5 ms·

> a fictional character Harry Potter is a fictional character. Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character. Bilbo Baggins is a fictional character. They never exi

by jfk13 5y ago

> a fictional character Harry Potter is a fictional character. Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character. Bilbo Baggins is a fictional character. They never existed outside of their authors' (and then readers') imaginations, although in some aspects they may have been modelled on real people. Jesus of Nazareth, in contrast, is a real person who lived in Galilee and Judea, a couple of thousand years ago. It's hard to find a serious historian who would dispute this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus You may not believe every aspect of the "official narrative" (or other stories about him), or agree with their view of his significance. But to call him "fictional" is ridiculous.

trasz 5y ago
kstenerud 5y ago
Yes, much along the same lines as Gilgamesh. There may have been a historical seed, but the fruit of his deification and the descriptions of his exploits and character are most definitely fictional, to the point that any actual person has been lost to the sands of time. We can say this because the major miracles attributed to him are verifiably borrowed from existing legends in other kingdoms.
- interpenetrate 5y ago
  We can much more easily deny the attribution of the major miracles to the real Jesus by saying miracles don't happen. The much more interesting question for historians for hundreds of years, which you are avoiding, is what real things can be attributed to Jesus?
  - kstenerud 5y ago
    Saying "miracles don't happen" isn't going to help at all in the study of historical accounts. Rather, historians look at parallels and similarities + timelines to draw lineages between legends of different cultures, and find common patterns that have a tendency to spring forth as emergent phenomena in oral traditions. This helps tease out original content from borrowed or common themes. And even though originality doesn't imply truthfulness or accuracy, it does narrow the field significantly, separating the possibly-accurate from the definitely-not-accurate.
    - interpenetrate 5y ago
      Unlike the Hebrew Bible, which came centuries after Enuma Elish and other inherited traditions (that are universally acknowledged by biblical and historical critics!), the Gospels were written merely 30 years after Jesus preached. This means that the traditions in the narratives of Jesus's life are the same traditions that Jesus himself was part of. Your criteria is thus completely backwards. That Jesus is attributed with apocalyptic sayings can only serve to prove his historical existence by the historical critical criteria of "social coherence," because Jesus lived in a time where the apocalyptic tradition was at its peak.
      - kstenerud 5y ago
        The Gospel of Mark was written 30-40 years after the death of Jesus (during the time of the second Jewish war and the destruction of the second temple). The others were written 60-80 years afterwards. The Gospel of Mark was a kind of bios (biography) taken from many sources (oral and written), intended to promote the subject's reputation, morals, and preachings rather than as a historical narrative. Most of the narrative linkages are understood by scholars to be pure invention to give continuity (or glue, if you will) for the far more important morals and teachings. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew most of their narrative portions from Mark (no need to reinvent the wheel, especially for something so unimportant next to the moral teachings and prophecy). The apocalyptic writing is understandable given the social and political circumstances it was written under (their utter defeat, the destruction of their temple, and the fact that their messiah still hadn't returned as promised to bring them the ultimate victory).
        interpenetrate 5y ago
        > ... intended to promote the subject's reputation, morals, and preachings rather than as a historical narrative Unfortunately for the Gospel writers, they did have to square reality with theology, so that their theology is at times threatened by reality. This threat means nothing personal to the historian qua historian (giving them the benefit that they can dispose of their religious or anti-religious inclinations), but it does reveal some important possibilities worth pursuing for history's sake. For example, Jesus is baptized by John in all four Gospels. But the baptism narrative contradicts a question that any first-time reader will naturally imagine: of what sins does Jesus need to be cleansed? Unsurprisingly, all four Gospels make an earnest attempt to undermine John the Baptist's authority. So why include the narrative? Maybe because it actually happened. We can say the same about Jesus being portrayed as violently confronting the money changers, or something like Matthew 19:17, or even the prevalence of women in Jesus's cohort, all which contradict various theological values of the Gospel writers that are discernible through textual criticism. This is just yet another criteria in the method of historical Jesus research, albeit one of the more artistic ones. > The Gospel of Mark was a kind of bios (biography) taken from many sources (oral and written) ... Many sources indeed... All lying about the existence of a man who was allegedly widely known by both rural and urban Jews and crucified by edict of the state? The hoops you have to jump through to hold fast to the claim that Jesus was not a real person... It's a conspiracy theory whose inverse is "ancient aliens." Isn't it much more reasonable to say that the petroglyphs in Utah were made by humans, and that there is a distinct human basis for Jesus? Sorry if this doesn't describe you, but: It's clear that most people have an interest in disproving Jesus's existence because of their atheism. I just don't get it. What's so threatening about the historical Jesus? Jesus wasn't the first prophet and he wasn't the last; we see crazy people amass religious followings frequently to this day. That's what I meant by short-circuiting the discussion at "miracles don't happen."
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    > what real things can be attributed to Jesus? His words. They may be the words of someone else, misremembering or misquoting him but ultimately what he said had such an impact that people carried his ideas forward for two thousand years. I've always wanted to do a movie where Jesus was just a man living in a barbaric time, who used a bit of ancient prophecy to get people to listen to him and make the world a little less barbaric. This sort of happens at the end of the film The Invention of Lying, but it's set in modern day.
    - titusjohnson 5y ago
      "The Man from Earth" might scratch that itch for you.
  - CuriouslyC 5y ago
    The answer is probably about in the same ballpark as the percentage of true alien abduction reports and bigfoot sightings.
- refurb 5y ago
  Impressive movement of goal posts! We’ll done!
jhbadger 5y ago
The "historical Jesus" is pretty poorly attested though. Yes, it is possible that such a person existed, but there are no, absolutely zero, contemporary records of such a person existing. The Gospels were written decades (or even over a century) after he was said to have lived. So did Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus -- they weren't contemporary either. What can be attested is that a few decades after Jesus was said to have lived that there was a group of people claiming that he did and was their Messiah. The argument that people give for the historical Jesus is "why would such worshipers exist if Jesus didn't?" but the growth of new religious movements in the modern age suggest that worshipers don't actually need any evidence to join.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  Are you serious lol. Is anti-religion got y'all in such a grip lmao. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus > Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure,[note 1][note 2][4][5][6][7] although not all events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles) are accepted universally.[8][9][10] Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel-narratives,[11][12] and two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][8][13]
  - jhbadger 5y ago
    Those references ultimately go to Christian scholars who are looking for evidence for their beliefs, not secular historians. And they are basing them on the same records I mentioned (all written well after Jesus was said to have lived).
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      That first assertion should be pretty easy to back up, assuming you did the implied work of following all those citations, identifying the religious beliefs (?) and motivations (???) of each author. The fact that you think the second argument is a strong one alone indicates that you aren't particularly informed about the practice of history. A lot of things are well-established historical fact (to the extent anything can be!) despite not having any contemporaneous records of them. Even entire historical figures. Untangling those webs of knowledge, influence, bias, motivation, and uncertainty to determine which things are likely true within them pretty is the work historians do. Even with less contested individuals for whom we do have contemporary accounts, we don't just accept those accounts as facts.

