Doug Shaver

If there were no canonical writings about Jesus except for that prologue, then his historicity would probably not be so important to anybody. Belief in his historicity might never have arisen. If Christians had never had any writings about Jesus other than John's prologue and Paul's epistles, they likely would never have historicized him to begin with. But the other writings were produced, and some Christians got it into their heads that they were meant to be factual accounts of Jesus' earthly life. The rest is 18 centuries of Western history.

aa5874

But, John's prologue is the actual historicity of Jesus for Christians. Whether Jesus had FLESH was not even agreed by Christians up to the third century based on Tertullian.

On the "Flesh of Christ" The prologue assures the EXISTENCE of the WORD as a God.

And gJohn's prologue, part the LATE gospel, ELEVATED the status of Jesus from the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a virgin to the WORD,Creator of heaven and earth, and equal to God.

Arizonaepu

It hasn't affected my life at all.

Clivedurdle

It might have a profound effect.

This is why I like f and g.

Imagine a world where we had wondrous rituals and cathedrals and temples and Popes in funny pink clothes and millions going to Mecca and the Hindus but it was acknowledged it was all myth and story and theatre.

Hollywood and Bollywood merging with Mecca and the Vatican.

Dream and ritual taken seriously without this nonsense of real gods.

dog-on

I believe that the real question is that, if scholars ever concluded that Jesus, most likely, never existed, what would that mean for their chosen profession?

Would Jesus studies then be thrown in with comparative mythology and religion departments go the way of the dinosaur?

If my livelihood depended on a historical Jesus, you can be sure that a historical Jesus is exactly what you will get.

Clivedurdle

But there is enough to do in the study of the history of xianity to keep them busy for centuries!

Complete rewrite required!

mountainman

I'd like them to address the question about the prologue to the The History of John which discloses that:

What is there about the prologue of the "History of John" that requires a historical Jesus? What was the author thinking of when he brings Eusebius into the first century?

Does he do the fig trees too?

bacht

I agree. Certainly the period from the death of Herod the Great up to Constantine needs more research, or at least fresh perspectives on the surviving evidence. If the gnostics and heretics were in fact the first Christians we need to have this clarified. The question of the Jewish connection still seems fuzzy (other than the obvious appropriation of their scriptures).

Stephan's conjectures about Alexandria and castrati may not be provable, but they show how different questions can be asked about the tradition. We seemed to be moving this way in the 19th C, but retreated to safer ground in the early 20th.

gurugeorge

It wouldn't bother me personally, but I'd feel bad for Christians, so it might bother me a bit by proxy.

It's one of things that actually doesn't bear thinking about too deeply, because if you do think about it deeply, it's rather horrific. Centuries of blood, sweat, tears, toil and martyrdom in the name of Jesus, toasted heretics and assorted nutcases, holy wars, scientific thought muffled, etc., etc., all based on ... nothing?

But that general type of "waste of time" situation is pretty common amongst us human beings, so flip it back again - not really a big deal.

spamandham

To me, it's personally irrelevant whether or not there is some kind of historical core to the mythical Jesus, and since the average Christian would simply deny the facts even if they were rock solid, I don't think it would much impact society in the short term. It would definitely undermine Christian and Muslim fundamentalism long term.