9 ms·

Do we even know he was a real person and not combination of 2 or 3 men with similar fate?

by dvh 8y ago

croisillon 8y ago
you might like this article: http://www.adamgopnik.com/what-did-jesus-do http://www.adamgopnik.com/what-did-jesus-do
toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
No, although typically the opposite claim is made. That people named “Joshua son of Joseph” lived at that time, that various revolts and religious upheavals occurred is pretty certain. That one guy fitting the rough description of Jesus was behind it is not. The history of Christianity doesn’t really start in earnest for hundreds of years after the supposed death of Christ in any case. People today can’t even agree on the details of Elvis’ life... now imagine if Elvis had lived a few hundred years ago, and we’re all working from quaternary+ sources. Then fast-forward a thousand or so years of very intentional document editing and re-editing, translations and re-translations, and all of the incredible wealth and power hinging on it for centuries. How accurate would accounts from those times be expected to be?
- vibrolax 8y ago
  Loved your comparison to the historical Elvis. Whenever I saw news articles reporting on artifacts purportedly related to the historical Jesus, I always thought how little we know about the historical Shakespeare.
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    Or indeed, some people don’t even believe that Shakespeare wrote his plays! As passionate as people can be about Shakespeare, it’s nothing compared to religion, and record keeping and sources of information on Shakespeare are a lot easier to come by than anything from a couple of millennia ago.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      All we can say is that Shakespeare was credited for his plays. It's functionally impossible to know who wrote them, at best we can hypothesise based on an analysis of his writing—and such analysis doesn't bode well for Shakespeare as the author...
      - djur 8y ago
        Your initial point is true about just about anyone who wrote more than a certain amount of time ago. It's true of Jonson and Spenser and Marlowe, too. The latter point is just false -- textual analysis is entirely consistent with the historical evidence (such as the writings of his contemporaries) that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works of Shakespeare.
        sjwright 8y ago
        Interesting; I was led to the impression that Shakespeare's writings showed a level and stratum of life experience that would have been beyond his reach or means.
- vivekd 8y ago
  >although typically the opposite claim is made. That people named “Joshua son of Joseph” lived at that time, that various revolts and religious upheavals occurred is pretty certain. That one guy fitting the rough description of Jesus was behind it is not That doesn't seem quite fair because it's almost certain that the guy named Jesus was not behind the upheavals of that time. That was about the Jewish revolt against the Romans which Jesus was not involved in at all. Also, while Christianity didn't start in earnest until about two hundred years after Jesus' death, stories of his life were written down as early as 60 years after his death. It's very difficult in a society like ancient Israel to fake the existence of a person, people had clan allegiances, they kept track of genealogies and would be able to tell right away if the writings concerned someone who didn't exist. There were translations but that's irrelevant because we have the original dead sea scrolls with the earliest ones dating to a few decades after his death. A time when wealth and power did not hinge on this. We're not solely working with edits and re-translations. I think there's a bias against religious figures that inform people's arguments when they say it's all uncertain - when in reality the evidence is pretty good that he did exist.
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    Details of his life may have been written down then, but the sources we have aren’t those sources, just edited and translated retellings of those supposed stories with about 1800 years of politically and religiously motivated games of telephone between us and them. I have to ask, the Dead Sea Scrolls date from between about a century before Jesus’ purported life, to about a century after his death and as far as I know make no mention of him. I wasn’t claiming that the language is somehow untranslatable, but that we don’t have anything like contemporary sources, only people who hundreds of years later claim to have access to those sources.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- grumpydba 8y ago
  > The history of Christianity doesn’t really start in earnest for hundreds of years after the supposed death of Christ in any case There are several Christian writings dated from the first century after his death. Paul's letters, the didache, Flavius Joseph, some talmudic writings, John's disciples writings to name a few.
jonawesomegreen 8y ago
I really enjoyed this book on the topic: “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth is a book by Iranian-American writer and scholar Reza Aslan. It is a historical account of the life of Jesus and analyzes the various religious perspectives on Jesus as well as the creation of Christianity.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot:_The_Life_and_Times_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot:_The_Life_and_Times_o...
- 1over137 8y ago
  Probably not the most impartial author on the topic though, as as he is a theist and self-proclaims himself as a "genuinely committed disciple of Jesus of Nazareth". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan#Religious_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan#Religious_views
  - idontpost 8y ago
