Anyone interested in this should check out the podcast series Historical Jesus from Stanford:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/historical-jesus/id38423...
tldr; there probably wasn't a Jesus and there is no evidence to support his existence.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/historical-jesus/id38423...
tldr; there probably wasn't a Jesus and there is no evidence to support his existence.
> Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels. While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.
Can you point to where the podcast makes such a claim?
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Life:
"The main source for the life of Heraclitus is Diogenes Laërtius, although some have questioned the validity of his account as "a tissue of Hellenistic anecdotes, most of them obviously fabricated on the basis of statements in the preserved fragments"."
Obviously some people do dispute the existence of these figures. If there is no proof that someone existed, it's safe to say their existence should be disputed.
If you can point to some evidence that suggests he actually did exist, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
There is significant debate about whether Paul is saying James is Jesus's biological brother. So this passage is far from rock solid evidence.
Many experts believe Paul is referring to James's name/tagline as a preacher, "Brother of the Lord." Meaning James was not Jesus's biological brother, but metaphorical. Any priest today could say he is the brother of the lord in a metaphorical sense. The idea that Jesus had siblings does not make sense in and of itself.
Overall, the evidence supporting Jesus as a historical person is very sparse and all evidence is contested (Josephus and Tacitus being forgeries, this example not mentioning James as a biological brother). One would think if he was living there would be many more examples to support it.
How does it not? Nowhere does it say Jesus was Mary and Joseph's only child. It merely said he was born while she was a virgin, not that she ever had kids after. Even if you take the Roman Catholic approach, Joseph was older and easily could have had children from a previous marriage, which is what they contend.
> Josephus and Tacitus being forgeries this example not mentioning James as a biological brother
These are all minority views in scholarship, as I'm sure you're well aware; it's much easier to assume Paul meant Jesus's literal brother, since he used the term the Greeks often used for brothers. But, seeing as you refuse to accept any scholarship done by Christians, even if peer-reviewed and unbiased, it's not surprising; and, of course, it easily allows you to ignore sources that disagree with you simply because they were written by Christians, regardless of the quality of the scholarship. Your own dogmatic beliefs that Christians can't produce unbiased scholarship clearly inhibits you from seeing what you don't want to see. There's really no further point arguing with you since you'll only accept the evidence you agree with (Carrier, despite his minority views and often wrong claims) and ignore the ones you don't, often under the guise of it being "dogmatic", which is incredibly ironic.
This is a very weak argument. Of course, almost anything you imagine could be possible.
> These are all minority views in scholarship
You should read this article on evaluating argument from consensus: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553
It does a great job explaining in what situations consensus should be challenged.
The evidence for and against these three examples is contested to varying degrees. The Josephus example is 90% a forgery. Let's say Tacitus and James examples are each 50% likely to be valid evidence for a historical Jesus.
> it's much easier to assume Paul meant Jesus's literal brother, since he used the term the Greeks often used for brothers
It's not. We're not contesting the words, we're contesting the meaning. James was called by his followers "Brother of the Lord." This could mean biological brother, or it could mean he was metaphorically considered him to be the brother or the lord. It's not clear or explicit, we have to admit this.
> But, seeing as you refuse to accept any scholarship done by Christians, even if peer-reviewed and unbiased, it's not surprising
This is not the case at all. I am happy to consider all of the scholarship done by Christians. I have looked at tons of work by Christians.
> it easily allows you to ignore sources that disagree with you simply because they were written by Christians, regardless of the quality of the scholarship. Your own dogmatic beliefs that Christians can't produce unbiased scholarship clearly inhibits you from seeing what you don't want to see. There's really no further point arguing with you since you'll only accept the evidence you agree with (Carrier, despite his minority views and often wrong claims) and ignore the ones you don't, often under the guise of it being "dogmatic", which is incredibly ironic.
