'Did Jesus Exist?': A Historian Makes His Case

[rug]

by NPR Staff
April 1, 2012

So, did Jesus really exist? With his new book, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, historian and professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, wanted to provide solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.

"I wanted to approach this question as an historian to see whether that's right or not," Ehrman tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz.

The answer is straightforward and widely accepted among scholars of all faiths, but Ehrman says there is a large contingent of people claiming that Jesus never did exist. These people are also known as mythicists.

"It was a surprise to me to see how influential these mythicists are," Ehrman says. "Historically, they've been significant and in the Soviet Union, in fact, the mythicist view was the dominant view, and even today, in some parts of the West – in parts of Scandinavia — it is a dominant view that Jesus never existed," he says.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case

[Warren Stupidity]

1. There is, for example, no historical evidence of Nazareth until circa 200 CE.

[rug]

3. I'll mark you down as a mythicist.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Jesus doesn't get a free pass. The evidence is not compelling.

I gave one example of a major flaw in the narrative.

[rhett o rick]

14. Are you intending that to be derogatory? nm

[struggle4progress]

39. There is reference to Nazareth in Matthew, which dates from the mid-to-late first century

and which is well-known by mid second century, rather before your 200 AD

[CJCRANE]

2. "Paul knew Jesus' brother, James

and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed," he says.

So, it's all down to the word of Paul based on the word of a guy called James?

If so what is the evidence that James existed and what is the evidence that he's telling the truth?

ETA: I'm more inclined to believe the archeological evidence that's been unearthed in Israel in the last 20 or 30 years but few people seem to want to talk about that.

[eqfan592]

4. Careful now, if you dare question the existence of Jesus...

...rug will mark you down as a mythicist!

[rug]

6. It doesn't hurt.

[rug]

5. Now that you mention it, it's amazing we know anything at all.

Archimedes, my ass.

[CJCRANE]

7. I know a guy called James.

He told me quite a few things you wouldn't believe. Or maybe you would...

[rug]

10. Talk to me when you know a guy who knew Archimedes.

[CJCRANE]

15. The thing is...we can recreate Archimedes' experiment...

there's a difference there.

I'm not denying Jesus existed, I believe he probably did.

But there is only circular logic in the article above.

[eqfan592]

9. Not in the least.

There are certain methods historians can apply to test the veracity of historical claims (documents from that time, specifically those written by scholars who have other claims that have been already verified, for example).

[roguevalley]

23. someone of profound charisma spoke enough truths that generations of individuals

remembered it and passed it on until it was written down. James is mentioned in other documents and he existed. He also is profound in his teachings and remembered. No one literate was available at the time to do the documentation and the fall of Jerusalem rather took care of most of the historical evidence. That doesn't mean he didn't exist. Half of what science believes can't be seen with the naked eye and mathematics appears to be the only 'evidence' of its existence. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If hard actual things are necessary to prove the existence of someone or something, half of what we believe would have to be discarded.

Someone says string theory is a viable truth. Show me the hard physical evidence about that which is always demanded of the existence of Jesus and the others. Somehow a man's dynamic and charismatic concern for others was remembered until someone was available to write it down. I don't need more than that to believe he existed any more than I need actual physical evidence about physics to believe that science also tells the truth.

There are more esoteric things in science that we are supposed to believe without actual things to look at than the existence of a good man two thousand years ago preaching love and concern for others. That he was remember long enough to be written down unlike dozens and hundreds of others equally interesting and maybe as worthy tells me that he existed. But then, that is just me.

Science and spirituality for me are two sides of the same coin. I respect each equally. Now religious dogma on the other hand ...

[CJCRANE]

26. I agree with your analysis and most of your conclusions...

I also believe Jesus existed based on the balance of probability, but that's what it is, a *belief*. We know with more certainty that Mohammed existed, so does that make his message more or less valid? What about Buddha, if he didn't exist as a real life person does that make his message more or less valid?

We know that someone (or several people) wrote down their words, maybe the scribes made it all up. What's important is the message. If you're a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist, what is the message in these words?

As for science, I agree we take a lot of it on faith, but where it's been applied we can see that it works. If the various quantum theories are correct then eventually they'll be applied and we'll make use of them.

[roguevalley]

27. I love science. I just love it and read the new things constantly. My spirituality

is based on my own personal empirical data. I agree with you too, CJCRANE. I am waiting for the day we find out conclusively he existed and then we can focus on his message. The supernatural stuff applied to him is of that generation. I find it hides and hinders the magnificence of the message. THe message is what matters. I agree 100%

[Ferretherder]

8. As a card carrying atheist, I feel obligated to say...

...that I believe there WAS a man named Jesus who was born in or around Bethlehem a little over 2000 years ago, grew up studying the various religions of his time, became a leader of a group of disciples who felt he was a very wise, charismatic and caring individual, and who became a thorn in the side of the holy men who held sway over the people of his country and who had him killed by the Roman occupiers of that land.

