Did Jesus exist at all?

[Anomalocaris]

If he did exist, then obviously he was so minor that either 1. Nothing was written about him when he was alive or 2. Very  little was written about him when he was alive but all those writings are  lost. 

Define "he", some individual of no exceptional quality whose name, through a long series of contingent events few if any of which resulted from any out of ordinary attribute of his circumstance or character, became associated with a figurehead for some of the largest and most lemantable mass hysteria inducing cult yet to afflict mankind?  Such an individual quite possibly existed.   In fact, many such figureheads at the origin of many cults derived the name they became known by from some historically existent individual.   SO it is quite possible one specific Jesus existed at the origin of Christianity whose name become the figurehead for the cult of Christianity.  Such a Jesus, if he existed, would seem much less impressive than even the completely contemptible Muhammad at the origin of Islam, and much less respectable than the thoroughly worthless Buddha at the origin of Buddhism. Both Buddha and Muhammad, btw, seems somewhat more likely to have stemmed of a single actual existent human being than Jesus.

[Regina]

I think not

The Romans were highly literate and recorded down even trivial things. Where are their records? There's nothing from them to even suggest it being true. There don't seem to be many writings from other Middle Eastern cultures of the time either.

[Gawdzilla]

If he did exist, then obviously he was so minor that either 1. Nothing was written about him when he was alive or 2. Very  little was written about him when he was alive but all those writings are  lost. 

He didn't convert or the draw the interest of one single person who could read and write insofar as we can tell. Not very impressively planned out, JC. Your Message had to be transmitted by word of mouth and the "Chinese telegraph" is notoriously quirky. 

But then, nobody cares what you said back then these days.

[Aractus]

Put it this way, most historians think that he probably only went around preaching for a year at most.

"Historians?"  Or theologians?  Please don't pretend there isn't a difference.

Theologians think he preached for three years.

[Mudhammam]

True, and trivial. Glad you're catching on that everybody in history is written into books from the standpoint of their authors.

What's trivial is squabbling over whether Earth's most popular imaginary friend is based on a singular, historical figure.


That said, even a mundane Jesus has less demonstrable historicity than, say, Socrates, so I still don't really see any evidence that justifies the certainty of the pro-historicity crowd in that case (not that it matters a jot).

It seems you may need to lower your notion of "certainty" when examining questions of which our data is chiefly, even exclusively, derived from the written record.

[Mudhammam]

Again?
Yes. Of course. No serious historian has provided evidence that Jesus existed.
Next question.

Fixed your post for accuracy. Biblical "history is essentially theologians playing at history, very badly. Good historians tend to steer away from the jesus stories because there is little to no history in them.

I see. In other words, to engage you on a topic of which you obviously don't know--nor care to know--anything about, would be akin to squandering my time educating creationists on how the "scientific method" works. As you probably don't know (but should), historians also have methods, and among secular historians basically none of them doubt that Christianity began when the man of whom the early Church proclaimed to be the Son of God was crucified by the Romans. 
Enough said.

[Minimalist]

Historians have methods.  And when Richard Carrier applied them to your godboy poor little jesus didn't come off so well.

[Redbeard The Pink]

What's trivial is squabbling over whether Earth's most popular imaginary friend is based on a singular, historical figure.


That said, even a mundane Jesus has less demonstrable historicity than, say, Socrates, so I still don't really see any evidence that justifies the certainty of the pro-historicity crowd in that case (not that it matters a jot).

It seems you may need to lower your notion of "certainty" when examining questions of which our data is chiefly, even exclusively, derived from the written record.

Except that virtually all "written record" of Jesus is Biblical/religious, and practically every secular source is highly suspect for one reason or another.


I have heard various mainstream historians attempt to defend the historicity of Jesus. Their arguments generally amount to appeals to popularity, appeals to early Christian writings, and appeals to Tacitus and/or Josephus, both of which are highly suspect texts.


I'm aware that history generally has a lower standard of certainty than other forms of science, which is exactly the problem. There seem to be three most-likely scenarios for the Jesus Myth: he was based on one real person, he was based on several real people, or he was based on a pre-existing character with no human story.


In my review, there's not enough evidence to be particularly certain which answer is most likely; in terms of supporting evidence, they all have roughly the same amount/kind of evidence, and the only real difference between them is that the first one is wildly more popular than the other two. That's not a good enough reason, however, to be more certain of that one, even if the popularity is among mainstream historians. They would still have to have good reasons for their certainty, and I have yet to hear one.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If Jesus existed so did the talking donkey.

[Minimalist]

In my review, there's not enough evidence to be particularly certain which answer is most likely

Then it is time to undertake the What Is More Likely test.

Ask yourself, is it more likely that: 

A-

 

or

B-