You may think this is the case, but it's not. I would love to see new research from anyone that can shed light on whether or not there was a historical Jesus. I just find Carrier's arguments and research superior to those that contest his points. I have read extensively through both points of view. I actually came into this search with an open mind under the assumption that Jesus was a historical figure. I was surprised to learn of Carrier's findings and even more surprised by all the people who try to discount his research merely on the basis of it being "not consensus." I haven't heard many good arguments used to contest his work, just appeals to authority.
If you have better evidence for Tacitus, Josephus, or James, I would love to see it.
This article explains well why the current consensus should be questioned: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/5553
There are no known sources that do so; concluding that there were no such sources is unwarranted. The thing is that that isn't all that uncommon for figures that are less controversially historical (IIRC, the nearest to contemporary documentation for Socrates is writings of other philosophers probably dating from shortly after his death, mainly his students Plato and Xenophon, but also Aristotle and a couple others.)
Even in ancient societies that were, comparatively, obsessive about documentation [0] the level of documentation was nothing like the modern developed world, and survival of documents over a couple of millenia is spotty, at best.
[0] And while Rome proper might have been, Roman Judea was, AFAIK, not, particularly (or even particularly administratively stable.)
That being said, since there is no known evidence of Jesus existing, it seems really strange and anti-academic to assume that he did.
That's untrue. There is plenty of evidence; there is no known contemporary (in the narrowest sense of “produced during his lifetime”) documentation, but that's not the only kind of evidence of a historical figure, and lots of historical figures are accepted as such without that form of evidence.
> it seems really strange and anti-academic to assume that he did.
It is really strange and anti-academic to adopt a higher standard of proof for the existence of Jesus than other ancient figures.
Such as?
> but that's not the only kind of evidence of a historical figure, and lots of historical figures are accepted as such without that form of evidence
This argument has been debunked pretty well: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924
> It is really strange and anti-academic to adopt a higher standard of proof for the existence of Jesus than other ancient figures.
See above.
Socrates is lampooned in Aristophanes’ Clouds, so in this case we actually do have some contemporary documentation for him, not just after his death, even if Xenophon and Plato remain the main sources for him.
The mention of James "brother of the Lord" does not actually refer to him as a biological brother. "Brother of the Lord" is believed to be the tagline/name for James as a priest.
> These are only one generation after Jesus' death.
Not true, the first source was born more than one full life-span later, making it two generations after.
> People who knew Jesus were still alive.
This is also not true. There is no evidence of this.
Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. No, really. Impressive, yes, but it's not correct 100% of the time. In fact sometimes it's crazy how wrong it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi...
Wikipedia is not (by design, one should note) an authority on anything. As a tertiary source, it summarizes and provided pointers to actual authority, when it's quality standards are being upheld. It is never more than that.
> Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything.
Are you attributing this view to me?
A group of people with an agenda writing volumes of tautological speculation doesn't make it credible.
Near East historians have an agenda? News to me. What’s the proportion of Christians versus non‐Christians in that field?
Even if that group is replete with biased theists (something you seem to be suggesting but haven’t presented any evidence for), surely there is some scholarly group whose views on historical science you can agree would be worth listening to. So what’s their consensus on the historicity of Jesus?
And Thomas Sheehan, the philosopher and presenter of the podcast you linked to, accepts the historicity of Jesus.
To quote from your link: "the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate." ... this solves nothing.
Thus, correctly pointing out that there is no evidence “from when he was claimed to be alive” is not a very convincing argument that the vast majority of secular Biblical historians are wrong in their belief in a historical Jesus. Two elements of Jesus’ life story are nearly universally held to be historically accurate: that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified.
True.
> There were tons of Messianic preachers at the time, what's so unbelievable about one of them getting deified?
It's actually quite believable, because we have not known any other story until now. The thing is there is more compelling evidence to suggest Jesus was more a character like Hercules than he was a living person.
> The hypothesis that one of those people was named "Jesus of Nazareth" does exactly nothing to prove Christianity.
Correct, but it's easy to see how the inverse is troubling for many many people.
Here is a video where the narrator mentions that the Chinese did record the birth and death of Jesus.