Malachi151

Here's my "on-line book" on the topic:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

And, BTW all books by Acharya S are total crap. Basically you should believe nothing that you read in them.

andrewcriddle

The overwhelming majority of scholars in relevant fields accept that there was a historical Jesus.

The only recent work by a prominent academic that appears agnostic or skeptical about the existence of a historical Jesus is The Messiah Myth by Thompson.

Andrew Criddle

Flaming Moe

As Toto wrote earlier, I think its apparent that that a lot more citation work has gone into later books. I understand that your position is based on Judaic myth, which is just as thought provoking and seems very credible to me, but I think its bad form to just dismiss books as total crap when clearly she still has very respected supporters like Robert Price, who actually wrote the introduction to 'Who Was Jesus'.

Lógos Sokratikós

The loyal opposition says "http://www.bede.org.uk/seekers4.html" (by James Hannam, erstwhile IIDB participant).

I understand jesusmythers are a minority in the historical scene. I really don't think it's a big deal if there was a Jesus who people thought was a cool rabbi. It's sad I'm the first to mention it. We used to have really hefty christian debaters here. No more fun, no more popcorn.

aa5874

But, if it is found that the majority of Biblical scholars are also Christians, then it is no wonder that they claim Jesus is a figure of history.

And the phrase, "the overwhelming majority of scholars accept there was an historical Jesus", has NO value as evidence.

It can also be claimed that the overwhelming majority of scholars REJECT the Jesus of the NT, that is, they reject his conception, his baptism by the Holy Ghost, his temptation by the Devil, his miracles and raising the dead, his transfiguration and bringing Moses and Elijah back to life, his resurrection and ascension through the clouds.

The Jesus of the NT did not or was unlikely to exist, since many scholars REJECT his biography and some even REJECT his words.

neilgodfrey

"Accept that there was a historical Jesus" is indeed the best way to express it. I don't know that historians even ask the question "Did Jesus exist?" any more than they ask if Alexander the Great or Socrates existed. They have primary evidence for the existence of Alexander, so it is virtually impossible for the question to surface.

In the case of Socrates we have no primary evidence, and I have heard some academics raise the question of his existence in passing, but only to dismiss the question as irrelevant. What they are studying are the ideas and the intellectual and cultural movements associated with his name.

When I read nonbiblical historians refer to Jesus they are deferring to their peers in biblical studies and to the assumptions of our cultural heritage by "accepting" his existence. They are not asking or testing whether he existed, but usually throwing in his name as a reference point when they are outlining what appears to be the reason for the rise of Christianity. Like Socrates, he is a convenient reference or starting point in a discussion that is really about something much bigger than the existence of a single person. And most times such (nonbiblical) historians will proceed to describe the rise of Christianity in broader cultural and social terms that make the historical existence of Jesus irrelevant anyway.

I suspect that the reason those the question of Jesus' historical existence is dismissed to the fringes is really because it

1. either undermines those whose faith depends on Christianity originating in the miraculous
   
2. or undermines the place of the heroic and great man as the shaper of (romantic/ideological) history (along with certain current philosophical and value positions that must fall with this)
   
3. or it undermines a foundational lynchpin of western culture and major institutions.

As with Socrates, the really interesting question for most nonbiblical and some biblical historians is the question of the origin and emergence of a cultural/social/intellectual innovation. Those who have since the nineteenth century questioned the existence of Jesus have opened up this question to more extensive historical enquiries.

Earl Doherty has advanced this historical enquiry, I think, by his case for specific alternative origins that go beyond the question of did he or didn't he exist, and that are rooted in the cultural and religious ethos of the times. (Ditto Thompson with The Messiah Myth.)

Neil

AnarchyMom

I always thought that there were only a few historical entries about the "Christos" but none that actually mention a man named Jesus with the exception of Josephus. His was proven to be a forgery, right?

There wasn't any entries about the earthquakes that happened at his death or about how the dead walked the earth after his death....There is no historical evidence of that.

I'm sure there was a guy named Jesus who lived at that time, but the bible jesus didn't.

I just wanted books to read that would give me more info.

Malachi151

Again, this should address any questions you could possibly have:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

I also recommend following up with this:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

aa5874

The name Jesus, based on Josephus, was a popular name in the 1st century.

andrewcriddle

proved to be a forgery is an oversimplification
there is a long discussion of the references to Jesus in Josephus here http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

Andrew Criddle