This Casciola case in Italy is still going on? I mentioned it a while back, with an ennui-laden tone, I’m afraid—suing the Catholic church to demand they provide evidence for the existence of Jesus is a futile endeavor, I think, and isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.
He also seems to be a bit of a kook. It looks like Anderson Cooper might be doing a show on him, and this sounds wrong.
He says he has dedicated his life to bringing down the Catholic Church, and he’s spent years of his life researching his subject. He says there was, in fact, no Jesus, but a military man named John of Gamala who lived in the time of Christ. And, he claims, it was the gospel writers who turned that mere mortal into the character of Jesus, a figure powerful enough on which to base an entire religion.
I agree that the contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus is completely lacking, but the evidence is going to be just as weak for this “John of Gamala” guy, and furthermore, the connection between a random John and Jesus is going to be extremely tenuous. He can’t simultaneously argue for the inadequacy of the historical information about Jesus while saying it is sufficient to justify his weird little hypothesis.
Of course, even a kook can be right sometimes.
He calls the Catholic Church leaders “con men,” and says “they take advantage of the popular belief.”
I don’t think it’s a very interesting story, but what is cool are the comments to the article, which give an interesting snapshot of the state of unbelief in this country. There are the usual apologists who insist that it is a matter of faith not fact, and a lot who insist that Jesus’ existence is documented in the historical record (it’s not—all the accounts significantly post-date his reported death. My favorite comment there is the guy who says, “My faith in Christ is based on rock-solid historical evidence…” O Irony!). But it’s much more encouraging that the comments are about evenly divided between the nonsense-spouters and people critical of religion. Either we freethinkers are getting more vocal, or there are more of us in this country than have been reported. Or maybe Anderson Cooper just has a godless fanbase.
And then there’s Ann Thomas of Seattle, WA who says, “You prove Jesus exist through FAITH.” She seems a bit confused about the relationship between proof and faith.
I have come around to the conclusion that Jesus was a composite fictional character. Some aspects of his life (the preaching, being put to death) may have been loosely based on a historical character. The wise sayings and the parables were probably folk sayings with no single author. Other details, such as the birth in Bethlehem, Mary and Joseph, the wise men, etc. are probably complete fictions, possibly influenced by prophetic writings (such as Isaiah).
Anyone who reads the literature of the period of the New Testament – for example, Plutarch’s Lives – must conclude that the tales of Jesus are nothing more than moral essays, created by philosophical or sophistic authors in order to argue for their own personal, moral beliefs. In essence, though I may be overstating the point a bit in my ignorance of the history of Jesus, I believe that Jesus of the New Testament is little more than a rhetorical construct.
The evidence for the existence of Jesus is about as good as we could expect for a private person of no then-obvious significance. It is entirely reasonable to believe that an itinerant Galilean preacher known by that name existed in the early 1st century c.e. Any hope of accurate details is, of course, another matter.
Again–I’ve said it here somewhere before–I think the surest way to get people to abandon religion is not, as some think, through science, but through studying comparative religion and cultural anthropology. Reading, as stated above, other literature from the early Xian era, or the stories of other faiths throughout the history of the world, will weaken the pillars more than anything else. At least that’s what really worked for me.
I think there’s reason to believe that the Gospel stories were woven around a real person. Matthew and Luke use two different (and contradictory) devices to explain how a Galilean could really have been born in Bethlehem (as prophechy required). Neither story is likely to be accurate, but together they suggest that the writers had to incorporate some known biographical elements into their stories; “everyone” knew that their man had come out of Galilee and they had to explain how he could come from the wrong place and still be the Messiah.
Whether the Gospel Jesus has much of anything to do with Paul’s Jesus is rather on open question, though. Paul’s letters, some of the earliest accounts we have, include no biographical elements whatsoever, other than vaguely proclaiming “Christ crucified.” No ministry, no teachings, no disciples, nothing. He seems to have considered the Jerusalem Christians as competitors, not colleagues. Very interesting.
From the comments on that article:
I think we can all agree that Jesus was at least as real as Odysseus, right?
Scott H:
No, prophesy required that he be born to a descendent of Bethlehem Ephratah. It’s far from the only time that Matthew demonstrated a complete lack on understanding of the Old Testament.
Whether that makes it more or less likely that there was a real Jesus, I leave to the reader’s discretion, but it certainly makes him less likely to be the prophesised Messiah.
