Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

That there was someone that preached and may have been named Jesus and may have had followers and may have angered authorities and people may have written stories about him is a pretty low bar to set. It doesn't make that person the Jesus of the bible or anything like that mythical character.

I have to wonder what happened to the historians and scribes of the time. Why did they not record the strange and mysterious workings of this young rabi? They recorded quite a bit about the movers and shakers of the time and, with their exchange of letters, we get a glimpse into the social sides of the society. Not a word of the miracle worker from the Levant.If a divine priest was performing such miracles to the extent the myths indicate then someone, even in a pitifully illiterate society, would have noticed and recorded, even the rumors, of the events. Those are the missing pieces of evidence that should be there if this myth were true.One could argue that we just haven’t found any such documentation because, reasons. Granted. IMHO unlikely. Among the myriad ministries I understand were prevalent at the time nothing stood out enough, apparently, to write about. Nothing any of these apocalyptic preachers said moved society enough for what few scribes there were to notice and record. If there were an outsized legacy from this rabi then it appears to have been developed decades after the fact by story tellers embellishing some interesting stories.I agree. Doesn't seem at all implausible.

For the Jesus of the New Testament I would expect a great deal of evidence, and you apparently agree that there was never any such Jesus. I wouldn't expect any evidence, or at least very, very little, for "an obscure religious mystic." I think Paul created Christianity. He might have made Jesus up out of whole cloth, or he might have based him upon a real person. I wouldn't venture a guess which and I don't think it matters.--Percy

Hi Theo, I find that a bit of an odd comment. Low bar? The bar is set at... reality.Neither of us believes in magic or divinities. No reputable historian incorporates miracles into their interpretation of the past. In talking about a historical Jesus, in the framework set by normal historical practice, we are necessarily talking about a non-divine, non-magical Jesus. That's just where the bar is set, whether we like it or not.Of course we could talk about whether the magical Jesus of popular Christian imagination was real or not, but I think we both know that's a waste of time. I'm not proposing we have that silly conversation. That's off the table as far as I'm concerned. Certainly if we were academics publishing papers on history it would be off the table. As rhetoric I agree with that. It's true in a sense and I'm pretty sure I've said it myself before. The distinction between a plausible historical Jesus and the mythic Jesus is a useful one. I would quibble a bit over the phrasing though.Even before his death, people said that Julius Caesar was divine, the descendant of Ares and Aphrodite (talk about being a nepo baby). This is obviously made up, just a bit of myth making. They're still talking about the same guy though. They're talking bollocks about him but that doesn't mean they're not talking about Julius Caesar, the real guy. They are talking about the historical Julius, they're just saying things about him that aren't true. Similarly, even when the claims about him are clearly fiction, the Gospels are, possibly, talking about a real historical person called Jesus. They're just saying a lot of things about him that aren't true.I find it more plausible that the Gospels are heavily fictionalised accounts of a real person than that they are complete fiction.Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

For the Jesus of the New Testament I would expect a great deal of evidence, and you apparently agree that there was never any such Jesus. I wouldn't expect any evidence, or at least very, very little, for "an obscure religious mystic."
​

---

The New Testament is going to be about as reliable as an official Scientology biography of L Ron Hubbard.

quote:

---

I think Paul created Christianity. He might have made Jesus up out of whole cloth, or he might have based him upon a real person. I wouldn't venture a guess which and I don't think it matters.

---

Paul may have reshaped Christianity, but he’s clear that it existed in some form before he joined it.

I just read the thread. Nothing in it gives evidence for Jesus. Where is it? Absent.

Caesar? Irrelevant. We have reams of historical evidence for Julius Caesar. Jesus? Nothing. Absolutely totally nothing. How many dozens of interpretations of a Jesus figure are there? Hundreds? Myth, nothing more. Until there is historical evidence all of these myriad of ideas are meaningless. There is no Jesus. Then we can reasonable say there was no Jesus. He is a mythical story built from other mythical stories. He is most likely (IMHO) a literary device to create a story showing perceived fulfillment of perceived prophecies of ancient religious texts and oral stories.

Hi AZPaul, Well quite. If "many holy people who had died" really did jump out of their graves and go wandering around Jerusalem to the considerable surprise of "many people", I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that somebody might have thought that worth mentioning somewhere. The obvious reason we have no record of such incredible events is because they never happened. I agree. The myth isn't true. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't based upon a real man, nor does it mean that there aren't elements of historical truth in the Gospel accounts. Likely they are a mix of;a) Broadly true accounts of real events and/or the real teachings of the actual historical Jesus.
b) Heavily fictionalised or distorted versions of real events/teachings. These might resemble reality quite closely or be wildly errant, or anywhere in between.
c) Fan fiction, based on no real event and/or which does not represent or actually contradicts Jesus' original teachings.How much is there of each and which bit is which? That question is kind of above my pay grade, although I do suspect that there's quite a bit more of the latter two categories than the first.Mutate and Survive
​

I suppose next you'll say there's no evidence of Santa Claus. Man, I sat on that dude's lap when I was 4!

Well I get asked by 4 year odds if I am Santa, so there must be Santa if they know about him.

Oh, that happens to me too!

True. According to the New Testament.--Percy

Quick question too lazy to look up.The books of the new testament that are Paul's letters to various congregations, is there any debate of their authenticity?

quote:

---

According to the New Testament.
​

---

According to his own writings - which are included in the New Testament.

Which is where Paul's writings can be found and which you just called unreliable.--Percy