People in bible never existed according to head of Theology at a university in UK!

[CapnAwesome]

To require details to match exactly seems pedantic.  I'm an Atheist, obviously I don't believe in miracles. However Alexander the great, Ghenghis Khan, even modern people like Geranimo have miracles associated with them. I don't not believe they existed because people associated miracles with them.

Not speaking for Boru, but "miracles" are why I don't believe in the christ myth.  I don't believe in the jesus legend because it's no better supported than the christ myth and has problems all it's own.  It;s the same reason I don't believe in the Paul Bunyan legend, regardless of whether or not there was a mythically large blue ox.

Alexander, Ghenghis, Geronimo...these were real people with legends and myths attached.  Each very well established. With "jesus"..the reverse seems to be true.  Myths and legends with a man attached as an afterthought.

As far as what you specified as the core, as it were, of some jesus the man....well, why bethlehem, why nazereth? We were willing to negotiate on so much of the other particulars how about these as well? If not...why not, honestly? Early christians were certainly divided over the details of the "mundane" jesus...and even whether or not there was one. The man we know as the hypothetically historical jesus is just as much of a story as the supernatural stuff. Their are, in fact..entire genres of fiction with no ghosts and ghouls in them (I find it ironic that we're even discussing that in the context of a story that -is- about ghosts and ghouls).


So long as we're willing to race to the bottom in search of even a single similarity I'm sure we could find 100's of jesus' (can we call them je-si, lol?) in the ANE. Just as we'd be able to find a bunch of french lumberjacks applying a pthalo blue pesticide and antifungal to their oxen. Tics, there are metric shotloads of tics in trees. They have a tendency to jump ship when you cut one down. They'd really cake in on to prevent the spread of disease. Will we believe either story is more or less a biography after having done so?

Not for nothing, the human origin of the bunyan myth -and- legend as having a proto-paul who atually lived is on more solid ground than the historical jesus narrative...and neither rise to the level of Alexander, Ghenghis, or Geronimo.

Did you know there are no primary sources on Ghenghis Khan? Lots of established ancient figures have no primary sources and no more documentation then Jesus. The ancient world, everyone was illiterate and the oral tradition was king.

I don't really have a bone in the fight, except as a historian. I think if you looked at the evidence for a lot of ancient people, you'd find it relies on I'm not much and is riddled with supernatural stuff.

I know people like to bring up the dna when I mention this about ghenghis khan, but does that mean it was rational to disbelieve in him before the 1990s? I'd say he's no more well established then Jesus really and he had way way WAY more impact on the world at the time.

Pick some other historical figures from the 1st century A.D. and look into what their documentation is.

Also, by your standard, none of those people existed, you just get the none miracle version of them presented to you by historians who have done a lot of work to try to sort out the truth.

Because Jesus is a religious figure, you get a miracle version presented to you commonly. But since I assume you don't believe in miracles, like me, who care. I automatically filter that part out.

[The Grand Nudger]

Did you know there are no primary sources on Ghenghis Khan? Lots of established ancient figures have no primary sources and no more documentation then Jesus. The ancient world, everyone was illiterate and the oral tradition was king.

If only "jesus" left a trail of broken potentates and empires behind him bemoaning his victories, eh?  

I don't really have a bone in the fight, except as a historian. I think if you looked at the evidence for a lot of ancient people, you'd find it relies on I'm not much and is riddled with supernatural stuff.

Much of history is riddled with the supernatural stuff, sure, but so what?  That's the mythical shit, and we're discussing whatever historical nugget can be derived from a hypothetically legendary account from some given story.  So, about that..do I believe that alexander-the-man actually cut some gordian knot?  Nope.  No more than I believe a child was born on a particularly starry night in bethlehem then raised in nazereth.  

I know people like to bring up the dna when I mention this about ghenghis khan, but does that mean it was rational to disbelieve in him before the 1990s? I'd say he's no more well established then Jesus really and he had way way WAY more impact on the world at the time.

Pick some other historical figures from the 1st century A.D. and look into what their documentation is.

Also, by your standard,  none of those people existed, you just get the none miracle version of them presented to you by historians who have done a lot of work to try to sort out the truth.

What is my standard supposed to be, for clarity?  By what standard do -you- believe that jesus is better or as well established as any of the three personages you mentioned?  This is a common claim from apologists, but not from historians..who demolish these with regularity.  You can find the first two examples directly addressed at length by a mound of reputable sources with a simple google search.  The third..I think, of Geronimo..is beyond the pale even for apologist asshats. The apache wars aren't exactly an issue of contention regarding historicity.....even in the slightest. I don't think it's ever occurred to them to challenge geronimo specifically, but who knows..maybe some day that'll be the new it thing.