Do I think he was born of a virgin mother and was the son of a big, bearded guy sitting on a throne in the clouds? ...............uh,.....no.

...but that's just me.

And just so you know, I think a lot of the stuff he taught about living life peacefully and treating everyone the way YOU would like to be treated are pretty good guidelines to live by.

[CJCRANE]

12. I agree with you about his message

and that's why I hope the recent archeological evidence is genuine and proves he did exist, but there is very little discussion about it.

[rug]

13. Yeah, I think this book is just about whether he existed.

Given the events of the first two centuries CE, if he didn't, it would be a scam that puts Nigeria to shame.

[CJCRANE]

16. Do you believe Ganesha existed?

Or any of the other Hindu gods and legends? Or the Norse gods or Egyptian gods etc.

Things don't need to physically exist to have an impact on history.

And again I reiterate that I believe Jesus probably existed but the evidence quoted in the OP is not convincing.

[rug]

21. No. I haven't studied these beliefs but I suspect their etiologies are quite distinct.

I don't think a flat two dimensional comparison is the best.

[longship]

17. Ehrman is very smart

No, I haven't read this book. But that doesn't stop me from having an opinion on the historicity of Jesus.

I think that this question cannot be answered from Biblical sources. Unfortunately, that's pretty much all there is. The Biblical sources are so tangled and discrepant both with known history of the times and with each other, to claim any authority from the Bible is basically falsified.

But that doesn't mean that a man like Jesus didn't exist. It just questions the stories written in the Bible which may be partially mythical and partially historical.

This is basically an unanswerable question, IMHO. Anybody claiming otherwise had better have some evidence beyond what exists.

[earthside]

20. I'm halfway through the book.

Ehrman is as brilliant as usual.

So far, I think he makes the case: a human man Jesus existed in Palestine from about 33 BCE to about 30 CE.

Most interesting to me is how Ehrman demonstrates how non-New Testament sources and New Testament scholarship shows why Jesus's existence makes sense.

Since I accept that the Jesus family tomb and Jesus's ossuary has been found, the existence question is not critical to me. Besides, the rabid Christians have an easier time dismissing the myth argument than they do the idea that he was not God's son and was just a man (that really drives them around the bend).

Though Ehrman is an agnostic, he makes a compelling case against the 'mythicists'.

But, I don't think this is Ehrman's best book. My personal favorite is "God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer".

[longship]

24. Tomb and Ossuary

The archeology on the tomb and ossuary apparently do not hold up. I don't know what you've been reading that you would accept them. N.B. James Cameron is not an archeologist (tomb).

I'm no expert in this, but Skeptics Guide to the Universe has talked about these and they apparently have not been validated.

Another Biblical source on the historicity of Jesus is Robert M. Price, The Bible Geek. You may not agree with everything he says but he's extremely knowledgable on the Bible and takes on these complex Biblical issues with great gusto.

Cheers!

[earthside]

30. Jesus Tomb Probable

My research and reading leads me to believe that it is reasonable and probable that the Talpiot tomb is the burial place of the Jesus family.

Of course, it is in no one's interest to accept this contention; even the most conservative Israeli and Jewish authorities and scholars know that Christian tourism is a huge part of Israel's economy (not counting the relatively massive amounts of foreign aid the U.S. gives Israel every year). Who is going to jeopardize that over a controversial archeological discovery?

The entire Christian establishment would never accept the notion of an actual burial place for Jesus, even if it contained documents, wall engravings, bones and a flashing neon sign powered by god. The faction that maintains that Jesus never existed don't want a grave to be found either.

So, from my perspective -- despite (or in spite of) the skepticism of almost everyone over the Talpiot tomb -- the simple facts of what was found there seem to lead to a plausible explanation that Jesus lived and died with his extended family between 3 BCE and 30 or 40 CE and their remains were entombed as was the custom of the time. It leads to a not very dramatic story for Jesus' end, but that is why it rings true for me.

And ... Ehrman discusses and provides quite a critique of Robert Price's arguments in his new book.

[CJCRANE]

40. Yes, that's the irony...

the very last thing the Church wants is actual physical proof that their messiah existed.

But to me that is a much more compelling story, that Jesus was a real life man with a family.

[Silent3]

31. Is there much more in the book beyond arguing from the Bible as if...

...the Bible itself is a reliable source? If not, I don't see how that it could be very convincing.

[Kalidurga]

18. I will need more proof than...

a friend of a friend talked to him once.

