THE CATHOLIC BOOKLET, DID JESUS EXIST?
A Catholic Truth Society booklet called, Did Jesus Exist? gives many dubious
arguments insisting that he did exist.
It insists that the gospels were written in the first century (4) against the
evidence and ignores the possibility that they were confidential if they did
exist that early. It says that Mark must be genuine and the work of Mark for if
it were not it would have been ascribed to the apostle Peter (5) as if the
authority that first made the ascription would necessarily have thought of
Peter! There is no evidence for the Marcan ascription before late in the second
century. And at best that evidence is merely gossip and hearsay.
Who was believed to have written it has nothing to do with its being authentic.
What if everybody knew that Peter was against books and we don’t know? The
forger would have decided then to pretend to be Peter’s associate who was
writing the truth without Peter’s approval. Pages 8 and 9 respond to Wells
(author of Did Jesus Exist? a book that says he did not) who wrote that if we
believe in Lenin and no or hardly any evidence for him exists and nobody
mentioned him we would have a strong argument from silence that he never
existed. They tell us that this would show that Jesus did exist for we do have
documents about him and nobody could invent a non-existent revolutionary who was
spearheading the 1917 Revolution in Russia and get away with it. You can get
away with it under certain circumstances and if you create a need to believe in
the person.
Jewish tradition is held to back up the existence of Jesus on page 12 but this
Jesus might not have been our Jesus but just somebody who he was based on. A
fictitious character can be based on a real one and the character is still
fictitious even if both characters bear the same name. If the Christians
invented Jesus those who were embarrassed by this might have lied saying: “Oh
Jesus was that guy that was hanged on the Eve of the Passover some decades ago.
That was him you know.”
If you read the epistle of James you get the impression that the teaching of
Jesus was plagiarised from that of James and perhaps events from the life of
James were used to make stories up about Jesus.
A forged letter of St Paul’s, 1 Thessalonians 2:15 calls the Jews the people who
put Jesus to death. Wells has expunged it as an insertion and is criticised for
that (page 15). Wells is right for it was the Romans who crucified Jesus. (The
Christian reply that the letter meant they indirectly crucified Jesus by getting
the Romans to do it is unacceptable. It is just a speculative interpretation and
makes words useless.) The statement of the booklet that Wells has no right to
expunge it is slander. The passage accuses the Jews of killing Jesus and the
prophets and of being foes to the whole world. This is simply anti-Semitic
hysteria and incitement to hatred – the author might have lied to provoke hatred
against the Jews. The next line says that the Jews sought to stop the apostles
speaking to the Gentiles to convert them which is impossible to believe and it
gloats that God’s wrath has visited them. Judaism was a racist religion and
didn’t care what the Gentiles believed. Perhaps the text was revised by a rabid
hate-monger for later it preaches love to enemies (5:15). There is no doubt that
we cannot trust what the letter says about the Jews killing Jesus.
Now, the letter also says that the Jews killed the prophets. The Jews were
accused of killing prophets by Jesus before he founded the Church. Jews in the
context can mean the whole Jewish race past and present. That means the letter
does not contradict the view that the Jews killed Jesus centuries before. It
doesn’t help show that Jesus lived.
Perhaps it might be reasoned, “Jesus accused the Jews of killing the prophets
meaning the Jews as a whole taking the Jews who had killed them in the past long
before his generation into consideration. Maybe the Jews are being said to have
killed Jesus in the same sense where the letter says they put Jesus to death
though we know the Romans did it. The mention of the prophets would indicate
that for the prophets mean the writers of the Old Testament and the author would
have been specific if his own brand of prophets had been meant.”
