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)