    Who could possibly be considered an impartial author on the topic? Surely not any Christian or any atheist. Not any Muslim either. I suppose Buddhists wouldn't have any particular stake in whether a historical Jesus existed.
    - 1over137 8y ago
      Why not an atheist? Not believing in his divinity doesn't preclude objective analysis of whether a human named Jesus existed. But, yes, surely not any Christian, who by definition believes Jesus exited.
      - amatthew 8y ago
        Why not either? For both the Christian and the Atheist, honest scholarship is inseparable from their beliefs. It's hard to imagine either changing their beliefs from the evidence they could find. The consequences of being able to prove with certainty either that Jesus existed and is who Christians claim him to be, or did not exist or was not divine would have tremendous consequences on the lives of hundreds of millions people who do not ascribe to the proven belief. They could say "I am intellectually honest and will change my beliefs depending on the evidence," but we both know that 1. Concrete evidence strong enough to convince someone to change their beliefs, beyond what is already known, likely does not exist. And 2. Their current beliefs already match their known evidence so any additional information is unlikely to radically change their beliefs, only be accounted for and integrated into their current belief system. I'm not trying to say all scholarship is biased or we shouldn't believe anything. In all likelihood, most people are not deliberately lying or falsifying anything. What does that mean about which scholarship to trust? I have no idea.
reindeerer 8y ago
The historical accounts seem to support the idea that the story is a combination of multiple people. But the guy who got nailed to a cross was an actual historical event and became the focal point for the amalgam.
- SpikeDad 8y ago
  Where's the historical evidence for your claim that the guy who got nailed to a cross was indeed the source of the "Jesus" mythology?
  - reindeerer 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Historicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Historici...
  - coldtea 8y ago
    You seem to confuse the religious story of Jesus (miracles, resurrection, etc, the "mythology" in your terms) with the actual person who had followers and inspired a religion. There's little doubt among scholars that there was a specific person at the start of this (and not some BS "Dan Brown"-like conspiracy).
    - betterunix2 8y ago
      Scholars who live in societies where the vast majority of people follow religions that consider Jesus to be a prophet or even a god. I have yet to see a good argument for why we should assume the Jesus of the bible was a single person leading a religious movement -- there were plenty of messianic claimants at the time and plenty of Jewish religious movements competing for followers.
      - krapp 8y ago
        >there were plenty of messianic claimants at the time and plenty of Jewish religious movements competing for followers. Yes, but to play... eh, Messiah's advocate... this doesn't discount the possibility of Jesus having been one of those claimants leading one of those movements, he just wouldn't have been the only one. It doesn't lend credence to anything either, but it's not impossible that Jesus happened to lead the cult that won out, thanks eventually to Rome and the British Empire.
betterunix2 8y ago
I have often wondered about this; I have read in various places that scholars believe there was a historical Jesus but this always seems like a pragmatic stance to take in societies where the vast majority of people believe that he was either a prophet or a God (which covers almost everywhere where this question would be considered worthy of any serious study). Yet there are some issues that I see: 1. "Yeshua" or "Yeshu" were relatively common Jewish names at that time (it is just "Joshuah" in Aramaic), so vague references in non-Christian writings to a "Jesus" of some kind may not refer to the same person. How many people named "Joshuah" might have led a group of disciples during a period where dozens of messianic claimants were trying to rally followers to one cause or another? 2. It is well known that the bible was subject to extensive editing prior to its official canonization, which makes it somewhat questionable as a historical document. At best we can only derive vague information about big social movements IMO -- no doubt there were Jews who taught the things attributed to Jesus, but I personally hesitate to go further and claim that the bible is an accurate account of a single person's movement. 3. The chaotic schisms in the early centuries of Christianity makes me doubt that useful historical information about the founders of the movement actually survived. The different Christian movements preserved the documents that best supported their cause. Who knows what historical information is not available today that would totally change our views on the topic.
- Casseres 8y ago
  > 2. It is well known that the bible was subject to extensive editing prior to its official canonization, which makes it somewhat questionable as a historical document. I've never heard this claim before. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that written copies made through the centuries were accurate copies. The only editorialization of the Bible was church councils deciding which books/letters to include in the Bible, not to edit them.
  - betterunix2 8y ago
    The Gospels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis This all would have happened before the various councils decided what would be considered canonical, and the councils themselves probably had no idea that it had happened. As for the dead sea scrolls, all it shows is that the final forms of the books in the Hebrew bible and related extrabiblical works existed prior to the canonization. It is pretty clear that the Hebrew bible was edited in prior centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Authorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Authorship etc.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 8y ago
