Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

Less than 20 vs 5,000-10,000.

That’s quite a difference.

And 0 actual historians.

10,000 bible scholars believe the bible. Shocker.

So the only real historians who know the truth are who? Name them so people can read their writings and research and evaluate for themselves.

Are you going to keep their names and the real truth hidden? Why would you do that?

Real historians study history, not the bible.

I don't start with the predetermined answer and then look for "experts" who support it.

Start with real historians and see what they say. Any of them even bother with historicity? Maybe not worth their time since there is no evidence.

Ok, give me a list of real historians and I will see what they say.

Pick any history department in any university - not the theology dept.

Virtually all professional historians and scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in the 1st century AD. The idea that he never existed is treated as a fringe or “mythicist” position outside mainstream scholarship.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Every time you say Jesus was a real person, I'll say "So What? That doesn't mean he's God."

Still, I don't think you get it or even want to get it. Instead, you like to think that the more experts say that Jesus was a real person, and the more you write about it here, the more likely it is that Jesus is God.

Jesus the real guy vs Jesus the Divine Son of God is a separate discussion.

I can separate the topics, you cannot.

You are welcome to keep trying to meld the topics but it’s pointless because if you read the thread title you’d see this is a discussion based on historical data. No one here has tried to argue about divinity or the existence of God and that Jesus was his Son.

If you wish to keep commenting in this manner, that’s your choice. I don’t want to thread jack and you do.

Let's say Jesus was real. So What? Lots of people from those days were real. What's so special about Jesus? You might say that what's special is that so many people say he's not real. I certainly don't see that here. Mainly, people don't care if Jesus, or anyone from that long-ago era, is real. They only care if he is the son of god. That is a matter of belief. It can't be proven. It doesn't matter how many experts think he's the son of god.

Many people say that Mohammed is real too. It only really matters if you believe that he was Allah's (i.e., God's) messenger.

Have you actually read through this thread?

You are 100% incorrect.

And 100% off topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

Less than 20 vs 5,000-10,000.

That’s quite a difference.

And 0 actual historians.

10,000 bible scholars believe the bible. Shocker.

So the only real historians who know the truth are who? Name them so people can read their writings and research and evaluate for themselves.

Are you going to keep their names and the real truth hidden? Why would you do that?

Real historians study history, not the bible.

I don't start with the predetermined answer and then look for "experts" who support it.

Start with real historians and see what they say. Any of them even bother with historicity? Maybe not worth their time since there is no evidence.

Ok, give me a list of real historians and I will see what they say.

Pick any history department in any university - not the theology dept.

Virtually all professional historians and scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in the 1st century AD. The idea that he never existed is treated as a fringe or “mythicist” position outside mainstream scholarship.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Every time you say Jesus was a real person, I'll say "So What? That doesn't mean he's God."

Still, I don't think you get it or even want to get it. Instead, you like to think that the more experts say that Jesus was a real person, and the more you write about it here, the more likely it is that Jesus is God.

Jesus the real guy vs Jesus the Divine Son of God is a separate discussion.

I can separate the topics, you cannot.

You are welcome to keep trying to meld the topics but it’s pointless because if you read the thread title you’d see this is a discussion based on historical data. No one here has tried to argue about divinity or the existence of God and that Jesus was his Son.

If you wish to keep commenting in this manner, that’s your choice. I don’t want to thread jack and you do.

💯 No need to refer to fairies and goblins.

It's not needed, but it is entertaining to see how upset believers get when you aptly compare God or Jesus with fairies, goblins, Santa, the tooth fairy or anything else kids believe in and adults don't.

I am not upset started out being annoyed the topic of historicity keep getting confounded with divinity.

BTW I never believed in anything but the silver dollars my parents left under the pillow.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I'm late to this topic and very interested, but can not go through 34 pages.

I would appreciate if someone could give me, in bullets (to make it easy!), what is the historical evidence, and DATE of that evidence, APART from the bible, that supports the existence of Jesus.

I remember reading once that the first real mention of Jesus, outside the bible, was something like 100 AD or later, but I'm not sure if that's true.

Thank you!!

[Anonymous]

You can adk Gemini for a summary. There were interesting parts but it got repetitive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

Less than 20 vs 5,000-10,000.

That’s quite a difference.

And 0 actual historians.

10,000 bible scholars believe the bible. Shocker.

