Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[Brainache]

I don't rule out much as far as the possible nature of the HJ goes. Are you specifically referring to the Jesus was the teacher of righteous theory or something else?

Besides the DSS there is also the stuff in the Talmud which is put forth as possible origins of the Jesus mythology. Do you have a view on that stuff?

The DSS connection that I am alluding to is slightly more subtle than that. There appears to be more than one "TOR", but I think it's possible that Jesus was based on at least one of them (possibly two or three of them).


I think the Talmud reflects the state of Second temple Judaism as recorded several centuries later, after oral tradition started to look in danger of dying out.

As I expect Jesus to be a Second Temple Jewish Preacher, I expect that much of what he said would have been the same as what is in the Talmud. It is the differences which cause all of the controversy.


Some of those differences appear to be later Roman additions, but some of them could reflect the sectarianism of 1st century Palestine. People spend their entire careers on these things. I'm just a hobbyist.

 

[maximara]

Just curious, but why do you rule out the DSS here?

It should be noted the DSS have a range of dates from 408 BCE to 318 CE based on a mixture of C14 dating of linen found with them and palaeography.

The majority of the DSS are OT but there are some NT works in them:

7Q4 = 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1, 3 c100 CE
7Q6, 1 = Mark 4:28 c50 CE
7Q6, 2 = Acts 27:38 c60 CE
7Q7 = Mark 12:17 c50 CE
7Q8 = James 1:23, 24 50-70 CE
7Q9 = Romans 5:11, 12 50-60 CE
7Q10 = 2 Peter 1:15 60 CE
7Q15 = Mark 6:48 50 CE

(The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls pg 316)

The problem is with palaeography at best you get a 50 year date range. (Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24-52.) Normally a circa date is in the middle of a range but as Rylands Library Papyrus P52 shows us the earliest date tends to get thrown out instead.

Of course if these are midpoint dates it creates the interesting situation of them being wirtten before Jesus was crucified. For example 7Q6 would have a 25-75 CE date range if 50 CE is the actual midpoint meaning there is the possibility that 7Q6 was written before Jesus even started his ministry!

 

[Brainache]

It should be noted the DSS have a range of dates from 408 BCE to 318 CE based on a mixture of C14 dating of linen found with them and palaeography.

The majority of the DSS are OT but there are some NT works in them:

7Q4 = 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1, 3 c100 CE
7Q6, 1 = Mark 4:28 c50 CE
7Q6, 2 = Acts 27:38 c60 CE
7Q7 = Mark 12:17 c50 CE
7Q8 = James 1:23, 24 50-70 CE
7Q9 = Romans 5:11, 12 50-60 CE
7Q10 = 2 Peter 1:15 60 CE
7Q15 = Mark 6:48 50 CE

(The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls pg 316)

The problem is with palaeography at best you get a 50 year date range. (Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24-52.) Normally a circa date is in the middle of a range but as Rylands Library Papyrus P52 shows us the earliest date tends to get thrown out instead.

Of course if these are midpoint dates it creates the interesting situation of them being wirtten before Jesus was crucified. For example 7Q6 would have a 25-75 CE date range if 50 CE is the actual midpoint meaning there is the possibility that 7Q6 was written before Jesus even started his ministry!

I don't have very much confidence in the DSS dating, but I haven't seen any reputable Scholar say that Mark was found there.

 

[dejudge]

It should be noted the DSS have a range of dates from 408 BCE to 318 CE based on a mixture of C14 dating of linen found with them and palaeography.

The majority of the DSS are OT but there are some NT works in them:

7Q4 = 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1, 3 c100 CE
7Q6, 1 = Mark 4:28 c50 CE
7Q6, 2 = Acts 27:38 c60 CE
7Q7 = Mark 12:17 c50 CE
7Q8 = James 1:23, 24 50-70 CE
7Q9 = Romans 5:11, 12 50-60 CE
7Q10 = 2 Peter 1:15 60 CE
7Q15 = Mark 6:48 50 CE

(The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls pg 316)

The problem is with palaeography at best you get a 50 year date range. (Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24-52.) Normally a circa date is in the middle of a range but as Rylands Library Papyrus P52 shows us the earliest date tends to get thrown out instead.

Of course if these are midpoint dates it creates the interesting situation of them being wirtten before Jesus was crucified. For example 7Q6 would have a 25-75 CE date range if 50 CE is the actual midpoint meaning there is the possibility that 7Q6 was written before Jesus even started his ministry!

Those Fragments you listed as New Testament works from the DSS appear to be bogus.

