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).

[niminypiminy]

holo yes the end of Acts 21 is fascinating. It shows us that Paul spoke at least Greek and Hebrew, and possibly also some Latin, and that he moved between multiple identities as Jew, Roman Citizen, Christian, part of the Jewish dispiriting world of the Eastern Mediterranean, and that he was able to mix freely in a cosmopolitan and socially, culturally and ethnically diverse world. And not as a person of high rank, but as an ordinary craftsman.

[MadHairDay]

But we do know that an average working Palestinian man in the 1st Century usually could not read or write. Jesus & his disciples were apparently average working men - you do the maths wink

Just to throw something a little bit interesting in here, some scholars (not the majority) do hold to the possibility of the apostle Matthew being the author of the gospel so named, and writing it in Hebrew/Aramaic - there is an early document attesting to this from the early 2nd century, and it was the tradition of the early church. Now, whether he did or not (and if we take Markan priority as read he probably didn't), there was still a good possibility that Matthew, as a tax collector, would be to a certain extent literate. It fascinates me that there is a possibility. Obviously Matthew's book seems much based on Mark, but there is some none Markan tradition in there too which doesn't quite tally with Mark being the main or only source. There's Q, of course, which is a different matter again.

The thing is, we don't know, so we cannot say these things are 'fact'. I'd love to know though :)

[HolofernesesHead]

Hi Niminy! Yes, much is made in Acts of Paul's being a Roman citizen, and therefore having certain freedoms and rights, as well as a Jew, and therefore starting his missionary work from synagogues.

Hi MadHairDay! Yes, Paul's letters have got to come into the mix IMO. The 'Christ Hymn' in Philippians 2 is one example of an early undisputed Pauline text that shows that Jesus was considered divine ('equalty with God'...'God gave him the name that is above every name' [i.e. the divine name]). If it were pre-Pauline and used in Christian worship of Jesus, as seems to be the case, this is strong evidence of the worship of Jesus, and the implicit belief in the divinity of Jesus, in the pre-70 period.

[MadHairDay]

Morning Holo, and I agree with you about the 1 Cor 11 headgear text being misunderstood. There's another fun area to explore, but maybe not for this thread - you're right, the portion from 17 onwards about the Lord's Supper is unchallenged as original. V interesting to realise the reality of what was going on shortly after Jesus' death.

[HolofernesesHead]

Yes, it's interesting, isn't it? So if we put these things together, we have:

The amended Passover meal in which the bread is seen as the body of Jesus - so early evidence that Jesus' death was seen as sacrificial and related to the Passover (Jesus leading people to the new 'Promised Land');

Songs and hymns sung about Jesus that show that people believed he was divine (Phil. 2, Heb. 1:1-3, which is IMO pre-70, Col. 1:15-20, which is later but the song probably pre-dates the letter).

Anything else?

[MadHairDay]

1 Corinthians 15 is another interesting one, grounding Jesus as more than a wishy washy divine object of worship - attesting that he died, was raised and describing some resurrection appearances. Most scholars, conservative and liberal, see this passage as an early credal statement. Jeremias refers to it as 'the earliest tradition of all.' Given that 1 Corinthians can be dated to the fifties, and that Paul says that he has already passed on this creed to the Corinthian church, so dating the written form to pre AD51 at least, we can see that it was being used within 20 years of the resurrection. Fascinating.

[MadHairDay]

And added to that, there is a growing group of scholars who consider this creed to have been in use within 2-8 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. That's a fairly big difference to 40 years of nothingness until the gospel of Mark was written down. And taken with the fact that Paul, in addition to his own experience of Christ, met with Peter and James - direct eyewitnesses - it's interesting, at the least.

[HolofernesesHead]

Oh yes, 1 Cor. 15:3-5 is pretty well agreed to be the earliest credal statement - also 1 Cor 12:13 //Gal. 3:28 'Jew or Greek, slave or free [male and female]' is thought to be an early baptismal creed.

So, we have:

The amended Passover meal in which the bread is seen as the body of Jesus - so early evidence that Jesus' death was seen as sacrificial and related to the Passover (Jesus leading people to the new 'Promised Land');

Songs and hymns sung about Jesus that show that people believed he was divine (Phil. 2, Heb. 1:1-3, which is IMO pre-70, Col. 1:15-20, which is later but the song probably pre-dates the letter).

Credal statements, often in the context of initation rites (baptism), asserting that Jesus was raised from death.

Anything else, while we're on a roll?

[MadHairDay]

How about the early sermons in Acts? eg Acts 10:36-43. These are credal statements in themselves - this particular one also attests to Jesus' life of 'doing good and healing'. These report similarly early data about what people believed and practised so soon after the event. Scholars have little doubt that this material is from very early sources.