Yes. The first major bunch of followers were not that far removed from his death, and we have a couple of historical accounts (exactly a couple, to be precise).
- eponeponepon 8y ago
  One of those accounts uses a different name for him ("Crispus"? Maybe? You'll have to forgive me not looking it up, but it eludes me and I don't want to disappear down a wiki-rabbithole when I should be wrapping presents..!) and has later been interpreted as referring to him; the other account is a focus of great controversy as to its genuine age. I'm not necessarily trying to pull your point apart, just pointing out that it's not clear-cut. Personally I've never really made my mind up, but at the moment I lean more towards a conglomeration of folk-tales and the lives of several men. I'll probably change my mind again soon.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > One of those accounts uses a different name for him I think you are probably remembering a (disputed) claim based on an edit made in a particular later copy that Tacitus (one of the earliest independent sources on both Christ and the early Christian community, particularly in Rome) referred to the Christian community in Rome as “Chrestians”, immediately before using the standard rendering of Jesus title as “Christus”. Even if Tacitus did use “Chrestians”, that name for the early community is attested in other sources (and even tied and used alongside Christian in some inscriptions from that community, IIRC), his reference to Christ did not use any alternate title,
    - owens99 8y ago
      Have you heard that "Christus" is also believed to be an interpolation? https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65072-richard-carrier-christ-in-tacitus-may-be-interpolated/ https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65072-richard-carrier-chr...
      - 8y ago
nikbackm 8y ago
I found this a good overview for that question. https://www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-man-named-Jesus-who-the-Christian-Bible-speaks-of-walked-the-earth-and-was-put-to-death-on-a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answers/863434 https://www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-...
- burlesona 8y ago
  I agree, the Quora explanation is pretty good. TLDR; the evidence that Jesus was a real person is very strong, and stronger than many other historical figures (the article mentions Hannibal), whose existence is not considered controversial. As a religious figure Jesus is inherently controversial, which is what probably attracts the skepticism and interest in trying to cast doubt on his existence.
  - owens99 8y ago
    I recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTllC7TbM8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTllC7TbM8M Richard Carrier actually counters each argument in the Quora post pretty convincingly.
EGreg 8y ago
Well, here is why I think Jesus very likely existed and taught: The Church today follows the teachings of Paul, that the Law is obsolete, nailed to the cross and no longer binding. The Church teachings give the Chuch great authority in determining what people should do, church leaders are called Father etc. The Church was supposed to be for all nations. And yet... Jesus is described in the gospels exactly saying the opposite! “I came to save the lost sheep of Israel.” When a young man asked how to be saved, Jesus said “follow the Law”. He always taught to follow the law, and never once said it would be obsolete after his crucifixion. Why would the Church invent a person so inconvenient to their own dogma? It is the ultimate criterion of embarrassment — of the very canonizers themselves! They only would have done it if the original founder of the Way realy existed and was a Jewish teacher who taught Jews. Why else would they invent something so seemingly at odds with their own teachings that people throughout the centuries (like Thomas Jefferson) called Paul “the great corruptor of Christianity”? I would further say that the original Church of Jesus existed in Jerusalem and was led by his brother James and also by Peter. They told Paul that rumors have come that he is teaching Jews to turn away from the Law, and told him to pay for some purification rites to show this is not true. Paul obliged. They also penned a letter to Gentile Believers which Paul was to take to them, invoking the Holy Spirit and instructing them in essentially the Noahide Laws. Paul in his letter to the Galatians however said they had “nothing to add” to his message excep that he “remember the poor, something I have been eager to do all along”. In short, the founder existed, the Church existed, and would have been the dominant Church if not for the Judaic wars and the destruction that happened as a result. I think that Christianity as we know it today, came from those beginnings and then spread to other churches.
- grumpydba 8y ago
  > Jesus said “follow the Law”. He always taught to follow the law, and never once said it would be obsolete after his crucifixion He said the law would not change until all is accomplished. After drinking the vinegar, before dying, he said "all is accomplished". Paul's teachings are thus consistent with this.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    No, that's only if you read the English translation. In the original Greek, the two words are very different. The original context is from Matthew 5:18, which could potentially have been written in Hebrew: "17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one [a]jot or one [b]tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Notice a few things: 1) Heaven and Earth have not yet passed away, many Christians ignore this part completely, but it needs to be explained why it was mentioned. It would seem the obvious reason is that "all will be accomplished" around the time that Heaven and Earth will pass away, including spreading the gospel to everyone. In another place Jesus says "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." 2) Notice that even those who ARE in Heaven will be called Least if they set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so. Thus, even Christians need to be concerned with the Law. Literally nowhere did Jesus even bring up the idea that the Law will be obsolete. That is an idea originated by Paul.