[msongs]

19. "wanted to provide evidence" well quelle surprise what his conclusion was going to be nt

[Speck Tater]

22. Before I read this I need to know what his conclusion will be.

Because if his conclusion disagrees with my conclusion then reading it is a waste of time because I know he's wrong without even reading what he has to say. And if his conclusion agrees with my conclusion then I already know what he's going to say, so it's a waste of time to read it.

I get why the bishops refused to look through Galileo's telescope now. Having to look at facts that go counter to our preconceptions is such a drag! It's enough to ruin your whole day.

[mr blur]

25. As a mythicist, I'd suggest that

this is a fascinating read:

[edhopper]

28. Did the Angel Moroni exist?

Because we have the contemporary writing of Joseph Smith that says he did and millions of followers today that believe so.

The Catholic Church has recently canonized Juan Diego, whose existence is questionable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Diego

I think the NT account of Jesus is as close to reality as the upcoming film "Abe Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" is to a true recounting of the Civil War.

[rug]

29. Now you're saying Juan Diego didn't exist?

I suppose Francis of Assisi was a legendary troubador.

[jeepnstein]

32. Yeah, but the money wasn't good enough to quit his day job.

Some scholars believe he was the original author of "Foggy Mountain Breakdown".

[rug]

33. I can see that.

RIP Earl.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jPVb21Ja86IWnyWNZ4CbKk2awUTA?docId=6a1103cc112a4b7d9568a51a5f720393

[edhopper]

34. Yes

outside of the Church, this is an open question.

The reality of Juan Diego's existence has been questioned by a number of experts on the early religious history of New Spain including Bernardino de Sahagun, Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta, Stafford Poole, Louise Burkhart and David Brading, who argue that there is a complete lack of sources about Juan Diego's existence prior to the publication of the Nican Mopohua a century later, in 1649 (they do not accept the validity of the Codex Escalada as historical evidence).[2] Notwithstanding these doubts, the findings of an interdisciplinary study, by nearly two dozen experts involving a prominent Mexican university and a noted American scholar of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican linguistics and anthropology, all indicated authenticity of the document and 16th century origin.[3][4]

The historic veracity of both sources are considered questionable by many historians.[8] The primary doubts arise in the dearth of sources about the apparition and consequently about Juan Diego in the 117 years between the time given for the apparition and the first publication of the story. Also the fact that the story was described as being previously unknown by those who read its first publication. Furthermore the fact that Bishop Zúmarraga who figures as a prominent character in the account has not left any mention of either Juan Diego or the apparition in his otherwise ample correspondence is a problem for the credibility of the accounts.[9] The problems with the historicity of Juan Diego was recognized as early as 1883 by Joaquín García Icazbalceta historian and the biographer of Archbishop Juan de Zumárraga, in private letter to the Mexican Bishop Icazbalceta concluded that there was no historical basis for the character of Juan Diego.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Diego

[rug]

36. It's interesting that some of the strongest of the critics, including Poole, a Vincentian priest,

are within the Church.

[edhopper]

38. I do not know if he existed or not. The claims about him are highly dubious and

of course the Lady of Guadalupe is a complete fraud.
But I think the point that this historical figure of only a few hundred years ago, that the Church has gone so far as to make a Saint, and yet we don't know if he is real, is a good example why the existence of Jesus is a highly debatable subject, without any true way to know.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. A long rebuttal, based on the Huffington Post article Ehrman wrote a couple of weeks ago

Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism

Yesterday Bart Ehrman posted a brief article at the Huffington Post (Did Jesus Exist?) that essentially trashtalks all mythicists (those who argue Jesus Christ never actually existed but was a mythical person, as opposed to historicists, who argue the contrary), indiscriminately, with a litany of blatant factual errors and logical fallacies. This is either the worst writing he has ever done, or there are far more serious flaws in his book than I imagined (Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth). Amazon just reported that it shipped my copy of his book yesterday as well, so I will be able to review it soon.

I am puzzled especially because this HuffPo article as written makes several glaring errors and rhetorical howlers that I cannot believe any competent scholar would have written. Surely he is more careful and qualified in the book? I really hope so. Because I was expecting it to be the best case for historicism in print. But if it’s going to be like this article, it’s going to be the worst piece of scholarship ever written. So stay tuned for my future review of his book. For now, I will address this brief article, not knowing how his book might yet rescue him from an epic fail.
...
Obviously, saying all this is by no means sufficient to demonstrate that Jesus didn’t exist. There is still evidence to debate and logic to test. But it ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that this is at least a respectable theory to consider. As long as it is considered competently and with due attention to facts and logic and productive peer debate, why not?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667

[brooklynite]

37. Why is he pushing "evidence"? I thought I was supposed to have "faith".