So the only real historians who know the truth are who? Name them so people can read their writings and research and evaluate for themselves.

Are you going to keep their names and the real truth hidden? Why would you do that?

Real historians study history, not the bible.

I don't start with the predetermined answer and then look for "experts" who support it.

Start with real historians and see what they say. Any of them even bother with historicity? Maybe not worth their time since there is no evidence.

Ok, give me a list of real historians and I will see what they say.

Pick any history department in any university - not the theology dept.

Virtually all professional historians and scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in the 1st century AD. The idea that he never existed is treated as a fringe or “mythicist” position outside mainstream scholarship.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Every time you say Jesus was a real person, I'll say "So What? That doesn't mean he's God."

Still, I don't think you get it or even want to get it. Instead, you like to think that the more experts say that Jesus was a real person, and the more you write about it here, the more likely it is that Jesus is God.

Jesus the real guy vs Jesus the Divine Son of God is a separate discussion.

I can separate the topics, you cannot.

You are welcome to keep trying to meld the topics but it’s pointless because if you read the thread title you’d see this is a discussion based on historical data. No one here has tried to argue about divinity or the existence of God and that Jesus was his Son.

If you wish to keep commenting in this manner, that’s your choice. I don’t want to thread jack and you do.

Let's say Jesus was real. So What? Lots of people from those days were real. What's so special about Jesus? You might say that what's special is that so many people say he's not real. I certainly don't see that here. Mainly, people don't care if Jesus, or anyone from that long-ago era, is real. They only care if he is the son of god. That is a matter of belief. It can't be proven. It doesn't matter how many experts think he's the son of god.

Many people say that Mohammed is real too. It only really matters if you believe that he was Allah's (i.e., God's) messenger.

I think you are on topic and making the same point others were. Its possible a man named Jesus lived even though that is also doubtful. There is little evidence to support that he was divine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

Less than 20 vs 5,000-10,000.

That’s quite a difference.

And 0 actual historians.

10,000 bible scholars believe the bible. Shocker.

So the only real historians who know the truth are who? Name them so people can read their writings and research and evaluate for themselves.

Are you going to keep their names and the real truth hidden? Why would you do that?

Real historians study history, not the bible.

I don't start with the predetermined answer and then look for "experts" who support it.

Start with real historians and see what they say. Any of them even bother with historicity? Maybe not worth their time since there is no evidence.

Ok, give me a list of real historians and I will see what they say.

Pick any history department in any university - not the theology dept.

Virtually all professional historians and scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in the 1st century AD. The idea that he never existed is treated as a fringe or “mythicist” position outside mainstream scholarship.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Every time you say Jesus was a real person, I'll say "So What? That doesn't mean he's God."

Still, I don't think you get it or even want to get it. Instead, you like to think that the more experts say that Jesus was a real person, and the more you write about it here, the more likely it is that Jesus is God.

Jesus the real guy vs Jesus the Divine Son of God is a separate discussion.

I can separate the topics, you cannot.

You are welcome to keep trying to meld the topics but it’s pointless because if you read the thread title you’d see this is a discussion based on historical data. No one here has tried to argue about divinity or the existence of God and that Jesus was his Son.

If you wish to keep commenting in this manner, that’s your choice. I don’t want to thread jack and you do.

Let's say Jesus was real. So What? Lots of people from those days were real. What's so special about Jesus? You might say that what's special is that so many people say he's not real. I certainly don't see that here. Mainly, people don't care if Jesus, or anyone from that long-ago era, is real. They only care if he is the son of god. That is a matter of belief. It can't be proven. It doesn't matter how many experts think he's the son of god.

Many people say that Mohammed is real too. It only really matters if you believe that he was Allah's (i.e., God's) messenger.

I think you are on topic and making the same point others were. It's possible a man named Jesus lived even though that is also doubtful. There is little evidence to support that he was divine.

Correct. Also, there's no evidence to prove that Jesus, or anyone, was divine. There is only evidence that some people believed he was divine. There is also evidence that some people think that other people are divine and some children believe in the easter bunny and Santa Claus. They eventually grow out of those beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With his alleged birthday coming up, let's discuss the person that is being celebrated. Present your information and argument for Jesus, fact or fiction.

