Four reasons why I think Jesus really existed
A handful of scholars today and a much larger group of Internet commentators claim that Jesus never existed. Proponents of this position, known as mythical, claim that Jesus is a purely mythical figure invented by the writers of the New Testament (or his later copyists). In this post I will offer the four main reasons (from the weakest to the strongest) that to convince me that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person without relying on the Gospel stories of his life.
It is the main position in the academic world.
I admit this is the weakest of my four reasons, but I list it to show that there is no serious debate among the vast majority of scholars in areas related to the question of the existence of Jesus. John Dominic Crossan, who co-founded the Skeptical Jesus Seminar, denies that Jesus rose from the dead but is confident that Jesus was a historical person. He writes: "That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be" (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 145). Bart Ehrman is an agnostic who is forthright in his rejection of mythism. Ehrman teaches at the University of North Carolina and is widely regarded as an expert on New Testament documents. He writes: "The idea that Jesus existed is supported by practically all the experts on the planet" (did Jesus exist ?, p. 4).
The existence of Jesus is confirmed by extra-biblical sources.
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus twice mentions Jesus. The shortest reference is in book 20 of his Jewish antiquities and describes the stoning of lawbreakers in AD 62. One of the criminals is described as "the brother of Jesus, who he was called Christ, whose name was James ”. What makes this passage authentic is that it lacks Christian terms such as "the Lord", fits into the context of this section of antiquities, and the passage is found in every copy of the Antiquities manuscript.
According to New Testament scholar Robert Van Voorst in his book Jesus Outside the New Testament, “The vast majority of scholars claim that the words 'brother of Jesus, who was called Christ', are authentic, as is the whole passage in which is found found “(p. 83).
The longest passage in Book 18 is called Testimonium Flavianum. Scholars are divided on this passage because, while mentioning Jesus, it contains sentences that were almost certainly added by Christian copyists. These include phrases that would never have been used by a Jew like Josephus, as saying of Jesus: "It was the Christ" or "he appeared alive again on the third day."
The mythics claim that the whole passage is a forgery because it is out of context and interrupts the previous narrative of Giuseppe Flavio. But this view overlooks the fact that writers in the ancient world did not use footnotes and often wandered on unrelated topics in their writings. According to New Testament scholar James DG Dunn, the passage was clearly subject to Christian writing, but there are also words that Christians would never use of Jesus. These include calling Jesus "a wise man" or referring to themselves as a "Tribe", which is clear evidence that Josephus originally wrote something similar to the following:
At that moment Jesus appeared, a wise man. Because he did amazing things, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And it gained a following both from many Jews and from many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leaders among us, sentenced him to the cross, those who had previously loved him did not cease to do so. And to this day the Christian tribe (named after him) has not died out. (Jesus Remembered, p. 141).
Furthermore, the Roman historian Tacitus records in his Annals that, after the great fire of Rome, the emperor Nero attributed the blame to a despised group of people called Christians. Tacitus thus identifies this group: "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea during the reign of Tiberius." Bart D. Ehrman writes, "Tacitus' report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometimes during the reign of Tiberius" (The New Testament: Historical introduction to early Christian scriptures, 212).
The Fathers of the early Church do not describe the mythical heresy.
Those who deny the existence of Jesus usually claim that early Christians believed that Jesus was only a figure of cosmic savior who communicated to believers through visions. Later the Christians then added the apocryphal details of the life of Jesus (such as his execution under Pontius Pilate) to root him in Palestine of the first century. If the mythical theory is true, then at some point in Christian history there would have been a rupture or a real revolt between the new converts who believed in a true Jesus and the opinion of the "orthodox" establishment that Jesus is never existed.
The curious thing about this theory is that early church fathers like Irenaeus adored eradicating heresy. They have written huge treatises criticizing heretics and yet in all their writings the heresy that Jesus never existed is never mentioned. In fact, nobody in the entire history of Christianity (not even the first pagan critics like Celsus or Luciano) seriously supported a mythical Jesus until the eighteenth century.
Other heresies, such as Gnosticism or Donatism, were like that stubborn protuberance on the carpet. You could eliminate them in one place only to make them reappear centuries later, but the mythical "heresy" is nowhere to be found in the early Church. So what is more likely: that the early Church hunted and destroyed every member of mythical Christianity in order to prevent the spread of heresy and conveniently never wrote about it, or that the early Christians were not mythical and therefore there was no Was it nothing for the Church Fathers to campaign against? (Some mythics claim that the heresy of docetism included a mythical Jesus, but I don't find this statement convincing. See this blog post for a good refutation of that idea.)
Saint Paul knew the disciples of Jesus.
Almost all mythics admit that St. Paul was a real person, because we have his letters. In Galatians 1: 18-19, Paul describes his personal meeting in Jerusalem with Peter and James, "the brother of the Lord". Surely if Jesus was an imaginary character, one of his relatives would have known it (note that in Greek the term for brother could also mean relative). The mythics offer several explanations for this passage which Robert Price considers part of what he calls "The most powerful argument against the Christ-Myth theory." (The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems, p. 333).
Earl Doherty, a mythical, says that the title of James probably referred to a pre-existing Jewish monastic group that called himself "the brothers of the Lord" of which James may have been the leader (Jesus: Neither God nor Man, p. 61) . But we have no evidence that a similar group existed in Jerusalem at the time. Furthermore, Paul criticizes the Corinthians for professing faithfulness to a certain individual, even Christ, and consequently created division within the Church (1 Corinthians 1: 11-13). It is unlikely that Paul would praise James for being a member of such a divisive faction (Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd, The Jesus Legend, p. 206).
Price states that the title may be a reference to James' spiritual imitation of Christ. He appeals to a nineteenth-century Chinese fanatic who calls himself "little brother of Jesus" as proof of his theory that "brother" could mean spiritual follower (p. 338). But an example so far from the context of Palestine in the first century makes Price's reasoning rather difficult to accept than just reading the text.
In conclusion, I think there are many good reasons to think that Jesus really existed and was the founder of a religious sect in XNUMXst century Palestine. This includes the evidence we have from extra-biblical sources, the Church Fathers and Paul's direct testimony. I understand much more that we can write on this topic, but I think this is a good starting point for those interested in the debate (mainly based on the Internet) on the historical Jesus.