A tutorial on the reasons why there probably was not a historical Jesus can be found Here
Many people have a freethinking spirituality. They think religion is bunk but have some form of general hopeful fidest belief.
Nothing wrong with that and it encompasses probaly 90% of all Christians.
You can’t approach ancient history like its molecular genetics; there are accepted standards of the discipline that work best for the scholars who study it. By those standards most scholars think the (sparce, but typical for the discipline) evidence at hand point to a historical Jesus. The religious texts, biased and larded with mythos like most documentation from the time, line up in such a way that that is what they accept. You can’t “prove” or “disprove” the existence of ancient figures in a lab or with an equation, you can only use the standard protocols of the discipline entrusted with these questions to make a best guess.
Also, Scott, Paul’s letters did in fact include biographical elements and Paul associates with Jesus’ disciples.
Jason, you write: By those standards most scholars think the … evidence at hand point to a historical Jesus.
I just don’t think that’s true. You mention “biographical elements” in Paul’s writings, but what is most striking are those biographical elements that are absent:
-The names of any of the disciples.
-In particular, the name of his betrayer, Judas.
-The names of Jesus’ mother and father.
-The place names associated with his crucifixion:
Golgotha, Gethsemane.
The “biological elements” that are present in Paul are the mythic/ritualistic ones: Death by crucifixion, rising from the dead, the last supper.
Non-mythic details are almost non-existent in Paul.
As I’ve read here before, the reason I’d like to see a lawsuit like this succeed in this country is that very large organizations in this country get to be tax exempt, because they believe in a myth. Like Mike N (I’m MikeM; that’s not confusing at all, is it?), I think Jesus probably was a composite character; a stand-in.
The story contained in Revelations is fascinating, and really was nothing more than the early Christians’ attempt at scaring the hell out of the Roman powers. 666 is a pretty clear reference to Nero.
I have to say, though, that the Romans pretty much had it coming to them. They did crucify Jews en masse; I think there’s pretty good evidence of that. You don’t commit mass-murder because a culture you encounter (the Jews) believes in a different myth than you do, thus spawning a new myth. So while Jesus was a stand-in, the events that created this character were real, and disgusting. Jesus was Everyman; or Everyjew, if you want to word it that way.
But none of them should be tax-exempt for believing in myths.
That’s what I want: Get rid of the tax-exempt status for the Christian Coalition, Inc.
i>By those standards most scholars think the … evidence at hand point to a historical Jesus.
I just don’t think that’s true.
Well, you’re wrong. Pick up any standard work of scholarship. Doehrty is not the standard view, only among the Internet atheist community. That doesn’t make him wrong, and I am sympathetic towards his position, but I also always have a bias in favor of the experts and the positions they generally agree on. I’m a proud elitist.
I don’t find your comments on Paul convincing, I can read the passages myself that indicate Paul did think Jesus was an actual human man, and not just some figure out in GhostWorld.
Jason Malloy writes: Pick up any standard work of scholarship.
Such as? The website you cite as a rebuttal to Doherty doesn’t actually rebut him very well. His point about the lack of any details in Paul stands.
More interesting than the lack of biographical detail in Paul’s writings is the complete absence of any teachings by “Jesus.” Paul makes heavy use of the scriptures to ground his own positions, but I don’t think there’s any use of “Jesus said,” etc. Does even a single saying from the Gospels appear in Paul, sufficiently similar to count as a reference?
Beginning in my early teens, sifting through neighboring Bible passages while ignoring the pastor’s sermon, I was puzzled by the sensation that Paul and the Gospels weren’t talking about the same person. At the time, I didn’t have the resources to pursue that line of thinking, but I’ve since realized (with the help of more studious writers) that my instinct was probably correct — they weren’t on the same page at all. That would help to explain why Paul was constantly in conflict with other “apostles” preaching “Jesus.” And, perhaps, why his ministry kept travelling farther and farther from Jerusalem.
Sure, try reading something by Bart Ehrman instead. His scholarship is impeccable.
In the case of history of religions, you should keep in mind that most of the ‘experts’ got into the field because they were already believers.
Also keep in mind that there is a de facto hiring bias against skeptics in religious studies programs, even at ‘secular’ institutions.
There is a difference between saying Paul’s writings lack key details of the Gospel narrative and saying that Paul’s writings lack a belief that Jesus was a real person who existed and was recently crucified. The former is true, and the latter is clearly false. Paul is a “coworker” with Peter, Jesus’ “friend” from the Gospels. We have different sources matching up attesting to the existence of a man.