CITATION

Close
[note 4]The Christ myth theory is rejected by mainstream scholarship as fringe:
James D. G. Dunn (1974) Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus in Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L.L. Morris on his 60th Birthday. Robert Banks, ed., Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, pp. 125–141, citing G. A. Wells (The Jesus of the Early Christians (1971)): "Perhaps we should also mention that at the other end of the spectrum Paul's apparent lack of knowledge of the historical Jesus has been made the major plank in an attempt to revive the nevertheless thoroughly dead thesis that the Jesus of the Gospels was a mythical figure." An almost identical quotation is included in Dunn, James DG (1998) The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D.G. Dunn, Volume 1, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., p. 191, and Sykes, S. (1991) Sacrifice and redemption: Durham essays in theology. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–36.
Grant (1977, p. 200) Classicist-numismatist Michael Grant stated in 1977: "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus', or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."
Weaver (1999, pp. 71): Walter Weaver, scholar of philosophy and religion: "The denial of Jesus' historicity has never convinced any large number of people, in or out of technical circles, nor did it in the first part of the century."
Robert E. Van Voorst, New testament scholar:
Van Voorst (2000, p. 16), referring to G. A. Wells: "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."
Van Voorst (2003, p. 658): "debate on the existence of Jesus has been in the fringes of scholarship [...] for more than two centuries."
Van Voorst (2003, p. 660): "Among New Testament scholars and historians, the theory of Jesus' nonexistence remains effectively dead as a scholarly question."
Tuckett (2001, pp. 123–124): "[F]arfetched theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible."
Burridge & Gould (2004, p. 34): "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."
Wells (2007, p. 446) G. A. Wells, mythicist admitted "by around 1920 nearly all scholars had come to regard the case against Jesus's historicity as totally discredited"
Price (2010, p. 200) Robert M. Price, former apologist and prominent mythicist, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars to the point that they "dismiss Christ Myth theory as a discredited piece of lunatic fringe thought alongside Holocaust Denial and skepticism about the Apollo moon landings."
Johnson (2011, p. 4) Paul Johnson, a popular historian: "His life has been written more often than that of any other human being, with infinite variations of detail, employing vast resources of scholarship, and often controversially, not to say acrimoniously. Scholarship, like everything else, is subject to fashion, and it was the fashion, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for some to deny that Jesus existed. No serious scholar holds that view now, and it is hard to see how it ever took hold, for the evidence of Jesus's existence is abundant."
Ehrman (2012, p. 20) Bart Ehrman, agnostic New Testament scholar: "It is fair to say that mythicists as a group, and as individuals, are not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars in the fields of New Testament, early Christianity, ancient history, and theology. This is widely recognized, to their chagrin, by mythicists themselves....Not much has changed in the sixty-five years since Robertson's brief volume appeared."
Martin (2014, p. 285) Michael Martin, skeptic philosopher of religion: "Some skeptics have maintained that the best account of biblical and historical evidence is the theory that Jesus never existed; that is, that Jesus' existence is a myth (Wells 1999). Such a view is controversial and not widely held even by anti-Christian thinkers."
Casey (2014, p. 243) Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."
Gray (2016, pp. 113–114) Patrick Gray, religious studies scholar, "Christian and non-Christian scholars alike now almost universally reject the "Christ myth" hypothesis. That Jesus did in fact walk the face of the earth in the first century is no longer seriously doubted even by those who believe that very little about his life or death can be known with any certainty. [Note 4:] Although it remains a fringe phenomenon, familiarity with the Christ myth theory has become much more widespread among the general public with the advent of the Internet."
Gullotta (2017, pp. 312, 314), historian of religion: "Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles." "In short, the majority of mythicist literature is composed of wild theories, which are poorly researched, historically inaccurate, and written with a sensationalist bent for popular audiences."
Larry Hurtado (December 2, 2017), Why the "Mythical Jesus" Claim Has No Traction with Scholars: "The "mythical Jesus" view doesn't have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance. Advocates of the "mythical Jesus" may dismiss this statement, but it ought to count for something if, after some 250 years of critical investigation of the historical figure of Jesus and of Christian Origins, and the due consideration of "mythical Jesus" claims over the last century or more, this spectrum of scholars have judged them unpersuasive (to put it mildly)."
Hansen 2022 "The theory of a pre-Christian Jesus, while exceptionally intriguing, still has not found any decent footing in recent years. Though there have been some attempts at innovating the concept, invariably the arguments for this have relied heavily on conjectural interpretations of biblical and extrabiblical literature in an attempt to validate the hypothesis…All of these issues, and more, demonstrate that the pre-Christian Jesus hypothesis is still an unreliable thesis, and likely should be discounted as it was a century ago. The renovated theories fail to convincingly explain the evidence at hand."
Marina (2022) Marko Marina, ancient historian: states that Richard Carrier's mythicist views have not won any supporters from critical scholars or the academic community and that mythicist theory remains as fringe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Academics, scholars, historians, and professors in relevant fields overwhelmingly agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first-century Judea, and this consensus is so strong that professionals in the discipline do not seriously doubt his existence.

