Historical Jesus

[maximara]

Nevertheless, my claim that the mythicist theory (with a few notable exceptions) is a largely discarded 19th century notion still stands. This applies to Volney and Dupuis The notable exceptions, as you note, are the likes of Richard Carrier and Robert Price et al.

That is totally non sequqitor as the early mythicist theories were on the Volney side of the fence ie the man existed but the Gospels are largely fiction.

David Strauss who accepted Jesus existed was a Volney mythicist - The Times (February 06, 1910). Sir James George Frazer was a Volney mythicist but was called a Dupuis mythicist so many times he had to spell it out in 1913 - "My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" and even then Albert Schweitzer didn't get the memo as he put poor Frazer in the groups of people "who contested the historical existence of Jesus" in 1933.

The generalize term Remsburg used (pulled from Strauss) for what amounted to Volney mythicism was is historical myth - "a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical."

One of the best example of a historical myth was that Christopher Columbus sailed west to prove the world was round. The reality is no one back then believed the earth was flat. That story is a historical myth.

Another historical myth is that Lincoln was a beloved president when in reality per the actual records of the time he comes off as one the most hated presidents.

Yet another historical myth is sound film didn't exist until 1927 with the Jazz Singer - the reality there were sound film all the way back to 1900 as demonstrated by Little Titch y sus Big Boots (1900) and Cyrano de Bergerac (1900 film) for which the sound cylinders still exist.

Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall in his I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Regent College Publishing, 2004 spends a whole freaking chapter ("A Question of Definition") regarding what is meant by the term "Historical Jesus" and even he states that the Jesus of the Bible didn't exist ie a Volney mythist.

Volney mythism didn't get "largely discarded" but went main stream a long time ago.

Personally I go with the Volney mythist John M. Robertson who effectively had the Gospel Jesus a composite character formed out of
1) The Jesus of the Talmud
2) A Jesus who "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and thereby met his death"
3) A Galilean faith-healer with a local reputation that been slain at some time of social tumult

As Archibald Robertson summed up in his 1946 Jesus: Myth Or History : "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a man]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."

It is a good Occam's Razor to explain all the historical hiccups without going all ad hoc. The are just too many irregularities in the Gospel account to say it is anything but historical myth.

Your baseless claim does not stand at all. It is actually the reverse. HJ arguments have been discarded over and over since the 19th century. This is now the the third quest for an historical Jesus.

The multiple quests for an historical Jesus have failed. For hundreds of years Scholars have not been able to present any historical evidence for an HJ and simply make up their own Jesus based on their imagination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus

As I said more and more of Volney for from being "discarded" went main stream. As I have said when we can cross check the Gospel narrative it just doesn't fit.

 

[GDon]

That is totally non sequqitor as the early mythicist theories were on the Volney side of the fence ie the man existed but the Gospels are largely fiction.
...
As I said more and more of Volney for from being "discarded" went main stream. As I have said when we can cross check the Gospel narrative it just doesn't fit.

Volney was the Acharya S of his time. He proposed that the Jesus story shared similarities with myths around the region. His landmark book, "The Ruins", is available on-line. Here is a snippet:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1397/1397-h/1397-h.htm

Finally, these traditions went so far as to mention even his astrological and mythological names, and inform us that he was called sometimes Chris, that is to say, preserver,* and from that, ye Indians, you have made your god Chrish-en or Chrish-na; and, ye Greek and Western Christians, your Chris-tos, son of Mary, is the same; sometimes he is called Yes, by the union of three letters, which by their numerical value form the number 608, one of the solar periods.** And this, Europeans, is the name which, with the Latin termination, is become your Yes-us or Jesus, the ancient and cabalistic name attributed to young Bacchus, the clandestine son (nocturnal) of the Virgin Minerva, who, in the history of his whole life, and even of his death, brings to mind the history of the god of the Christians, that is, of the star of day, of which they are each of them the emblems.​

This kind of nonsense was popular in the 19th Century, and is the same that Acharya S used more recently in her books. In no way or form has this become more popular among scholars. "Krishna" comes from "Chris-na"? "Jesus" comes from "Yes-us", based on one of the solar periods? Really?