Think again. Jesus is mentioned first and the prophets after, implying that
Jesus might have died before these prophets. And why would the letter writer
abuse the Jews here when it would have been enough and better to say it was an
evil few? There were Jews in Thessalonica and he would have desired to convert
them and not alienate them. The writer abused the Jews because they killed Jesus
ages before and not in the first century for if Pilate had killed him he could
have said so. It had to be ages for only centuries before could there have been
a possibility that all the Jews had killed Jesus. He must have meant that the
Jews killed him directly for we have no evidence that he could have meant
indirectly through Pilate. Jesus might have been stoned and then crucified as a
display by Jewish dissidents who did not mind that crucifixion was considered an
unlawful method of execution for Jews for the writer never said that Jesus died
on the cross. Or perhaps they nailed Jesus up as some kind of display knowing he
was about to die anyway. It is important to realise that though the apostle Paul
says only once that Jesus died on the cross (Philippians 2:8) and he says he
bears the crucifixion marks of Jesus on his own body, he does not say that Jesus
was nailed to the cross. If Jesus was tied there would still have been marks.
Perhaps he was tied to the cross and stoned and these are the marks Paul means
for Paul was certainly stoned a few times. These interpretations are probably
right and they totally demolish the gospel account of the death of Jesus.
The Jews did not kill Jesus personally if he was crucified unless the
Thessalonians author is supporting the Jewish Talmud which says that Jesus was
hanged up for stoning on the Eve of the Passover.
The wrath the letter says was visited upon the Jews is probably the disaster of
70 AD which means the letter is a forgery for Paul was dead then. There is no
other disaster that could have affected all the Jews at the time and the letter
has it in for them all. So even if the letter did say Jesus was slain by Jews in
recent times it would still not count as evidence for Jesus for it came from a
liar’s quill.
Page 16 says that Paul said that a wife must stay with her husband and this is
not from Paul but the Lord (1 Cor. 7) and this may be from oral tradition so
Jesus must have existed. It says that this is the most simple and
straightforward interpretation. That is a lie for Paul never hinted that he used
oral tradition though he did expect others to use the verified tradition he
started himself. Paul had a lot of visions so that is where it came from. The
visions is the simplest explanation considering he had lots of them. He never
asked the people to hold fast to the traditions about Jesus or even mentioned
them but he did ask them to hold fast to the apostolic tradition embodied in
himself. He did speak of visions, nothing else, so visions it is. The revelation
about marriage came from a vision of Jesus.
The author of the booklet would have said if it had occurred to him that Wells
was wrong to say that the persons who fleshed out Jesus the myth plotted him in
the time of Pilate for that was a time of great suffering. He would say it would
be silly to pick Pilate and then exonerate him and not to put Jesus in the time
of Herod the Great which saw worse suffering. But the gospellers had to pick a
time in which there was not so much excessive suffering but excessive
crucifixions. And why not pick Pilate and then make excuses for what he did to
please Roman readers? Also, the prophecy of Daniel concerning the seventy weeks
seemed to the Church to have required that the Messiah die about the time of
Pilate.
The author would be glad to know that Wells has come to believe not that Jesus
existed but that he was based on some first century people on account of the
Book of Q. Q is the alleged forerunner of Mark’s gospel which was allegedly used
to help create the gospel and the other synoptic ones too. Q might only prove
that there was some character that the Jesus character was modelled on but since
it is so based on teaching that may be an overstatement. No two scholars agree
on exactly what material in Mark constituted Q. A growing number hold that Q
exists only in the imagination of the scholars for Mark could have invented and
plagiarised from Pharisee teachers all the things he says Jesus said in his
gospel without using any specific sources – people inventing stuff tend to
subconsciously reproduce what they have heard or seen and that is all they need.
The book of Q can be explained without a historical Jesus and it never says the
son of God will be crucified on earth or gives any concrete statement that he
was a real person and every single thing Mark, the first gospel, says happened
during the execution of Jesus can be traced back to an Old Testament verse and
anything that isn’t is just an elaboration of what was found in the Old
Testament suggesting that the whole story was made up from the Jewish Bible (The
Evolution of Jesus of Nazareth, http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/partthre.htm).
Christians complain that literary dependence of the gospellers on Q needs proof
and then they say then that the commonality between the synoptics can be
explained by there having been a historical Jesus! (What About the Discovery of
Q? by Brad Bromling D.Min). The similarity suggests the contrary, that there was
no Jesus and myths and legends or lies had to be used to make up his story
because there is too much similarity. Eyewitness reports would have been very
difficult to make tally especially in the wording of what Jesus said. The
Christians will grasp at any straw no matter how silly it is to get people to
agree with them.