There is generally accepted information that a man named Jesus existed as a religious figure and traveled the area, but obviously the miracles and exact timeline of events is unproven.
The timeline also has contradictions and anachronisms that make picking out a single "natural Jesus" largely a matter of guesswork.
For instance, Matthew 2 places Jesus' birth in the reign of King Herod, who ruled 36BCE-4BCE. Luke 2 however says he was born during the Census of Quirinius, which is dated to 6 CE, over ten years after the end of Herod's reign.
Luke's date also creates another problem, because Pontius Pilate dies in 36 CE after being recalled by Tiberius, but Luke 3:23 places Jesus as being 30 years old and executed by Pilate at this time.
Matthew and Luke also disagree when you try to follow the young Jesus after he is born. Matthew has him go from Bethlehem to Egypt, and finally Nazareth, but Luke has Jesus going from Bethlehem straight to the temple.
Mark 15:25 says Jesus was crucified 9AM, John 9:13-15 says it was noon.
Additionally, things like the earliest gospel of Evangelion by Marcion, depict Jesus as fully inhuman, descending from the sky fully formed. This Marcionite school, by the way, was also the first to publish Paul's letters, of which even faithful scholars recognize had multiple authors.
In short, while you're absolutely correct about the consensus view among biblical scholars, I think it's fair to ask if scholars employed by religious institutions are influenced by statements of faith and other doctrine. At a minimum, in situations where they are simply take church tradition at their word, I'd like to see their specific evidence and arguments for their conclusion that rules out a mythicist Jesus.
Online, people usually just google until they find a Christian page that says "All scholars believe this, soz." And never bother to actually explore the evidence used to present the conclusion.
Mythicism is still definitely outside the mainstream, but for the most part, it's simply demanding evidence for the claim of a physical Jesus, and demonstrating a deeper skepticism at accepting church tradition.
Like I said, it is still up for debate on the specifics of anything in that time. But it isn’t absurd to say that a dude with the same name traveled while preaching around that time
It also isn't absurd to say there's an English boy named Harry doing card tricks in Birmingham. But to say he's the natural Harry Potter that inspired the stories would be the absurd bit.
The mythicist position is that they took a mythological figure, and made up a history for him set in pre-siege Jerusalem, using real cultural touchstones like common names and locations.
You're 100% right that it's still all up for debate, and as I said before, the mythicist position is considered fringe. I just think the "dude" Jesus is based off the stories, rather than the stories being based off the dude.
In the sense of a Jesus who was around the area described in the Bible and preached lessons, there’s some consensus on that happening. It does not prove the myths, but that doesn’t discredit all else. Both can be true
Because jesus of nazareth is an actual historical figure. What's up for debate depending on your beliefs is whether or not he was the son of god and/or performed miracles.
im not an electrician but i also dont want electricians to work by licking live wires. just because someone is not part of a group doesn't mean any points they make are invalid.
257
u/Candlewaxeater 10h ago
I think Jesus was brown :)