In my conversation with Michael on Thursday he mentioned that he was unsure whether or not Jesus actually existed. Other than a very few people on the extreme end of scholarship, most scholars conclude that Jesus existed. This would even include the scholars in the Jesus Seminar, which after very little study you can conclude are considered radical by most, and by no means conservative, on pretty much anything.

The burden of proof as to the statement “Jesus never existed” (which I don’t think Michael said, but implied as a possibility) I believe lies not on the skeptic not the believer. That is not to say that I don’t think there are more than enough sources that point to the existence of a Historical Jesus. Although “problematic” at first to the student, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke can be used, not to mention the less “problematic” writings of Paul. In addition many ancient “secular” historians can be used as well, such as are often mentioned: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus and others, with varying levels of reliability. (Again not without some hurdles).

Assuming Jesus did NOT exist requires quite a bit of explaining to be done in regards to what happened in the first century, and the cause the Church. A reconstruction of history without Jesus stretches much further into speculation than the assumption that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, in my opinion. I was reading some NT Wright today and thought a brief quote from him might be helpful to what I’m trying to get at.

From NT Wrights “Jesus and the Victory of God” (109-111)

“The understanding of any event is not only bound to involve, but may well be enhanced by, the understanding of its sequel…

(Quoting Sanders) ‘Without the resurrection, would [Jesus’] disciples have endured longer than did John the Baptist’s? We can only guess, but I would guess not.’

So would I. One might add, for good measure, the followers not only of John the Baptist but of Judas the Galilean, Simon, Athronges, Eleazar ben Deinaus and Alexander, Menahem, Simon bar Giora, and bar-Kochba himself. Faced with the defeat of their leader, followers of such figures would either be rounded up as well or melt away into the undergrowth. The other possibility was to latch on to a new leader; in the case of the apparent dynasty that ended up being know as the Sicarii, when one leader was killed they simply chose another from the same family. In not one case do we hear of any group, after the death of its leader, claiming that he was alive again, and that therefore Israel’s expectation had in some strange way actually come true. History therefore spotlights the question: what happened to make Jesus’ followers, from the very start, articulate such a claim and work out its implications?…

Thus we must ask: why and how did the early disciples, shattered as they had been by the crucifixion of their master regroup and go out to face persecution for declaring that in him the hope of Israel had quite literally come to life? Why did they then organize themselves and act in the way that they did and in particular, why (granted their abiding commitment to Jewish-style monotheism) did they begin very early on to worship Jesus and to include him in Jewish-style monotheistic formulae? …

And since the answer which the early Christians themselves seem to have given to the question has to do both with Jesus of Nazareth prior to his death and with their belief that he had been raised form the dead, the historian is bound to ask whether we are forced to reject either of these answers.”

Some people may be wondering why is Jesus the issue in a conversation about skepticism, faith, or God. If Jesus was who he claimed to be in the Gospels, and who the early Christians like Paul claimed him to be, then our wondering conversations about God and faith have an anchor to revolve around for answers.

Oh and on another note, my wife said I need to be careful on how much I interrupt Michael. She’s absolutely right!