They are listed as UNKNOWN biblical texts or very tiny UNIDENTIFIED fragments. There are even pictures of some of the TINY fragments like 7Q5 and 7Q8 from cave 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

 

[Brainache]

Those Fragments you listed as New Testament works from the DSS appear to be bogus.

They are listed as UNKNOWN biblical texts or very tiny UNIDENTIFIED fragments. There are even pictures of some of the TINY fragments like 7Q5 and 7Q8 from cave 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

I agree with dejudge.



Crikey!

 

[maximara]

I don't have very much confidence in the DSS dating, but I haven't seen any reputable Scholar say that Mark was found there.

The claim shows up in the apologist literature (The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls is where both the dates and identification came from) so I thought I would mention it...along with what the limits on palaeographic dating (no less then a 50 year range) results in if you assume the circa dates given are midpoints (which circa dates should be)

Even if you throw out the Mark claim you still have what, if the apologists can be believed (), are some of the oldest copies of books in the New Testament:

7Q4 = 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1, 3 c100 CE
7Q6, 2 = Acts 27:38 c60 CE
7Q8 = James 1:23, 24 50-70 CE
7Q9 = Romans 5:11, 12 50-60 CE
7Q10 = 2 Peter 1:15 60 CE

As with Mark the limits on palaeographic dating results in some wonky ranges with the possibility of Paul writing Romans as early as 25 CE...some three years before Jesus was even baptized!

However to my mind these early dates as with the one often presented for Rylands Library Papyrus P52 show a deep issue with New Testament research--the almost pathological desire to push out the earliest possible date for any (possible) manuscript of the New Testament. Such cavalier misuse of circa dates show that at some level the apologists know their position is shaky...otherwise why do it?

 

[Brainache]

The claim shows up in the apologist literature (The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls is where both the dates and identification came from) so I thought I would mention it...along with what the limits on palaeographic dating (no less then a 50 year range) results in if you assume the circa dates given are midpoints (which circa dates should be)

Even if you throw out the Mark claim you still have what, if the apologists can be believed (), are some of the oldest copies of books in the New Testament:

7Q4 = 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1, 3 c100 CE
7Q6, 2 = Acts 27:38 c60 CE
7Q8 = James 1:23, 24 50-70 CE
7Q9 = Romans 5:11, 12 50-60 CE
7Q10 = 2 Peter 1:15 60 CE

As with Mark the limits on palaeographic dating results in some wonky ranges with the possibility of Paul writing Romans as early as 25 CE...some three years before Jesus was even baptized!

However to my mind these early dates as with the one often presented for Rylands Library Papyrus P52 show a deep issue with New Testament research--the almost pathological desire to push out the earliest possible date for any (possible) manuscript of the New Testament. Such cavalier misuse of circa dates show that at some level the apologists know their position is shaky...otherwise why do it?

Wishful thinking I guess.

 

[dejudge]

The claim shows up in the apologist literature (The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls is where both the dates and identification came from) so I thought I would mention it...along with what the limits on palaeographic dating (no less then a 50 year range) results in if you assume the circa dates given are midpoints (which circa dates should be)

Even if you throw out the Mark claim you still have what if the apologists can be believed () some of the oldest copies of books in the New Testament:

7Q4 = 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1, 3 c100 CE
7Q6, 2 = Acts 27:38 c60 CE
7Q8 = James 1:23, 24 50-70 CE
7Q9 = Romans 5:11, 12 50-60 CE
7Q10 = 2 Peter 1:15 60 CE

As with Mark the limits on palaeographic dating results in some wonky ranges with the possibility of Paul writing Romans as early as 25 CE...some three years before Jesus was even baptized!

However to my mind these early dates as with the one often presented for Rylands Library Papyrus P52 show a deep issue with New Testament research--the almost pathological desire to push out the earliest possible date for any (possible) manuscript of the New Testament.

That list may not have come from paleographers but from Christians who are desperately attempting to give the impression that books of the NT were composed before c 70 CE.

The list of the Registered New Testament Papyri does NOT contain any fragments from the DSS from cave 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

 

[Brainache]

That list may not have come from paleographers but from Christians who are desperately attempting to give the impression that books of the NT were composed before c 70 CE.

The list of the Registered New Testament Papyri does NOT contain any fragments from the DSS from cave 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

Well spotted.

 

[maximara]

Those Fragments you listed as New Testament works from the DSS appear to be bogus.

They are listed as UNKNOWN biblical texts or very tiny UNIDENTIFIED fragments. There are even pictures of some of the TINY fragments like 7Q5 and 7Q8 from cave 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

Well spotted.

