Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>

, (new)(back)

Reasons to think he probably existed

These are reasons to think Jesus more likely than not existed. None of them are definitive proof he existed, however:

• Our experience tells us, that when a religious group claims to have been founded by someone, most likely that person actually existed and really founded the religion in question, rather than inventing their founder out of whole cloth. For example, Scientology claims as its founder L. Ron Hubbard, and their claims he existed and founded them are true; similar statements could be made about Joseph Smith and the Mormons, Baha'ullah and the Baha'is, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the Ahmadis. Of course, we have independent existence that these people existed - but, based on this example, it seems more likely than not that if a religion claims X as its founder, X actually existed and did found the religion. Even if we had no independent evidence for the existence of L. Ron Hubbard, our initial assumption should still be he more likely than not existed.
• That doesn't mean we should believe all the claims the religion makes about its founder. Scientology makes all sorts of unlikely claims about L. Ron Hubbard, that need to be taken with a handful of salt. But, while its common for a religion to make up grandiose claims about its founder, much less common for a religion to invent its founder entirely.
• So, comparing three possibilities:

1. Jesus existed and all the claims the Bible makes about him are true
2. Jesus existed, but many of the claims the Bible makes about him are not
3. Jesus never existed, and the Christians invented him

All three are possibilities, but without further evidence, (2) is most likely, (3) next most likely, (1) least likely.

• This is nothing specific about Christianity - it is a general statement about all religions. By the same logic, it is more likely than not Muhammad existed, more likely than not the Buddha existed, etc.
• A relevant factor is, how long between when the founder is claimed to have lived, and when those claims can first be demonstrated? How precise is the time period in which it is claimed he lived? If many centuries or millennia pass between the alleged life of the founder and the first claims about him, that makes it more likely he is legendary. In Jesus case, the time in which he is claimed to have lived is stated, not precisely, but the mention of Herod's reign, Pontius Pilate, etc., limits his life to a well defined period. And that period is a less than a century before the Gospels were written. So this makes Jesus more likely to be real. If Jesus was claimed to have lived centuries before the earliest evidence of those claims existing, if the Jesus story was more vague about when he actually lived, that would make it more likely Jesus was invented.
• The suggestion is made, if there is no independent contemporary record of Jesus existing, maybe that was because he was not important enough for others to note. The current version of this article responds that Jesus, as portrayed in the gospels, was very popular and well known. He was known by Herod, and Jesus had numerous followers "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan". However, that is assuming the Gospels are not exaggerating Jesus' importance. There are three possibilities:

1. Jesus was a real person, but had a relatively limited impact in his day - however, later accounts by his own followers exaggerate that impact due to their own biases
2. Jesus was a real person, and had a really big impact in his day - yet, for whatever reason, independent sources didn't notice him
3. Jesus never existed, and was invented by his followers

I think (1) is more likely than (3). Imagine we had no independent evidence for the existence of L. Ron Hubbard, only the Scientologist's word for it. I'm sure the Scientologist's account of him would depict him as a very important person, being consulted by world leaders, etc. Yet suppose we lack independent evidence of that. What is the logical conclusion - L. Ron Hubbard never existed, and the Scientologists invented him? Or, he really did exist, but the Scientologist's own accounts greatly exaggerated his impact in his own day? I think the first is more likely.

So, my conclusion is, Jesus more likely than not existed. There is no certain proof - it's not impossible he was just invented. But, the real existence of someone called Jesus, who was some kind of religious teacher, who founded something which evolved into Christianity - that is the most likely scenario. Jesus' existence does not mean the Gospels are accurate accounts - just as Hubbard really existed but Scientology accounts of his life and teaching can be very unreliable, so is it likely that Jesus really existed but the Gospels are exaggerated/distorted/biased accounts of his life. Lacking independent confirmation, we can't know exactly how distorted those accounts are - so, although Jesus probably existed, we will probably never know anything for certain about his actual life or teaching. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