Because Jesus is a religious figure, you get a miracle version presented to you commonly. But since I assume you don't believe in miracles, like me, who care. I automatically filter that part out.

Christ is a religious figure.  Jesus is just a hypothetical historical man.  The religious have no actual use for any jesus(and never did). OFC we get the no miracles version... were' comparing jesus the man with alexander/ghenghis/geronimo-the-men here.  We're not done whittling just because we've filtered out the miracles.  The legend then needs to be addressed.  Things taken to be or considered to be historical by some people at some time (even now) - but often exaggerated or fabricated for effect.  You can remove not just the miracles..but the legends of each of those men and still be left with an identiafiable man.  Not so in the case of jesus...as we can't assume a single portion of the now legendary redaction (whatever you have in mind) of the gospels any more than we could assume the particulars of the potentially legendary accounts of the exploits of any of those three men. None of them did everything attributed to them..but did -anyone- do the things you would attribute to jesus, and how do you know this to be the case?

As you breifly mentioned above...the impact of some of these men explain legendary stories about them. You would not need to have heard the stories to know who you were looking for. Conquerors, even ancient ones...leave physical evidence. There are pictures of Geronimo, and and entire campaign against him. It's an unfair comparison for jesus, I think, but it's impossible not to make it when the scorched earth assertion of history gets brought up.

[Amarok]

Did you know there are no primary sources on Ghenghis Khan? Lots of established ancient figures have no primary sources and no more documentation then Jesus. The ancient world, everyone was illiterate and the oral tradition was king.

Yeah he only had about a million kids and a genetic legacy that spans most of Eurasia .And direct documented descendants long after his death.

---

And no Jesus does not even come close to historical figures like Alexander or the Khan . He's firmly in realm of mythical figures by category . And any attempt by apologists to compare jesus to actual historical persons is doomed to fail .

[The Grand Nudger]

The christ myth predates any jesus legend, this much we know for certain regardless of whether or not the legend was based on any person or collections of people.

[CapnAwesome]

Did you know there are no primary sources on Ghenghis Khan? Lots of established ancient figures have no primary sources and no more documentation then Jesus. The ancient world, everyone was illiterate and the oral tradition was king.

If only "jesus" left a trail of broken potentates and empires behind him bemoaning his victories, eh?  

I don't really have a bone in the fight, except as a historian. I think if you looked at the evidence for a lot of ancient people, you'd find it relies on I'm not much and is riddled with supernatural stuff.

Much of history is riddled with the supernatural stuff, sure, but so what?  That's the mythical shit, and we're discussing whatever historical nugget can be derived from a hypothetically legendary account from some given story.  So, about that..do I believe that alexander-the-man actually cut some gordian knot?  Nope.  No more than I believe a child was born on a particularly starry night in bethlehem then raised in nazereth.  

I know people like to bring up the dna when I mention this about ghenghis khan, but does that mean it was rational to disbelieve in him before the 1990s? I'd say he's no more well established then Jesus really and he had way way WAY more impact on the world at the time.

Pick some other historical figures from the 1st century A.D. and look into what their documentation is.

Also, by your standard,  none of those people existed, you just get the none miracle version of them presented to you by historians who have done a lot of work to try to sort out the truth.

What is my standard supposed to be, for clarity?  By what standard do -you- believe that jesus is better or as well established as any of the three personages you mentioned?  This is a common claim from apologists, but not from historians..who demolish these with regularity.  You can find the first two examples directly addressed at length by a mound of reputable sources with a simple google search.  The third..I think, of Geronimo..is beyond the pale even for apologist asshats. The apache wars aren't exactly an issue of contention regarding historicity.....even in the slightest. I don't think it's ever occurred to them to challenge geronimo specifically, but who knows..maybe some day that'll be the new it thing.

Because Jesus is a religious figure, you get a miracle version presented to you commonly. But since I assume you don't believe in miracles, like me, who care. I automatically filter that part out.

Christ is a religious figure.  Jesus is just a hypothetical historical man.  The religious have no actual use for any jesus(and never did). OFC we get the no miracles version... were' comparing jesus the man with alexander/ghenghis/geronimo-the-men here.  We're not done whittling just because we've filtered out the miracles.  The legend then needs to be addressed.  Things taken to be or considered to be historical by some people at some time (even now) - but often exaggerated or fabricated for effect.  You can remove not just the miracles..but the legends of each of those men and still be left with an identiafiable man.  Not so in the case of jesus...as we can't assume a single portion of the now legendary redaction (whatever you have in mind) of the gospels any more than we could assume the particulars of the potentially legendary accounts of the exploits of any of those three men. None of them did everything attributed to them..but did -anyone- do the things you would attribute to jesus, and how do you know this to be the case?