Uh, you both do know that even with references wikipedia is not all that reliable, right? It is a great place to start research but I wouldn't trust it. Compare wikipedia's Christ myth theory to Rationalwiki's Jesus myth theory and note the systemic removal of relevant points about what has been called Christ Myth from the wikipedia article (or if keeping them burying them in the depth of the article so they are easily missed):

* Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) ''The Role of Religion in History'' Transaction Publishers pg 58)(Dodd, C.H. (1938) ''History and the Gospel'' under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

* Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE.(Mead, G. R. S. ''The Talmum 100 Years B.C. Story of Jesus", "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?", 1903.)(Price, Robert M. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) ''The Historical Jesus: Five Views''. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 65)

* The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism.(Grant, Michael. ''Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels''. Scribner, 1995; first published 1977, p. 199)

* The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.(Price, Robert M. (2000) ''Deconstructing Jesus'' Prometheus Books, pg 85)

* Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical.(Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)

* The ''Gospel Jesus'' didn't exist and GA Wells' ''Jesus Myth'' (1999) is an example of this.(Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review) Note that from ''Jesus Legend'' (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both ''Jesus Legend'' and ''Jesus Myth'' have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, (Carrier, Richard (2006) "Did Jesus Even Exist?" Stanford University presentation May 30, 2006) and Eddy-Boyd.(Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend pp. 24)

* Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."(Robertson, Archibald (1946) ''Jesus: Myth Or History'']) A Jesus who died of old age or only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups would qualify as "nonhistorical per this definition)

* "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."(''International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J'' 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley) There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

* Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."(Wood, Herbert George (1934) Christianity and the nature of history MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.]: The University Press pg 40)

As you can see there is plenty of evidence including university press books that "Christ Myth theory" has been been used to label a lot of things...including the idea of "Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure" a fact the wikipedia article happily ignores.

 

[Brainache]

Uh, you both do know that even with references wikipedia is not all that reliable, right? It is a great place to start research but I wouldn't trust it.

Yes, but I seriously doubt that those Apologists can successfully defend their identifications of those fragments.

I believe that many of the sectarian scrolls were written in the period from abot 20 CE through to 70 CE or thereabouts. That falls within the carbon dating range.

 

[dejudge]

Uh, you both do know that even with references wikipedia is not all that reliable, right? It is a great place to start research but I wouldn't trust it.

Well, just look for other sources and you will see that your list is bogus. There are no known register of New Testament Papyri which includes NT fragments from the DSS.

 

[Brainache]

Well, just look for other sources and you will see that your list is bogus. There are no known register of New Testament Papyri which includes NT fragments from the DSS.

This is not a bad argument.


Crikey!

 

[davefoc]

The claim shows up in the apologist literature (The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls is where both the dates and identification came from) so I thought I would mention it...along with what the limits on palaeographic dating (no less then a 50 year range) results in if you assume the circa dates given are midpoints (which circa dates should be)

Even if you throw out the Mark claim you still have what, if the apologists can be believed (), are some of the oldest copies of books in the New Testament:

7Q4 = 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1, 3 c100 CE
7Q6, 2 = Acts 27:38 c60 CE
7Q8 = James 1:23, 24 50-70 CE
7Q9 = Romans 5:11, 12 50-60 CE
7Q10 = 2 Peter 1:15 60 CE

As with Mark the limits on palaeographic dating results in some wonky ranges with the possibility of Paul writing Romans as early as 25 CE...some three years before Jesus was even baptized!

However to my mind these early dates as with the one often presented for Rylands Library Papyrus P52 show a deep issue with New Testament research--the almost pathological desire to push out the earliest possible date for any (possible) manuscript of the New Testament. Such cavalier misuse of circa dates show that at some level the apologists know their position is shaky...otherwise why do it?

I wasn't quite sure of your point was here or even if you were being serious. I think there is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that this assignment of DSS fragments is bogus. The theory was put forth by Jos[FONT=&quot]é[/FONT] O'Callaghan and then repeated and expanded by Carsten Peter Thiede. Is there another person in the world that believes that they were right? I didn't do it this time, but when I took a look at the before, I thought it might have been a joke. They found a few words that were used in the NT on a few fragments and expanded that into what looks like a ridiculous theory to me. And perhaps that was your point: people can find whatever they want to see in the evidence for an HJ.

 

[Craig B]

The Great Revolt totally disrupted Jewish life and people were desperate for answers about the fall of Jerusalem and the Roman occupation. Stories arose about a messiah who had come and saved the Jewish nation but his salvation was of a spiritual nature rather than a political one. As scholars studied the OT the stories coalesced about a rabbi who was killed yet triumphed over the Romans. Details were added to details til a coherent story was woven together.