A very small number of individuals—often generously termed “independent” researchers despite typically lacking formal academic credentials in relevant fields, affiliation with established institutions, or publication in peer-reviewed journals—propose that Jesus was entirely mythical, perhaps derived from earlier legends or invented wholesale.

In professional circles, such views are not taken seriously.

From comprehensive lists and discussions in scholarly sources (including Wikipedia’s compilation of proponents, academic reviews, and blogs by both supporters and critics), the number of notable individuals who have publicly advocated for a purely mythical Jesus in modern times (post-1900) appears to be in the range of 10 to 30, depending on how strictly one defines “historian” or “independent researcher” and full endorsement of mythicism.
activists).

This is an educated guesstimate: likely fewer than 20 living individuals who fit the “independent historian/researcher” description and actively promote the full Christ myth theory today. The vast majority operate outside peer-reviewed academia, via blogs, self-published books, or online platforms, which is why they’re often described (even generously) as fringe. No formal census exists, and the group is tiny compared to the thousands of scholars who accept a historical Jesus as the consensus view.

A reasonable guesstimate is that several thousand (likely 5,000–10,000 or more) qualified academics, historians, and professors in relevant disciplines worldwide accept the historical existence of Jesus as the mainstream position. This consensus spans believers, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christians alike, and has been the standard view in professional scholarship for over a century. The tiny minority who reject it entirely are not representative of the field.

Less than 20 vs 5,000-10,000.

That’s quite a difference.

And 0 actual historians.

10,000 bible scholars believe the bible. Shocker.

So the only real historians who know the truth are who? Name them so people can read their writings and research and evaluate for themselves.

Are you going to keep their names and the real truth hidden? Why would you do that?

Real historians study history, not the bible.

I don't start with the predetermined answer and then look for "experts" who support it.

Start with real historians and see what they say. Any of them even bother with historicity? Maybe not worth their time since there is no evidence.

Ok, give me a list of real historians and I will see what they say.

Pick any history department in any university - not the theology dept.

Virtually all professional historians and scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in the 1st century AD. The idea that he never existed is treated as a fringe or “mythicist” position outside mainstream scholarship.

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (2004) ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Every time you say Jesus was a real person, I'll say "So What? That doesn't mean he's God."

Still, I don't think you get it or even want to get it. Instead, you like to think that the more experts say that Jesus was a real person, and the more you write about it here, the more likely it is that Jesus is God.

Jesus the real guy vs Jesus the Divine Son of God is a separate discussion.

I can separate the topics, you cannot.

You are welcome to keep trying to meld the topics but it’s pointless because if you read the thread title you’d see this is a discussion based on historical data. No one here has tried to argue about divinity or the existence of God and that Jesus was his Son.

If you wish to keep commenting in this manner, that’s your choice. I don’t want to thread jack and you do.

Let's say Jesus was real. So What? Lots of people from those days were real. What's so special about Jesus? You might say that what's special is that so many people say he's not real. I certainly don't see that here. Mainly, people don't care if Jesus, or anyone from that long-ago era, is real. They only care if he is the son of god. That is a matter of belief. It can't be proven. It doesn't matter how many experts think he's the son of god.

Many people say that Mohammed is real too. It only really matters if you believe that he was Allah's (i.e., God's) messenger.

I think you are on topic and making the same point others were. It's possible a man named Jesus lived even though that is also doubtful. There is little evidence to support that he was divine.

Correct. Also, there's no evidence to prove that Jesus, or anyone, was divine. There is only evidence that some people believed he was divine. There is also evidence that some people think that other people are divine and some children believe in the easter bunny and Santa Claus. They eventually grow out of those beliefs.

People don’t think Santa and the Easter Bunny are divine. They are Secular tradition figures. While Easter and Christmas are religious holidays, Santa and the Bunny function in the non-religious, symbolic layer of those celebrations (gift-giving, eggs, candy, magic, fun).