As you breifly mentioned above...the impact of some of these men explain legendary stories about them. You would not need to have heard the stories to know who you were looking for. Conquerors, even ancient ones...leave physical evidence. There are pictures of Geronimo, and and entire campaign against him. It's an unfair comparison for jesus, I think, but it's impossible not to make it when the scorched earth assertion of history gets brought up.

I'm not contesting the existence Geranimo for fish sakes!! I mean, duh. I'm pointing out that disbelieving miracles associated with someone is not the same as disbelieving they existed. Also trying to get clarity as to what qualifies Jesus to have existed.

YOU said " "miracles" are why I don't believe in the christ myth. "

So I pointed out that lots of historical people have miracles associated with them, and it was a poor reason to disbelieve in an ancient person.

Then you turned around and started defending the existence of all these other people which is ironic and pretending like I'm somehow attacking their existence.

Do you know HOW we got to the conclusion that it was 'Ghenghis Khan' who left behind left behind. " a trail of broken potentates and empires behind him" ? That's a serious question by the way.

Actually you are now arguing for my original point. So I think my case is pretty well made.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Did you know there are no primary sources on Ghenghis Khan?

 
Well, there's 'The Secret History Of The Mongols', for a start. 

Lots of established ancient figures have no primary sources and no more documentation then Jesus.

 
And lots of them are MUCH better documented than Jesus.

The ancient world, everyone was illiterate and the oral tradition was king.

This is patently absurd on the fact of it.  The Greeks were illiterate?  The Romans, Hittites, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese, Sumerians - they were all illiterate?  I'll grant you that oral tradition was vital to a lot of ancient people, but in 1st century Palestine, it was hardly 'king'.

Pick some other historical figures from the 1st century A.D. and look into what their documentation is.

Ok.  Augustus.  We have letters written by, to and about him during his lifetime.  We have his will (he wrote it).  We have coins and statues bearing his likeness - and with his name on them - that were created while he was alive.

Also, by your standard, none of those people existed, you just get the none miracle version of them presented to you by historians who have done a lot of work to try to sort out the truth.

Because Jesus is a religious figure, you get a miracle version presented to you commonly. But since I assume you don't believe in miracles, like me, who care. I automatically filter that part out.

Fair enough.  Leaving out the miracle bits, the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is MUCH less compelling than that for Temujin or Augustus.
Boru

[CapnAwesome]

Did you know there are no primary sources on Ghenghis Khan?

 
Well, there's 'The Secret History Of The Mongols', for a start. 

Lots of established ancient figures have no primary sources and no more documentation then Jesus.

 
And lots of them are MUCH better documented than Jesus.

The ancient world, everyone was illiterate and the oral tradition was king.

This is patently absurd on the fact of it.  The Greeks were illiterate?  The Romans, Hittites, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese, Sumerians - they were all illiterate?  I'll grant you that oral tradition was vital to a lot of ancient people, but in 1st century Palestine, it was hardly 'king'.

Pick some other historical figures from the 1st century A.D. and look into what their documentation is.

Ok.  Augustus.  We have letters written by, to and about him during his lifetime.  We have his will (he wrote it).  We have coins and statues bearing his likeness - and with his name on them - that were created while he was alive.

Also, by your standard, none of those people existed, you just get the none miracle version of them presented to you by historians who have done a lot of work to try to sort out the truth.

Because Jesus is a religious figure, you get a miracle version presented to you commonly. But since I assume you don't believe in miracles, like me, who care. I automatically filter that part out.

Fair enough.  Leaving out the miracle bits, the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is MUCH less compelling than that for Temujin or Augustus.
Boru

The secret history of the Mongols is NOT a primary source. It was written 200 years after Ghenghis Khan in a language he didn't even speak or understand. Far later then the gospels were written after Jesus. It's also full of supernatural claims about him.

I agree that the case for Jesus is far less compelling, minus the miracles and stuff. But of course it would be. While he actually lived (or didn't live) he had very very minor impact on a minor part of the world. Compared to the Roman Emperor or a man who conquered most of Asia, it seems crazy to expect the same level of evidence as you would have for those two.

