DID JESUS EXIST? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman

Large numbers of atheists, humanists, and conspiracy theorists are raising one of the most pressing questions in the history of religion: "Did Jesus exist at all?" Was he invented out of whole cloth for nefarious purposes by those seeking to control the masses? Or was Jesus such a shadowy figure—far removed from any credible historical evidence—that he bears no meaningful resemblance to the person described in the Bible?

In DID JESUS EXIST? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not.

• Category

  People & Blogs

[esantiago773]

For arguments against Bart Ehram

it is a disappointing and ineffective response that will only carry weight with people who desperately want there not to have been a historical Jesus, so much so that they cease to care about historical methods and evidence. It is disappointing to find folks like P. Z. Myers, who works so hard to defend science from internet attackers, applauding a similar attack on mainstream history.

[Jango Madango]

Luke's a later gospel that changed the message, like Ehrman already mentioned. Our earliest gospels, Mark and Matthew, depict the kingdom of heaven being a physical reality, with angels gathering the elect from the four corners of the Earth, and stars falling from the sky (Mark 13:27, Mark 13:25). Jesus was a Jewish apocalypticist (that is, if he did indeed exist, which I'm still sort of iffy on). Christianity started out as basically a messianic doomsday sect.

[scottbignell]

Sorry dude. It just sounds like one big non-evident ancient conspiracy theory to me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I think the few parallels you've raised are nothing more than coincidence that you'd rather were explained by hidden agendas, code words, and conspiracy. Very attractive (I'm sure it's the kind of thing I would have dug when I was 17!), but not at all convincing.

[a0eoj]

If we knew only one of the two was circumcised, I'd say it's probably more likely to be Herod the Great, not Jesus Christ.

[a0eoj]

If you're familiar with even a fraction of the incestuous relationships between ancient people seeking political power, wouldn't you be surprised if Jesus/Caesarion didn't have a little Jewish ancestry? Jesus/Caesarion probably spent quite some time "preaching in Judea," but it's pretty clear from Paul's letters that he didn't think Jesus was the messiah for ONLY the Jews.

[a0eoj]

To anyone who's read Paul's letters, it's pretty clear he knew precisely who Jesus really was. He sure seems to think so anyway. We have to be careful how we interpret what Paul wrote. If I'm right, and Jesus was Caesarion, not only did Paul know, but the people to whom he was writing probably knew who Jesus was as well. Wouldn't you agree?

[a0eoj]

Why didn't he say so then?

If Paul wanted to live to see the return of his exiled lord and the restoration of his own kingdom, he had to be extremely careful with his words. To "say so" was a treasonous offense once Octavian became the 1st Emperor AVGVSTVS in 27 BCE. According to Plutarch, Octavian thought he had already executed Caesarion and Antyllus. Paul was trying to let people know Ptolemaios was going to return without alerting Octavian. Do you think Jesus was anymore Jewish than Herod?

[scottbignell]

Why didn't he say so then? Seems a bit far-fetched to me. I'm just not seeing the similarities as being anything more than coincidence. I think it's pretty clear that Paul thought the original Jesus was a Jewish man, who preached in Judea, who was believed to be the Jewish Messiah, who was one night taken away and crucified. Sounds like a pretty typical 1st-C Jewish/Roman conflict in ancient Palestine. The gospels, Josephus and Tacitus also confirm. But hey, good luck with your theory.

[a0eoj]

yes

[a0eoj]

Based on specific inheritances described in the "Donations of Alexandria", the historical James was probably Ptolemy Philadelphus (Caesarion's younger half brother) since he apparently inherited Syria.

[scottbignell]

Do you think Paul thought Jesus was Caesarion?

[a0eoj]

I'm not sure exactly what you want me to explain. Considering the specific places Paul visited, his interests coincides with the region inherited by Marcus Antonius (Antyllus), the son of Mark Antony and the half brother of Caesarion. Subtract the inheritances to Antony's children with Cleopatra (Donations of Alexandria) from the total territory controlled by Antony after Caesar's assassination; the remainder was Antyllus' inheritance, Greece and Turkey - the same area that Paul travelled.