Did Jesus exist?

Various blogs out there are devoted to revealing to the world how Jesus is a total fabrication, how he is a simple copy of Horus, or Mithra, or Hercules, or all of them together and some more.
I keep reading on the web comments stating with full confidence that "he didn't exist", "he was invented", "he is a myth".

I felt like writing a post about it, because there is so much misinformation and so many misconceptions that it becomes irritating.

If you're one of these persons being convinced it's obvious Jesus didn't exist I hope you'll read this and really try to understand what I'm writing. Because the few times I've had a discussion with a Jesus mythicist it was like talking to a wall.

So, first, the disclaimers:

I am not Christian.
I am not religious.
I don't think Jesus had any magical or divine powers.
I am aware various elements in the accounts of his life stem from old popular legends.

Now, to the question Did Jesus exist?, nobody can answer for sure. We weren't there.

But. 
It's fair to assume Jesus did exist, for a very simple reason...

... And I'll explain it by starting to talk about Zoroaster, the Persian prophet/religious leader.

1. Did Zoroaster exist?

Somewhere in time, probably during the end of the 2nd millenium BC, a new religion spread in Persia (ancient Iran). The religious texts describe Zoroaster as being the founder of this new religion. Supposedly he is himself the author of the Gathas, the most well known part of the Avesta, the collection of religious documents. We know the names of Zoroaster's parents, of his wife and children. We are also told various mystical things about him (he fought demons, for instance). We have no idea when he lived for sure. It can be around the 11th century BC but also several centuries before (some even say after). (See note a)

Did Zoroaster actually exist? Was he a real guy minus the mystical, legendary aspects attributed to him in some texts?

Modern representation of Zoroaster

Most historians consider Zoroaster did exist and started the new religion. He is to date to most logical assumption since no other documents hint at a different start of the new Persian religion (therefore called Zoroastrianism). The fact that some aspects of his character appear legendary don't change that.

Historians don't go like "Ah! He's only mentioned in religious texts and it's said he's in contact with the divine, therefore obviously he never existed!"...

Well. That's basically the same thing with Jesus. 

In the absence of ANY other indication that would make us think Christianity started in another way than by being a Jewish sect developed around a preacher named Jesus, it's fair assume Jesus did exist. (There you may want to protest and say Paul really started Christianity. Yes and no. He made it a new religion separated from judaism but nowhere does it say he started it from scratch.)

I'm not saying Christianity can't have had a different start.
It's okay to look for other indications. We are not going to just stop at the assumption. But until we actually find some, it's not illogical to consider that Christianity was first this Jewish sect.

The Gospels may be religious texts, but they are still saying stuff that is not necessarily false. They are actually more factual than the zoroastrian texts.

2. "Where is the evidence?!"

Some people told me: "It doesn't matter what the Gospels say because the Bible is false" and "since some stuff are obviously untrue in the Bible then everything must be untrue".

DOUBLE FACEPALM.
Because the Bible is full of legends doesn't mean every freaking thing it says is an invention, an hallucination born from people's deluded, gullible minds.
Plenty of Jewish Kings mentioned in the Old Testament are historical kings.
The Exile in Babylon did happen.
It's completely idiotic to suggest to Gospels shouldn't be taken into consideration because they are religious texts (and just to be precise, they were obviously not in the Bible when they were written).

Of course, if most historians consider Jesus existed (yes, most historians do, and Roger Price himself, one of the few but also most renowned mythicists, acknowledges it, see note b), it's not just because it's fair to assume he did. The texts have been studied and dissected. They make sense in that they give a coherent description of pre-70 Judea, etc... I won't detail this. Plenty of books have been written about it and I want to keep this post relatively short and really simple.
I simply want to point out that there is nothing illogical or far-fetched in thinking Jesus the preacher did exist. That doesn't mean believing he did miracles. The supernatural elements, in the frame of a historical study, remain seen as added as part of a deification, or seen as an exageration or misunderstanding of something that did happen.

Now you still have arguments like "if he was that big and doing miracles people should have written about him when he was alive."

But who said he had huge crowds around him? The Gospels. And we know they contain elements of exageration and mythification. So we should be especially wary of the parts making it sound as if he was the rock star of the time. Most likely he had some followers and was seen as a big deal only by them. And his followers didn't really seem to be the scholarly type, which easily explains why no famous text was written about him when he was alive (not to mention he didn't preached long).

And the biggest question: "Where is the evidence?"
Answer: There is only, or rather mainly, the Gospels. It's not much, but NO it's not nothing.

King David, who supposedly lived a thousand years before Jesus, is thought by let's say, roughly, maybe 1 out of 2 historians to have existed (but probably more as a small chief than a big king). There is no real evidence for him outside of the biblical texts. Yet you still have many historians thinking he was an actual person. Even the mostly legendary Abraham may be the memory of an old leader. Actually, the farther you go in time with biblical stories, the less real the characters get until you get a 100% legendary character: Adam, the first man.
So when you still have the possibility of some memory which Abraham was based upon, there is nothing weird in suggesting Jesus existed and preached like it is told.