Theodores 8y ago
The most eye opening discussion and research on this topic for me came from what Dr Richard Carrier has to say. He got down to the task of just doing the research like how a historian might, or how a scientist might. His standpoint is clearly atheist, but don't let that put you off. He uses logic, reason and applies that to how he weighs the factiness of the story. Any of his talks on YouTube are a good introduction, if you want to learn more and are willing to have your opinion and assumptions challenged. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier You don't have to 'believe' in the guy, however his methodology, knowledge of history and enthusiasm for the subject is not something you find in the priesthood. He does not rate the probability of Jesus being a real person as that high, neither does he rate the existence of Ned Ludd as that high. He does trace where ideas were borrowed from and has read the bible extremely thoroughly. If you are interested in Christianity because it is part of our culture and history then I highly recommend taking time to hear what Dr Richard Carrier has to say.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  > You don't have to 'believe' in the guy, however his methodology, knowledge of history and enthusiasm for the subject is not something you find in the priesthood. It's not something you find among any credible scholar in the field. Carrier is fringe for a reason.
  - Theodores 8y ago
    Credible to whom? After 2000 years of the indoctrination the defenders of the bible have got the art of defending the make-believe that is the bible down to a fine art. I did not say that everything that has ever came out of Richard Carrier's mouth is tantamount to the word of god and definitely to be believed. My point was that he asks the right questions, has done a lot of research that the bible bashers of this world haven't bothered to do and he has ways of discussing things in a non-black-and-white dualist way, going for probability and giving a value to how likely something is likely to be true. Anyone with a serious interest in questioning assumptions long held by them about the bible needs to hear him out, to believe him or not, it is that questioning of faith that matters. There are plenty of atheists that believe that Jesus really did exist but he was an ordinary guy rather than of virgin birth and the son of god, an 'anti-capitalist rebel' of sorts. What Richard Carrier does is to open up the idea that the whole bible is a contrivance, that this Jesus character did not exist and that his story was weaved together by religions that had gone before. Logical fallacies are something we are all capable of. Your 'where there is smoke there must be fire' comment does not stand up to scrutiny. Just twenty years ago it was not possible to talk about climate change in the world of weather forecasting and meteorology. That was actually way to controversial, and I am talking from being in the field twenty years ago. Yet by that point in time the idea had some scientific credibility for twenty years, and a century before that some had wondered what the consequences of pumping ever increasing quantities of carbon dioxide into the air might lead to, positing the 'crazy' global warming idea. With the agreement of the Paris Accords the other week we have moved on from that, the 'fringe' view that was not considered 'credible' has moved on. Yet a mere twenty years ago people were saying 'climate change is fringe for a reason'. There may be much to dislike about Richard Carrier, but to dismiss him without at least a link to a decent review of his work by one of these italicised credible scholars is a poor show.
jimmytucson 8y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Pretty interesting: > Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain ... with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.
- owens99 8y ago
  Virtually all is an overstatement. Perhaps the vast majority, but the vast majority are also practicing Christians. See Richard Carrier's youtube videos on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTllC7TbM8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTllC7TbM8M There's not compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Yet there's compelling motivation for early Christians to say he was a man who lived and not simply a god. Being related to someone who knew him in real life actually could bestow power and influence in the early Christian community.
  - UncleMeat 8y ago
    Youtube videos aren't exactly the best example of scholarly work. Look at the people who are respected by academics rather than trying to evaluate the contents of a field that you aren't trained in.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      Neither are Wikipedia articles.
      - owens99 8y ago
        Please don’t jump to conclusions, I have looked at the actual research and also read the books. None of the common cited evidence for Jesus as a historical figure holds up to scrutiny. If you can give one example that can, it would help me a ton. I’d love to be wrong and understand Jesus as an actual historical figure.
danielam 8y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-hi...
mattigames 8y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lqC8fvIspY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lqC8fvIspY

