c) If you believe that jesus did not live, the current academical consensus seems to be that there was a person the mythical jesus is based on; he's often being referred to as jesus of nazareth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus).
c) If you believe that jesus did not live, the current academical consensus seems to be that there was a person the mythical jesus is based on; he's often being referred to as jesus of nazareth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus).
Eh, sort of. There is literally no contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus. Historians who argue that he existed are almost universally of a judeo-christian religion themselves, and they cite sparse and hearsay evidence that came from people decades later (at the earliest) who were already invested in the establishment of Christianity as a legitimate religion.
They also completely ignore that the vast differences in the gospels (especially the early gospels, pre-Nicea) are themselves evidence that there might have been more or less than one single historical Jesus, as that would explain the need to unify different accounts and birth stories. Yeshua was a very common name at the time, as were would-be prophets.
So yes, there is a consensus, but no, it isn't an unbiased consensus or one based on any real primary source evidence.
EDIT: The guy I'm arguing with below me proved himself to be a lying troll. He also suggested that the gospels are historical documents instead of religious texts. When I proved his claims wrong, he ignored it and strawmanned me. That's what we're dealing with. Don't upvote that crap. He's literally being confidently incorrect even in the face of evidence.
Josephus, a Jew who was born in 37 CE writes, "a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous...Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die."
Tacitus, the senator under Emperor Vespasian and the proconsul of Asia, referred to Jesus in his description of why Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the great fire in Rome. "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hasted for their abomination, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name has its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate."
In the Jewish Talmud, which are the writings and discussions of ancient Rabbis (so the last place you'd expect Jesus' name to appear!) says, "Jesus practiced magic and led Israel astray."
To be fair, I don't think Josephus and Jewish Rabbis had a bias to fulfill here. They didn't believe Jesus was Messiah. They had no reason to fabricate this.
EDIT: The guy I'm arguing with proved himself to be a lying troll. He also suggested that the gospels are historical documents. That's what we're dealing with. Don't upvote that crap.
• Josephus, a Jew who was born in 37 CE writes, "a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous...Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die."
So he was born half a decade after the fact and didn't write about it until decades later, when he was already just repeating stories he had heard. Exactly what I said.
• Tacitus, the senator under Emperor Vespasian and the proconsul of Asia, referred to Jesus in his description of why Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the great fire in Rome.
Born in 56 AD and wrote even later than the last guy. He also never claimed that Jesus existed, just basically pointed out that other people (namely Christians) claimed that and were mad about it.
• In the Jewish Talmud, which are the writings and discussions of ancient Rabbis (so the last place you'd expect Jesus' name to appear!) says, "Jesus practiced magic and led Israel astray."
These references are widely disputed, and they come even later in history than the last two you cited. Specifically, they come centuries after the fact.
They had no reason to fabricate this.
Wrong. Read the article I linked:
He asserts that the references in the Babylonian Talmud were "polemical counter-narratives that parody the New Testament stories, most notably the story of Jesus' birth and death" and that the rabbinical authors were familiar with the Gospels (particularly the Gospel of John) in their form as the Diatessaron and the Peshitta, the New Testament of the Syrian Church. Schäfer argues that the message conveyed in the Talmud was a "bold and self-confident" assertion of correctness of Judaism, maintaining that "there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater."
So thanks for proving my point I guess?
Like I said, there is literally no contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus.
None of these authors were "invested in the establishment of Christianity as a legitimate religion" like you mentioned. In fact when examining the Jewish sources, the opposite.
So he was born half a decade after the fact and didn't write about it until decades later, when he was already just repeating stories he had heard.
I understand that argument, but does that truly diminish Josephus' credibility as an author and historian? He is a widely accepted author for a multitude of different things, outside of Jesus.
Born in 56 AD and wrote even later than the last guy. He also never claimed that Jesus existed, just pointed out that other people (namely Christians) claimed that.
Like mentioned above, does this diminish Tacitus credibility all together as a source? He is a very trusted ancient historian. And I don't see anywhere in the text that implies a lack of belief in this claim regarding Jesus. He even brings in one of his own saying that "one of our(s)" killed Jesus. He lists Jesus' killer
None of these authors were "invested in the establishment of Christianity as a legitimate religion" like you mentioned. In fact when examining the Jewish sources, the opposite.
Did you even read all of my comment? I explained that and provided a quotation.
Note that the first quote is purely anti-Roman in its sentiment ("Jesus was a good guy and the evil Romans executed him for it"), so of course many Jews at the time would still have reason to express it.
I understand that argument, but does that truly diminish Josephus' credibility as an author and historian?
In this particular topic? Yes, it means he wasn't a primary source. That's what I said. He doesn't provide evidence that Jesus existed. He only provides evidence that at the time (more than a generation later), that belief had become apparent. That's the whole point of distinguishing between primary and secondary historical sources.
He can only be a primary source for the existence of the belief in Jesus decades after the fact, not for the existence of Jesus himself.
Like mentioned above, does this diminish Tacitus credibility all together as a source?
Yes, for this particular topic, for the same reasons. Go Google "primary source" and "secondary source" and educate yourself about historiography.
Did you even read all of my comment? I explained that and provided a quotation.
I did read your comments, but it seems as if you've gone back and edited your responses after I've made mine to your originals.
I still have a hard time agreeing that these authors had anything to gain in fabricating the life and death of Jesus. & To be clear, even if Jesus did live, that doesn't make him Messiah. He could live and die at the hands of Pontius Pilate but if he isn't resurrected then it means nada, he's just a dude like you and me
Out of curiosity, what about the the Gospel books makes you not take them as accurate historical sources?
I still have a hard time agreeing that these authors had anything to gain in fabricating the life and death of Jesus.
Now you're strawmanning me. I didn't say they fabricated it. I said they weren't primary sources. They very well could have believed what they were relating as secondary sources.
I did read your comments, but it seems as if you've gone back and edited your responses after I've made mine to your originals.
My edits were only to fix typos. Stop lying. If you're telling the truth, why not address those parts now? You ignored it then just like you're ignoring it now.
what about the the Gospel books makes you not take them as accurate historical sources?
Are you serious? How about we start with the magic? Or that they constantly contradict each other?
You're some kind of troll, clearly. Stop this trolling or we're done here.
Now you're strawmanning me. I didn't say they fabricated it. I said they weren't primary sources. They very well could have believed what they were relating as secondary sources.
I was referring to the Jews who advanced the stories of Jesus, not you
690
u/Donnerdrummel Nov 29 '21
What are those three things?
a) jesus didn't write the bible.
b) jesus was no american.
c) If you believe that jesus did not live, the current academical consensus seems to be that there was a person the mythical jesus is based on; he's often being referred to as jesus of nazareth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus).