aa5874

Could that something else be the Septuagint?

Toto

I meant Jesus or some other name for the guy.

The idea that Jesus was a construct from the Septuagint is not part of the consensus, although it has a certain appeal.

aa5874

There is almost nothing from contemporary historians about any guy who lived in the 1st century that started Christianity. I haven't found any material, outside the Bible, to construct anyone.

Peter Kirby

With respect of the O.P.: The uninformed layman could reasonably hold the opinion that there was some man named Jesus ultimately behind the Gospels.

This situation will continue until the evaluation of the evidence which would overturn this opinion is brought to the attention of the academic community, including but not limited to the publication of relevant articles on particular items of study to the academic journals, the pursuit of doctoral research evaluating the relevant evidence by Ph.D. candidates, and the publication through academic presses the results of investigation by persons with doctorates relevant to the field, such as doctor of History. This is only the first and proper step, and may possibly be met through the publications of persons such as Richard Carrier. Then the debate can be pursued at the academic level.

The fact that the hypothesis is pursued almost exclusively through popular appeal and/or by uncredentialed persons does not bode well for its establishment as an academically respectable position. Like it or not, there is some matter of form and procedure for getting an idea to be taken seriously by the academies of science and the humanities. It is not being respected.

lpetrich

I agree with Toto here -- the important question is what these scholars believe to be historical. If there is any consensus, it might be that Jesus Christ had been some self-styled prophet like John the Baptist or those that Josephus had discussed, but that his biography has become loaded down with lots of clearly mythical elements.
How so?

Hex

Actually, what you seem to be talking about here is the impact of Pauline Christianity, not Jesus as a real or mythical figure. After the 2nd Century, the actual reality of Jesus really has no impact on what happens within the 'body' of adherants.

It seems to me that if you're looking at the impact on Western Civilization, you're looking at Christians, not Christ. :huh:


As to your OP question, I'd go with scholars who can make it by the peer-review process. In these cases, they have to present valid data sources, using logic and arguement reviewed by others who can understand the level of minutia needed for some of the crucial points.

~M~

I disagree. The figure whether mythical or not is the keystone to Pauline Christianity or otherwise.

Chris Weimer

Without "Christ" there would be no Christians.

~M~

*high five*

Toto

This is an unproven assumption. It might be a reasonable inference, but it doesn't rise to the level of proof.

I am pretty sure that there are Confucians, but there was no Confucius. There were Mithraists, but no historical Mithras. I don't know that the Buddha existed, and I doubt that most Buddhists care.