It’s not a mountain, it’s not a smoking gun, and the details of his life and teachings aren’t clear, but a neutral student using standard methods of ancient history would consider Jesus a real person based on what’s available.
“The evidence for the existence of Jesus is about as good as we could expect for a private person of no then-obvious significance.”
Um, have you read the Gospels? Even if you remove the supernatural stuff, Jesus wasn’t really Jesus if he did not do some pretty remarkable things.
http://www.thegodmovie.com/clip-TheGap.php
Brian:
Duh. Yes, several times. I’m not sure I get your point. Maybe you didn’t get mine. The ancient middle east was crawling with religious teachers, most of them long forgotten by anyone but experts. The source material we have makes it reasonable to think that Yeshua ben Yusuf was among them. He has obviously had greater posthumous success than the others, but at the time he was one wandering preacher among many, who, perhaps, had the dubious distinction of being ignominiously executed when he wandered into a seething Jerusalem during a holiday where Jews were prone to get antsy about their Roman overlords. The source material that looks scanty to us seems rather considerable for someone with so little contemporaneous claim to fame, and it is enough to persuade me that he really existed. Specific claims about the details of his life and ministry are another kettle of fish, even if the source material has him providing plenty of fish.
Jason said: “There is a difference between saying Paul’s writings lack key details of the Gospel narrative and saying that Paul’s writings lack a belief that Jesus was a real person who existed and was recently crucified. The former is true, and the latter is clearly false.”
However, Paul wrote, “If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest.”
The “if…had been” in that sentence seems to imply pretty strongly that Paul didn`t think that Jesus was a real person who lived on earth.
You have got to be kidding me. There are just 10 hits on Google for your “biblical” quote, which apparently comes from Earl Doherty as quoted in Brian (who comments above) Flemming’s polemic The God who Wasn’t There. Any sympathy I had for Doherty is quickly fading, if this is his game. The NIV translates this verse from Hebrews in the present tense:
“If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.”
Same for ESV and KJV. Even assuming Doherty translated this “smoking gun” the “correct way”, unlike previous translating conspirators, Paul did not write Hebrews. This Jesus “skepticism” smacks of revisionism in the bad sense.
More likely is that the Internet users (and commenter/poster in particular) is more secular and godless than the general population. Why this is could be debated: higher levels education and literacy are my answers.
Jason Malloy:
As I read it, Peter is friends with someone called “Cephas”, which is Aramaic for “rock”. In John 1:42, Jesus says that Simon Peter (“Peter” being Greek for “rock”) will be called “Cephas”. There doesn’t seem to be anything else linking the two people.
I think it’s reasonable for Peter to be known by an Aramiac version of his name, if he went on to preach amongst the Aramites. This does not neccessarily demonstrate that there was no-one else called “Cephas” around.
Paul clearly doesn’t believe that Cephas was a disciple of Jesus, or he’d surely have been asking questions about Jesus’ life and ministry. Had Cephas and Simon Peter been the same person, his relationship with paul would surely have been completely different.
In short. there’s no more reason to believe that Simon Peter and Cephas are the same person than to believe that the following are all the same person:
Simon Peter
Simon the Leper
Simon the Cyrene
Simon Zelotes
Simon, father of Judas
As Mark Twain’s character Puddn’head Wilson said, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”
Sorry, but that’s just more nonsense. Read Galatians, there are details. He’s talking about the same apostle, and he thinks it’s a big deal – he’s name-dropping even for street cred:
“Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles — only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.” (Gal 1:18-20)
I want you to note among his other clear details, his identification of James, Peter, and John, as “reputed pillars” because they are the same three “special” apostles who frequently are singled-out together with Jesus apart from the other apostles throughout the syncoptics:
“On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. (Gal 2:7-9) ”
Bottom line: I’m an atheist and I claim to be nothing close to a biblical scholar – which is all the more reason to prudently avoid ideologically expedient revisionism, and stick to mainstream scholarly views – but the objections I’ve seen here are so superficially crankish, that I am more secure than ever in my feeling that this popular Internet atheist Jesus “skepticism” is anything but.
Jason,
I don’t consider my Jesus skepticism to be ideologically motivated. I have been a Christian my whole life, and as PZ knows from previous comments, I’m (if anything) a Christian apologist. However, I don’t see the passages you write as being at all convincing that Paul ever met a disciple of Jesus. In particular, it’s not clear that Cephas is the same person as the disciple Peter. As for mentioning James, the brother of Jesus, it seems possible to me that that was a later modification.