The real St. Nicholas was a historical Christian bishop, not a myth.

Saint Nicholas of Myra lived around AD 270–343 in Myra, a city in what is now Turkey. He was a bishop in the early Christian Church known for extraordinary generosity, especially toward the poor

He is revered as a saint in Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and some Protestant traditions

What made him famous, and how we know about him:

Several well-attested traditions explain why he became so important:
->Secret gift-giving
The most famous story says he secretly gave gold to a poor father so his daughters wouldn’t be sold into slavery—often said to be tossed through a window or chimney at night.
->Protector of children
He became known as a patron saint of children because of his care for the vulnerable.
->Defender of Christian belief
Tradition holds that he attended the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), where early Christian doctrine was debated.
-> Reputation for kindness, justice, and courage.

He was known for intervening on behalf of the innocent and oppressed.

Saints are historical humans. Fairies and goblins are fictional beings. Saints were born, lived and died in historical context.

Fairies and goblins are invented species.
They have no historical individuals. They have no birthplaces, graves, letters, or contemporaries. They exist only in myths, stories, and fantasy traditions.

No one can say: “Here is Goblin X, born in 312 AD, mentioned by Y historian.”

Christians do not believe saints have innate supernatural powers
*Saints are:
1. Honored as examples of virtue
2. Remembered for how they lived
3. Sometimes associated with miracles attributed to God, not to the saint themselves

*Fairies/goblins:
1. Are imagined as non-human supernatural beings
2. Possess magic by their own nature
3. Are not moral exemplars or historical persons

Saints are documented humans honored for how they lived. Fairies and goblins are fictional beings invented in stories.
Those are categorically different things.

[Anonymous]

Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."

So what that an irreligious emeritus professor of New Testament languages and literature concluded that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false...." That doesn't mean that Jesus was divine.

There's no way to measure divinity. You either believe in it, or you don't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With his alleged birthday coming up, let's discuss the person that is being celebrated. Present your information and argument for Jesus, fact or fiction.

Jesus was made up -- not of whole cloth, because a messiah was predicted. But those were the olden days, before modern science and running water and a bunch of stuff that we now take for granted.

Kids can't imagine life without the internet. Neither can I! Remember those old movies where people would wait impatiently for the mailman to come?

No he was not made up. His existence and the words he spoke have been proven. What is likely made up is that he was the son of God. Probably not. Then again, how did such an extraordinary person come to have such extraordinary advice on how to be a good person?

In any event he was an amazing man and if we all followed his teachings the world would be a better place.

Link?

Don't hold your breath waiting.

And Ehrman undermines his own argument by stating something as true, when it is not in fact true. Not every scholar believes in a historical Jesus, and there are plenty of scholars now that have made well-reasoned arguments to the contrary. Ehrman also acknowledges there is not evidence, and then he makes his own specious speculation.

More rehashing of previous points raised. Response to one of the so called expert views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey red letter summary guy, you ignored previous points posted in this thread while making a number of bad arguments.

First, whether current scholars overwhelming support historicity is not evidence that they are correct. This is akin to saying that Galileo was wrong for supporting heliocentricity even though that was the minority (and considered heretical) position at the time.

Second, you seem prone to attacking the scholars trying to engage in an honest debate, but you have done nothing to make counterpoints to their actual arguments.

Third, and this is my attempt to summarize your many posts, so I apologize in advance if I don’t capture everything, but you essentially argue there are 4 main sources backing up your view of Jesus’ historicity. Two non-Christian (Tacitus and Josephus) and two Christian (Paul’s letters and canonical gospels) sources.

Let’s review the arguments.

Tacitus – we can rule this one out completely as evidence for historicity. All this does is confirm what we already know – there was a small sect within the Jewish community in the early part of the millennium that later evolved into what we call Christians. Tacitus in no way confirms a historical Jesus.

Josephus – there are supposedly two mentions historicists cite. The main reference, the Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18), is a complete Christian forgery. The second portion is more debated (Book 20). This is most likely an interpolation or, if authentic, simply indicates the existence of a prominent figure named James. It is NOT evidence for a historical Jesus.

