Was Jesus a real person?

Earlier this week, I made a post about a television show I saw on the local Christian channel, wherein a very slanted debate was taking place between some fundamentalists and a secular humanist. It was the humanist professor’s point of view that archaelogical and historical evidence did not provide him with enough support to believe that Jesus really existed as a historical person. For whatever reason, a reader decided to jump on me for even mentioning the possibility that some people think he might not have been “real”, even despite the fact that I didn’t claim that to be my own viewpoint. Here’s what she wrote:

    Just so you know, theres more secular proof of Christ’s existence than there is of Julius Caesar (or was it Augustus?).

    By secular, I mean references to Jesus outside of the Bible.

    To begin with, there is the testimony of the early Talmudical writings. The noted Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner, after thoroughly investigating their testimony, reports that the “early Talmudical accounts” of Jesus confirm ‘both the existence and the general character of Jesus.’ This can be referenced in Jesus of Nazareth, p. 20. The jewish community had nothing to gain in acknowledging Jesus’ existence when they were rejecting his as the promised messiah.

    A number of other Roman Writers, including Pliny the Younger, Seneca and Juvenal also make references to Christ’s followers.

    Rightly, then, The Encyclopædia Britannica states regarding the testimony of early Jewish and pagan writers: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

    Do you not find it ironic to assume that the Biblical record is fictitious, yet eagerly scour apocryphal writings and accept these as credible?

It’s an interesting debate, even though it’s entirely outside of the point that I was making in that post. I think the people who try to “prove” that Christ was a real person need to look at the possibility that he was a psychological archetype molded on the pattern of numerous other plant Savior gods, whose life stories his matches exactly.

And yes, I’m familiar with the notion that the Devil “invented” these other religions to look JUST like Christianity, in order to “fool” people. I think that’s an absolutely preposterous notion that neglects the way that religions & stories actually work and are formed, one from another. And if you’re an ardent Christian, I think that sort of thinking gives too much power to “The Devil”. That said, I don’t see any conflict between the possibility that Jesus truly existed historically, and that his life and teachings were archetypally potent in such a manner that he both matched up with these other religio-mythical figures, and spawned a syncretic religion around him.

In short, I believe everything, omni-dimensionally. I even believe crazy shit like that Jesus was a member of an extra- or ultraterrestrial race of vampires sent here to rule us. I don’t see anything to be gained, personally, by excluding any possible viewpoint. Where’s the fun in that? Adding more nuances and shades of interpretation and meaning only makes it better and more exciting to me. I’d rather have a delicious on-going mystery to explore and grow with, than a narrow set of beliefs which ossifies me and shuts out anything that doesn’t fit into what I already know.


- END -

ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)

This entry was written by Tim Boucher, posted on November 12, 2004 at 5:53 pm.

permalink.

RSS feed for this post.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Public Domain Where Applicable, Copy Left Where Not, Universal Free Realms Everyware Else for 2009 and for forever.the timboucher experience. No rights reserved.