The idea that there was a historical Jesus whose origin is now obscured is certainly more mainstream. But to call Volney's ideas about what the origin of the story was as more mainstream is not correct.

I recommend reading through Volney's book though. He is scathing about the influence of priests and the religion of his time.

 

[maximara]

This kind of nonsense was popular in the 19th Century, and is the same that Acharya S used more recently in her books. In no way or form has this become more popular among scholars. "Krishna" comes from "Chris-na"? "Jesus" comes from "Yes-us", based on one of the solar periods? Really? The idea that there was a historical Jesus whose origin is now obscured is certainly more mainstream. But to call Volney's ideas about what the origin of the story was as more mainstream is not correct.

Is was talking about the "Confused memories of an obscure historical figure became woven into the mythology." part Volney. Let's face it interpretation of the ancient world in the 19th century was so off in lala land that it comes off as them doing some really heavy drugs.

Its like Alfred Wegener - his mechanic was way off (centrifugal force of the Earth's rotation) but his core idea that the continents moved was correct. This is what I mean about Volney becoming main stream. His general conclusion of an obscure historical figure being plugged into an already existing mythology has become mainstream even if his interpretation of how it happed was off in lala land.

Regarding Acharya S, I found that the raw information she gave was reliable given what existed at that time. It was when she tried to interpret that information that things promptly went off the rails into tinfoil pear shape land.

Digging around I think I found something regarding Drews "in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus" comment. On the surface this makes no sense as Gerardus Vossius didn't become a formal new testament scholar unto the seventeenth century.

The problem with this reference to Vossius' Josephus is that "According to the author of Christian Mythology Unveiled ("CMU"), this Vossius mentioned by a number of writers as having possessed a copy of Josephus's Antiquities lacking the TF is "I. Vossius," whose works appeared in Latin. Unfortunately, none of these writers includes a citation as to where exactly the assertion may be found in Vossius's works. Moreover, the Vossius in question seems to be Gerardus, rather than his son, Isaac, who was born in the seventeenth century."

However, "The letters i and j: In the Roman alphabet, i and j were two forms of the same letter, but in the 16th and 17th centuries, i was used instead of j, both initially and medially, either vowel or consonant. As a consonant, the letter was pronounced as we pronounce j, as in jury, but written iury" So the "I. Vossius" could have been the father of Gerardus Vossius, Johannes Vossius. Sadly, material this old is full of partial references (if they exist at all) so little is known about where the material they cite originally came from. - Josephus (Rationalwiki)

 

[GDon]

I was talking about the "Confused memories of an obscure historical figure became woven into the mythology" part Volney.

True, but that particular idea was in the air during the Age of Enlightenment. In Volney's time, atheists and deists like Thomas Paine had questioned the historical basis of the Bible (though not questioning the existence of a historical Jesus).

Here is Thomas Paine (~1736 – 1809):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

The opinions I have advanced ... are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions...​

Anyway, that is a LONG way away from your earlier statement: "Volney mythism didn't get 'largely discarded' but went main stream a long time ago." Do you have some other part of Volney's mythicism in mind that has gone mainstream?

 

[maximara]

Do you have some other part of Volney's mythicism in mind that has gone mainstream?

"Volney suggested in his work, “ Les Ruines”, that the Jesus figure was an obscure historical character whose life was integrated into a solar mythology" - Roberts, Geoff (2011) Jesus 888 Troubador Publishing pg 144

Perhaps you have heard of Sol Invictus whose December 25 celebration became Jesus birthday by Emperor Edict? as pointed out in Jesus myth theory (Rationalwiki):

Luke tells us that shepherds were tending their sheep in the fields when Jesus was born, something that shepherds did June until November.[242][243]

In fact, before the decree there was much debate regarding when Jesus was born. Tertullian (c 160–220 CE) and Hippolytus (c 170-235 CE) said March 25; Clement (c 150-215 CE) gave 25th day of Pachon (May 20) and the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi (April 19 or 20),[244] while others were saying January 6 (the birthday of Osiris), and still others pointed to the Essenes whose couples had sex in December so their child would be born September (the holy month of Atonement).[245]

This means any argument that Jesus was a myth or historical based on the December 25 date is doomed from the start because that part of the story isn't even in the Bible and didn't appear until well into the 4th century.