And at this point some people ask again for evidence. I chuckle as I remember that debate between Richard Dawkins and that creationist woman who keeps asking and asking again "show me the evidence".

---> the evidence is we are told in ancient texts a guy preached and a sect started around him and especially around his memory after he was dead - and since nothing really disproves this and since this story is socio-culturally coherent, we don't actually need other evidence than these accounts and this coherence to assume this guy existed. We would need way more evidence to be completely sure of his existence, but as it is it's enough for fairly assuming. 

While it's okay to find this insufficient for thinking Jesus was real, it remains stupid to pretend he obviously didn't exist. Anyway, in both cases there is still some intellectual dishonesty, since if these standards of insufficiency were applied to various other historical characters, we would also have to say they weren't real.

Actually, I find comic the discrepancy between the lack of heated debate concerning the historicity of Zoroaster and the craziness about the historicity of Jesus. Both can be discussed, since as I said we can't be sure of any of them. But the fact some people are so adamant to claim Jesus didn't exist for sure (rather than just discuss the possibility) stems I think, most of the time, from a desire to produce the ultimate rejection of Christianity. I also begin to see more and more people saying Muhammad didn't exist by the way...

In the end, the believer doesn't need proof and will keep on believing in them as God's son or God's prophet. And to non-believers, it actually doesn't matter if they existed or not. So I hope people will calm down, as I see coming from people who think Jesus is myth a lot of aggressivity, irrationality and intellectual dishonesty (saying for instance it's a lie most historians think Jesus existed when Price himself says it's true). Which is I think quite disturbing knowing non-believers are supposedly the open-minded and smart ones...

So until I see Jesus mythicists writing about how Zoroaster is a lie, I'll keep the right to question their intention - which I think in most cases isn't mainly the search for historical truth.



P.S: the topic of legendary elements attributed to Jesus in the Gospels and how some of them reflect popular beliefs of the time is another subject, that's why I didn't develop it here, but I may write about it some day ;-)
Most of what is written on the web about common points between Jesus and Horus is however pure tripe taken from conspiracy movie Zeitgeist. 

a. Zoroaster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster
b. Robert Price: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory (see note 106)

Quick thoughts on Halloween and a possible link Samhain/Divali

The name "Halloween" is the contraction of "All Hallow's Eve", a Christian name for a festival that is not that Christian...

I. Samhain or Samonios: Halloween's ancestor

The celebration of the Christian Saints (All Saints Day) was officially placed on November 1st by the Pope in 835... Before that, it had been held for over a century in early May, and scholars think the Christian festival was modeled on the Roman Lemuria festival, a kind of festival of the dead. In England, it seems the All Saints Day was already celebrated on November 1st in the early 8th century, and the official decision to move the feast simply followed folk customs. [1]

The end of October/beginning of November (the date was moveable according to the lunar phases) represented for the Celtic people of Antiquity the end of the year et, of course, the beginning of the new one. Known as Samonios in Gaul, Samhain (or other variations according to the region) in the British Isles and across the world today among neo-pagans, many of these festival themes survived and evolved in our modern Halloween.

The end of the year indicated for the Celts the entry in the dark season, where the nights are long, the weather cold, the soil barren. On Samhain, ancient people bid farewell to the sunlight. Summer was truly over and the last harvests were completed. Entering a period of seasonal and natural darkness gave birth to a folklore of closeness with the underworld, the world of the dead.
Among the Gauls, the 3 days that lasted Samonios were apparently considered as outside the rest of the year. Their standing alone emphasizes the idea of threshold: between the 3 celtic seasons (light and dark) and between 2 worlds (the living and the dead). Neo-pagans today still hold the idea that on Samhain the veil with the spirit world is at its thinnest, and that the period is ideal for divination.

II. Links with Divali 

Autumn Equinox: universal harvest celebrations

September/October is my favourite period of the year.

This is the moment when the days get rapidly shorter, when you can still feel the warmth of summer tinged with a fresher breeze and sometimes a snap in the air, when you're tempted to relight a fire in the hearth after months of non-use, when nature becomes a swirl of yellow, orange and red brightness, when the sky changes fast and multicolour, multiform clouds quickly criss-cross it, and when you can taste the last offerings of mother earth before the cold, barren days of winter.

Indeed, according to the pagan organization of the year, the autumn equinox (September 22nd this year) marks the second harvest festival, the first being Lughnasadh, or Lammas, on August 1st, while Samhain, widely known as Halloween, is the third.
It depends on where you live, but here in Europe ans also in North America, apples, pears, grapes, blackberries, honey, walnuts, hazelnuts, squashes, pumkins, potatoes and corn are some of the delicious food nature offers us in September and October.
And, in some amazing harmony, a lot of these fruits and vegetables echo with their colours the amber tones nature takes in this period. The golden yellows and firy reds seem to pay a tribute to the sun, a last homage as the nights begin to overpower the days and before the start of the dark season, the day after Samhain.