Do we even know he was a real person and not combination of 2 or 3 men with similar fate?

by dvh 8y ago

Do we even know he was a real person and not combination of 2 or 3 men with similar fate?

croisillon 8y ago

you might like this article: http://www.adamgopnik.com/what-did-jesus-do http://www.adamgopnik.com/what-did-jesus-do

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago

No, although typically the opposite claim is made. That people named “Joshua son of Joseph” lived at that time, that various revolts and religious upheavals occurred is pretty certain. That one guy fitting the rough description of Jesus was behind it is not. The history of Christianity doesn’t really start in earnest for hundreds of years after the supposed death of Christ in any case. People today can’t even agree on the details of Elvis’ life... now imagine if Elvis had lived a few hundred years ago, and we’re all working from quaternary+ sources. Then fast-forward a thousand or so years of very intentional document editing and re-editing, translations and re-translations, and all of the incredible wealth and power hinging on it for centuries. How accurate would accounts from those times be expected to be?

vibrolax 8y ago
Loved your comparison to the historical Elvis. Whenever I saw news articles reporting on artifacts purportedly related to the historical Jesus, I always thought how little we know about the historical Shakespeare.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  Or indeed, some people don’t even believe that Shakespeare wrote his plays! As passionate as people can be about Shakespeare, it’s nothing compared to religion, and record keeping and sources of information on Shakespeare are a lot easier to come by than anything from a couple of millennia ago.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    All we can say is that Shakespeare was credited for his plays. It's functionally impossible to know who wrote them, at best we can hypothesise based on an analysis of his writing—and such analysis doesn't bode well for Shakespeare as the author...
    - djur 8y ago
      Your initial point is true about just about anyone who wrote more than a certain amount of time ago. It's true of Jonson and Spenser and Marlowe, too. The latter point is just false -- textual analysis is entirely consistent with the historical evidence (such as the writings of his contemporaries) that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works of Shakespeare.
      - sjwright 8y ago
        Interesting; I was led to the impression that Shakespeare's writings showed a level and stratum of life experience that would have been beyond his reach or means.
vivekd 8y ago
>although typically the opposite claim is made. That people named “Joshua son of Joseph” lived at that time, that various revolts and religious upheavals occurred is pretty certain. That one guy fitting the rough description of Jesus was behind it is not That doesn't seem quite fair because it's almost certain that the guy named Jesus was not behind the upheavals of that time. That was about the Jewish revolt against the Romans which Jesus was not involved in at all. Also, while Christianity didn't start in earnest until about two hundred years after Jesus' death, stories of his life were written down as early as 60 years after his death. It's very difficult in a society like ancient Israel to fake the existence of a person, people had clan allegiances, they kept track of genealogies and would be able to tell right away if the writings concerned someone who didn't exist. There were translations but that's irrelevant because we have the original dead sea scrolls with the earliest ones dating to a few decades after his death. A time when wealth and power did not hinge on this. We're not solely working with edits and re-translations. I think there's a bias against religious figures that inform people's arguments when they say it's all uncertain - when in reality the evidence is pretty good that he did exist.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  Details of his life may have been written down then, but the sources we have aren’t those sources, just edited and translated retellings of those supposed stories with about 1800 years of politically and religiously motivated games of telephone between us and them. I have to ask, the Dead Sea Scrolls date from between about a century before Jesus’ purported life, to about a century after his death and as far as I know make no mention of him. I wasn’t claiming that the language is somehow untranslatable, but that we don’t have anything like contemporary sources, only people who hundreds of years later claim to have access to those sources.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
grumpydba 8y ago
> The history of Christianity doesn’t really start in earnest for hundreds of years after the supposed death of Christ in any case There are several Christian writings dated from the first century after his death. Paul's letters, the didache, Flavius Joseph, some talmudic writings, John's disciples writings to name a few.

jonawesomegreen 8y ago

I really enjoyed this book on the topic: “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth is a book by Iranian-American writer and scholar Reza Aslan. It is a historical account of the life of Jesus and analyzes the various religious perspectives on Jesus as well as the creation of Christianity.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot:_The_Life_and_Times_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot:_The_Life_and_Times_o...

