DNAReplicator

I have very much enjoyed reading the debates on this part of the forum – and I think that the HJ/MJ debates are often the most entertaining. The reason for this is that participants tend to advocate very strongly for one or other position, leading to the sort of 'robust' exchanges that make for good entertainment.

But to me, the evidence does not seem strong enough to persuade me that either position is self-evidently correct. I wondered if my uncertainty on the issue is shared by others viewing this forum, or weather my ambiguity is unusual – hence a poll to measure the degree polarisation on the issue.

The question I would like a response to is this

“What do you estimate the probability as that there was a real individual who served as the basis for the stories in the NT of Jesus of Nazareth? “

In an attempt to circumvent some of the probable responses to the above question, I will (for the sake of argument) define the minimum requirements for an extant individual as;

1. An individual named or known as Jesus (Yeshua).
2. From, or associated with Nazareth
3. Politically and/or religiously active Jew.
4. With disciples/followers in his lifetime
5. Crucified by the Roman authorities between about 20-40AD.

Please note, I am not asking about the probability of there ever being an individual with supernatural powers. I am not even stating that he should have been claimed as a messiah during his lifetime – only that he provided some historical basis for the mythological figure we know today.

Personally, I rate the probability in the 60-80% range. My reasoning is based on an assessment of various arguments made on either side.

On the MJ side of the argument, I think the strongest debating point is that there is a deafening silence from history where there should be none. Claiming that it is unsurprising that the execution of a Jewish rabble raiser from this era has gone unrecorded seems a little disingenuous. Philo in particular seems to have documented the execution of such individuals by the Roman authorities during this period. This absence from any historical record from the ‘ministry’ era, together with an absence of any hard archaeological evidence for Christianity for several hundred more years seems suspicious. The counter argument against this does however seem reasonable – specifically that the etymology of the gospels and the Pauline letters indicates first centaury authorship. In my view this makes any later forgery improbably complex and difficult.

In my view the most persuasive of the arguments for a HJ is based on the contents of the Pauline letters. Paul was in the business of marketing the Jewish religion to Gentiles, with Jesus playing the part of a messiah that revised Jewish law to permit easy entry into the faith community for those gentiles. The key point for me is that the contents of the letters indicate that Paul was not close to, or in agreement with the Jewish disciples/followers of Jesus in Jerusalem on this issue. It seems difficult to understand why such information would be contained in the letters unless such individuals really existed. Their ‘estrangement’ from Paul’s mission actually detracts from the veracity of Pauls claims to theological authority.

Obviously, these are only two of a large number of points on either side of the debate – and no doubt both of these arguments are subject to challenge….Anyway – enough about my thinking….lets see how polarised opinion here really is….

Splarnst

Someone who believes that Jesus doesn't exists doesn't have faith. I won't vote unless it talks about confidence or something like that.

thedistillers

Faith is synonymous of confidence in that context.

faith (fāth) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

show_no_mercy

Joshua is a pretty common name, so that brings the percentage up.

There were possibly a lot of Joshuas from the area formerly known as Nazareth

First century Palestine was a pretty tumultuous time for Jews, so there were probably a lot of politically active Jews at this time

Also might have been pretty commonplace


Crucifixion in Rome in the 1st century CE was like saying "Hello!" With all that taken into account, someone would have to have a very good reason for NOT believing that there was some 1st century Jewish rabble rouser names Josh with some disciples who got crucified. There were probably multiple Josh's who fit this description...

exbeliever

I believe that a Jesus existed in fact there were probably many of them. It was a common name.

As for the one the bible calls Jesus Christ, he's no more than a mythological figure, a composite figure made up from the characteristics of the many pagan gods before him.

nickpecoraro

I saw Jesus.
Many years ago, I was in the unemployment office waiting for my interview.
The examiner called out """Jesus Christ""
A Hispanic looking guy said ""Here"'.....and walked across the room and went into the office.

Nick Pecoraro

JoeWallack

JW:
What brings down the % for me is:

JW:
It seems unlikely that Nazareth was much more than a cemetery in Jesus' supposed time and there is no quality evidence connecting Jesus to a historical Nazareth. On the other side, Literary style (Fiction), there is a good reason to connect Jesus with Nazareth. In a story, which as a whole, can repeatedly be demonstrated to have an Ironic Balancing style, Jesus comes from the Dead (cemetery) in the Beginning, and comes from the Dead at the End.



Joseph

Splarnst

But it's also very misleading in a religious context.

I'm curious about the source of this definition. Faith would be defined as confidence, not confident.

aa5874

Once the Jesus of the NT is rejected, the god/man Jesus is discarded, then it is virtually imposible to know if Jesus is based on a composite of multiple real characters or just a single character.

The probability of an historical Jesus is just unknown. No information is available anywhere about an human only Jesus who was crucified during the days of Tiberius and worshipped as the son of the God of the Jews.

The character Tom Sawyer was based on multiple real characters, Tom Sawyer can never be historical.

And further the character called Jesus may also have been based on supernatural entities in combination with real or imagined human characters.

But, there is just no written statements of antiquity that explain how the character called Jesus of the NT was derived.

Sheshbazzar

zip.