--

Note the very carful wording there used by Geoff Roberts. So while Volney may have got the details wrong as far as his conclusion was concerned to quote a certain character "it was true ...from a certain point of view."

Here is Thomas Paine (~1736 – 1809):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

The opinions I have advanced ... are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions...​

And this is different from Remsburg who seems to be the go to for every armchair Christ Myther how?

"The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being. He is, like the Christ, a myth. He is the Christ myth. [...] It is not against the man Jesus that I write, but against the Christ Jesus of theology [...] Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist".

Heck, John Remsburg's The Christ is now being republished as The Christ Myth.

Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall in his I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Regent College Publishing, 2004 summed it perfectly: [W]e shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about

Like I said before, it seems like any scholar that publishes via Eerdmans seems to believe in the "water-walking, transfiguring, son of a ghost without a human father, who resurrected and ascended in a cloud after appearing to his disciples" Jesus. "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..." New Flash there Eerdmans, but Troy actually existed and the Norse's Vinland actually existed.

For the TL;DR crowd: The historical Jesus is a range of ideas which means its counterpoint mythisim is also a range of ideas.

 

[dejudge]

....."The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being......

Supernatural beings do not exist.

NT Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.

 

[Tassman]

Supernatural beings do not exist.

Indeed.

NT Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.

Strawman argument. No-one here is arguing that the figure most scholars agree is at the core of the X'tian religion, was the wonder-working supernatural figure as presented in the gospels.

 

[maximara]

Supernatural beings do not exist.

NT Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.

You're confusing/mixing the terms as Remsburg used/defined them:

*Jesus of Bethlehem is the supernatural being

*Jesus of Nazareth is "the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed"

A perfect example of what I am talking about is John Frum.

"Jesus Frum a.k.a. John Christ" in Ratinalwiki's Jesus Myth theory article goes into detail on how Jesus could have been both supernatural being and actual flesh and blood man:

However, if you examine the John Frum cargo cult in detail one can see possibly of one or more inspired believers deciding to become Jesus even if Jesus originally started out as nothing more than a celestial being. So it is well within reason as John Robertson implied in 1900 that one or more people inspired by Paul's writings took up the name Jesus, preached their own view of Paul's message, and possibly got killed for it. It is one way to read Paul's 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 warning of minds being "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by "another Jesus, whom we have not preached," "another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted".

(...)

As you can see from Guiart's 1952 article, a mere 11 years after the John Frum movement become noticeable by nonbelievers it is not clear if John Frum is simply another name for Karaperamun (the High god of the region), a name that various actual people use as leader of the religious cult, or the name of some other person who inspired the cult perhaps as much as 30 years previously. If to confuse things further it has been suggested that Tom Navy, a companion to John Frum, is based on a real person: Tom Beatty of Mississippi, who served in the New Hebrides both as a missionary, and as a Navy Seabee during the war

==
This is what you keep missing. Yes, the NT Jesus didn't exist but that doesn't mean there wasn't some relatively obscure preacher named Jesus in the 1st century BC to 1st century CE period around whom the NT version was built. THis is what John M. Robertson building from the Volney side of the Christ Myth came up with - the NT Jesus didn't exist because he was a composite character formed out of pre-existing myth and various actual flesh and blood preachers.

 

[dejudge]

Indeed.



Strawman argument. No-one here is arguing that the figure most scholars agree is at the core of the X'tian religion, was the wonder-working supernatural figure as presented in the gospels.