I don't really think it's even an important debate really. Whether Jesus is based on someone or not. I've never been sure why some atheists get so stuck on it. But the misconceptions that some mythicists have about how ancient history works and what documentation to expect or commonly exists is sort of irritating to me as a historian.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The secret history of the Mongols is NOT a primary source. It was written 200 years after Ghenghis Khan in a language he didn't even speak or understand. Far later then the gospels were written after Jesus. It's also full of supernatural claims about him.

Partially true.  The 'History' was written in Mongolian, likely very shortly after Genghis' death.  What you're thinking of is the Chinese version, that appears in the late 14th century.  But even that was written in Mongolian, it was just transcribed with Chinese characters.

I agree that the case for Jesus is far less compelling, minus the miracles and stuff. But of course it would be. While he actually lived (or didn't live) he had very very minor impact on a minor part of the world. Compared to the Roman Emperor or a man who conquered most of Asia, it seems crazy to expect the same level of evidence as you would have for those two.

Naturally, I wouldn't be foolish enough to expect the same level of documentation for Jesus as for Augustus.  But consider what the Romans would have thought about a historical Jesus figure - he was assaulting moneychangers (who were licensed by the Romans and causing so much associated hullabaloo that the Romans were compelled to execute him.  I don't think it unreasonable to expect the case to have been mentioned in some Roman record somewhere.  Remember - the case was serious enough to involve a Roman prefect.  This wasn't a slave being executed for stealing a goat.

I don't really think it's even an important debate really. Whether Jesus is based on someone or not. I've never been sure why some atheists get so stuck it. But the misconceptions that some mythicists have about how ancient history works and what documentation to expect or commonly exists is sort of irritating to me as a historian.

I agree that in the grand scheme of things, an actual, historical Jesus is largely beside the point - a very good case can be made that Christianity would have evolved the same whether Jesus was a myth or not.

But I'm also an historian, by education if not by profession, and I understand how historical methodology works.  There simply isn't enough evidence or compelling argument to point to any historic figure as even the genesis for Jesus (no pun intended).  If I had to sum up my position on this in a few words, it would probably be, 'There is simply no good reason to believe in an historic figure that more or less corresponds to the Jesus of the synoptic Gospels.  But I could be wrong.'

Boru

[Amarok]

As i said you can't compare jesus to any historical figure .

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not contesting the existence Geranimo for fish sakes!! I mean, duh. I'm pointing out that disbelieving miracles associated with someone is not the same as disbelieving they existed. Also trying to get clarity as to what qualifies Jesus to have existed.

We've agreed between us that miracle stories can be discarded without necessarily discarding the figure around which they center, I thought?  

YOU said " "miracles" are why I don't believe in the christ myth. "

Because they are, it's the same reason that anyone who doesn't believe in the supernatural doesn't believe in myths.  However, if we're discussing a hypothetical historical jesus, we're not discussing the mythical version, christ.  We're discussing the legendary jesus of the new testament and trying to determine what among that might be historical.  The guy who flipped tables, not the guy who cast demons into pigs. Thing is... the guy who flipped tables was fiction too. Thats no more historic than the demon bit.

So I pointed out that lots of historical people have miracles associated with them, and it was a poor reason to disbelieve in an ancient person.

I specifically responded to that assertion with a correction.  The supernatural is why I don't believe the christ myth.  I mentioned that I don't believe the christ legends either, for reasons all their own.  I don't think there was a jesus due to what I know about the christ myth and the christ legend and how the latter formed as a derivative of the former..not any singular person or even a conglomerate of people.  

Then you turned around and started defending the existence of all these other people which is ironic and pretending like I'm somehow attacking their existence.

Do you know HOW we got to the conclusion that it was 'Ghenghis Khan' who left behind left behind. " a trail of broken potentates and empires behind him" ? That's a serious question by the way.

Actually you are now arguing for my original point. So I think my case is pretty well made.

There are myths about all four examples.  There are legends about all four examples.  There is demonstrable historicity for three.  You decided to make the comparison. It;s a poor comparison, and..as I said, probably unfair to any hypothetical historical jesus, but them's the breaks. "By my standard" historical persons are comfortably safe even though jesus isn't, and it isn't on account of miracles in any case. It's the baffling lack of credible information about a historical person and there being absolutely no need or reason to assume there ever was one, in addition to being able to identify the fact that the notion of the person was retconned onto and out of a myth in the first place. Christ I discard out of hand. The legendary jesus is explicable by the myth and the political and social reality of the second century. The man, himself, as it were...is nowhere to be found or seen in any of that, or anywhere else - because there is nowhere else for him to be.

The jesus of the new testament is a character in a story.