Paul's Letters – These are generally considered the earliest Christian documents. However, the Christianity/Jesus of Paul is very different than the canonical version of today. Paul speaks of Jesus as a divine, celestial being, and his knowledge comes from mystical revelations, not from meeting an earthly person or eyewitnesses. It was very common for people to claim they had religious insights through “revelation”. It is also conspicuous and notable that there are no details of Jesus' earthly life, ministry, miracles, teachings, or specific locations, which a reasonable person would expect to find if he were a contemporary of a well-known figure. It is also notable that we have no record of who or what Paul was responding to in those letters.

Canonical Gospels – Really, we are discussing a single gospel, not multiple as Mark was the first (written after the fall of the 2nd temple), and all the others are re-tellings of the story. It is like Superman movies – 1978, 2013, and 2025. They all have the same basic story but with their own twists. And, the gospels are similar in that it’s a made for TV story. They are legendary fiction and an amalgam of motifs from the Hebrew Bible and Greco-Roman myths, such as those about "dying and rising gods" – like the popular and well known story of one of Rome’s mythical founders, Romulus.

Re-up since points were never DIRECTLY addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey red letter summary guy, you ignored previous points posted in this thread while making a number of bad arguments.

First, whether current scholars overwhelming support historicity is not evidence that they are correct. This is akin to saying that Galileo was wrong for supporting heliocentricity even though that was the minority (and considered heretical) position at the time.

Second, you seem prone to attacking the scholars trying to engage in an honest debate, but you have done nothing to make counterpoints to their actual arguments.

Third, and this is my attempt to summarize your many posts, so I apologize in advance if I don’t capture everything, but you essentially argue there are 4 main sources backing up your view of Jesus’ historicity. Two non-Christian (Tacitus and Josephus) and two Christian (Paul’s letters and canonical gospels) sources.

Let’s review the arguments.

Tacitus – we can rule this one out completely as evidence for historicity. All this does is confirm what we already know – there was a small sect within the Jewish community in the early part of the millennium that later evolved into what we call Christians. Tacitus in no way confirms a historical Jesus.

Josephus – there are supposedly two mentions historicists cite. The main reference, the Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18), is a complete Christian forgery. The second portion is more debated (Book 20). This is most likely an interpolation or, if authentic, simply indicates the existence of a prominent figure named James. It is NOT evidence for a historical Jesus.

Paul's Letters – These are generally considered the earliest Christian documents. However, the Christianity/Jesus of Paul is very different than the canonical version of today. Paul speaks of Jesus as a divine, celestial being, and his knowledge comes from mystical revelations, not from meeting an earthly person or eyewitnesses. It was very common for people to claim they had religious insights through “revelation”. It is also conspicuous and notable that there are no details of Jesus' earthly life, ministry, miracles, teachings, or specific locations, which a reasonable person would expect to find if he were a contemporary of a well-known figure. It is also notable that we have no record of who or what Paul was responding to in those letters.

Canonical Gospels – Really, we are discussing a single gospel, not multiple as Mark was the first (written after the fall of the 2nd temple), and all the others are re-tellings of the story. It is like Superman movies – 1978, 2013, and 2025. They all have the same basic story but with their own twists. And, the gospels are similar in that it’s a made for TV story. They are legendary fiction and an amalgam of motifs from the Hebrew Bible and Greco-Roman myths, such as those about "dying and rising gods" – like the popular and well known story of one of Rome’s mythical founders, Romulus.

You left out the "criterion of embarassment" argument too. That one is also absurd as a defense of historicity. What one time/place/culture finds embarrassing is very subjective. It makes more sense that the Christian writers wanted to showcase his death/sacrifice by making it as humbling as they could. It is not a Kosher, humane sacrifice. It adds to their story of suffering for your sins and atonement.

And this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey red letter summary guy, you ignored previous points posted in this thread while making a number of bad arguments.

First, whether current scholars overwhelming support historicity is not evidence that they are correct. This is akin to saying that Galileo was wrong for supporting heliocentricity even though that was the minority (and considered heretical) position at the time.

Second, you seem prone to attacking the scholars trying to engage in an honest debate, but you have done nothing to make counterpoints to their actual arguments.

Third, and this is my attempt to summarize your many posts, so I apologize in advance if I don’t capture everything, but you essentially argue there are 4 main sources backing up your view of Jesus’ historicity. Two non-Christian (Tacitus and Josephus) and two Christian (Paul’s letters and canonical gospels) sources.

Let’s review the arguments.

