Why didn't Jesus write a book?

[Cudann]

I believe in history.  I don't believe in miracles, gods, or what have you.  To say Jesus didn't exist is just as logically inconsistent as it is to say he performed miracles or was the son of God.  

In our totally reasonable rejection of supernatural claims we sometimes assume that everything a religious practitioner says is false.  And not without reason; there are some pretty ridiculous claims out there that leave me, for one, speechless and depressed.  But, as rational people, it's important that we examine history with an eye for history alone.  That's an advantage we have as atheists -- we aren't bogged down by an obligation to see history in a particular light -- and we shouldn't give up that advantage because of our frustration at religion.  

If we assume that everything a Christian says about the first few decades of the first century is false, we're just as guilty as he or she might be of reconstructing history with a theological bent, albeit ours going the opposite direction.  There is ample historical evidence to suggest not only the existence of Jesus, but the rest of the things about him I enumerated.  There is no evidence to suggest he performed miracles or was half the things Christians claim; just so, there is too much evidence to deny that the man existed.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

I guess the bottom line is that we're still well within the 'probability argument' bracket rather than the 'incontrovertible proof' bracket.  I don't see that changing anytime soon, but knowledge is indeed provisional.

[SGOS]

I believe in history.  I don't believe in miracles, gods, or what have you.  To say Jesus didn't exist is just as logically inconsistent as it is to say he performed miracles or was the son of God.  

In our totally reasonable rejection of supernatural claims we sometimes assume that everything a religious practitioner says is false.  And not without reason; there are some pretty ridiculous claims out there that leave me, for one, speechless and depressed.  But, as rational people, it's important that we examine history with an eye for history alone.  That's an advantage we have as atheists -- we aren't bogged down by an obligation to see history in a particular light -- and we shouldn't give up that advantage because of our frustration at religion.  

If we assume that everything a Christian says about the first few decades of the first century is false, we're just as guilty as he or she might be of reconstructing history with a theological bent, albeit ours going the opposite direction.  There is ample historical evidence to suggest not only the existence of Jesus, but the rest of the things about him I enumerated.  There is no evidence to suggest he performed miracles or was half the things Christians claim; just so, there is too much evidence to deny that the man existed.

You could be right in some of your assumptions about rejecting any and all religious claims based on frustrations, for some maybe.

In the end, none of this matters.  Skeptics only accept claims that are supported by evidence.  And that's the rub with the Jesus story.  Yes, a wide range of historians, most of whom believe in Jesus, believe it's likely that he existed.  Sorry.  That doesn't count.  What's the evidence?  The Shroud of Turin?  The Gospels?

I recently watched a video of some religious historian making the case for Jesus based on the fact, according to him, that most religious historians believe it's more likely that a Jesus of some sort existed.  Well ain't that dandy, a bunch of people agree on something that they can't prove one way or the other, and that means, you should believe it too?  Just another variation of a time warn logical fallacy.

I think stepping back and just saying "Who knows?" is the most intellectually honest answer.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

But how do you explain that extra set of footprints in the sand? :shock:
Never mind..they're digitally enhanced. :)

[Cudann]

I believe in history.  I don't believe in miracles, gods, or what have you.  To say Jesus didn't exist is just as logically inconsistent as it is to say he performed miracles or was the son of God.  

In our totally reasonable rejection of supernatural claims we sometimes assume that everything a religious practitioner says is false.  And not without reason; there are some pretty ridiculous claims out there that leave me, for one, speechless and depressed.  But, as rational people, it's important that we examine history with an eye for history alone.  That's an advantage we have as atheists -- we aren't bogged down by an obligation to see history in a particular light -- and we shouldn't give up that advantage because of our frustration at religion.  

If we assume that everything a Christian says about the first few decades of the first century is false, we're just as guilty as he or she might be of reconstructing history with a theological bent, albeit ours going the opposite direction.  There is ample historical evidence to suggest not only the existence of Jesus, but the rest of the things about him I enumerated.  There is no evidence to suggest he performed miracles or was half the things Christians claim; just so, there is too much evidence to deny that the man existed.

