were used a lot -just look at the naming of the disciples in the Gospels

A complete misunderstanding of the issues - which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Josephus was acknowledging Jesus as the Christ.

And you've misquoted it, it reads: the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James - a clunkier sentence it's hard to imagine.

NT nicknames were indeed very prevalent, btw, you are quite right. They had to be because they didn't have surnames in the way we do - and Josephus kept having to identify who he meant by using nicknames. (Another problem being how common names like James and Jesus were - another Jesus is referred to a few lines later).

Do you know that James, Jesus' brother, was almost universally referred to as James the Just? Yet Josephus fails to use this nickname at all. Instead, he identifies this James in reference to his brother, Jesus who, in turn, is identified as "who was called Christ".

If the TF, interpolations included, had been genuine, then this makes sense. Josephus was reminding his readers of which Jesus he's talking about...ie: "the one I told you earlier was called Christ".

But everyone agrees at least that that part of the TF is not genuine, so this is the only reference J ever makes to "Christ" anywhere in his works.

Calling someone, or even acknowledging that others called them "Christ" was a pretty big deal and is worthy of at least a word of explanation, but Josephus offers none. Since there is nowhere in his work where Josephus has already explained to his readers about this "Jesus - who is called Christ", then we have to assume that he expects them to already be aware.

And this is wildly at odds with the apologetic excuse that the TF so briefly mentions Jesus because he was largely unknown and of no particular interest to anyone at that time.

Another case of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Oh - and another excuse that's used is "...who is called Christ" is too un-Christian in language and no Christian would have used that is countered rather neatly by pointing out that the phrase appears twice in the gospels. And guess who uses it too? Yep. Eusebius

Hi Ellie :)

Just a quick post for now, so I'll address your points more fully later, but for now, a smallish point:

Poities comes straight from the Greek verb poieo, which means 'I do / I make.' Yes, there are refs in which it means poet, eg. Acts17:28 ('as one of your own poets has said.') But there are also refs in which it just simply means 'one who does something'; eg. Romans 2:13, James 1:22, 4:11. Given that Josephus lived in the same century in which Romans was definitely written and James was in all likelihood written, with a likely time lag of no more than 50 years between the texts, it's at least possible that Josephus could mean either poet or doer. In these situations the context within the text is probably the best indicator of implied meaning.

I didn't misquote the line re James, I just read a different translation to you! I have all the works of Josephus in Greek on my other computer so could check it out more fully when I get time. In the meantime, it'd help the discussion if you could include the quotes to which you're referring - like Josephus on Elijah, if you have them to hand.

I looked up the phrase 'who is called Christ'. The number of occurrences varies with the translation. In Revised Standard Version, the phrase occurs in Matthew 27, where Pilate is speaking to the Jews. In New Revised Standard Version (which has superseded) RSV, this is translated as ?Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?? .

The other occurrence is in John 4, in which the Samarian woman says ?I know that Messiah is coming? (who is called Christ). (NRSV).

In both of these passages 'who is called Christ' is clearly a gloss on 'Messiah'. In the first passage Pilate is addressing the Jews, and the implication of the passage is that neither he, nor the Jews, do in fact believe he is the Messiah, or the Christ. In the second instance the Samarian woman is stating her (Jewish) belief in the Messiah.

So, yes, the phrase occurs in the Gospels, although in specifically 'Jewish' contexts.

However, Ellie, I've now read back carefully over all the last few days' posts, and actually no-one has claimed that the phrase 'who is called Christ' is un-Christian language. Holo said in her post of 14.3 17.37 that 'paradoxa' is not Christian in-language. So while you are right about the occurence of the phrase, you are wrong about what is being claimed about it.

I've just had a look at the Jewish Antiquities, and note that in Bk 9, ch. 2, the third captain sent by King Ahaziah to fetch Elijah (after the first two were unsuccessful) is described as a 'wise man.' In the context, this captain knows that the best way of getting Elijah to come is to make him think he's doing it of his own free will (some of us may recognise that scenario! )

So 'wise man' here seems to mean 'canny, clever, knows which side his bread is buttered on', which fits in very well with lots of strands of thought in the earlier Hebrew wisdom traditions. I haven't looked up who else in Josephus' works is called a 'wise man' but judging by this vignette, it doesn't seem to be an overly exalted thing to call someone, not necessarily anyway; it could just be a recognition, as it is here, of someone's cleverness in a tricky situation.