1over137 8y ago
Probably not the most impartial author on the topic though, as as he is a theist and self-proclaims himself as a "genuinely committed disciple of Jesus of Nazareth". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan#Religious_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan#Religious_views
- idontpost 8y ago
  Who could possibly be considered an impartial author on the topic? Surely not any Christian or any atheist. Not any Muslim either. I suppose Buddhists wouldn't have any particular stake in whether a historical Jesus existed.
  - 1over137 8y ago
    Why not an atheist? Not believing in his divinity doesn't preclude objective analysis of whether a human named Jesus existed. But, yes, surely not any Christian, who by definition believes Jesus exited.
    - amatthew 8y ago
      Why not either? For both the Christian and the Atheist, honest scholarship is inseparable from their beliefs. It's hard to imagine either changing their beliefs from the evidence they could find. The consequences of being able to prove with certainty either that Jesus existed and is who Christians claim him to be, or did not exist or was not divine would have tremendous consequences on the lives of hundreds of millions people who do not ascribe to the proven belief. They could say "I am intellectually honest and will change my beliefs depending on the evidence," but we both know that 1. Concrete evidence strong enough to convince someone to change their beliefs, beyond what is already known, likely does not exist. And 2. Their current beliefs already match their known evidence so any additional information is unlikely to radically change their beliefs, only be accounted for and integrated into their current belief system. I'm not trying to say all scholarship is biased or we shouldn't believe anything. In all likelihood, most people are not deliberately lying or falsifying anything. What does that mean about which scholarship to trust? I have no idea.

reindeerer 8y ago

The historical accounts seem to support the idea that the story is a combination of multiple people. But the guy who got nailed to a cross was an actual historical event and became the focal point for the amalgam.

SpikeDad 8y ago
Where's the historical evidence for your claim that the guy who got nailed to a cross was indeed the source of the "Jesus" mythology?
- reindeerer 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Historicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Historici...
- coldtea 8y ago
  You seem to confuse the religious story of Jesus (miracles, resurrection, etc, the "mythology" in your terms) with the actual person who had followers and inspired a religion. There's little doubt among scholars that there was a specific person at the start of this (and not some BS "Dan Brown"-like conspiracy).
  - betterunix2 8y ago
    Scholars who live in societies where the vast majority of people follow religions that consider Jesus to be a prophet or even a god. I have yet to see a good argument for why we should assume the Jesus of the bible was a single person leading a religious movement -- there were plenty of messianic claimants at the time and plenty of Jewish religious movements competing for followers.
    - krapp 8y ago
      >there were plenty of messianic claimants at the time and plenty of Jewish religious movements competing for followers. Yes, but to play... eh, Messiah's advocate... this doesn't discount the possibility of Jesus having been one of those claimants leading one of those movements, he just wouldn't have been the only one. It doesn't lend credence to anything either, but it's not impossible that Jesus happened to lead the cult that won out, thanks eventually to Rome and the British Empire.

betterunix2 8y ago

I have often wondered about this; I have read in various places that scholars believe there was a historical Jesus but this always seems like a pragmatic stance to take in societies where the vast majority of people believe that he was either a prophet or a God (which covers almost everywhere where this question would be considered worthy of any serious study). Yet there are some issues that I see: 1. "Yeshua" or "Yeshu" were relatively common Jewish names at that time (it is just "Joshuah" in Aramaic), so vague references in non-Christian writings to a "Jesus" of some kind may not refer to the same person. How many people named "Joshuah" might have led a group of disciples during a period where dozens of messianic claimants were trying to rally followers to one cause or another? 2. It is well known that the bible was subject to extensive editing prior to its official canonization, which makes it somewhat questionable as a historical document. At best we can only derive vague information about big social movements IMO -- no doubt there were Jews who taught the things attributed to Jesus, but I personally hesitate to go further and claim that the bible is an accurate account of a single person's movement. 3. The chaotic schisms in the early centuries of Christianity makes me doubt that useful historical information about the founders of the movement actually survived. The different Christian movements preserved the documents that best supported their cause. Who knows what historical information is not available today that would totally change our views on the topic.