by jfk13 5y ago

trasz 5y ago

kstenerud 5y ago

Yes, much along the same lines as Gilgamesh. There may have been a historical seed, but the fruit of his deification and the descriptions of his exploits and character are most definitely fictional, to the point that any actual person has been lost to the sands of time. We can say this because the major miracles attributed to him are verifiably borrowed from existing legends in other kingdoms.

interpenetrate 5y ago
We can much more easily deny the attribution of the major miracles to the real Jesus by saying miracles don't happen. The much more interesting question for historians for hundreds of years, which you are avoiding, is what real things can be attributed to Jesus?
- kstenerud 5y ago
  Saying "miracles don't happen" isn't going to help at all in the study of historical accounts. Rather, historians look at parallels and similarities + timelines to draw lineages between legends of different cultures, and find common patterns that have a tendency to spring forth as emergent phenomena in oral traditions. This helps tease out original content from borrowed or common themes. And even though originality doesn't imply truthfulness or accuracy, it does narrow the field significantly, separating the possibly-accurate from the definitely-not-accurate.
  - interpenetrate 5y ago
    Unlike the Hebrew Bible, which came centuries after Enuma Elish and other inherited traditions (that are universally acknowledged by biblical and historical critics!), the Gospels were written merely 30 years after Jesus preached. This means that the traditions in the narratives of Jesus's life are the same traditions that Jesus himself was part of. Your criteria is thus completely backwards. That Jesus is attributed with apocalyptic sayings can only serve to prove his historical existence by the historical critical criteria of "social coherence," because Jesus lived in a time where the apocalyptic tradition was at its peak.
    - kstenerud 5y ago
      The Gospel of Mark was written 30-40 years after the death of Jesus (during the time of the second Jewish war and the destruction of the second temple). The others were written 60-80 years afterwards. The Gospel of Mark was a kind of bios (biography) taken from many sources (oral and written), intended to promote the subject's reputation, morals, and preachings rather than as a historical narrative. Most of the narrative linkages are understood by scholars to be pure invention to give continuity (or glue, if you will) for the far more important morals and teachings. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew most of their narrative portions from Mark (no need to reinvent the wheel, especially for something so unimportant next to the moral teachings and prophecy). The apocalyptic writing is understandable given the social and political circumstances it was written under (their utter defeat, the destruction of their temple, and the fact that their messiah still hadn't returned as promised to bring them the ultimate victory).
      - interpenetrate 5y ago
        > ... intended to promote the subject's reputation, morals, and preachings rather than as a historical narrative Unfortunately for the Gospel writers, they did have to square reality with theology, so that their theology is at times threatened by reality. This threat means nothing personal to the historian qua historian (giving them the benefit that they can dispose of their religious or anti-religious inclinations), but it does reveal some important possibilities worth pursuing for history's sake. For example, Jesus is baptized by John in all four Gospels. But the baptism narrative contradicts a question that any first-time reader will naturally imagine: of what sins does Jesus need to be cleansed? Unsurprisingly, all four Gospels make an earnest attempt to undermine John the Baptist's authority. So why include the narrative? Maybe because it actually happened. We can say the same about Jesus being portrayed as violently confronting the money changers, or something like Matthew 19:17, or even the prevalence of women in Jesus's cohort, all which contradict various theological values of the Gospel writers that are discernible through textual criticism. This is just yet another criteria in the method of historical Jesus research, albeit one of the more artistic ones. > The Gospel of Mark was a kind of bios (biography) taken from many sources (oral and written) ... Many sources indeed... All lying about the existence of a man who was allegedly widely known by both rural and urban Jews and crucified by edict of the state? The hoops you have to jump through to hold fast to the claim that Jesus was not a real person... It's a conspiracy theory whose inverse is "ancient aliens." Isn't it much more reasonable to say that the petroglyphs in Utah were made by humans, and that there is a distinct human basis for Jesus? Sorry if this doesn't describe you, but: It's clear that most people have an interest in disproving Jesus's existence because of their atheism. I just don't get it. What's so threatening about the historical Jesus? Jesus wasn't the first prophet and he wasn't the last; we see crazy people amass religious followings frequently to this day. That's what I meant by short-circuiting the discussion at "miracles don't happen."
- willcipriano 5y ago
  > what real things can be attributed to Jesus? His words. They may be the words of someone else, misremembering or misquoting him but ultimately what he said had such an impact that people carried his ideas forward for two thousand years. I've always wanted to do a movie where Jesus was just a man living in a barbaric time, who used a bit of ancient prophecy to get people to listen to him and make the world a little less barbaric. This sort of happens at the end of the film The Invention of Lying, but it's set in modern day.
  - titusjohnson 5y ago
    "The Man from Earth" might scratch that itch for you.
- CuriouslyC 5y ago
  The answer is probably about in the same ballpark as the percentage of true alien abduction reports and bigfoot sightings.
refurb 5y ago
Impressive movement of goal posts! We’ll done!

jhbadger 5y ago

The "historical Jesus" is pretty poorly attested though. Yes, it is possible that such a person existed, but there are no, absolutely zero, contemporary records of such a person existing. The Gospels were written decades (or even over a century) after he was said to have lived. So did Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus -- they weren't contemporary either. What can be attested is that a few decades after Jesus was said to have lived that there was a group of people claiming that he did and was their Messiah. The argument that people give for the historical Jesus is "why would such worshipers exist if Jesus didn't?" but the growth of new religious movements in the modern age suggest that worshipers don't actually need any evidence to join.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
Are you serious lol. Is anti-religion got y'all in such a grip lmao. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus > Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure,[note 1][note 2][4][5][6][7] although not all events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles) are accepted universally.[8][9][10] Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel-narratives,[11][12] and two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][8][13]
- jhbadger 5y ago
  Those references ultimately go to Christian scholars who are looking for evidence for their beliefs, not secular historians. And they are basing them on the same records I mentioned (all written well after Jesus was said to have lived).
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    That first assertion should be pretty easy to back up, assuming you did the implied work of following all those citations, identifying the religious beliefs (?) and motivations (???) of each author. The fact that you think the second argument is a strong one alone indicates that you aren't particularly informed about the practice of history. A lot of things are well-established historical fact (to the extent anything can be!) despite not having any contemporaneous records of them. Even entire historical figures. Untangling those webs of knowledge, influence, bias, motivation, and uncertainty to determine which things are likely true within them pretty is the work historians do. Even with less contested individuals for whom we do have contemporary accounts, we don't just accept those accounts as facts.