But ... the founder of Christianity as we know it was Paul. (Whose existence as a historical person is significantly less disputed than that of Jesus, despite there being a similar lack of non-Biblical evidence.) So your reason with regard to founders applies to him, not Jesus - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC due to having to read up on Frum and, bizarrely, the Prince Phillip Movement) Similar to "proofs" of God's existence that only really conclude a deistic and non-interventionist God rather than a specific incarnation based on a religion, you can only seem to conclude that "Christianity exists, therefore someone must have founded it". Not really the same as "Jesus, as described, is more than likely to have existed". I can cite the case of wp:John Frum who is associated with cargo cults, but no one is sure at all whether he really existed at all despite living so recently. And this confusion arose only a few decades after Frum supposedly existed - which is actually less than the lag time between Jesus' stated death and Jesus first being written about, and that's in the modern era. These figures are more than capable of appearing out of nowhere, or being combined from and with other legends to develop and evolve while having little or no basis in fact. King Arthur and Robin Hood being two prominent legendary men from English history. It seems like we get dozens of new theories each year about who the "real" person behind these myths really was, but the odds are that it's just that, myths. But this is also based on the fallacy that ideas, constructs and physical organisations need these real and tangible founders of legend. It's not actually necessary as such things can happen quite happily by emergence. It would be like saying that the Internet exists so must have a founder. But doesn't have a founder - certainly not Al Gore inventing it. Democracy doesn't really have an inventor, economics didn't really arrive from a single individual, a language didn't need someone to sit there and make it and spread it. These things may seem completely different to a religion, especially in their current organised guise or the personality cults we can see in existence but from the point of view of memetics there is little difference. It's very possible, and indeed with the case of John Frum and cargo cults it's been shown, that religions just spring up as ideas spread and they don't have to have roots in real individuals. It certainly helps to have figureheads, and memes do need people to spread, but that doesn't imply that the legendary individuals of the supporting stories are real. ADK^{...I'll bamboozle your mycobacterium!} 12:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have pretty much nicked your ideas for a new intro section on the front :-D - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

David Gerard: It's not so clear Paul founded Christianity. Certainly, he founded Pauline Christianity, which evolved into the mainstream of Christianity, and eventually wiped out all the competing Christian groups. But there are other groups which are quite possibly independent of Paul in origin - such as Hebrew Christianity (Ebionites, etc.) or Gnostic Christianity. There are also Christian groups which, although they eventually merged with Pauline Christianity and became part of the one mainstream Christianity, may have an independent origin from Paul - e.g. Johnanine Christianity.

Armondikov: I agree with you completely, we have examples of religions with legendary founders, like John Frum. (Well, John Frum is either an actual native Vanuatan, or an amalgam of American soldiers in general, depending on which branch of John Frumism you ask.). The question is, is that the exception or the rule? Basically, if you ask me "did Jesus exist?", my first answer will be "We don't know for sure, and probably never will". Then if you ask, "well, do you think its more likely or not he did?" my answer is "More likely than not he's real". I completely agree with you about John Frum, I just think that religions with real historical founders are more common than religions with legendary ones. It's not impossible that Jesus is legendary, but it's entirely possible there really was someone with that name, who started or lead some religious group, which evolved into Christianity - we just don't know, and can't really. But if it was a bet, I'd put my money on him existing, but not a very large amount of money. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My pet theory is that he's several people amalgamated into one. There's little to no contemporary evidence of a man named Jesus going around doing stuff, but there's evidence that there are lots of people do that sort of thing all the time when there's religious and social upheaval. Unfortunately, absence of evidence must be read as evidence of absence. So we look to other examples. Jesus is closer to John Frum than he is to L. Ron. Hubbard in terms of what direct evidence we have of their existence. So we can ask why is there no direct evidence. In the case of Hubbard, he was an author and publicity whore, so we have photos. In the case of Frum, he's either an amalgamation or entirely legendary. Jesus is likely to be in a similar situation purely because the records don't match up with the Biblical events - particular in birth, for example, as the "census" mentioned is nowhere close to the AD/BC line. Perhaps the miracles described actually originate with different people. I don't know. As I said, it's a pet theory and that's it. We have no supporting evidence either way so we should really conclude non-existence. ADK^{...I'll stir your bear!} 13:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your theory may well be entirely correct. But, here is my preferred theory - there was a religious teacher called Jesus. He saw himself as a teacher within the Jewish tradition, especially the tradition of the Prophets. He probably had some messianic pretensions or tendencies, but probably maintained a bit of ambiguity about the topic at the same time. The teachings ascribed to him by the Bible are probably somewhat based on his teachings, but probably with some elaborations and distortions - but we are not going to be able to clearly separate what he taught from how his followers later developed. He had a moderate following, not enough to draw a lot of notice. He did or said something which annoyed the authorities, so they had him executed, but they didn't see him as anyone exceptional or exceptionally threatening, just yet another religious troublemaker. After his death, a group of his followers had visions of him, probably by a similar process to whatever causes modern Marian apparitions (such as Lourdes or Fatima or Medjugorje) - thus Christianity was born. Later his life story was exaggerated and distorted, to meet the varying needs of future Christians. Probably many parts of his life story in the Gospels have been invented to fulfill prophecies.