However, I don’t see the passages you write as being at all convincing that Paul ever met a disciple of Jesus. In particular, it’s not clear that Cephas is the same person as the disciple Peter.
Dude, if you’re not going to put in the slightest bit of effort to read what I write, then don’t respond. You’re a troll and you’re making me angry. Quote, repeated:
” James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.
James, Peter, and John. James, Peter, and John. Your “argument” was maybe that Peter that Paul chilled around with was coincidentally a whole different Peter than the one described in the syncoptics. Not only is this begging the question on your part*, it is factually ignorant and logically absurd. First of all, its not just some dude named Peter, it’s the apostle Peter. A name and a contextual description that fits that person. Read the chapter: He’s “telling you no lie”, this is what you say when you meet a rockstar, meet the president – it’s the Peter, Jesus’ Peter. Even more embarrassing, Paul doesn’t just name Peter, but the three core disciples as a group – together. Sorry, your “argument” is debunked. It wasn’t hard – perhaps if you just took three minutes to actually read the goddamn chapter before you go spouting off bizarre revisionist talking points.
Your Christianity doesn’t interest me, or give you an ounce more of credibility. Your “arguments” are utter nonsense and that’s the bottom line.
* much like your new statement that any evidence you don’t like might just be an interpolation! “Might” isn’t good enough. Either you have evidence for an interpolation or you don’t. You’re the only one that has ever argued that this part is an interpolation, you present no evidence except that it contradicts what you want to believe, and it doesn’t even make sense why such an interpolation would be made – its not like the early church could fore-see these weird arguments. Maybe people in the year 3000 will try and argue Jason Malloy was a talking horse. I’d leave some sort of clarification for them If this was something I could possibly predict.
Jason writes:
Your “argument” was maybe that Peter that Paul chilled around with was coincidentally a whole different Peter than the one described in the syncoptics. Not only is this begging the question on your part*, it is factually ignorant and logically absurd. First of all, its not just some dude named Peter, it’s the apostle Peter.
Look, I don’t know why you are getting so heated about this. Surely you don’t consider it logically impossible that Paul’s text was altered later, do you? We can talk about likelihood of that interpretation, but calling it question-begging or logically absurd is just incorrect. It’s neither one of those.
You’re the only one that has ever argued that this part is an interpolation
That’s not true. I certainly didn’t invent that idea. It is discussed by Earl Doherty. It was earlier considered by G.A. Wells. Wells wrote in “The Historical Evidence for Jesus”:
Your Christianity doesn’t interest me, or give you an ounce more of credibility. Your “arguments” are utter nonsense and that’s the bottom line.
You were the one who claimed that the arguments were ideologically motivated by desire to discredit Christianity. I’m just telling you that that’s false, in my case at least.
Look, I don’t know why you are getting so heated about this. Surely you don’t consider it logically impossible that Paul’s text was altered later, do you? We can talk about likelihood of that interpretation, but calling it question-begging or logically absurd is just incorrect. It’s neither one of those.
Nooo, it’s both of those, and if you had to deal with you, you’d be getting heated too. Continually adding ad hoc excuses everytime presented evidence contradicts the conclusion you started with is question begging (e.g. maybe all that contradictory stuff are interpolations). Continually denying that certain things are written, even after I quote passages where those things are written is logically absurd (As is, might I add, a self-described Christian who seemingly argues Christ never existed! But that’s another story)
You’re the only one that has ever argued that this part is an interpolation
That’s not true. I certainly didn’t invent that idea. It is discussed by Earl Doherty. It was earlier considered by G.A. Wells. Wells wrote in “The Historical Evidence for Jesus”
Here we have more evidence of your inability to think: Not one of the four quotes you provided argues that the references to the apostles in the Epistles are later interpolations. You certainly did invent that idea, in a clumsy attempt to save your belief that Paul didn’t meet Peter – and even that idea, absurdly enough, is not found in the quotes you bothered to provide in support of yourself! Wells argues that Paul did meet Peter, right there in your second quote. You are a very, very confused debater.
Short version:
“I don’t see the passages you write as being at all convincing that Paul ever met a disciple of Jesus. In particular, it’s not clear that Cephas is the same person as the disciple Peter.”
This passage alone is sufficient to discredit your theory, even though there are many others:
“James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.”
Not only do you have no response to this damning passage, you have yet to present any evidence for why anyone should think it’s not Peter the disciple.