Your statement does not make sense. People here are arguing that NT Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of fiction.

 

[dejudge]

You're confusing/mixing the terms as Remsburg used/defined them:

*Jesus of Bethlehem is the supernatural being

*Jesus of Nazareth is "the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed"

A perfect example of what I am talking about is John Frum.

"Jesus Frum a.k.a. John Christ" in Ratinalwiki's Jesus Myth theory article goes into detail on how Jesus could have been both supernatural being and actual flesh and blood man:

However, if you examine the John Frum cargo cult in detail one can see possibly of one or more inspired believers deciding to become Jesus even if Jesus originally started out as nothing more than a celestial being. So it is well within reason as John Robertson implied in 1900 that one or more people inspired by Paul's writings took up the name Jesus, preached their own view of Paul's message, and possibly got killed for it. It is one way to read Paul's 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 warning of minds being "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by "another Jesus, whom we have not preached," "another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted".

(...)

As you can see from Guiart's 1952 article, a mere 11 years after the John Frum movement become noticeable by nonbelievers it is not clear if John Frum is simply another name for Karaperamun (the High god of the region), a name that various actual people use as leader of the religious cult, or the name of some other person who inspired the cult perhaps as much as 30 years previously. If to confuse things further it has been suggested that Tom Navy, a companion to John Frum, is based on a real person: Tom Beatty of Mississippi, who served in the New Hebrides both as a missionary, and as a Navy Seabee during the war

==
This is what you keep missing. Yes, the NT Jesus didn't exist but that doesn't mean there wasn't some relatively obscure preacher named Jesus in the 1st century BC to 1st century CE period around whom the NT version was built. THis is what John M. Robertson building from the Volney side of the Christ Myth came up with - the NT Jesus didn't exist because he was a composite character formed out of pre-existing myth and various actual flesh and blood preachers.

What you say doesn't mean NT Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

You seem confused.

There are two fundamental opposing arguments.

1. NT Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

2. NT Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure of history.

I am arguing that NT Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure of history based on existing evidence.

The argument for an HJ is baseless since there is no existing historical evidence to support such an argument.

 

[Tassman]

Your statement does not make sense. People here are arguing that NT Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of fiction.

What I said was that most scholars agree an historical figure is at the core of the X'tian religion. Albeit it NOT the wonder-working supernatural figure as presented in the gospels.

"Lack of support for mythicism:

In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, which finds virtually no support from scholars,[3][355][4][5][356][q 2] to the point of being addressed in footnotes or almost completely ignored due to the obvious weaknesses they espouse.[357] However, more attention has been given to mythicism in recent years due to it recurring when people ask scholars like Bart Ehrman about it.[358] According to him, nearly all scholars who study the early Christian period believe that he did exist and Ehrman observes that mythicist writings are generally of poor quality because they are usually authored by amateurs and non-scholars who have no academic credentials or have never taught at academic institutions.[358] Maurice Casey, theologian and scholar of New Testament and early Christianity, stated that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists", "demonstrably false" and "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Lack_of_support_for_mythicism

 

[dejudge]

What I said was that most scholars agree an historical figure is at the core of the X'tian religion....

We already know that billions of people say NT Jesus of Nazareth existed without a shred of historical evidence.

.........Albeit it NOT the wonder-working supernatural figure as presented in the gospels.

"Lack of support for mythicism:

In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, which finds virtually no support from scholars,[3][355][4][5][356][q 2] to the point of being addressed in footnotes or almost completely ignored due to the obvious weaknesses they espouse.[357] However, more attention has been given to mythicism in recent years due to it recurring when people ask scholars like Bart Ehrman about it.[358] According to him, nearly all scholars who study the early Christian period believe that he did exist and Ehrman observes that mythicist writings are generally of poor quality because they are usually authored by amateurs and non-scholars who have no academic credentials or have never taught at academic institutions.[358] Maurice Casey, theologian and scholar of New Testament and early Christianity, stated that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists", "demonstrably false" and "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Lack_of_support_for_mythicism

The opinion of people (scholars or not) that NT Jesus existed without any supporting historical evidence is completely irrelevant.