Casseres 8y ago
> 2. It is well known that the bible was subject to extensive editing prior to its official canonization, which makes it somewhat questionable as a historical document. I've never heard this claim before. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that written copies made through the centuries were accurate copies. The only editorialization of the Bible was church councils deciding which books/letters to include in the Bible, not to edit them.
- betterunix2 8y ago
  The Gospels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis This all would have happened before the various councils decided what would be considered canonical, and the councils themselves probably had no idea that it had happened. As for the dead sea scrolls, all it shows is that the final forms of the books in the Hebrew bible and related extrabiblical works existed prior to the canonization. It is pretty clear that the Hebrew bible was edited in prior centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Authorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah#Authorship etc.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 8y ago

Yes. The first major bunch of followers were not that far removed from his death, and we have a couple of historical accounts (exactly a couple, to be precise).

eponeponepon 8y ago
One of those accounts uses a different name for him ("Crispus"? Maybe? You'll have to forgive me not looking it up, but it eludes me and I don't want to disappear down a wiki-rabbithole when I should be wrapping presents..!) and has later been interpreted as referring to him; the other account is a focus of great controversy as to its genuine age. I'm not necessarily trying to pull your point apart, just pointing out that it's not clear-cut. Personally I've never really made my mind up, but at the moment I lean more towards a conglomeration of folk-tales and the lives of several men. I'll probably change my mind again soon.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > One of those accounts uses a different name for him I think you are probably remembering a (disputed) claim based on an edit made in a particular later copy that Tacitus (one of the earliest independent sources on both Christ and the early Christian community, particularly in Rome) referred to the Christian community in Rome as “Chrestians”, immediately before using the standard rendering of Jesus title as “Christus”. Even if Tacitus did use “Chrestians”, that name for the early community is attested in other sources (and even tied and used alongside Christian in some inscriptions from that community, IIRC), his reference to Christ did not use any alternate title,
  - owens99 8y ago
    Have you heard that "Christus" is also believed to be an interpolation? https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65072-richard-carrier-christ-in-tacitus-may-be-interpolated/ https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65072-richard-carrier-chr...
    - 8y ago

nikbackm 8y ago

I found this a good overview for that question. https://www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-man-named-Jesus-who-the-Christian-Bible-speaks-of-walked-the-earth-and-was-put-to-death-on-a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answers/863434 https://www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-...

burlesona 8y ago
I agree, the Quora explanation is pretty good. TLDR; the evidence that Jesus was a real person is very strong, and stronger than many other historical figures (the article mentions Hannibal), whose existence is not considered controversial. As a religious figure Jesus is inherently controversial, which is what probably attracts the skepticism and interest in trying to cast doubt on his existence.
- owens99 8y ago
  I recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTllC7TbM8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTllC7TbM8M Richard Carrier actually counters each argument in the Quora post pretty convincingly.

EGreg 8y ago

Well, here is why I think Jesus very likely existed and taught: The Church today follows the teachings of Paul, that the Law is obsolete, nailed to the cross and no longer binding. The Church teachings give the Chuch great authority in determining what people should do, church leaders are called Father etc. The Church was supposed to be for all nations. And yet... Jesus is described in the gospels exactly saying the opposite! “I came to save the lost sheep of Israel.” When a young man asked how to be saved, Jesus said “follow the Law”. He always taught to follow the law, and never once said it would be obsolete after his crucifixion. Why would the Church invent a person so inconvenient to their own dogma? It is the ultimate criterion of embarrassment — of the very canonizers themselves! They only would have done it if the original founder of the Way realy existed and was a Jewish teacher who taught Jews. Why else would they invent something so seemingly at odds with their own teachings that people throughout the centuries (like Thomas Jefferson) called Paul “the great corruptor of Christianity”? I would further say that the original Church of Jesus existed in Jerusalem and was led by his brother James and also by Peter. They told Paul that rumors have come that he is teaching Jews to turn away from the Law, and told him to pay for some purification rites to show this is not true. Paul obliged. They also penned a letter to Gentile Believers which Paul was to take to them, invoking the Holy Spirit and instructing them in essentially the Noahide Laws. Paul in his letter to the Galatians however said they had “nothing to add” to his message excep that he “remember the poor, something I have been eager to do all along”. In short, the founder existed, the Church existed, and would have been the dominant Church if not for the Judaic wars and the destruction that happened as a result. I think that Christianity as we know it today, came from those beginnings and then spread to other churches.

grumpydba 8y ago
> Jesus said “follow the Law”. He always taught to follow the law, and never once said it would be obsolete after his crucifixion He said the law would not change until all is accomplished. After drinking the vinegar, before dying, he said "all is accomplished". Paul's teachings are thus consistent with this.
- EGreg 8y ago
  No, that's only if you read the English translation. In the original Greek, the two words are very different. The original context is from Matthew 5:18, which could potentially have been written in Hebrew: "17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one [a]jot or one [b]tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Notice a few things: 1) Heaven and Earth have not yet passed away, many Christians ignore this part completely, but it needs to be explained why it was mentioned. It would seem the obvious reason is that "all will be accomplished" around the time that Heaven and Earth will pass away, including spreading the gospel to everyone. In another place Jesus says "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." 2) Notice that even those who ARE in Heaven will be called Least if they set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so. Thus, even Christians need to be concerned with the Law. Literally nowhere did Jesus even bring up the idea that the Law will be obsolete. That is an idea originated by Paul.

