'Did Jesus Exist?' A Historian Makes His Case

READER REVIEW:

By Greg "Saganite" (Brooklyn Park, Mongolia)

Bart Ehrman would really rather be writing on a different topic, he tells us. But the popularity of Jesus "mythicism" among the agnostics and humanists with whom he generally makes common cause motivated him to speak up. Mythicism is the hypothesis of some that the New Testament material is strictly fictional with no core historical character around which (perhaps) legendary elements accrued. Jesus, in other words, was made up out of whole cloth, and any effort to find an historical Jesus is doomed because no such actual figure ever existed. As Ehrman shows, the "case" for this position, such as it is, generally consists of the negative (demonstrating that much of the New Testament was written anonymously or was even forged; pointing out historical absurdities; identifying contradictions in and between the texts; stating that little to no extra-biblical references to Jesus can be found until several decades after his death, etc.) and the positive case, which consists primarily of comparing elements of the Gospels and Apostolic traditions to elements from pagan mystery religions and other potential sources (e.g., a dying and rising savior god-man such as Osiris).

Ehrman largely agrees with the key points of the negative case. There really are things in the New Testament that are fatal to a modern-day conservative fundamentalist understanding of the New Testament as inerrant, for example, including a host of contradictions (Ehrman invites us to compare, for example, the nativity narratives and the crucifixion timelines and casts of characters for fairly obvious examples). But none of that, Ehrman says, acts to gainsay the existence of an actual historical person at the hearts of the stories, and the evidence FOR such a figure is overwhelming.

There are few things more vexing than someone speaking for "your side" getting things so terribly, embarrassingly wrong. Ehrman does secularism and reason alike a great service by powerfully presenting the case for an historical Jesus (who nevertheless looks little like the evangelical version). I happen to like and respect Robert Price, one of the mythicists Ehrman goes after....but Ehrman is almost surely correct that while Price raises intelligent issues, his denial of an historical Jesus goes too far. I had not been aware that another favorite scholar of mine, Richard Carrier, was counted among the mythicists, but expect to learn more about his position when reading his new book, Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus.

Ehrman notes that he was nervous about how his non-theist fans might receive a book defending the historicity of Jesus while casting doubt on the speculations of the more obviously atheistic mythicist authors and scholars. I do not think he needs to worry. Most of us just want to follow the evidence wherever it leads...and as he says, an historical Jesus says next to nothing about how likely a god might be.

I wish to add that throughout the book his conclusions seem to differ little from those of Christopher Hitchens, who also wondered why it would be necessary to make up ridiculous and unbelievable story elements for a purely fictional creation. I wish all atheist thinkers and speakers could bring that level of reason to discourses on Jesus. Augustine once admonished Christians not to talk nonsense about physical reality because it could bring scripture into ill repute when heard by non-believers who understand more about, say, stars and seasons than they do. I think the same could be said to some atheists: unless you actually are a Bible scholar--you're not a Bible scholar. There is more to that moniker than you probably understand, and Christians might laugh your simplistic notions to scorn if you talk the kind of nonsense about their holy book as they do about biology, cosmology, and philosophy.

As with virtually everything Ehrman has written, "Exist" is highly recommended. I would like to think it will go a distance toward ending the practice of some atheist luminaries of adding "if there even was one" when mentioning Jesus. That is no more academically respectable than calling evolution "only a theory" in the ignorant, pejorative sense is.

Mr. Ehrman's remarks about Paul are refreshingly naive. I don't know if the putative Jesus actually existed, and don't care. But saying that Paul knew James, the putative brother of the putative Jesus, and that he knew Peter (don't get me started on that Peter bullshit), and we know this because Paul tells he did is more than a little slack-jawed on his part. If you were attempting to establish your credentials in a community which revered someone, sure you'd say you knew people who had known him. That hardly constitutes evidence that that's the truth.

You bet your brain that you are right!

BBB

Sorry but there so far is zero evidence that such a man existed in the records of that time period.

