The preponderance of the evidence would seem to be that he really did exist.
Bible scholars have a consensus that this is the case, although whether they are doing any actual scholarship with regard to the issue is questionable. Atheists by and large do not become Bible scholars, and the mind-killing effects of religion mean that theists tend to do notably poor scholarship in this particular area.
However when a rationalist tries to drill down to the actual evidence you find that nothing is there, apart from Bible scholars reading the Bible and saying “this Paul guy seems legit, I don’t think he’d have made that up”.
Perhaps the most compelling argument I’ve heard for the existence of a real historical figure by whom the gospels were inspired was actually put forward by Eliezer (in a discussion on the tvtropes forum, where he visits occasionally.) That is that Jesus appears much more like a cult figure who failed to live up to the expectations of his followers, and so they modified their expectations and rationalized, rather than an ideal messianic figure that people would simply have made up.
Atheists by and large do not become Bible scholars
No, but many Bible scholars become atheists after they realize how nonsensical their study material is.
It seems likely to me that there was some person who served as the nucleus for a Jesus myth, just as it seems likely there was a real Briton general who served as the nucleus for a King Arthur myth. But we have no way of knowing anything about either, and I don’t see that it matters much either way.
The second sentence of this response is a non-defense of your thesis, and the rest of it does not help your case, much. I am open to evidence of your claim that “many” have become atheists. For the sake of argument, I would admit that >10% conversion rate would count as “many”, as would, say, some absolute number such as 1,000 in the last 100 years.
Perhaps you can find some authority who has researched this question?
Sorry, I intended my above comment to mean: “There are some, I found these four, but apparently (according to Jacques Berlinerblau), there aren’t many.”
What do you say about contemporary historians like Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger? They all seems to think that an originally uninteresting preacher named Jesus was executed (via crucifixion) by Pilate, and that this preacher was the inspiration of the religion now known as Christianity.
ETA: You asserted in your other comment that “Jesus was supposedly a very noteworthy figure who died in a noteworthy way.” I’d never gotten the impression that seditious preachers were noteworthy to the Romans or that crucifixion was a noteworthy method of execution.
The bit in Josephus was a complete forgery, likely inserted by Eusebius (well-documented as a chronic and unapologetic liar for the Church).
Neither Pliny nor Tacitus wrote anything about Jesus—they wrote about Christians, the existence of whom is not in question. Further, it’s well documented that Tacitus was tampered with.
The notability is that Jesus was claimed to be known to all, with scribes following him about.
Look, these objections really are standard, long-standing and pretty well documented. Reading up in the area is absolutely fascinating. Wikipedia is a half-decent start.
Josephus’s claimed writings mentioning Jesus can be divided into two groups: those universally agreed to be fraudulent interpolations by pious forgers like Eusebius, and those which look very much like such fraudulent interpolations but which people still disagree about.
Tacitus and Pliny both wrote long after Jesus’ supposed life and death and are just reporting what people of their times claimed to believe.
The Jesusmyththeory wiki article describes a number of significant rigorous, academic (and non-friendly) challenges to the accuracy of the accounts of Jesus in the Gospels. Every honest person acknowledges uncertainty, exaggeration, and literary license. The question (for me) is: disregarding the deluded and dishonest, how would the honest brokers vote? I don’t claim to have the answer.
Paul did, and claimed to have met Jesus. So either he’s a liar (hardly a surprising quality in a cult leader as we know from modern cult leaders) or someone resembling Jesus existed. I think the former substantially more likely given that the Jesus he claims to have met is absent from all contemporaneous documentation.
I’m afraid I’m I’d have to look up the literature about the historicity of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and whether there is hard evidence to show that their purported authors were real people with those names who really wrote those texts. I don’t know offhand. It’s not a topic that’s ever been of interest to me.
However I do know that all of the Gospels were written long after Jesus’ supposed life and death. Hence they don’t count as contemporaneous accounts even if you don’t automatically discount them as historical evidence because they are religious manifestos and not historical records. They aren’t eyewitness reports, they’re collections of myths put together by people who weren’t alive at the time the supposed events took place.
Thanks for the correction, and upvoted for keeping me honest. Was it that he claimed to have met people who had met Jesus, or something similar? I recall something of the sort but I’m not fully trusting the memory.
Yes- he mentioned his interaction with the other disciples, and said that they’d had the privilege of meeting Jesus in the flesh. It’s in Romans or Hebrews, I forget which.
Er, no he didn’t. He specifically did not claim this.
“Matthew”, “Mark” and “John” were tags added later to those Gospels. “Luke” is traditionally attributed to Luke the Evangelist, a companion of Paul’s, who wasn’t an eyewitness to Jesus.
The gospels are dismal failures as history—even apart from the miracles described therein.
FYI, this seemed decent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory
The preponderance of the evidence would seem to be that he really did exist.
Bible scholars have a consensus that this is the case, although whether they are doing any actual scholarship with regard to the issue is questionable. Atheists by and large do not become Bible scholars, and the mind-killing effects of religion mean that theists tend to do notably poor scholarship in this particular area.