NT Jesus of Nazareth is complete fiction as described by Christians writings of antiquity in and out the NT.

In addition, there is no historical evidence of his family, his disciples/apostles, Saul/Paul and no evidence whatsoever of Jews worshipping a man called Jesus of Nazareth as a God anytime in the 1st century.

NT Jesus of Nazareth is a 2nd century fabrication.

 

[maximara]

What I said was that most scholars agree an historical figure is at the core of the X'tian religion. Albeit it NOT the wonder-working supernatural figure as presented in the gospels.

"Lack of support for mythicism:

In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, which finds virtually no support from scholars,[3][355][4][5][356][q 2] to the point of being addressed in footnotes or almost completely ignored due to the obvious weaknesses they espouse.[357] However, more attention has been given to mythicism in recent years due to it recurring when people ask scholars like Bart Ehrman about it.[358] According to him, nearly all scholars who study the early Christian period believe that he did exist and Ehrman observes that mythicist writings are generally of poor quality because they are usually authored by amateurs and non-scholars who have no academic credentials or have never taught at academic institutions.[358] Maurice Casey, theologian and scholar of New Testament and early Christianity, stated that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists", "demonstrably false" and "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Lack_of_support_for_mythicism

As pointed out before that is not correct as not all mythism entirely throws the historical Jesus baby out with the Gospel's mythical bathwater.

Meanings of "Christ myth theory"
“[W]e shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about." —New Testament scholar Ian Howard MarshallWikipedia, I Believe in the Historical Jesus[6]

*Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community. (Effectively Dupuis' position)

*The Christ myth may be a form of modern docetism.[7]

*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.[8]

*Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.[9][10] (Effectively Volney's position)

*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.[11][12]

*Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE.[13][14]

*The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this.[15] 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 and Eddy-Boyd,[16] while Richard Carrier has used them as examples of an ahistorical Jesus.[17]

*Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."[18] A Jesus who died of old age, only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups, or was killed outside the 26-36 CE reign of Pontius Pilate[note 1] would fit under this version.

*The Christ myth is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition.[19] For Ehrman a Jesus who existed but didn't found Christianity would be a "mythical" Jesus.[20] (This would make Remsburg's position "mythic" even though he accepted Jesus existed as a human being because Remsburg believed Jesus preached a form of Judaism which was turned into Christianity by his followers. It would also make Isræl Knohl's Jesus who used ideas and the followers from a previous 1st BCE messiah "mythical".)

*"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..."[21][22] Remsburg held to the idea that Jesus the man existed (in some manner) but the various accounts that survive tell us nothing truly historical about that person. 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, as told, are almost certainly fictional in nature.

*Christ myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."[23]

*Jesus actually existed "but had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity"[24] In other words Jesus either took over an already existing Christian movement or his movement was turned into Christianity after he died. Michael O. Wise, points to a messiah in 72 BCE[25] while Israel Knohl points to a messiah who died 4 BCE[26] who could have left movements in their wake that Jesus directed into what became Christianity by the 2nd century.

Anyone claiming all that "is a fringe theory" is either ignorant, dishonest, or intentionally using a straw man version of what the Christ Myth theory really is. Heck, that last one is from Ehrman 2012, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne. ISBN 9780062206442. pp. 12 and the "historical but insignificant figure" comes from a Cambridge University Press work. The "story of Jesus is mythical" is still being presented by scholars who use Eerdmans even today. Ignoring these other definitions is not going to make them go away.

 

[maximara]

What you say doesn't mean NT Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history..

Never said he was.

You seem confused.
.

No you are the one who is confused.

There are two fundamental opposing arguments.

1. NT Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

2. NT Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure of history.
.

As explained by others it is NOT that simple. Take Troy, for example. Certainly the Trojan War of the Iliad with deities getting involved is a mythic battle but we found the real Troy and its fall seems to be part of the whole Bronze Age collapse.