An if he did exist or a man by that name existed as a Jewish splinted group cult leader that the myths was build on so what?

The whole story is a myth on it face similar to a great many others myths in human history and that is once more completely independent to the question of whether there was some cult leader that the myth was build around or not.

As far as the supernatural elements go Jefferson who was of the opinion that Jesus existed said all that needed to be said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Ah hah, another smart man.

BB

I don't understand the point unless it's to sell more books. There may be a case that can be made that Jesus did or didn't exist, but what difference does it make? There's no way to prove he did or didn't exist. Believers will believe and non-believers wont no matter how many books are written on the subject.

I don't find his arguments very compelling. He's just arriving at the conclusion he wants to arrive at. And while he's entitled to do that, it's certainly not helpful or revealing in any way.

I don't understand what difference it makes whether there's a historical Jesus or not. I also have no idea if Archimedes and Pythagoras authored the theorems that bear their names, or if they even existed as historical persons. For all we know, it was Archimedes's wife Wilma who discovered "Archimedes's principle". I don't care. It's the theorems that are important. They stand on their own merits whoever wrote them. Likewise, if somebody showed that there never was a historical Jesus, and that the Sermon on the Mount was written by somebody else, what difference does it make? It's the teachings that count. Judge them on their own strength---or on their own lack of it, as the case may be. What thing of importance does the historicity of Jesus change?

According to secular historians, his teachings may have attracted a following in first century Jerusalem. At that time, a variety of religious and philosophical trends were sweeping through the area. Jesus combined teachings from Hebrew scripture, Greek philosophy, and from eastern religions such as hinduism and buddhism, in a manner that appealed to people in Jerusalem at that time.

Maybe those historians are right. What difference would it make if they weren't? What's the relevance of this point?

Um.
Thomas...It's important in this particular case because the Christ Jesus of the Scriptures is the central, focal, point of the religion.
It is his Death and Resurrection which both fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament and begins the new relationship between God and mankind.
Without his physical death there is no sacrifice.
Without his resurrection, there is no new covenant.
And, I hasten to add, without his accession into heaven, there can be no hope for mankind to join him.

I believe none of this myth any more, but once, it was central to my being.

Believe me when I say that without a physical Jesus, the entire myth evaporates.

Joe(poof)Nation

Okay, that makes sense.

That certainly explains why christians remain obsessed about proving historically that he existed. However, it's flawed reasoning. Even it it were beyond all doubt that he did exist, that won't prove that the scriptures are accurate.

I think no

And other secular historians say that he was an itinerant carpenter/preacher/mystic/healer who was convinced of an apocalyptic end within his lifetime (or at least within the current generation). When the end times didn't come as prophesied then the writers of the gospels started drawing from other myths to embellish what he actually taught. Some think that his compassion was added by the author of the Gospel of John and that he didn't preach compassion at all.

Correct as there are for examples no real question that Muhammed or nine hundreds year more recently that Joseph Smith existed and yet that is not any proof of those gentlemen religion faiths and supernatural claims having any connection to the real world.

That's also why Christians bristle a little, as they should, whenever someone dares to say there is no historical proof that anyone named Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem (prophesied) during a particular tax census (no records of ), who was later arrested, tried and executed (prophesied, but no records of) and, this is the best part for me, was, after being entombed for three days (more prophesy ) rose up and was seen amongst the living until he rose up into the air until he disappeared from sight. (Right. Happens all the time.)

The problem for Christians is that the tale is derivative of several other Son(s) of God(s) stories that banged around the Middle East for at least 1000 years before the Christians came up with theirs. I always wonder why neither the Egyptians nor the Babylonians didn't laugh in the faces of the new Christians when they told their story of the Resurrection.

Joe( "Yeah, we've heard that one before, bro.")Nation

I have individual character, show yourself

Congratulations on a stimulating thread !
From a philosophical viewpoint it raises the issue of the nature of "existence" (ontology), and whether such a term is always relative as opposed to absolute.