However when a rationalist tries to drill down to the actual evidence you find that nothing is there, apart from Bible scholars reading the Bible and saying “this Paul guy seems legit, I don’t think he’d have made that up”.
Perhaps the most compelling argument I’ve heard for the existence of a real historical figure by whom the gospels were inspired was actually put forward by Eliezer (in a discussion on the tvtropes forum, where he visits occasionally.) That is that Jesus appears much more like a cult figure who failed to live up to the expectations of his followers, and so they modified their expectations and rationalized, rather than an ideal messianic figure that people would simply have made up.
Although the reverse is often the case. That’s the problem with actually taking your beliefs literally!
No, but many Bible scholars become atheists after they realize how nonsensical their study material is.
It seems likely to me that there was some person who served as the nucleus for a Jesus myth, just as it seems likely there was a real Briton general who served as the nucleus for a King Arthur myth. But we have no way of knowing anything about either, and I don’t see that it matters much either way.
Do you have a reference to support your first claim?
I’ve heard of several. I don’t know stats on what proportion of Bible scholars de-convert.
Bart D. Ehrman—author of a book saying lots of the New Testament was forged
Francesca Stavrakopoulou (unclear when she became atheist)
Robert Price—went from Baptist minister to Cthulu mythologist. Not kidding.
Jacques Berlinerblau, who does say he knows few openly atheist biblical scholars.
The second sentence of this response is a non-defense of your thesis, and the rest of it does not help your case, much. I am open to evidence of your claim that “many” have become atheists. For the sake of argument, I would admit that >10% conversion rate would count as “many”, as would, say, some absolute number such as 1,000 in the last 100 years.
Perhaps you can find some authority who has researched this question?
Sorry, I intended my above comment to mean: “There are some, I found these four, but apparently (according to Jacques Berlinerblau), there aren’t many.”
What do you say about contemporary historians like Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger? They all seems to think that an originally uninteresting preacher named Jesus was executed (via crucifixion) by Pilate, and that this preacher was the inspiration of the religion now known as Christianity.
ETA: You asserted in your other comment that “Jesus was supposedly a very noteworthy figure who died in a noteworthy way.” I’d never gotten the impression that seditious preachers were noteworthy to the Romans or that crucifixion was a noteworthy method of execution.
The bit in Josephus was a complete forgery, likely inserted by Eusebius (well-documented as a chronic and unapologetic liar for the Church).
Neither Pliny nor Tacitus wrote anything about Jesus—they wrote about Christians, the existence of whom is not in question. Further, it’s well documented that Tacitus was tampered with.
The notability is that Jesus was claimed to be known to all, with scribes following him about.
Look, these objections really are standard, long-standing and pretty well documented. Reading up in the area is absolutely fascinating. Wikipedia is a half-decent start.
Josephus’s claimed writings mentioning Jesus can be divided into two groups: those universally agreed to be fraudulent interpolations by pious forgers like Eusebius, and those which look very much like such fraudulent interpolations but which people still disagree about.
Tacitus and Pliny both wrote long after Jesus’ supposed life and death and are just reporting what people of their times claimed to believe.
The Jesusmyththeory wiki article describes a number of significant rigorous, academic (and non-friendly) challenges to the accuracy of the accounts of Jesus in the Gospels. Every honest person acknowledges uncertainty, exaggeration, and literary license. The question (for me) is: disregarding the deluded and dishonest, how would the honest brokers vote? I don’t claim to have the answer.
Did Paul exist? What about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
Paul did, and claimed to have met Jesus. So either he’s a liar (hardly a surprising quality in a cult leader as we know from modern cult leaders) or someone resembling Jesus existed. I think the former substantially more likely given that the Jesus he claims to have met is absent from all contemporaneous documentation.
I’m afraid I’m I’d have to look up the literature about the historicity of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and whether there is hard evidence to show that their purported authors were real people with those names who really wrote those texts. I don’t know offhand. It’s not a topic that’s ever been of interest to me.
However I do know that all of the Gospels were written long after Jesus’ supposed life and death. Hence they don’t count as contemporaneous accounts even if you don’t automatically discount them as historical evidence because they are religious manifestos and not historical records. They aren’t eyewitness reports, they’re collections of myths put together by people who weren’t alive at the time the supposed events took place.
In no way did Paul claim to have met living Jesus. Resurrected Jesus, yes—via miracle. Living, pre-crucifixion Jesus, no.
Thanks for the correction, and upvoted for keeping me honest. Was it that he claimed to have met people who had met Jesus, or something similar? I recall something of the sort but I’m not fully trusting the memory.
Yes- he mentioned his interaction with the other disciples, and said that they’d had the privilege of meeting Jesus in the flesh. It’s in Romans or Hebrews, I forget which.
Er, no he didn’t. He specifically did not claim this.
“Matthew”, “Mark” and “John” were tags added later to those Gospels. “Luke” is traditionally attributed to Luke the Evangelist, a companion of Paul’s, who wasn’t an eyewitness to Jesus.
The gospels are dismal failures as history—even apart from the miracles described therein.