Comparing my some real guy called Jesus theory, to your amalgam theory, or the Jesus as a myth theory, or so on - I don't think there is much evidence for any of them. We simply don't know. But if I had to choose, I think mine is more likely, simply because it seems to me more simple and straightforward. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

But undoubtedly if Jesus was just an ordinary religious teacher, there would obviously be hundreds, if not thousands of them. Look at the preachers and people who make their own sects today. Of course, the western world isn't the place where people will be hung for that sort of thing any more, but we do see many of them. If there were many Jewish preachers/teachers then obviously more than one would likely be going around pissing people off - and probably by saying far more subversive things. So which of these was actually called Jesus, and importantly, are all the events recorded post facto in the Bible all relating to this one man? ADK^{...I'll accentuate your rutabaga!} 11:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

All it takes is a "hey, I heard this story about a guy who did x, can't remember his name." "Oh,that sounds like Jesus, you know, the guy who also did y." "Ah yeah, that must be him then, I think." (though obviously not that much in the modern vernacular) and *blam* you have another module attached to the meme and, because of the lack of first-hand records, it's impossible to verify. And we also have multiple Gospels, only four of which survived the first edit, what of the ones that were written that didn't even get that far, and what of the contradictions and asynchronism between them. It's the result of a lot of inconsistent sources being pulled together and an attempt to pull them into a narrative that represents one person. Think of the quotes attributed to and mis-attributed to Dan Quale or George Bush, it's "this guy has said stupid things, therefore this stupid thing must have been said by this guy". Given the ability for things to be mixed up like this, multiplied by the few actual records that would have been, thinking that the whole Jesus story does pertain to one man and one man only is considerably more far-fetched. You'd have to have a constant narrative, gathered at the time and for it to remain unpolluted by stories of others or things that have been made up. So it could be that Jesus fed the five thousand, but it was Jib-Bob who healed the blind man and Billy-Holes-in-the-Arms that was hung on a cross. ADK^{...I'll fill your tong!} 11:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree there would probably have been hundreds or thousands of other religious teachers, just like Jesus, in his day. Some of whom probably were also executed for causing trouble. The vast majority of whom have been entirely forgotten, because they just never made enough impact in their time, and their followings didn't grow into anything big either. I think Jesus likely had little impact in his time, yet he became known due to the success of his followers after his death. Why this success? Well, I guess he was probably above average, in the attractiveness of his teachings or personality, compared to similar religious teachers of his day, yet still not enough to make a big impact in his day. It seems likely John the Baptist was a lot bigger than Jesus in the time, since we have mentions of him external to Christian sources. Why Jesus' post-death success? Maybe it was just plain luck - if success of religions is randomly distributed, some will be more successful than others for no particular reason save good fortune.

