Jesus: Myth, legend, or historical?

[firedragon]

Its a good question.

1/ Contemporary sources that were not written by Christians of which there are few within the first century of Jesus being crucified. Josephus is the main one but Tactitus as well.
2/ The New Testament Canon
3/ The plausibility of each narrative from what we know of history and science. Eg Romans tended to crucify criminals but people as a general rule don’t rise from the dead.

1. So basically Josephus and Tacitus. Very different types of history. Josephus being earlier and closer to the source, more authentic, just mentions a random phrase, but Tacitus is politically motivated to blame the fire on the Christians, making them some cult. But its true that both sources indicate a Jewish preacher.
2. If you take the NT canon as historical, well, that's a whole other story. Its not applicable. But I guess you would not accept it. Just that, the thread is not meant for theology or faith, but purely a historical approach as outlined.
3. Yes. Its highly plausible. Not this rising from the dead part, but the crucifixion. But it's not proven.

 

[firedragon]

Not false, just hearsay

You mean Josephus as I mentioned in the OP is just hearsay, and legend? Do you dismiss Josephus entirely? All the other Christs he mentions?

 

[firedragon]

Due to popular demand, option "legend" was added to the poll.

 

[RabbiO]

Josephus was a Jew, not very good the Jews of course but a historian on the Roman side of the fence.

That’s not your call to make.

 

[Heyo]

You mean Josephus as I mentioned in the OP is just hearsay, and legend? Do you dismiss Josephus entirely? All the other Christs he mentions?

Josephus (in the part that wasn't added later) says himself that he is relaying a report. So the only things we can derive from that passage are: there is a report (unverified, single source) that states
there was a High Priest, James
who had a brother, Jesus
who was called the Christ.

That is not a testimony for the existence of the Jesus described in the gospels but a hint that a Jesus existed. (Possibly the one (or one of) who is basis of the legendary Christ.)

 

[RestlessSoul]

By a coincidence, I saw this story today which applies indirectly to this thread because it illustrates what we know: that history is not reliable especially from a single source and without physical evidence:

Herodotus lied about famous Greek battle against Carthage, new study finds

But if you read that article, it broadly corroborates Herodotus. The headline is actually quite misleading.

Modern historians have to compete for attention far more than ancient ones did, so the temptation to make contentious claims on the basis of scant new evidence, is often overwhelming. Ancient sources, Herodotus in particular, can be surprisingly reliable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Jesus appears to me to be a bit of all of the poll choices. There seems to be some small likelihood that some of the stories about him are based on a real figure, but not a particularly important one. These got embellished through the usual means -- telling stories by word-of-mouth over and over again, which puts it into the category of legend. Stuff has been added from the various other religious traditions in what was then the known world, which is where the myth comes in.

And then we come to Paul -- who in essence created a theology practically out of whole cloth. And Paul, of course, was definitely historical. It's just that when you really pay attention to what Paul wrote (in the letters considered to be authentic), he wasn't in the slightest interested in the historical Jesus. Paul was the Joseph Smith of his day, in my view.

 

[danieldemol]

If one looks at legends, there are some that Jesus was in India.

Calling the Jesus in India myth legend would be like calling the Jesus in America myth legend.

It is legend in the sense that it is based on the probability that there was a historical Jesus, but myth in the sense that tales of His travel to India/America was a story made out of whole cloth numerous centuries after His death.
In my opinion.

 

[Deeje]

What you say?

I think that the evidence for Jesus' as an historical figure, is as solid as there is evidence for God himself....Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived. Here is why....

"CAN any man unquestionably be called the greatest man who ever lived? How do you measure a man’s greatness? By his military genius? his physical strength? his mental prowess?

The historian H. G. Wells said that a man’s greatness can be measured by ‘what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him.’ Wells, although not claiming to be a Christian, acknowledged: “By this test Jesus stands first.”

Alexander the Great, Charlemagne (styled “the Great” even in his own lifetime), and Napoleon Bonaparte were powerful rulers. By their formidable presence, they wielded great influence over those they commanded. Yet, Napoleon is reported to have said: “Jesus Christ has influenced and commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence.”

By his dynamic teachings and by the way he lived in harmony with them, Jesus has powerfully affected the lives of people for nearly two thousand years. As one writer aptly expressed it: “All the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully.”
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101991001

I agree with this....

 

[King Phenomenon]

Thats a curious comment. Why do you say this? Please be kind enough to elaborate a bit.

What makes it curious?

 

[firedragon]

That’s not your call to make.

Yes your highness. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done.

 

[firedragon]

What makes it curious?

Its alright. No need for explanation Jimmy.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Its alright. No need for explanation Jimmy.

U either lol

 

[King Phenomenon]

Its alright. No need for explanation Jimmy.

I actually did respond I think yesterday was a short response but it’s a response

 

[firedragon]

Josephus (in the part that wasn't added later) says himself that he is relaying a report. So the only things we can derive from that passage are: there is a report (unverified, single source) that states
there was a High Priest, James
who had a brother, Jesus
who was called the Christ.

That is not a testimony for the existence of the Jesus described in the gospels but a hint that a Jesus existed. (Possibly the one (or one of) who is basis of the legendary Christ.)

Thats the mythicists position. No problem.

Josephus uses "report" over 50 times. And Josephus doesnt say "I met James". Also, the report is mentioned earlier when speaking of Ananus's son. James the brother of Jesus is a side story. It doesnt say like you said there is a report (unverified, single source) that states there was a high priest, James who had a brother......., It is "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others,". I think that was a misrepresentation and an A historical method of analysis.

Also, I dont know who said "it is a testimony for the existence of the Jesus described in the gospels" and obviously it is a hint that a Jesus existed. But as I already clearly said in the OP, it is a side remark, an identification of James, the brother of Jesus. That makes it authentic. If it was a politically motivated praise or an insult then its a tad doubt to consider.

Nevertheless, I think in that passage you presented you seem to have conflated the High priest the son of Damneus, and James or something because the passage doesnt say that.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

U either lol

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

I actually did respond I think yesterday was a short response but it’s a response

Yes I saw that. Thank you very much for that.

 

[Marcion]

Josephus and Tacitus don't convince me enough.
The argument of embarrassment about the crucifixion does not convince me enough either.
But I tend to think that Jesus was a historical person because the Christian authors use Q-lite yet don't seem to understand its meaning and the first half of Mark depicts a Jesus compatible with Q-lite.

So the authors of the Christian gospels would never have been able to make up Q-lite nor the first half of Mark (and its reworked clones in later gospel stories) since they had a very different way of thinking about Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

Josephus and Tacitus don't convince me enough.
The argument of embarrassment about the crucifixion does not convince me enough either.
But I tend to think that Jesus was a historical person because the Christian authors use Q-lite yet don't seem to understand its meaning and the first half of Mark depicts a Jesus compatible with Q-lite.

So the authors of the Christian gospels would never have been able to make up Q-lite nor the first half of Mark (and its reworked clones in later gospel stories) since they had a very different way of thinking about Jesus.

Mate. Q lite is a hypothesis based on a hypothesis. And it is not considered to be a historical report.

 

[Marcion]

Mate. Q lite is a hypothesis based on a hypothesis. And it is not considered to be a historical report.

There is nothing written by contemporay historians about Jesus so these are the best clues I have, mate.
It is more than enough for me, but obviously not for you.