Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are "mythologized history." In other words, based on the evidence available they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provide...
Interesting. I thought it was fairly well established that Jesus existed in some capacity but the debate was about who he actually was and (from a religious standpoint) if he did any of the things the Bible claims he did. It’s interesting to read that non-jewish people of the time seemed to have no knowledge of his existence.
At the same time though, I wonder if it’s possible that most people just ignored him, which is why there’s apparently very few accounts of him until after he supposedly died, resurrected and ascended to heaven. Kinda like a street preacher in Times Square, NYC. How many people actually acknowledge street preachers on social media, and how many of them actually know the preachers by name? Then think about how social media didn’t exist yet, so the bar to be recorded in history by uninterested third parties (even just as a letter to a friend about that “annoying Jesus guy”) is probably a lot higher.
Not saying he existed, just that it’s interesting to think that he could have existed but the lack of evidence is just because no one gave a fuck.
Jesus’ Abilities were exaggerated a bit
How much of the gospels have to be true for you to be comfortable jesus existed? On one end you’ve got a dude named Jesus (0%) to every non-magical account at 100%.
Even the non-mystical stuff should have left a mark, but it doesn’t seem like it really did.
That’s the thing. Personally I’d need an individual who fits the nonmagical description moderately well and made the majority of the claims he’s said to have made. Namely I need most of his major teachings coming from the same individual. A parable or two here or there is one thing, but the beatitudes, the greatest commandment, turn the other cheek, etc that’s important to the claim that this individual existed. If it was just some dude who got executed named Jesus who wandered around clarifying the Torah that’s not the historical Jesus
I am always struck in the reading by how Jesus basically just sounds like every other two-bit cult leader. Everything is put in very grand terms as though he were greatly respected and doing everything for a captivated public but these could actually be just have been very commonplace interactions.
Like just look at how the Mormons mythologized Joseph Smith. He was literally just a “rock in a hat” grifter and dowser of the type was reasonably common who when his life is placed in appropriate historical context was not really super notable. He just got popular. There are a metric fuckton of cults at any given point who just never make superstar notoriety and die out largely uncommented on even in our news and propriety obsessed modernity. Their internal writings however are always self centered and bombastic. Cults elevate the mundane into hyperbole when you are inside them but from the outside they retain their mundanity. There’s a lot of people who just slip through historical cracks the further back you go because their contemporaries didn’t record things they didn’t think was notable or was just the water they swum in. Hard records generally tend to be beaurcratic and stories evolve dramatically to gain staying power.
We don’t treat “Christ” as the job title it is. It isn’t applied to other people but it could be. We say “Christ-like figure” but they could just be Christs. There are plenty of failed Christs out there. You generally dunno which ones have staying power until past the general limits of a human lifetime.
Removed by mod
Can I get your sources?
Dave down the Red Lion
It’s a novel take for me, as well. I’d have assumed the Pharisees would have surely written about him as they hated him so much…
But I’m still trying to wrap my little head around mythologised history and historicised mythology!
Some version of Jesus absolutely existed, since is was a pretty common name. Street preachers were not uncommon either, so it’s very possible that there was one named Jesus.
The real debate about whether Jesus existed is whether any of the biblical stories are at all accurate. There is No reason to think they are.
Also he was supposedly very prominent but apparently no historian or political writer back then recorded anything about him.
Weird, I read that jesus was not a common name at the time and that it would have been something like yusuf in reality if he was real
“Jesus” is a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the Hebrew name Yeshua so, yes, “Jesus” wasn’t literally a common name in Israel. It was actually Yeshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ,) that was a common name.
vs
are two wildly different claims which cannot co-exist.
Except they were two different claims. “Some guy named Jesus existed”, and “Some guy named Jesus was a street preacher”.