I agree its quite possible that Jesus' story has been acreted with events actually done by others, or even by events that were never actually done by anyone. I still don't see how that is incompatible with their being some real guy called Jesus who started what turned into Christianity after his death. I agree such an amalgam is possible, but I think its more likely the legends get attached to what was originally a real person, rather than the legends hanging off nothing (with no real person underlying them). --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Maratrean. You make a good presentation and I understand each of your points. I would say the main article does not necessarily say that Jesus did not exist, just the historical evidence for him is severely lacking. It may be up to the viewer to decide how much they doubt the existence of Jesus, but i think it is important if they see the problems with the current "proofs" for Jesus. I accept the idea there may have been a central figure to Christianity, but I seriously doubt that it is Jesus of the Bible. For instance, it may be possible that the concept of Jesus could come from the Teacher of Righteousness in the Talmud (there are valid links between them), but this character lived more than 300 years BEFORE Jesus supposedly lived. Could Jesus have been completely made up? I cannot say for certain (nor should any rational person proclaim absolute certainty), but I think it is highly likely, given that virtually every detail of the life of Jesus comes from "Old Testament" scriptures and all given sources cannot agree who he was, what he said and where he said it, and Matt. and Luke copy verbatim from Mark. If there was a Jesus, even his followers cannot name details of him or his life. There are way too many problems with testimonies of these people who are claiming that this man existed. We know that people can exaggerate about actual historical people, such as George Washington and the cherry-tree (we all know that did not happen, it was a invented moral story), but the proof for this particular historical person is missing. Using Hubbard is a good example, but we can verify that Hubbard did exist. And it must be kept in mind of the time and the spread of Hellenized ideas across Judea. I think Jesus has strong connections to very believable myths like William Tell. I would also use the Negative Evidence Principle (NEP) proposed by Michael Martin: A person is justified in believing that p is false if (1) all the available evidence used to support the view that p is true is shown to be inadequate and (2) p is the sort of claim such that if p were true, there would be available evidence that would be adequate to support the view that p is true and (3) the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined. I think Jesus fits this very well, and it does support Armondikov's point. Finally, addressing the point about Pauline Christianity and other early Christian groups. Paul did not know much about Christ or his life - otherwise known as Paul's silence or ignorance, which has been a big problem for a very long time. Lets not forget that even the earliest Christian groups had no clear idea who Jesus was all the way to the 3rd century, some actually believed Jesus never really existed and was just a spiritual concept - which could be how the idea of Jesus actually came to be. Feredir28 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of Christians have a strong need to believe Jesus was a real person, because without him as a real person most of their religion is gone. I think many non-Christians want to believe Jesus was not a real person, because it would please them for Christianity to be wrong in such a fundamental way. I think both perspective can colour one's estimation of probabilties - the Christian desire for Jesus to exist makes them overestimate the probability of his existence, but a desire by some non-Christians for Jesus not to exist can make them commit an error in the other direction, and underestimate the probability of his existence.

As to me, I really don't care if he exists or not, and really don't claim to know. But I think, that although we don't really know and probably never will, it is still more likely that some guy called Jesus existed, and the Gospels are at least somewhat based on his actual life, albeit with many additions, exaggerations, distortions, omissions, etc.

