The problem is that such a reductive historical Jesus is similar to Robin Hood or King Arthur, where the core person (if there ever was one to begin with) has been effectively lost, and potential candidates are presented as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.

[–] jack@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's not really a good comparison at all. There is not actually any direct evidence for King Arthur at all, even if it's possible he's somehow extremely loosely based on a figure that might have existed somewhere at some point. There is literally nothing we can say about a historical King Arthur. And Robin Hood has always been a purely folkloric figure, never even claimed to be a real historical person.

Compared to Arthur, we know far more about Jesus from far more sources - where he lived, when and how he died, who killed him, a few specific events from his life (baptism by John being the strongest one). We know about him from Jewish, early Christian, and Roman sources. We can guess within a decade where he was born. We know the name of his brother and the role he played in running the religious movement that formed after Jesus died! We have sources from only a decade or two after his death that discuss people who knew him personally.

Yes, the gospel stories are either obviously legendary or at least impossible to verify with the sources we have available. They were written after the religion was establishing a doctrine and they're full of contradictions with each other and with the non-canonical gospels as the followers of Jesus competed to define who he was and what he did. They probably do contain some genuine historical truths - specific actions, sayings, or miracles performed (magicians were a big deal in Judaism at this time). There's probably no way for us to separate out the real from the fictional, but that is not the same as saying it's all fictional.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

where he lived,

Not with any degree of specificity, it's not like they had his address in an antiquarian phone book.

when and how he died,

We can assume that a guy got executed around 33 AD but not even what he got executed for. As the article mentions, there were probably hundreds of itinerant preachers around that time that could have been convenient pegs to hang the rest of the story on.

who killed him,

Not really:

"But notice that now we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mythicism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade than Pilate (as some early Christians really did think). Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite)

a few specific events from his life (baptism by John being the strongest one).

According to what? The New Testament or someone citing the New Testament?

[–] jack@hexbear.net 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Not with any degree of specificity, it's not like they had his address in an antiquarian phone book.

Obviously. If they didn't live in a palace, who's address do we know? Preposterous and irrelevant.

We can assume that a guy got executed around 33 AD but not even what he got executed for. As the article mentions, there were probably hundreds of itinerant preachers around that time that could have been convenient pegs to hang the rest of the story on.

We don't need to assume a guy got killed because there are multiple sources for Jesus's crucifixion by the Romans. There were definitely hundreds of itinereant preachers who could've spawned religions. One of them, Jesus, led to Christianity and a complex web of mythologies were constructed around him after his death.

Not really:

"But notice that now we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mythicism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade than Pilate (as some early Christians really did think). Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite)

Rome killed him. What scholars, exactly, are arguing for an earlier century?

According to what? The New Testament or someone citing the New Testament?

Most of the Pauline Epistles were indisputably written by a dude named Paul in the Levant a few decades after Jesus's death. He wrote about James. He wrote about actually existing churches and conflicts. These were not constructed a century later (except for the ones that obviously were,which has been determined via textual criticism and analysis) - they are much closer to contemporary than most classical historical figures! Just because it is in the Bible doesn't mean it's automatically fake. It is a corpus to which we can apply historical criticism like any other, not some exceptional fabrication.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Preposterous and irrelevant.

No, there's a point here. While history might be unable to converge on a lot of figures who actually lived due to poor recordkeeping and the inherent unreliability of a predominantly oral tradition, I was pointing out the alternative possibility that he was a composite figure based on multiple dudes who might've shared superficial similarities with the fictional character in the book but which can't be localized to a specific personality. The idea that that there was a Real Historical Jesus that was the prime mover for the ideological offshoot that went on to become Christianity ignores the more reasonable possibility that the movement arose as the result of the coordinated actions of a lot of people who converged on an account of a life that could have happened

We don't need to assume a guy got killed because there are multiple sources for Jesus's crucifixion by the Romans. There were definitely hundreds of itinereant preachers who could've spawned religions. One of them, Jesus, led to Christianity and a complex web of mythologies were constructed around him after his death.

The non-Christian sources all leave a lot to be desired. From the RationalWiki article:

The Jewish historian Josephus is claimed to be the earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (ca. 93-94 CE) with the two references being referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum and the "Jamesian Reference". However, there is much debate regarding how much of the Testimonium Flavianum (if any of it) was written by Josephus as there is no reference to it before the 4th century.

In his Annals (ca. 109 CE) Tacitus gives a brief mention of a "Chrstus" (generally read as "Christus" but in reality it could just as easily be read "Chrestus"), in a passage that shows evidence of tampering and contains no source. Also, the entire section of the Annals covering 29-31 CE is missing: “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two years is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence.” His account is also at odds with the Christian accounts in The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) and "The Acts of Peter" (150-200 CE) where the first has Nero reacting to claims of sedition by the group and the other saying thanks to a vision he left them alone.

Pliny the Younger was a Roman official who wrote innumerable letters. In one (ca. 112 CE), he references "Christians" (but not Jesus), and his "Christ" could have referred to innumerable other "messiahs" that various Jews were following.

Most of the Pauline Epistles were indisputably written by a dude named Paul in the Levant a few decades after Jesus's death. He wrote about James. He wrote about actually existing churches and conflicts. These were not constructed a century later (except for the ones that obviously were,which has been determined via textual criticism and analysis) - they are much closer to contemporary than most classical historical figures! Just because it is in the Bible doesn't mean it's automatically fake. It is a corpus to which we can apply historical criticism like any other, not some exceptional fabrication.

In addition to Paul writing about events two decades after the fact and never actually meeting Jesus,

Paul had no knowledge of Jesus' early life, just his claimed ultimate activities, and his teachings sometimes seem at variance with those of Jesus in the Gospels. He also does not mention the handful of churches that arose in Jesus' name, but having nothing to do with his own Christianity. Although Paul writes about numerous other people seeing Jesus, he provides no corroborating evidence or means by which they could be identified. He does (e.g. in Galatians) speak of meeting some of the Disciples, but, as the John Frum cult shows, even the mention of James (the Just) as Jesus' brother doesn't mean much as John Frum got Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (who has only sisters) as a brother only 17 years after the first record of his movement.

Just because he talks about real stuff doesn't mean he can't also be making stuff up or embroidering actual events with fictional details. The existence to churches dedicated to Jesus also doesn't really say much, since there are a lot of churches dedicated to fictional entities.