Actually, I've also just seen that different translations of JA put the chapter and verse numbers in different places - I'll try and find the ref in PACE.

Also (sorry to keep posting!), I've just found this really very good website for anyone interested in learning more about Josephus: Josephus. The academic credentials are sound!

However, Ellie, I've now read back carefully over all the last few days' posts, and actually no-one has claimed that the phrase 'who is called Christ' is un-Christian language

sigh I never said it was. We have not discussed the James passage properly before, I was pre-empting a known and very common objection. The phrase appears in the Bible, hardly making it un-Christian.

I truly love the desperateattempts here to pick me up on the most minor of points.

The Bible uses that phrase, Niminy. Not often, but it's there.

Holo Your point? It's not what he's saying, it's who he's saying it about. I thought I made that obvious.

And something else occurred to me - it begins by naming Jesus, and ends with a claim about "the tribe of Christians that bear his name..."

Huh? He's called Jesus, but the tribe of Christians bear his name? Thought his name was Jesus

The only reason that isn't immediately weird is because we here, 2000 years later, automatically associate Jesus and Christianity together, but no reader of this original work would have done. This would have left them scratching their heads. And if the intention on the part of Josephus was to inform them that Jesus was "Christ" and his followers therefore "Christians" then you are back at square one where the "Christ/Messiah" reference has to be removed because no one sensible believes he'd ever say that.

His readers would not have understood because, of course, the reason that there exists not the weeniest mention anywhere of this amazing man is because no one knew who he or the Christians were. You'd think the fact that the curtains in the temple ripped apart, weird weather patterns suddenly occurred and dead people started walking around Jerusalem might have raised a little interest - but evidently not.

The Josephus passage is obviously a fake. I've been discussing and debating this issue for years, it's not new to me. It obviously is to others on this thread, in spite of claims of expertise of Josephus, and I'm bored with addressing it now.

Actually, I'm quite bored with the whole thing. I know that the pair of you are really only interested in trying to prove me wrong, but you can't. It's a widely acknowledged fact that there exists, outside of the Bible, no evidence to support the existence of Jesus. Even Rowan Williams (a theologian, by the way, not a historian) agrees with that - he has to, it's the way it is. Most intelligent Christians do - and I would say that all of the ones who have studied theology at a reputable institution would also know that. And they certainly wouldn't demand immediate examples of the discrepancies within the Bible because such things would already be known very well indeed.

I've done my homework and there's no way I'd be part of a debate about something I know nothing about - so I have you both at a disadvantage. This isn't stimulating for me or even that interesting, so I shall leave you to it.

ellie it's a shame if you've decided to bow out, it's been very interesting (to me, at any rate!). I don't feel myself that the matter is closed quite as definitively as you seem to be saying -- indeed, I wonder whether you really like being challenged in your arguments. If you did indeed feel that your arguments are beyond challenge, you might feel that you could be more gracious in your treatment of your interlocutors. Be that as it may, I hope we'll see you again in one of these conversations.

It's been interesting for us Ellie, even those of us just dipping in and out.
Always good to see people with different views knocking them around a bit. I especially liked the way you started ....
Changing people's views is often going to be a challenge though, or even getting them to really listen to yours. HTH

I'm sorry you feel like that too, Ellie. I was enjoying it - find it invigorating to be challenged and to read around more. No, I'm no super expert, but I felt we were getting along ok with addressing each others points etc. I've not been on today as had visitors, and out all tomorrow, so I'll be back Sunday to see if it's continued at all. :)

ANother one who has found it interesting here, even though I haven't read any of the books and have bugger all knowledge of ancient Greek or Latin. No one's come up with any convincing evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, of course, but I didn't expect them to, any more than I'd expect anyone to turn up evidence of Odin, Janus or Freya, despite the fact that they have days of the week named after them.