I agree in principle with Michael Martin's NEP, but I don't agree with its application to Jesus, because I don't agree (2) applies to Jesus "p is the sort of claim such that if p were true, there would be available evidence that would be adequate to support the view that p is true". There were arguably many religious/cult/sect leaders, similar to Jesus, in his time; probably only the few which made a big impact have been recorded in any way. If Jesus made little impact in his life, even though his followers made a big impact after his death, then it is not surprising there is a lack of contemporary evidence for his existence. The Bible does indeed present him as being a major figure, very well known, which would imply there would be more evidence of his existence. But it is entirely possible that the Gospel accounts exaggerate his importance, and he was a minor and largely unnoticed figure in his own day. This is only to be expected - any religion, you read a biography it writes of its founder, you will come away with the idea they were much more important in their day than they actually were. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Maratraen, but I would like to make one thing very clear: I do not have a bias when it comes to the history of Christianity because I am not a Christian. What I want to be real is irrelevant, the evidence (or lack thereof) speaks for itself. It would be a hard blow to most Christians if Christ was not real, however it does not doom Christianity. Plenty of sects, such as Gnostics, will continue believing Jesus as a spiritual concept. Faith demands that they continue to believe regardless. I, on the other hand, think the fundamental problem with Christianity (and most religions) is that they insert a deity that has no proof, especially when they make claims about it right now that can be tested, but fails every time. Like you Maratrean, it does not matter to me whether Jesus existed or not, the only thing that matters is constantly seeking the truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with the Jesus story. I think Matrin's NEP does include Jesus, even if you take the gospels at face-value. If there was a Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, then we could definitely bet that "p is the sort of claim such that if p were true, there would be available evidence that would be adequate to support the view that p is true." Instead of Jesus, we get a record of dozens of other big and small messiahs, such as Appolonius of Tyana, Simon Magus, Simon of Peraea, and many others that continue on for another hundred or so years. If there was a normal Jesus, and he had any number of followers, stirred up a riot in the Temple on Passover, or spread a message that countered the commonly held belief of the day, we would expect someone to take note (especially the Jewish writer Philo). However, if there was a super Jesus (the one Christians believe in and claim that he did exist as a matter of fact), then he was VERY well known (in fact too well known), big enough for Herod to slaughter hundreds of babies just to find him, or when Jesus died all the dead in Jerusalem rose from the grave and walked among the living for all to see. Where is the evidence of any of this? These events are huge and not unnoticeable, and someone would have recorded it. Even if Jesus only made a small impact, such as upset the priesthood, someone would have noticed. If you upset the priesthood, they charge you and maybe gather a big crowd to stone you. So I think premise (2) stands strong in regards to Jesus. However, even if we accept the gospel authors exaggerate, they also make stuff completely up, such as if Jesus upset the priesthood, then they got a lot of it dead wrong -such as no capital cases were tried at night; nor on the festival; nor the eve of a festival, as the guilty party had to be put to death the following day and executions were not allowed on Sabbath or festivals. Anyone arrested on the eve of Sabbath or a festival was held in custody till after the Sabbath or holiday and then tried. Or how about that ALL of the 23 judges found him guilty, that should send up red flags immediately. Not to mention if they found someone guilty, they must go out and announce to everyone that so-and-so was convicted of such-and-such crime and sentenced to be executed. During that time witnesses who had proof of the accused’s innocence were allowed to come testify. Bottom line, I am sure that Jesus would have left an impact large enough to be recorded alongside Appollonius and the others. However, too much of Jesus is made up (click the link I posted in my previous comment for an example), and too much has stretched and fabricated over the years. This cannot be ignored. None of this makes sense historically, but it does seem to fit as a legend/fiction. Feredir28 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not you and I don't know what's going on in your head - so I can't say whether you personally have any biases. But, when you say I do not have a bias when it comes to the history of Christianity because I am not a Christian, you seem to be assuming that only Christians can be biased with respect to the history of Christianity, when non-Christians are quite capable of being biased too. Some non-Christians are biased in Christianity's favour - they have rejected or not accepted Christianity, but have nonetheless have a certain sympathy for it - for example, one of my friends is an atheist, yet quite insistent Jesus was a real historical person, I am sure she is not alone - maybe her thoughts are based on objective historical considerations, then again maybe her rejection of her Christian background is partial but not complete; on the other hand, other non-Christians are biased against Christianity, they really want as many reasons as possible to prove Christianity wrong, and so will be more than willing to believe an idea which implies Christianity's falsehood.

You are right that some Christian sects could survive even with proof that Christ never existed. But most could not survive in their current form. All the major schools of Christian theology (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinist, etc.) assume Jesus was a real human being.

I think Matrin's NEP does include Jesus, even if you take the gospels at face-value. - Yes, but if you don't accept them at face value, then his argument for "we'd expect to have evidence for his existence" is a lot weaker. If the Gospels are exaggerating some minor (in his day) figure into much greater importance, it is not surprising we have very little evidence for him. If he really did stir up a riot in the Temple, we'd expect him to be remembered - then again, maybe he stirred up nothing there at all, and the whole incident is invented; or maybe he caused some minor and entirely forgettable commotion, which in the retelling got blown out of all proportion to the original events? Such a Jesus could easily be entirely ignored by contemporary sources.

Again, to say he spread a message that countered the commonly held belief of the day, maybe Jesus' actual message was not that distinctive, and the more distinctive parts are developments subsequent to his death? Or maybe he kept rather quiet about his distinctive ideas, and only shared them with his closest disciples? There are passages in the Gospels which suggest the same thing (e.g. "the messianic secret"). And, looking at what we know from examples from other religions, it is quite common for religious leaders to keep their public teaching bland and commonplace, and save the real original stuff for private - witness Hubbard and his Operating Thetan materials...

Even if Jesus only made a small impact, such as upset the priesthood, someone would have noticed. If you upset the priesthood, they charge you and maybe gather a big crowd to stone you. Enough to leave a historical record? Maybe not. Maybe Jesus, and 50 other religious teachers along with him, upset the priesthood, but no one ever wrote anything about it because it just didn't seem that important at the time.