Theodores 8y ago

The most eye opening discussion and research on this topic for me came from what Dr Richard Carrier has to say. He got down to the task of just doing the research like how a historian might, or how a scientist might. His standpoint is clearly atheist, but don't let that put you off. He uses logic, reason and applies that to how he weighs the factiness of the story. Any of his talks on YouTube are a good introduction, if you want to learn more and are willing to have your opinion and assumptions challenged. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier You don't have to 'believe' in the guy, however his methodology, knowledge of history and enthusiasm for the subject is not something you find in the priesthood. He does not rate the probability of Jesus being a real person as that high, neither does he rate the existence of Ned Ludd as that high. He does trace where ideas were borrowed from and has read the bible extremely thoroughly. If you are interested in Christianity because it is part of our culture and history then I highly recommend taking time to hear what Dr Richard Carrier has to say.

dorchadas 8y ago
> You don't have to 'believe' in the guy, however his methodology, knowledge of history and enthusiasm for the subject is not something you find in the priesthood. It's not something you find among any credible scholar in the field. Carrier is fringe for a reason.
- Theodores 8y ago
  Credible to whom? After 2000 years of the indoctrination the defenders of the bible have got the art of defending the make-believe that is the bible down to a fine art. I did not say that everything that has ever came out of Richard Carrier's mouth is tantamount to the word of god and definitely to be believed. My point was that he asks the right questions, has done a lot of research that the bible bashers of this world haven't bothered to do and he has ways of discussing things in a non-black-and-white dualist way, going for probability and giving a value to how likely something is likely to be true. Anyone with a serious interest in questioning assumptions long held by them about the bible needs to hear him out, to believe him or not, it is that questioning of faith that matters. There are plenty of atheists that believe that Jesus really did exist but he was an ordinary guy rather than of virgin birth and the son of god, an 'anti-capitalist rebel' of sorts. What Richard Carrier does is to open up the idea that the whole bible is a contrivance, that this Jesus character did not exist and that his story was weaved together by religions that had gone before. Logical fallacies are something we are all capable of. Your 'where there is smoke there must be fire' comment does not stand up to scrutiny. Just twenty years ago it was not possible to talk about climate change in the world of weather forecasting and meteorology. That was actually way to controversial, and I am talking from being in the field twenty years ago. Yet by that point in time the idea had some scientific credibility for twenty years, and a century before that some had wondered what the consequences of pumping ever increasing quantities of carbon dioxide into the air might lead to, positing the 'crazy' global warming idea. With the agreement of the Paris Accords the other week we have moved on from that, the 'fringe' view that was not considered 'credible' has moved on. Yet a mere twenty years ago people were saying 'climate change is fringe for a reason'. There may be much to dislike about Richard Carrier, but to dismiss him without at least a link to a decent review of his work by one of these italicised credible scholars is a poor show.

jimmytucson 8y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Pretty interesting: > Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain ... with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

owens99 8y ago
Virtually all is an overstatement. Perhaps the vast majority, but the vast majority are also practicing Christians. See Richard Carrier's youtube videos on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTllC7TbM8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTllC7TbM8M There's not compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Yet there's compelling motivation for early Christians to say he was a man who lived and not simply a god. Being related to someone who knew him in real life actually could bestow power and influence in the early Christian community.
- UncleMeat 8y ago
  Youtube videos aren't exactly the best example of scholarly work. Look at the people who are respected by academics rather than trying to evaluate the contents of a field that you aren't trained in.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Neither are Wikipedia articles.
    - owens99 8y ago
      Please don’t jump to conclusions, I have looked at the actual research and also read the books. None of the common cited evidence for Jesus as a historical figure holds up to scrutiny. If you can give one example that can, it would help me a ton. I’d love to be wrong and understand Jesus as an actual historical figure.

danielam 8y ago

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-hi...

mattigames 8y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lqC8fvIspY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lqC8fvIspY