Since it happens on this Saturday, I'd like to talk a bit about this second harvest festival, the Autumn Equinox.

I. Quick history

At the equinox, "equal night" in latin, night and day will be of similar length. After, the nights will be longer than the days, and will keep on taking on length until the winter solstice, end of December.

Harvest festivals can be found in many cultures around the world. Actually, probably in every sedentary cultures growing crops. They are very old pre-Christian celebrations, some of whose traditions can still be found in folklore, especially in Ireland and the UK, or other countries that have retained a lot of pagan customs (see the festival of Guldize in Cornwall for instance).

A tradition in particular appears to have been widespread: giving special treatment to the last sheaf standing in the harvested field.

A custom attested in Normandy (northwestern region of France) until at least the end of the 19th century, was for reapers to dance around the last sheaf, as, one can imagine, a way to celebrate the bounty of the harvest. [1]

Imbolc and Candlemas: origins and continuation

The month of February begins on 2 important cultural festivals: Imbolc and Candlemas.

I. Definitions

Imbolc was a pre-christian pagan festival celebrated by the Celts early in February (the date was moveable according to the lunar phases). Today, Imbolc is still celebrated by neo-pagans and celtic reconstructionists, but most people chose the fixed date of February 1st.

Candlemas is also called Presentation at the temple, and for Christians it marks the Purification of Mary after Jesus' birth. The Jewish tradition had it that new mothers were to be purified at the temple 40 days after the birth of their child. It is celebrated on February 2nd.

II. Relation between the 2 festivals

It is not new that early Christianity appropriated various dates and themes of pagan festivals, as well as worship places, in order to facilitate the establishment of the new religion.
If the presentation at the temple was not "invented" to replace Imbolc (this presentation was an old Jewish ritual as said above), it's interesting to notice that both festivals share common themes. Again, contrary to what I read too often, in this case the main theme in question (purification) is intrinsic to the Christian festival and was not "stolen" from the pagan festival, but rather the festival swallowed up folk rituals (details below).

The name Candlemas refers to candle being blessed and then taken home as protection by Christians. According to Pope Innocent XII (17th century) the pagans "at the beginning of the month, walked about the city with lighted candles. Because the holy fathers could not extirpate the custom, they ordained that Christians should carry about candles in honor of the Blessed Virgin; and thus what was done before in the honor of Ceres is now done in honor of the Blessed Virgin."
He considered that the association of candles with the Presentation at the temple (hence becoming known as Candlemas) was an appropriation of a Roman (Ceres being a Roman Goddess of agriculture and fertility - of the land and by extension of people) pagan ritual.

Paris through the ages

[Article in english AND in french!]

Before posting here a series of articles about the ancient and medieval Paris, I thought it'd be a good idea to begin with a quick presentation of Paris through the ages.
Avant de poster ici une série d'articles sur le Paris antique et médiéval, j'ai pensé bon de commencer avec une rapide présentation de Paris à travers les âges.

I. Prehistory

The site of Paris has been inhabited by stable groups of people since the neolithic (traces from the late 5th millenium B.C have been discovered). In the 1980's a settlement was found on the site of the Louvres. In 1991, another one was excavated at Bercy.
Le site de Paris a été habité par des groupes sédentaires depuis le néolithique (des traces datant de la fin du 5ème millénaire av. J-C ont été découvertes). Dans les années 80 des installations sont mises à jour au niveau du Louvres. En 1991, d'autres le sont à Bercy. 

A pirogue found at Bercy (Carnavalet Museum) / Une pirogue trouvée lors des fouilles à Bercy (Musée Carnavalet)

What the pirogue looked like originally / A quoi ressemblait la pirogue à l'origine

Before the neolithic, nomadic hunters-gatherers had wandered along the parisian banks for milleniums, and traces of a temporary camp dating from the 9th millenium BC were found in the 15th arrondissement, more precisely at the 62, rue Henry Farman.
Avant le néolithique, des chasseurs-cueilleurs nomades ont évolué le long des berges parisiennes de la Seine pendant des millénaires, et des traces d'habitations temporaires datant du 9ème millénaire av. J-C ont été trouvées dans le 15ème arrondissement, plus précisément au 62, rue Henry Farman.

BBC documentary (2011) "The Bible's Buried Secrets": Review + Streaming

In March 2011, the BBC broadcast a three-episode programme entitled The Bible's Buried Secrets. Presented by a young scholar, Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, the documentary aimed at presenting how modern archeology and history have cast a new light on the Old Testament.

Well, it's not a surprise... the programme stirred some controversy.

The first thing that is important to point out I think is that almost all of what Francesca says isn't new, but on the contrary has been more or less boradly accepted in academic circles for some years at least now. Therefore, she's not talking about her findings, but about the findings of many specialists, and to that she adds here and there her own opinion and hypotheses.

I thought the programme well-done, with a dynamic directing avoiding the monotonous close-ups on some scholar's face that you can find in other documentaries. It's also well written: the information delivered is clear, and specifically accessible for newcomers on the subject.