People rightly ask for evidence for an historical Jesus. It has been given. It may not be adequate, of course, but it has been given. Now let us have evidence for the developments you have described above.

 

[David Mo]

[

David - you know very well, that the fact the earliest relatively complete & readable copies of the gospels date from 4th-6th century and later (which is 300-500 years after Jesus, by the way), is NOT the only reason for “invalidating them”. You know very well there are all manner of problems with the anonymous authorship, the impossible claims themselves, the obvious OT origins of the stories, the known practice of alterations etc etc. You know very well that there are multiple problems with all that gospel writing. So what was the point of writing the highlighted sentence above as if the only reason to “invalidate” those gospels was because they are the work of Christian copyists writing centuries later?

I don’t know who “Meier and Dunn” are, but below is the wikipedia detail on the religious background of JD Crossan and Geza Vermes. From which it is crystal clear that these people are positively drowning in religious studies, and like all the others we have discussed (eg Ehrman & the rest) with an early background in highly devout religious belief.

(…)

IOW - this “consensus of experts” that you are talking about, are bible-scholars like Ehrman and Crossan, theologians, and Judeo-Christian writers in general, many, as I say, even with a background as priests and theology students and lecturers. These people are not normal typical university secular historians. Eg, see the highlights below -
(…)

OK, I have not read the rest of your post, because frankly we have been all over all these claims literally hundreds of times now, and apart from showing that these “historians” almost have a background such as the above and are therefore bible-studies teachers, theologians and ex-priests etc, it is clear that the HJ proponents here (which, astonishingly even now seems to include you!?) have absolutely no evidence of Jesus at all except to say we should believe the holy bible.

It is disheartening to me because you remain on an incidental comment -my comment was between brackets and marked as "incidentally"-, and give it a sense that it had not. I was just trying to show that Ehrman is not a leading figure of contemporary exegesis. I mean neither to justify anyone nor to put Vermes and Crossant over Ehrman or vice versa.

I had highlighted that consensus about existence of Jesus (EJ) is not limited to confessional experts, but also includes a good deal of non-confessional ones. Your efforts to highlight the religious tendencies of Vermes or Crossant biographies don't affect my argument. In 2007 took place in El Escorial (Spain) a conference on "Did Jesus really exist?" sponsored by the Complutense University of Madrid. I have the book that contains almost all the interventions and I have entertained counting the speakers who came from Christian universities or theological institutions. They are less than participants who came from secular universities or non-Christian institutions. However, only two mythicists between more of twelve speakers defended the cause. Do you disqualify the non-confessional others? Why? I don't find any reason why we have to discount their opinion. I don't believe too much in consensus but if we have to consider them the consensus about the existence of Jesus (EJ) is also maintained by non-confessional historians and if you want to discredit them you have to find an argument more valuable that "they are Christians(???) or "they are immersed in the studies about Jesus" (???) -if these are valuable arguments against somebody-.

For in my comment I had distinguished clearly the problem of Historical Jesus (HJ) from the existence of Jesus (EJ). This one is more specific. And you seem to confuse me with John Dominic Crossan or Geza Vermes and the historicity of Gospel's narratives about Passion or miracles and so on. It's not the case. I'm not "relying" on none of them. I don't know where you get this idea. I'm almost offended, caramba!

Lastly, I ask you a sacrifice to overcome the laziness that my comments cause in you and perhaps you'll be inspired to answer to these ones that I repeat here:

You can wait for we don't pretend to have 'expert evidence'. It would be excess on our part. We offer just an indication based on the difficulty/embarrassment argument.
If you have the time and patience to consult the list of dead gods in diverse cultures (I have neither the one nor the other), I bet you won't find one that was dead with a murder reserved to criminals, slaves and the plebs -for the Mediterranean world at least. Here, for example, you can see that gods are killed in combat, eaten, torn to pieces and so on. Never humiliated in a vile punishment.

Just that.

Your maximalism in the requests is a boomerang. When it fails its target attacks the thrower. So, many people dismiss the well founded criticism against the use of Gospels as historical documents. I think the excessive wishes of break up the legend reinforce it. To admit the existence of the so-called Jesus instead of get entangled in a mess of irrelevant arguments against his existence, allow us to focus the problem on the main thing: the mechanics of the myths in the Gospels.

Thank you.

