[chuck]In this episode, Leighton and I comb over the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus (which is actually pretty small) with two pairs of skeptical eyes. We discuss the pagan sources of Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and the possible reference in Suetonius and then move on to Josephus and the documents in the New Testament. It’s a wild ride through first- and second-century Judaism, Christianity, and the Roman Empire.
You can download it through iTunes or directly here. For my part in this conversation, I relied heavily on Bart Ehrman’s discussions in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Misquoting Jesus, and Jesus, Interrupted as well as these three sites on the Josephus question.
Pardon my hacking, one of my patients gave me a nasty virus, which I hope to have passed on to Leighton.
[adsense]
4 Responses to “22: Did Jesus Exist?”
Here’s the thing, guys. I think that the total exclusion of the Bible in historical discussion is just as irresponsible as claiming that it is infallible. I find it interesting that the documents contained in the Bible are a priori discarded by critics of religion simply because they were canonized in the Bible. Pretend they weren’t. Would they still be considered just as unreliable? As I’m sure you know, the Bible as we have it was not finally canonized until the 4th century C.E. and there were many, many documents like the ones found in the Bible that also circulated,. There is no a priori reason to discredit biblical sources as evidence for Jesus simply because they are biblical (which, after all, should be an arbitrary distinction for you guys anyway).
I found it interesting when you talked about how Jesus would have been widely written about in many sources if he was doing the things the gospels say he did. I grant you that, but you were drifting towards liberal fundamentalism in implying that it’s all or nothing. Writers at that time did this frequently; they would divinize historical figures. The Romans did this with their past leaders. You don’t have to believe that Jesus walked on water or was born of a virgin to grant the historical existence of a man by that name. It actually seems very plausible to me to grant that someone by the name of Jesus stirred a new religious movement in the 1st century. People wrote propaganda and embellished stories all the time back then, but the claim that these first century religious sources simply fabricated this life and all of its details (and did sometimes independently) requires more evidence than we have. I applaud your inquiry, but I actually think it’s far-fetched to suggest that such a historical figure never even existed.
Well, we spent half the podcast discussing Paul and the Gospels, so I’m not sure where you got the idea that we dismissed the New Testament documents a priori or excluded the Bible in any way. My opinion is that, just like every other document we discuss, the NT sources cannot be accepted without critical examination. Indeed, over the past 300 years, scholars have come up with 3 criteria for examining New Testament sources and I think that information that passes those criteria — especially the criterion of dissimilarity — can reasonably be held to be true.
Given the paucity of information about a historical Jesus, the fact that he himself left no writings, and the clearly mythological nature of the bulk of the writings that do survive, it is no more far-fetched to suggest that Jesus never existed than to suggest that King Arthur never existed. Evidence needs to be appraised and critically examined before coming to any conclusion. And that’s what this podcast was about — the critical examination of the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus.
As Charley pointed out, we did include the NT sources although we spent the majority of our time discussing pagan sources and those outside the NT.
Personally, I think Jesus did exist. That said, I also think he was little more than a wandering preacher that was saying what the lower classes wanted to hear. There are far too many pagan precursors, something we discussed in a previous podcast, for me to put any belief or acceptance to his miracles. In fact, I find much of what the NT states he says as unreliable due to the early Christians’ tendency to steal what they liked from other cultures. There is proof of parables being swiped, flood stories, parting of water stories, etc.
Basically, I see Jesus as a man who was giving hope for a better existence after this one to a downtrodden people and that is why it spread so quickly through the poorer populations. Hence the reason why his divinity, miracles, and overall reputation were increased as time went on.
Ah, you have never read the Gospel of Jesus. the first words in it are “the kingdom of heaven is within you…”
I think I got that from the seventh seal, or is it the seven seals? One was an awesome movie with Max Von Sydow and directed by Ingmar Bergman, the other had Demi Moore.