The George Washington who chopped down a cherry tree is not a figure of history but that doesn't mean there wasn't an actual George Washington.

You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of composite character. It is within reason to supposed some relatively obscure preacher named Jesus around whom elements of other historical preachers were used to flesh out a fictional version of the man.

From rationalwioi's Josehus article:

===Length and a host of holy men===
Josephus gives far more space and-or detail to the following would-be 'Messiahs'. 'Sons of Man', 'the Righ*teous Ones', and 'the Elect [or Chosen] Ones' (i.e. "christs") that were showing up all over first century CE Palestine<ref>''Jewish Antiquities'' 17.269-270</ref>{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=67-73}} then to Jesus (who got a measly one (maybe two) paragraphs):

* Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE).{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=26-30}}{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.57-59}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.273-277}}

* Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.271-272}}

* Matthias, son of Margalothus (during the time of Herod the Great){{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.147-150}} - thought by some to be the "Theudas" referenced in Acts 5.

* Athronges (c 3 CE) - who "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." {{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.278-284}}

* Judas of Galilee (6 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.1, 20.5.2}}<ref>{{bible|Acts|5|47}}</ref>

* The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate.{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.85-87}}

* Theudas the magician (between 44 and 46 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.97-98}}

* Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE). Supposedly led an army of 30,000 people in an attempt to take Jerusalem by force which the Romans drove back, killing 400 and capturing 200.{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.259-263}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} According to Josephus he "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer."{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} Suggested to be the basis for the Gospel Jesus by Lena Einhorn. <ref>[http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) ''Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet" Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting]</ref>

* An anonymous prophet (59 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=20.188}}

* Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.433-434}}{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.442-448}}

* Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=6.301-309}} Suggested by Carrier as being the raw template for the Passover section of "Mark"{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=428-430|ps=, JW 6.301 = Mk 14.2; Mk 11-17; Both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah; JW 6.306 = Mk 14.49; JW 6.304, 306, 309 = Mk 13.17; JW 6.300, 309 = Mk 13.2; JW 6.302 = Mk 14.43; Mk 14.58; Mk 14.60; Mk 14.65; Mk 15.1; JW 6.305 = Mk 15.2-4 (this is actually three different points); JW 6.304 = Mk 15.15 JW 6.305 is inverted in Mk 15.34; JW 6.308-309 = Mk 15.34 (two points); Mk 15.37}}

* Menahem ben Judah (sometime between 66-73 CE).

* John of Giscala (d c70 CE).<ref>appears periodically in Book IV, V, and VII of ''The Jewish War''.</ref>

* Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE) {{sfn|Josephus|75|loc= 7.26-32}}

* Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE) {{sfn|Josephus|75|loc= 7.437-450}}

==
Odds are the NT Jesus is formed out of several of the above. The Samaritan prophet for when NT Jesus was killed and elements from Egyptian Jew Messiah (Matthew's coming out of Egypt narrative), and Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] in altered from for part of Mark's narrative.

 

[dejudge]

The George Washington who chopped down a cherry tree is not a figure of history but that doesn't mean there wasn't an actual George Washington...

You are confused.

Never said George Washington did not exist.

You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of composite character. It is within reason to supposed some relatively obscure preacher named Jesus around whom elements of other historical preachers were used to flesh out a fictional version of the man.....

You seem to have no idea that a composite character is still fictional [a fabricated character]

From rationalwioi's Josehus article:

===Length and a host of holy men===
Josephus gives far more space and-or detail to the following would-be 'Messiahs'. 'Sons of Man', 'the Righ*teous Ones', and 'the Elect [or Chosen] Ones' (i.e. "christs") that were showing up all over first century CE Palestine<ref>''Jewish Antiquities'' 17.269-270</ref>{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=67-73}} then to Jesus (who got a measly one (maybe two) paragraphs):

* Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE).{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=26-30}}{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.57-59}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.273-277}}

* Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.271-272}}

* Matthias, son of Margalothus (during the time of Herod the Great){{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.147-150}} - thought by some to be the "Theudas" referenced in Acts 5.