In fact there are many, many references throughout Acts. There can be no doubt that the early followers of Jesus believed that he was not only God, but also raised from death, and that there were witnesses to the fact.

Keep going Holo!

[HolofernesesHead]

Acts is later, isn't it? Are the sermons thought to be earlier / reflect earlier traditions? I'll check this out next time I'm in a library.

A question: do we think that the Gospels are 'better' evidence for Jesus than this Pre-Gospels material? If so, why? Off out now but I'll check back in later. :)

[MadHairDay]

Many scholars think Acts was written in early 60s, but it's more the description therein of what was happening in those years iyswim. It's more that the author has obviously preserved material from very early on, so accounting for what was happening. So yes, the sermons and other references throughout are widely held to reflect early traditions.

Good question, will ponder.

[EllieArroway]

Holo - I am completely disinterested in whether or not Jesus could or could not read Greek. It has no bearing at all on the evidence for his historicity which is what this debate is supposed to be about. If he was "God" in some form, which presumably the Christians on this thread believe, then he could read anything in any language - since he could do anything (that's what omnipotence means).

If it makes you happier, OK - he could read Greek. I don't know and I don't care. Sorry to be dismissive of something that clearly matters to you, but it's taking this debate off at a tangent and achieves literally nothing.

Has not escaped my notice that of all the things I've said, this is all some of you feel able to try and contradict

With regards to Paul - it's established pretty conclusively that he didn't write 5 of them, that's the consensus amongst scholars. Yes, you can find a few that don't believe that, but the majority do, for very solid reasons that I don't need to go into here. The research is available to anyone who'd care to look, and you'll see why it's considered almost a certainty. The ones we know that he did write are known as "The Undisputed" ones.

It was extremely common for writers to produce work that had someone else's name on. Just look at the gospels (although the writers almost certainly never called themselves Matthew, Mark, Luke & John).

The disputed passages in Corinthians are 11 2-16 and 14 34-35. They have moved themselves around within the text, casting doubt on their authenticity and they are internally inconsistent with other things that Paul says.

"Pseudepigraphy" - No, it doesn't need to be discussed here. It's enough to know that it happened & probably did with rather a lot of books within the NT. Please remember that I am arguing against the idea that the NT provides historical proof for Jesus's existence - and, sorry, but documents that claim to be written by one person but weren't must be dismissed as evidence.

If I were investigating (for example) whether or not Oswald killed Kennedy and found a letter from him saying "Yeah, it was me, I did it" - but subsequently discovered it was written by someone else entirely, I would have to disregard it completely. Doesn't matter why that person wrote it, or how often people write letters like that - the fact that it is fraudulently signed and can only amount to hearsay means that it cannot possibly be admitted as evidence.

Evidence matters here & the standards of that evidence matters.

Holo So that I know where you're coming from - who do you think wrote the canonical gospels?

[EllieArroway]

Mad

Oh no! I hope you're OK. Please don't over do it. I think all of us on here would rather you were sitting with your feet up getting better than feeling you had to weigh in to something like this. If you need to take a break, then do. We'll be here when you feel better :)

I will address the points you made today, but will understand if you can't get back on for a while.

Have some and .

[HolofernesesHead]

Hello Ellie! Mad, are you okay? Hope so.

Ellie, as I've said several times, the bilingualism of Jesus is a minor issue. It's not going to convert anyone. The reason I picked up on it was that you asserted very confidently that Jesus didn't know Greek, and to my mind, that kind of assertion needs substantiating to be taken seriously. As you say, evidence matters! Assertions need to be backed up by evidence, otherwise the whole debate becomes pointless. I've said that I'm happy to talk about the manuscript variants, and other issues you've raised.

[HolofernesesHead]

Sorry to double post: am I right in thinking that you discount the Pauline corpus as evidence of the early Jesus movement? If so, I think you need to be able to articulate why you think it us not to be taken seriously. It's odd that you think that pseudepigraphy is irrelevant; do you think that all ancient literary genres are irrelevant? If so, why?

I'm fairly conservative (academically, not Christian-wise) on the writing of the Gospels. My way of understanding them is to think more in terms of communities, not individual authors; talking about 'Matthew's community' is more fruitful and meaningful than talking about Matthew, IMO. Why - what do you think? And as I asked earlier, which one is your favourite? Same question all round really - which Gospel do we like best? (I feel a bit sorry for Mark because no-one ever says Mark!)

[MadHairDay]

Thanks, Ellie and Holo. I am ok, though somewhat brain-fugged. I am putting my feet up good excuse for mning - I know I'm not going terribly downhill because I can still face a computer screen

[EllieArroway]

My way of understanding them is to think more in terms of communities, not individual authors How strange. They did have individual authors, and who they were is infinitely important to this discussion. Who do you think sat down and physically wrote them?