Tacitus – we can rule this one out completely as evidence for historicity. All this does is confirm what we already know – there was a small sect within the Jewish community in the early part of the millennium that later evolved into what we call Christians. Tacitus in no way confirms a historical Jesus.

Josephus – there are supposedly two mentions historicists cite. The main reference, the Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18), is a complete Christian forgery. The second portion is more debated (Book 20). This is most likely an interpolation or, if authentic, simply indicates the existence of a prominent figure named James. It is NOT evidence for a historical Jesus.

Paul's Letters – These are generally considered the earliest Christian documents. However, the Christianity/Jesus of Paul is very different than the canonical version of today. Paul speaks of Jesus as a divine, celestial being, and his knowledge comes from mystical revelations, not from meeting an earthly person or eyewitnesses. It was very common for people to claim they had religious insights through “revelation”. It is also conspicuous and notable that there are no details of Jesus' earthly life, ministry, miracles, teachings, or specific locations, which a reasonable person would expect to find if he were a contemporary of a well-known figure. It is also notable that we have no record of who or what Paul was responding to in those letters.

Canonical Gospels – Really, we are discussing a single gospel, not multiple as Mark was the first (written after the fall of the 2nd temple), and all the others are re-tellings of the story. It is like Superman movies – 1978, 2013, and 2025. They all have the same basic story but with their own twists. And, the gospels are similar in that it’s a made for TV story. They are legendary fiction and an amalgam of motifs from the Hebrew Bible and Greco-Roman myths, such as those about "dying and rising gods" – like the popular and well known story of one of Rome’s mythical founders, Romulus.

No, the claim as stated is not accurate. It reflects a common mythicists’ (Jesus-never-existed) position, but it is an overstatement that does not withstand critical scholarly scrutiny. Here’s a balanced breakdown of the current consensus among secular, non-confessing historians and classical scholars (i.e., people who are not doing apologetics):

The Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities 18.63–64)
Current scholarly consensus: Partially authentic with Christian interpolation. The passage as it stands in all surviving Greek manuscripts contains obviously Christian-sounding phrases (“He was the Messiah,” “he appeared to them alive again the third day…”) that virtually no secular scholar thinks Josephus (a non-Christian Jew) originally wrote.

However, the majority of specialists in Josephus and Second Temple Judaism (including Louis Feldman, Steve Mason, John P. Meier, Gerd Theissen, James Carleton Paget, Alice Whealey, and most recently Serge Bardet and Ken Olson in different ways) believe there was an original, shorter, neutral core written by Josephus that was later expanded by a Christian scribe, probably in the early 4th century.

Key evidence for a partial-authentic view:
1. A 10th-century Arabic version (Agapius) and a Syriac version (Michael the Syrian) preserve a more restrained text that lacks the most blatant Christian affirmations.
2. The passage’s vocabulary and style are largely Josephan except for the obviously interpolated clauses.
3. Removing the three or four most suspicious phrases leaves a notice that fits perfectly with what a 1st-century Jew might say about a messianic claimant who was executed by Pilate and had followers afterward.
4. A minority (e.g., Richard Carrier, Paul Hopper, Ken Olson in his most recent work) argue it is a wholesale forgery, but this remains a minority position even among non-Christian scholars.

The James Reference (Antiquities 20.200) Greek: “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James.” Current scholarly consensus: Overwhelmingly regarded as authentic (or at worst only very lightly touched by a scribe).
Reasons: The phrasing “who was called Christ” (τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ) is exactly the kind of distancing, non-committal formula Josephus uses elsewhere when mentioning things he doesn’t personally endorse (e.g., “Jesus who was called Messiah” instead of “Jesus the Messiah”). The passage has no obvious Christian theological agenda and is embedded in a context about the illegal execution of James by the high priest Ananus in 62 CE. No manuscript variant omits the phrase, and Origen (3rd century) already quotes this exact passage from Josephus, showing it existed before Eusebius. Virtually every specialist in Josephus (Feldman, Mason, Whealey, Paget, etc.) and almost all New Testament scholars (even skeptical ones like Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) accept its authenticity.

Mythicist attempts to dismiss it usually involve claiming “Christ” is a marginal gloss, but there is zero textual evidence for that, and the grammar works perfectly without it being an addition.