You could be right in some of your assumptions about rejecting any and all religious claims based on frustrations, for some maybe.

In the end, none of this matters.  Skeptics only accept claims that are supported by evidence.  And that's the rub with the Jesus story.  Yes, a wide range of historians, most of whom believe in Jesus, believe it's likely that he existed.  Sorry.  That doesn't count.  What's the evidence?  The Shroud of Turin?  The Gospels?

I recently watched a video of some religious historian making the case for Jesus based on the fact, according to him, that most religious historians believe it's more likely that a Jesus of some sort existed.  Well ain't that dandy, a bunch of people agree on something that they can't prove one way or the other, and that means, you should believe it too?  Just another variation of a time warn logical fallacy.

I think stepping back and just saying "Who knows?" is the most intellectually honest answer.

You bring up a good point.  With the time period in question, it's difficult to say with certainty that any given person existed, any given event took place, etc.  And, really, "Who knows?" is an answer people should be willing to accept more often than they do in many of these cases -- it's often the case that we simply don't have the evidence to judge with certainty one way or the other.  We should concede that a definite answer is not always available, and we shouldn't assume one always is if we could only look closely enough.  

You say that skeptics only accept claims that are supported by evidence.  I agree.  But how much evidence is enough?  Historians analyze texts written by Jesus-followers to piece together the past, taking into account the authors' biases (as is standard practice for any historical text), but for the sake of argument I'll leave all the gospels alone for a moment.  

Tacitus, the decidedly pagan Senator and historian, wrote:  "...Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.  Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..."  

The Jewish (and by no means Jesus-following) historian Josephus mentions at one point the brother of Jesus, and Suetonius talks about the instigation of "Chrestus" riling up the Jews when talking about why Jews were expelled from Rome.  

My point is, there are plenty of ambiguities and uncertainties when we look at the ancient Mediterranean, but even without consulting pro-Jesus sources, historians agree on a few things concerning Jesus, including his existence.  When we look that far back into history, it's probably good to look at what scholars of the time period say -- and I think we should be open to the possibility that they might be right when they are in such wide agreement.  

Concerning the gospels themselves:  As atheists, we can probably agree that the miracles and divine experiences surrounding Jesus in the gospels did not happen.  We know that the people who wrote those accounts of Jesus' life had particular sets of beliefs and agendas.  But the same can be said of any historical source.  Josephus was in bed with the Romans, but that doesn't mean we should write off everything he says as false; it means we should consider his particular bent and background when we read his accounts.  Just so, the authors of the gospels had a decidedly pro-Jesus agenda -- but, like Josephus, or any ancient author, there is no need to immediately assume that their every word is a fabrication.  

You mention that the most intellectually honest thing to say in this scenario might be "Who knows?"  Again, there is every reason to stop there when we deal with a number of historical figures and events; there will always be questions to which that is the only reasonable answer.  But I think the available historical evidence and popular agreement among experts calls for a different answer here.

[Cudann]

I guess the bottom line is that we're still well within the 'probability argument' bracket rather than the 'incontrovertible proof' bracket.  I don't see that changing anytime soon, but knowledge is indeed provisional.

^

Actually, this brings up a point I've always wondered, particularly when studying history.  How much evidence/proof do we need before we consider something incontrovertibly true?  A certain number of unbiased eyewitnesses (and what counts as unbiased?)?  Do we need to see something with our own eyes?  Or is there just a certain threshold of probability something must cross before we consider it fact?

[SGOS]

I grew up assuming Jesus was real.  At one time, I even believed in the miracles.  My parent's told me that, my Sunday School Teacher did too.  Everyone around me assumed it was true.  Then I read some arguments on the other side.  These arguments were shocking to me, precisely because they posed ideas of merit.  I could not discount them, but I'm quite sure that I have no reason to believe a Jesus existed.  I'm absolutely convinced that the miracle stuff is pure bunk.  So I have to weigh strong intellectual con arguments against pro arguments that include at least some pure bunk.  I'm not sure where the bunk stops, but the bunk is there.