And I think you're indulging in special pleading somewhat. I'll explain what I mean later.

I have my work cut out here, but I shall be back later with some mega posts addressing everything Mad has said, looking at why Paul is not a good witness and shouldn't even be part of a debate about the physical existence of Jesus, the many and monumental discrepancies in the gospels & why they can't be trusted as evidence (using the nativity as an example) and I'm going to try and dispense in one fell swoop with the idea that's there's any extra-Biblical, non-Christian evidence we can use to prove Jesus (there ain't).

That is a lot, I know. But it all matters.

I don't really have a favourite gospel - I've never thought about them in those terms. The ones I like the best are the ones that never made it into the canon - they're blooming hilarious!

(Anyone reading, if you think Matthew, Mark, Luke & John are the only gospels, you're wrong. They're the only ones that were selected by church elders to be part of the canon - the others were simply too embarrassing. Jesus the child killer anyone? Jesus the giant whose head touched the clouds? A walking wooden cross the followed Jesus out of the tomb! Brilliant stuff )

[EllieArroway]

Ellie, as I've said several times, the bilingualism of Jesus is a minor issue. It's not going to convert anyone. The reason I picked up on it was that you asserted very confidently that Jesus didn't know Greek

Well, OK....I don't know if he did or not. No one does. The more important issue, and what I was actually getting at, is whether his disciples knew Greek and were likely to write accounts about their experiences in it. This is extraordinarily unlikely and I would be amazed if you could find any respected, credible Biblical scholar/expert who took any other view.

I lumped Jesus in with the disciples because we're meant to, aren't we? All humble, poor men - Jesus was one of them, just an ordinary Joe. Except he could walk on water and make decomposing corpses come back to life, of course.

[niminypiminy]

As far as I'm aware the view that the gospels were authored by communities is fairly widely accepted among biblical scholars.

The non-canonical gospels have some interest, it's true, but most of them are far later than the canonical gospels, which were written very close in time to the events they narrate.

My favourite gospel. Hm. I do actually like Mark, in fact, though perhaps not as much as Luke and, in a different way, John. The one I struggle with more is Matthew. I like the 'secret Messiah' aspect of Mark.

[EllieArroway]

Oh, hold on, Holo

I said:

*It's vaguely possible that Jesus & the disciples were bi-lingual and spoke both Aramaic & the Greek dialect that the gospels use. But this is extremely unlikely given their humble, working men backgrounds. And being illiterate, which they almost certainly were, was not a shameful thing then - it was the default for most people.

How is this a confident assertion that Jesus couldn't speak Greek? I didn't dismiss it entirely, I acknowledged it as a possibility - I just said it is unlikely. Which it is.

[EllieArroway]

As far as I'm aware the view that the gospels were authored by communities is fairly widely accepted among biblical scholars

Absolutely 100% not true. Sorry.

[HolofernesesHead]

Ellie, you said, 'Absolutely 100% not true. Sorry.' Could you back that up please?

THe Greek question: it is minor. But to my mind it'sd a usefui; one as it's enabled me to set out my methodological stall - to say 'this is how I find things out, these are the people I read, etc etc.' I'm not sure you've done the same, yet, unless I missed it. So using the question of 'Gospel communities', e.g. 'the Johanine community' as an example, can you tell us how you go about finding out why you think it's 'Absolutely 100% not true' that communities are a fruitful way of understanding the Gospels?

[HolofernesesHead]

And to me, this saying how you find things out and reach your conclusions is the really important thing you need to do to be persuasive.

[HolofernesesHead]

This was your confident asssertion: 'They [the Gospels] were written in a foreign land in a language that Jesus & his followers didn't speak*. ' (6 March, 13:31).

[MadHairDay]

Ah yes, the other 'gospels' like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary. Certain scholars of Jesus Seminar fame would like to include the former in the canon, but I've always found it difficult to understand on what grounds. These works were written down far later than the original gospels - they could much more bear the charges often given to the four gospels, that of them being made up out of vague legend. I read that the amount of time passing between the events and these works being written was the same amount of time scholars would say that myth and legend could creep in, whereas the four gospels would not fulfil such criteria.

The reason why the gospel of Thomas, for eg, was not accepted into canon was that it did not meet the standards set by canon - those of wide usage among the christian community, and consistency of character to the rest of the canon and to what Christians believed, among others. It contained some strange passages - the walking cross as you mentioned Ellie, and the delightful passage about males only attaining salvation. This was totally unlike any other sayings of Jesus and so out of step with anything he would say that it was obviously not canon material. If you were going to say anything about unsubstantiated, cloaked in myth documentation, this would be a good example. Interesting though!