However, even if we accept the gospel authors exaggerate, they also make stuff completely up - no denying that - likely they started with a core of stories they had received, and "dramatized" it in ways which made sense to them, but may well have not been too accurate. Like a bad historical novel. That doesn't really relate to the question of whether the stories they'd received have some real guy named Jesus behind them or not.

Not to mention if they found someone guilty, they must go out and announce to everyone that so-and-so was convicted of such-and-such crime and sentenced to be executed. I'm sure the Romans crucified heaps of people whose crucifixions are not recorded in any surviving historical record. Quite possibly, no one made a fuss about Jesus' execution at the time, because it didn't seem like a big deal. Some relatively minor religious troublemaker, they may well have been killing them quite regularly, and Jesus may not have struck them as any more noteworthy than the fifty who came before him or the fifty who came after him.

Maybe it's only in hindsight that Jesus seems important, because by chance his following turned into a major world religion, while fifty other religious leaders from the same period are completely forgotten because what they started never had the good luck to go anywhere, despite the fact that in their day they were just as non-notable as Jesus was? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent remarks, but I do not fully agree. I will try to keep this short as possible (so a lot is going to be left out). First of all, I do not argue against Christianity because I seek to deliberately refute it, then I would have a bias. But to clearly get the full picture of the beliefs of a group, I think I would be justified based on John Loftus's classic "Outsiders test." Moving on, you are arguing in favor of some chap, possibly as well-known as a bum, be the center of Christianity. While that would be possible, starting off as a cargo cult (who also make up founders) that would later gain political power to become a world religion, but the entire character of Jesus seems invented as a whole (for starters, see here). When I mentioned that word must be spread to the people about an execution, events like this did not go unnoticed with people portrayed as Jesus (such as Yeshua Ben Satda and several others executed rabbi's or wise teachers). I was not implying the Romans would spread the news, that was the Jewish law and requirement, but it was never carried out. Now as for Martin' NEP if we accept that the gospels as a whole are completely exaggerated, then they are worthless historical documents and all we have left is clear speculations of how did this cult arise. No historical proof of a man named Jesus pops up. I think most likely is a small group of Hellenized men determined as the rest of the Jewish community to seek a savior to over through the Roman occupation. There were plenty of apocalyptic prophets, saviors, redeemers, and many sects tried to present a savior and they all failed (even Simon bar Kokhba, he was really really close). As for Christianity, the fact too much of his story resembles mirrors of OT stories, contradictory views for several centuries among Christians just based on who Jesus was, lack of eye-witnesses, no archaeological proof, no mention from any of the many actual contemporary sources, etc. when comparing to what we actually know about Jesus to what we do not know, I think this whole thing screams a fake. Feredir28 (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything you say may well be correct. All I am defending is two propositions:

1. We really don't know enough to know whether Jesus existed or not, and barring the possiblity of major future archaeological discoveries this situation is not going to change
2. In terms of probabilities, neither position is significantly more likely to be true than the other, but I would still argue that the Jesus exists proposition is somewhat more likely than the Jesus never existed proposition, but not hugely more likely.

So I guess, our positions are different, but I don't think there is a huge amount of difference between us in any case.

I think if a Christian wants to believe in Jesus' existence on a faith basis, well no one can stop them from doing so, but in historical terms the evidence either way is rather weak. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens point

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it an argument, but Christopher Hitchens makes an interesting point in God is not great. Basically he says that because of prophecy, everyone expected the Messiah to have been born in Bethlehem but that because it seems to have been well known that Jesus came from Nazareth, two separate and convoluted stories were made up (Matthew and Luke) that allow for his birth in Bethlehem. He points out that if Jesus had never existed, there would be no need to go to make up these stories about going to Bethlehem for the birth. If he hadn't existed the stories would be simply that He was from Bethlehem, no worries. It is the fact that the authors of the gospels needed to explain away the fact that everyone knew he was from Nazareth that gives a ring of truth to the story. Damo^Hi 12:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Now doesn't that sound just like Obama birtherism?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if in 2000 years people are disputing whether Obama existed or not, the mere fact that history was forged to indicate he was born in the US rather than Kenya, will be sufficient evidence that he in fact existed (not proof that he had horns and breathed fire or hastened the second coming of Christ - just proof he existed). Damo^Hi 10:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Damo, I agree in part. On the other hand, Nazareth also has meanings associated with prophecy - Nazareth could come from a Hebrew word meaning branch (as in branch of David) or it could come from nazir (an ascetic in Judaism, who has made a solemn oath to abstinence). Add to that, there is uncertainty for where Nazareth actually was, and a lack of independent confirmation for its existence. So, maybe both Bethlehem and Nazareth are inventions to fulfill some prophecy, and the complicated tale to make him born in both is to try to harmonize to contradictory sets of prophecies that Jesus is supposed to fulfill. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why this is wallbanging