I don't care that much about either side of the argument, because it's not relevant.  So what if a guy named Jesus existed or not?  Christianity is based on bunk mythology.  The existence of a Jesus is secondary to the major claims of a so called truth that cannot be.

[Jmpty]

I believe in history.  I don't believe in miracles, gods, or what have you.  To say Jesus didn't exist is just as logically inconsistent as it is to say he performed miracles or was the son of God.  

In our totally reasonable rejection of supernatural claims we sometimes assume that everything a religious practitioner says is false.  And not without reason; there are some pretty ridiculous claims out there that leave me, for one, speechless and depressed.  But, as rational people, it's important that we examine history with an eye for history alone.  That's an advantage we have as atheists -- we aren't bogged down by an obligation to see history in a particular light -- and we shouldn't give up that advantage because of our frustration at religion.  

If we assume that everything a Christian says about the first few decades of the first century is false, we're just as guilty as he or she might be of reconstructing history with a theological bent, albeit ours going the opposite direction.  There is ample historical evidence to suggest not only the existence of Jesus, but the rest of the things about him I enumerated.  There is no evidence to suggest he performed miracles or was half the things Christians claim; just so, there is too much evidence to deny that the man existed.

Which historical documents are you relying upon as your proof that the biblical Jesus existed?

[Cudann]

Which historical documents are you relying upon as your proof that the biblical Jesus existed?

Just to be clear -- what do you mean by biblical Jesus?

[Cudann]

I grew up assuming Jesus was real.  At one time, I even believed in the miracles.  My parent's told me that, my Sunday School Teacher did too.  Everyone around me assumed it was true.  Then I read some arguments on the other side.  These arguments were shocking to me, precisely because they posed ideas of merit.  I could not discount them, but I'm quite sure that I have no reason to believe a Jesus existed.  I'm absolutely convinced that the miracle stuff is pure bunk.  So I have to weigh strong intellectual con arguments against pro arguments that include at least some pure bunk.  I'm not sure where the bunk stops, but the bunk is there.

I don't care that much about either side of the argument, because it's not relevant.  So what if a guy named Jesus existed or not?  Christianity is based on bunk mythology.  The existence of a Jesus is secondary to the major claims of a so called truth that cannot be.

I, too, grew up assuming Jesus, miracles and all, was real.  Over time I've dropped the miracles and details that paint Jesus in a divine light.  I even dropped Jesus' existence for a while, leaving that in the "Don't know for sure, don't particularly care" category.  Since then I've developed an academic interest in the time period and place, and I've studied the history around Judaism and early Christianity.  Now, an atheist (and I'll be arrogant enough to call myself a scholar as well), I believe that there was such a person as Jesus, albeit not a god or performer of miracles as I once believed as a child.  

That's purely academic interest, though.  Theologically, who cares if there was a man named Jesus who was popular and made into a god by his followers after his death?  As far as whether there is a god/are gods, and I suspect we're in agreement on that point, I can't tell how the issue of whether Jesus existed matters in the slightest.  To me, it's a matter of academic interest.

[Jmpty]

Which historical documents are you relying upon as your proof that the biblical Jesus existed?

Just to be clear -- what do you mean by biblical Jesus?

The fellow mentioned in the bible.

[Cudann]

Okay!  Just wanted to be sure you didn't misunderstand me (as in, "biblical Jesus" meaning "the Jesus portrayed in the Bible, miracles and all").  

A few different texts suggest that Jesus existed.  