 

[maximara]

I wasn't quite sure of your point was here or even if you were being serious. I think there is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that this assignment of DSS fragments is bogus. The theory was put forth by Jos[FONT=&quot]é[/FONT] O'Callaghan and then repeated and expanded by Carsten Peter Thiede. Is there another person in the world that believes that they were right? I didn't do it this time, but when I took a look at the before, I thought it might have been a joke. They found a few words that were used in the NT on a few fragments and expanded that into what looks like a ridiculous theory to me. And perhaps that was your point: people can find whatever they want to see in the evidence for an HJ.

That kind of was my point. Also it appears other apologists take the O'Callaphan ball and run with it...without seeing if it is any good:

"This study will use evidence from the four canonical Gospels, the DSS and the classical sources to investigate the relationship between John and Jesus, as well as possible links between John and the Qumran community." (Dapaah, Daniel S. (2005) The Relationship Between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth University Press of America) That statement makes sense only if there is New Testament material in DSS.

"Quotes from the New Testament in the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Grant R Jeffrey Ministries)

These along with scholars pointing to any external source other then Josephus Flavius and Tacitus and effort to push any manuscript they do find as early as possible comes off as an almost desperate effort to find something anything that shows Jesus actually existed.

 

[Brainache]

That kind of was my point. Also it appears other apologists take the O'Callaphan ball and run with it...without seeing if it is any good:

"This study will use evidence from the four canonical Gospels, the DSS and the classical sources to investigate the relationship between John and Jesus, as well as possible links between John and the Qumran community." (Dapaah, Daniel S. (2005) The Relationship Between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth University Press of America) That statement makes sense only if there is New Testament material in DSS.

"Quotes from the New Testament in the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Grant R Jeffrey Ministries)

These along with scholars pointing to any external source other then Josephus Flavius and Tacitus and effort to push any manuscript they do find as early as possible comes off as an almost desperate effort to find something anything that shows Jesus actually existed.

But we do have stuff like this about James:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

...
Jerome (c. 347 – 420), in his De Viris Illustribus, argued that James was not Jesus' brother but his cousin, son of Mary of Cleophas, "the sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book."[50] After the Passion, Jerome wrote, the Apostles selected James as Bishop of Jerusalem. In describing James' ascetic lifestyle, De Viris Illustribus quotes Hegesippus's account of James from the fifth book of Hegesippus's lost Commentaries:

"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees".[51]

Since it was unlawful for anyone but the High Priest of the Temple to enter the Holy of Holies, and then only once a year on Yom Kippur, Jerome's quotation from Hegesippus indicates that James was considered a High Priest. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions suggest this.[52]

 

[maximara]

The Great Revolt totally disrupted Jewish life and people were desperate for answers about the fall of Jerusalem and the Roman occupation. Stories arose about a messiah who had come and saved the Jewish nation but his salvation was of a spiritual nature rather than a political one. As scholars studied the OT the stories coalesced about a rabbi who was killed yet triumphed over the Romans. Details were added to details til a coherent story was woven together.

People rightly ask for evidence for an historical Jesus. It has been given. It may not be adequate, of course, but it has been given. Now let us have evidence for the developments you have described above.

First, the evidence for an historical Jesus is NOT adequate. In fact, I would go as far as to say if such evidence was presented for any other well known ancient person of similar stature it would be laughed out of the room. Which is why we seem to be seeing the 'Jesus was really a very minor preacher' idea being pushed around...it is based on the very logical idea that if you make the HJ small enough then the odds he existed improves. Or course the flip side to that is if Jesus was that minor how did anyone even remember him?

As for something similar to what tsig is talking about Robin Hood pops to mind.

 

[zugzwang]

First, the evidence for an historical Jesus is NOT adequate. In fact, I would go as far as to say if such evidence was presented for any other well known ancient person of similar stature it would be laughed out of the room. Which is why we seem to be seeing the 'Jesus was really a very minor preacher' idea being pushed around...it is based on the very logical idea that if you make the HJ small enough then the odds he existed improves. Or course the flip side to that is if Jesus was that minor how did anyone even remember him?

As for something similar to what tsig is talking about Robin Hood pops to mind.

Yes, that's an interesting point. Clearly, there are minor figures for whom the evidence is very poor, for example, people just mentioned once by writers or in fact, almost anyone.

But Jesus did become very well known, so we tend to rank him with the Caesars of this world, for whom the evidence is much better, coins etc.

So we do go with the obscure Jewish preacher Jesus, or the rampant Pantocrator preached by the later Church?

I was comparing him with Hillel, of whom the Jewish Encyclopedia says, 'nothing definite is known concerning his origin'. But the point is that nobody is worried about this, since Hillel is a relatively obscure Jewish teacher.