The trouble is that once you get past several hundred years, the historical evidence for almost anything is rather skimpy. Ancient history and modern history are hardly even the same discipline. If this were evidence for J. Random Judean, the evidence could be weighed up more peacefully; as is, the real problem is that too many people demand a particular answer and aren't fussy how they get there. I've tried to get this across in the intro - David Gerard (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of just how much the printing press changed things. This is why we know so much from 1440 on in contrast to the period before. One hand written manuscript can be altered, lost, or destroyed but not thousands of identical copies.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reorganisation

I'm trying to make this into an applied lesson in the practice of ancient history, presenting the evidence for historical Jesus in those terms, and taking out the bits that tell people what to think of the evidence.

The Wikipedia article has been thoroughly referenced by actual scholars, who mostly keep the loonies at bay. However, it's turgid and unreadable. Mining it for references would be good.

I must note that I have no expertise whatsoever in history and welcome someone who has actually worked academically in the area going over this thing - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately don't look at me for history, either. But I can certainly comment on readability. We have the bones in there of a very good article. ADK^{...I'll earn your wizard!} 09:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done a first run all the way through. The next stage is for others to go through what's there, and then to reference it thoroughly - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have academic historian experience. I am in my third year in aiming for a degree, currently learning historians craft to become skilled historian. I can assist in trying to format this as a balanced applied lesson. However, when I use historian tools in regards to ancient history, the evidence is flimsy. I have brought this issue to the attention of two university professors and both agree the Bible is not a historical document, but both vary in degree in skepticism on the actual existence of Jesus. Perhaps this can be helpful in trying to balance it. Also, I agree with what you said about the Wikipedia article. Feredir28 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Two kinds of Jesus

It occurs to me that there are really two different versions of Jesus.

• An itinerant preacher who wandered the hills of Palestine and whose life apparently gave rise to the Christian religion.
• The Son of God who was born without sin after being miraculously implanted into the Virgin Mary. He took all our sins on himself by being crucified and dying on the cross. He recovered from death in the way that we recover from a common cold and in this way saved mankind from something or other.

The existence of the first version is question of historical debate to which the article refers. The existence of the second version - all miracles included - is the one which is crucial for all formal Christian religions which I am aware of. (Yes, I know people will have invented their own personal religions which have the magic bits taken out, I'm talking about formalised religion here.)

Is it worth contrasting these two differing figures in the article? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the second one you talk about was actually "decided" on long after the event, as the Bible was edited down to four gospels and the decision was taken whether Jesus was man or divine. So historical existence of that character is as moot as asking whether Kevin Costner, Cary Elwes or Russel Crowe was the real Robin Hood. ADK^{...I'll fumble your okra!} 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm just thinking that we might mention that we are writing about the first one. The secular version if you like.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it again this section sort of conflates the two.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that believers in the second one think proof of the first is enough proof of the second, as noted in the first section. Perhaps a new subsection of that? I dunno - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be in there somewhere as I suspect that we may end up talking about two different people. Secular Jesus and mythological Jesus. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps comparison could be made with 'King Arthur' - who 'as is' is a fusion of probably several actually-existing characters (Roman soldier - some of whom wore bear skins - with which 'Arthur' has a link, and 'local lords resisting the Saxons' etc) to which legendary material has been added. Jesus and his associates and successors also made use of existing prophetic materials, and 'the Sicari and others' added further complications. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that's sort of mentioned here but I think that it might be worth making clearer. It's sort of complicated by the relatively new-found Jesus myth theory article which kinda covers the same ground.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)