Sources with a pro-Jesus bent:  

-Mark's gospel
-Matthew's gospel
-Luke's gospel
-John's gospel
-Mary's gospel
-Thomas' gospel
-Judas' gospel
-(other authors' accounts of Jesus, both those we know of and those we don't; I would argue the existence of such accounts is telling in itself)

Sources with no pro-Jesus bent:  

-Tacitus -- in his description of the fire that destroyed a huge portion of Rome, when he mentions that Jesus was executed on the orders of Pontius Pilatus
-Suetonius -- in his explanation of why the Jews were expelled from Rome, saying that they made disturbances at the instigation of Jesus
-Pliny -- in his letters back and forth with the emperor Trajan, asking what he should do with these people who worship Jesus (granted, more evidence of the spreading Jesus movement than the existence of Jesus the man)
-Josephus -- in his Antiquities of the Jews, talks about Jesus in a section that has almost definitely been cleaned up by later Christian writers and so presents him in a favorable/divine light with which Josephus simply would not have talked about him; the significance is not in the specifics, but in his mention to begin with

[Jmpty]

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)

In addition to the palpably bogus passage in the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus called the "Testimonium Flavianum" is another of the pitiful "references" dutifully trotted out by apologists to prove the existence of Jesus Christ: To wit, a short passage in the works of the Roman historian Pliny the Younger. While proconsul of Bithynia, a province in the northwest of Asia Minor, Pliny purportedly wrote a letter in 110 CE to the Emperor Trajan requesting his assistance in determining the proper punishment for "Christiani" who were causing trouble and would not renounce "Christo" as their god or bow down to the image of the Emperor. These recalcitrant Christiani, according to the Pliny letter, met "together before daylight" and sang "hymns with responses to Christ as a god," binding themselves "by a solemn institution, not to any wrong act." Regarding this letter, Rev. Robert Taylor remarks:


If this letter be genuine, these nocturnal meetings were what no prudent government could allow; they fully justify the charges of Caecilius in Minutius Felix, of Celsus in Origen, and of Lucian, that the primitive Christians were a skulking, light-shunning, secret, mystical, freemasonry sort of confederation, against the general welfare and peace of society.

Serapis the ChrestosTaylor also comments that, at the time this letter was purportedly written, "Christians" were considered to be followers of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis and that "the name of Christ [was] common to the whole rabblement of gods, kings, and priests." Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated:


"The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Presbyter of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures. The very Patriarch himself, should he come into Egypt, would be required by some to worship Serapis, and by others to worship Christ. They have, however, but one God, and it is one and the self-same whom Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike adore, i.e., money."

It is thus possible that the "Christos" or "Anointed" god Pliny's "Christiani" were following was Serapis himself, the syncretic deity created by the priesthood in the third century BCE. In any case, this god "Christos" was not a man who had been crucified in Judea.

Moreover, like his earlier incarnation Osiris, Serapis—both popular gods in the Roman Empire—was called not only Christos but also "Chrestos," centuries before the common era. Indeed, Osiris was styled "Chrestos," centuries before his Jewish copycat Jesus was ever conceived....

In any event, the value of the Pliny letter as "evidence" of Christ's existence is worthless, as it makes no mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," nor does it refer to any event in his purported life. There is not even a clue in it that such a man existed. As Taylor remarks, "We have the name of Christ, and nothing else but the name, where the name of Apollo or Bacchus would have filled up the sense quite as well." Taylor then casts doubt on the authenticity of the letter as a whole, recounting the work of German critics, who "have maintained that this celebrated letter is another instance to be added to the long list of Christian forgeries..." One of these German luminaries, Dr. Semler of Leipsic provided "nine arguments against its authenticity..." He also notes that the Pliny epistle is quite similar to that allegedly written by "Tiberianus, Governor of Syria" to Trajan, which has been universally denounced as a forgery.

Also, like the Testimonium Flavianum, Pliny's letter is not quoted by any early Church father, including Justin Martyr. Tertullian briefly mentions its existence, noting that it refers to terrible persecutions of Christians. However, the actual text used today comes from a version by a Christian monk in the 15th century, Iucundus of Verona, whose composition apparently was based on Tertullian's assertions. Concurring that the Pliny letter is suspicious, Drews terms "doubtful" Tertullian's "supposed reference to it." Drews then names several authorities who likewise doubted its authenticity, "either as a whole or in material points," including Semler, Aub, Havet, Hochart, Bruno Bauer and Edwin Johnson. Citing the work of Hochart specifically, Drews pronounces Pliny's letter "in all probability" a "later Christian forgery." Even if it is genuine, Pliny's letter is useless in determining any "historical" Jesus.

Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian, (c. 56-120 CE)

Publius/Gaius Cornelius TacitusTurning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist arsenal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.

...the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."

Eusebius of Caesarea, Catholic Church HistorianBased on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.

The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians." In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author....

In any event, even if the Annals were genuine, the pertinent passage itself could easily be an interpolation, based on the abundant precedents and on the fact that the only manuscript was in the possession of one person, de Spire. In reality, "none of the works of Tacitus have come down to us without interpolations."

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," or they are compelled "to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus." Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a "notorious impostor."

It is evident that Tacitus's remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle's Creed—to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.

Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)

Suetonius, Nuremberg ChronicleMoving through the standard list of defenses, we come to the Roman historian Suetonius. The passage in Suetonius's Life of Claudius, dating to around 110 CE, states that the emperor Claudius "drove the Jews out of Rome, who at the suggestion of Chrestus were constantly rioting." The passage in Latin is as follows:


Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.

We see that the reference is to "Chresto," not "Christo." In any case, Claudius reigned from 41-54, while Christ was purported to have been crucified around 30, so the great Jewish sage could not have been in Rome personally at that time. Even such an eager believer and mesmerized apologist as Shirley Jackson Case must admit that Christ himself couldn't have been at Rome then, that the "natural meaning" of the remark is that "a disturbance was caused by a Jew named Chrestus" living in Rome at the time, and that Suetonius's "references to Christianity itself are very obscure."

It is possible that these diasporic Jews—a mixture of Hebrew, Jewish, Samaritan and Pagan descent—revered their god under the epithet of "Chresto." Or, as Eisenman suggests, the incident may record Jews agitating over the appointment of Herod Agrippa I as king of Judea by his friend Claudius in 41 CE. In this regard, Agrippa I is called "chrestos" by Josephus.

In his Life of Nero, Suetonius refers to "Christiani," whom he calls "a race of men of a new and villainous, wicked or magical superstition," who "were visited with punishment." This passage, although establishing that there were people called "Christiani" who were a fairly recent cult in Suetonius's time, obviously does not serve as evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed.

Regarding these "references," if they were genuine they would no more prove the existence of Jesus Christ than do writings about other gods prove their existence. In other words, by this same argument we could provide many "references" from ancient writers that the numerous Pagan gods also existed as "real people." In this case, Jesus would be merely a johnny-come-lately in a long line of "historical" godmen.

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity."

[Youssuf Ramadan]

A few different texts suggest that Jesus existed.  

Sources with a pro-Jesus bent:  

-Mark's gospel
-Matthew's gospel
-Luke's gospel
-John's gospel
-Mary's gospel
-Thomas' gospel
-Judas' gospel
-(other authors' accounts of Jesus, both those we know of and those we don't; I would argue the existence of such accounts is telling in itself)

OK, but we are aware that these texts were written some after Jesus' alleged life by people who claimed their texts to be written by Matthew, Mark etc to lend the texts apostolic authority, right?  A quick looks at a NT synopsis shows considerable inconsistencies between the texts in who saw what and when, which is not surprising given their origin.  The gospels were never intended to be parts of a larger compendium of writings, and the writers could not have foreseen that this would happen.  

The gospel of Thomas is a cracker in that it describes some of the jolly japes that Jesus played on the other kids during infancy.  It's worth a look just for the giggle.

People have asked questions as to whether the idea of Jesus may have been a composite of other people and the attributes thereof.  It's a possibility, I guess, much like anything else... *shrug*

It's certainly an interesting topic.  :)

[josephpalazzo]

There is ample historical evidence to suggest not only the existence of Jesus...

Like what? The ramblings of Paul?? or the fictional novels AKA the gospels???