* Athronges (c 3 CE) - who "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." {{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=17.278-284}}

* Judas of Galilee (6 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.1, 20.5.2}}<ref>{{bible|Acts|5|47}}</ref>

* The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) killed by Pontius Pilate.{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=18.85-87}}

* Theudas the magician (between 44 and 46 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.97-98}}

* Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE). Supposedly led an army of 30,000 people in an attempt to take Jerusalem by force which the Romans drove back, killing 400 and capturing 200.{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.259-263}}{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} According to Josephus he "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer."{{sfn|Josephus|94|loc=20.169-171}} Suggested to be the basis for the Gospel Jesus by Lena Einhorn. <ref>[http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf Lena Einhorn, PhD (Nov.17-20, 2012) ''Jesus and the "Egyptian Prophet" Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting]</ref>

* An anonymous prophet (59 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=20.188}}

* Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.433-434}}{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=2.442-448}}

* Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE).{{sfn|Josephus|75|loc=6.301-309}} Suggested by Carrier as being the raw template for the Passover section of "Mark"{{sfn|Carrier|2014|pp=428-430|ps=, JW 6.301 = Mk 14.2; Mk 11-17; Both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah; JW 6.306 = Mk 14.49; JW 6.304, 306, 309 = Mk 13.17; JW 6.300, 309 = Mk 13.2; JW 6.302 = Mk 14.43; Mk 14.58; Mk 14.60; Mk 14.65; Mk 15.1; JW 6.305 = Mk 15.2-4 (this is actually three different points); JW 6.304 = Mk 15.15 JW 6.305 is inverted in Mk 15.34; JW 6.308-309 = Mk 15.34 (two points); Mk 15.37}}

* Menahem ben Judah (sometime between 66-73 CE).

* John of Giscala (d c70 CE).<ref>appears periodically in Book IV, V, and VII of ''The Jewish War''.</ref>

* Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE) {{sfn|Josephus|75|loc= 7.26-32}}

* Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE) {{sfn|Josephus|75|loc= 7.437-450}}

==
Odds are the NT Jesus is formed out of several of the above. The Samaritan prophet for when NT Jesus was killed and elements from Egyptian Jew Messiah (Matthew's coming out of Egypt narrative), and Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] in altered from for part of Mark's narrative.

You have confirmed your confusion.

Since you claim that it is likely that NT Jesus was formed using multiple characters then you are supporting my argument that NT Jesus was fabricated.

NT Jesus did not exist but was manufactured from events written decades after the time of Pilate.

 

[pgwenthold]

*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.[11][12]

This is why I don't like the description of "mythical Jesus" and prefer "Legendary Jesus."

I put Jesus right up there with Robin Hood, Paul Bunyan and King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

 

[Thor 2]

This is why I don't like the description of "mythical Jesus" and prefer "Legendary Jesus."

I put Jesus right up there with Robin Hood, Paul Bunyan and King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

Given that any degree of historical fact is not needed to believe in legends, we might as well throw Batman, Zorro, and Fred Flintstone into the group as well.

 

[Jerrymander]

You are confused.

Never said George Washington did not exist.

Are you being serious! You do this all the time. When someone uses an analogy to counter your claims you say "but I never said that [analogy]".

 

[Roger Ramjets]

This is why I don't like the description of "mythical Jesus" and prefer "Legendary Jesus."

I put Jesus right up there with Robin Hood, Paul Bunyan and King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

And Chuck Norris.

 

[maximara]

This is why I don't like the description of "mythical Jesus" and prefer "Legendary Jesus."

I put Jesus right up there with Robin Hood, Paul Bunyan and King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

But all three of those fall into the Jesus agnosticism par of the Christ Myth theory ie 'the story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the character described can be shown to be historical (in any meaningful way).

John Henry is in much the same spot.