Summary of the scholarly consensus (2020s.) Among secular historians and classicists who publish on this question (not theologians or apologists):
- ~85–95 % accept that Josephus originally mentioned Jesus twice: once briefly in Book 18 (core of the Testimonium) and once unambiguously in Book 20.
- Even most scholars who are agnostic or skeptical about the historical Jesus (e.g., Ehrman, Casey, Crossley) treat both passages (or at least the James passage) as independent corroboration that a historical Jesus existed and was executed under Pilate.
-The “complete forgery” position on the Testimonium and the “probably interpolated / only shows a James existed” position on Book 20 are defended almost exclusively within mythicist circles (Carrier, Doherty, Price, Lataster, etc.) and are rejected by the broad mainstream of ancient history and classics departments.

So the short answer: No, the claim you made is not true according to the current consensus of non-confessing scholars. The James passage in particular is considered solid evidence that a Jesus known as “Christ” existed and had a brother James, and the Testimonium is now widely seen as containing an authentic core.

You’re using a curated list of scholars who fit a specific consensus bubble, while misrepresenting the counter arguments.

The Consensus Problem
First, the "scholarly consensus" argument is often a fallacy of appealing to authority. Consensus changes. The consensus once held that the world was flat, or that the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) was entirely authentic. The majority can be wrong, especially when the field is dominated by those trained in theological departments rather than rigorous, secular, classical history departments.

The Testimonium Flavianum (TF) is a Wholesale Forgery
The idea of a "partial authentic core" is wishful thinking designed to rescue the passage, rather than an evidence-based conclusion.

1. The "Authentic Core" is a Fiction:
The argument for an authentic core relies on removing specific clauses, leaving a bland statement. This "subtraction method" assumes the forger only added specific phrases to an existing text. But, it is far simpler to forge the entire short passage from scratch. A forger needs context, and inserting the whole thing in one go, including the context, is a standard scribal practice in antiquity.

2. Vocabulary and Style (The Stylometry Argument):
The claim that the style is "largely Josephan" ignores key anomalies. The passage uses terms and syntactical structures that are either unique within Josephus's Antiquities or highly unusual for him in that specific context. The style argument cuts both ways, and specialists who actually run quantitative analyses often find the passage anomalous.

3. The Arabic and Syriac Versions are Secondary:
The 10th-century Arabic (Agapius) and Syriac versions cited are not independent witnesses to an "original" Josephus. They are later citations of Eusebius’s highly edited version of Josephus, or other Christian sources. They reflect a later Christian attempt to clean up the TF to make it more palatable and less obviously a forgery, showing Christian manipulation across centuries, not an authentic core.

4. The Contextual Flaw (The Lacuna Argument):
The TF interrupts a continuous narrative flow. Josephus is discussing various calamities and troublemakers in Judea under Pilate. The passage immediately before the TF talks about a Samaritan uprising, and the passage after it talks about a scandal involving Isis worship in Rome. The TF doesn't bridge these ideas; it creates an abrupt, jarring void in the text, typical of an insertion. If Josephus wrote anything about Jesus there, it would have been about a problem or sedition, not a neutral notice, and he would not have interrupted the narrative flow the way the current text does.

The James Reference
The James passage is claim is weak, and your argument relies on special pleading.

1. Brother of Jesus who was called Christ
The phrase in question is “who was called Christ” (τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ). Your claim it's typical Josephan distancing language. It is exactly the kind of "on the side" explanation that a later scribe would add to clarify which James (probably James the Just, a famous figure) the author was referring to for a Christian audience. The fact that the grammar "works perfectly without it" is precisely the point. The sentence works better, flows better, and is more Josephan without that parenthetical identification.

2. Origen's Evidence Contradicts the Consensus:
Origen (3rd century) quotes the passage. Yes, he does. But Origen also explicitly states in Contra Celsum and Commentary on Matthew that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Crucially, Origen mentions that Josephus referred to James as "the brother of Jesus on account of the crime of James," suggesting the name Jesus was only included as a secondary identifier for James.

If the full "who was called Christ" was in Origen's version, he would surely have mentioned it to Celsus to prove Josephus did acknowledge the title. He doesn't. The phrase most likely appeared in the text after Origen's time but before Eusebius (early 4th century), who standardized the Christianized texts we have today.

There is no independent, non-Christian, first-century evidence for a historical Jesus. Josephus is the only potential candidate, and the evidence shows his texts were thoroughly corrupted by later Christian interpolators. The "scholarly consensus" cited here is simply the current iteration of Christian apologetics dressed up in academic language.

More...