Why do most historians claim the man Jesus existed, when they don't even agree...?

Question

...on significant details of his life? Is there any figure other than Jesus, that is so inextricably wrapped up in obvious myth and legend, and yet historians agree actually existed?

It seems to be a case of special pleading, resulting from the mere fact that most historians are Christians.

Historians do not use Josephus as evidence of a historical Jesus, because there is widespread concensus the blurb about Jesus is a fraud inserted much much later. The earliest independent mentions of Jesus are no earlier than the 2nd century.

Answer 1

The history of Christianity is simply a fine example of longstanding Fraud, Forgery and Force. The few extra-biblical sources on Christ were likely written to appease the official church or Roman authorities. Eusebius, Church historian, wrote historical inaccuracies for the Roman state under sun-worshipping Constantine.

Otherwise a similar name is taken as evidence for Jesus eg name 'Khrestus' (linked to Christ) was also the name of an ancestor of Emperor Constantine. That particular Khrestus was a political leader whose followers were called 'Khrestians'.

Answer 2

I totally disagree with your premise the 'most historians claim Jesus existed. In fact, I would argue that most historians ignore him completely. The comment is almost a valid as saying that most historians claim that King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table existed. To argue from the position that the gospels are evidence is totally self-serving - to put it another way 'they would say that wouldn't they?'. The gospels may have been written within living memory of his possible life, but remember the Bible wasn't put together in the form now accepted until the 4th century AD. Much was left out - as we now know from the Dead Sea Scrolls etc., and that which was left out tended to be those writings that the church fathers of the 4th century didn't agree with - although as historical documents they were as valuable as those writings that were accepted into the canon. Apart from the possible doubtful mention in Josephus there is no independent historical mention of him whatsoever. However, I have to agree with the answer which said that that is not evidence that he didn't exist, as he really was not important enough (in pagan Roman eyes) to warrant a mention.

Answer 3

Biblical and Theological historians usually accept biblical authority for the existence of Jesus but otherwise I do not believe all historians who specialise in that period of history do. There is really no biographical evidence for his existence in the Bible and none at all in the Dead Sea scrolls or any other contemporary or near contemporary accounts. It was Bishop Eusebius, either himself or on his authority who doctored the text of Josephus to give credence to an otherwise unconvincing narrative , at a time when the 'established' church was fighting to establish doctrinal orthodoxy against gnostics and other christian groups which had very different interpretations of the faith and different texts to base them on.
In conclusion, it is very much an open question. But many historians accept that the New Testament is to be viewed as allegory and not taken literally, with many hand-me-downs from both earlier and contemporary religions.

Answer 4

I think you have some misinformation. All religions agree Jesus walked this planet: Hebrews, Chinese, Muslims and of course Christians. His life on earth was only 33 years. He died a very young man by today's standards. Everyone knows he was a "radical" by any definition. He upset the ruling class and those people did not want him going around saying things that went against their desires. Hence they were always trying to get Jesus to commit heresy. That was a crime in those times which was punishable by death. So Jesus is NOT a myth. He was a spiritual being in human form. That's the only way humans could relate to him and accept his teachings. If he would have come here in any other form, Jesus would not have been so successful because people would not have accepted him as part of the human race. Mohammad is the Muslim Jesus but now we enter another area of discussion best handled by theology.

Answer 5

The majority of historians find consensus on the birth, life, and death of Jesus, all have been well established and to argue against this would be ludicrous. With every historical figure/matter dating back 2000+ years there is a great degree of theories and speculation. Not everyone is ever going to agree to anything irregardless of the evidence offered and presented. You will find people with titles of all kinds disputing everything from Climate change, Holocaust, Cesar and Cleopatra, and all with there own proof theories and evidence.

The religious question is was he the son of God, a prophet, or simply just a man, that is debatable. But the man known as Jesus did exists as did Pontius Pilate.

Answer 6

There are two independent references to a small scale prophet/speaker among the Jews at about the right time. One was the Historian Josephus and I don't recall the other. There was almost definitely a Jesus (maby a lot as the name was fairly common).

Answer 7

In addition to the extra-Biblical sources cited, remember why the Gospels were written in the first place, and who the original audience was. For example, the earliest, the Gospel of Mark is generally attributed to AD 65-70 or so. If you figure the date of Jesus' death is generally attributed to c. AD 30ish, there would be a good number of people still alive who would have reasonably known him in life. But that generation was dying off and they wished to make a record before all the eyewitnesses were gone. You might not have been around for the Apollo lunar landing, but chances are you know someone who could tell you where they were when it happened. :o) But also remember, the Bible itself wasn't codified until the 4th century--- it's a diverse anthology of writings by many authors writing in various times and places, and for various purposes.

Answer 8

Most historians are Christians? What do you base that on? How many do you know?

There are multiple sources to prove the existence of Jesus, from Roman records to contemporary accounts. Just because people don't believe in Him doesn't mean that they can deny His existence.

The details of His life can only be found in a few accounts, almost exclusively in the Bible. That's why the details of His life are not agreed on by most historians.

By the way, if most historians were Christian, they would have agreed on the facts of His life, since those are found in the Bible, which Christians are to base their lives on.

Answer 9

Jesus was not a mythical figure. There is enough historical evidence to prove that a person by that name existed at that time. If you are looking for scientific or archaeological finds that prove that any of the stories in literature were 100% accurate concerning the details of his life, then it will not happen. For something to stand up against scientific scrutiny, it must be observed by an independent unbiased observer. There was at least one person by the name of Jesus that walked the earth at that time. For all we know, there could have been many more. It neither proves or disproves his relationship with God. Jesus was not a christian, but a Jew. Both the Jewish and Islamic religions acknowledge his existence, but consider him to be a prophet. His existence is fact, wither or not he was the son of God or a prophet or just an average guy turned philosopher is a matter of faith.

Answer 10

Most historians DO NOT contest ever reference to Jesus found in the "Antiquities of the Jews". For example the reference to James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" is held to be authentic by the majority of scholars in the field.

Your critique of Josephus applies mainly to the "Testimonium", which is considered to be a compilation of the writings of Titus Flavius Josephus and others.

Answer 11

The reason they can agree that he existed is that there was independent verification of it from a Roman historian named Flavius Josephus. The rest of it is up for grabs, particularly if you use the Book of Luke as a reference. There wasn't a census called, so Mary and Joseph never had to leave for Bethlehem. But then if you follow the other books of the Bible, it says that Joseph and Mary were already living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. Since there are obvious contradictions in the 4 books of the New Testament, there's a lot to debate about "the signficant details of his life". It gets even funkier if you bring in the Deuterocanonical texts, like the Protevangelium of James. He explains away why Jesus has brothers and sisters, but that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. According to him, Joseph was a widower and Mary was a temple virgin. He was betrothed to take care of her, but to leave her a virgin. It gets even dicier after the Naj Hamadi texts come into play...

So as you see, even the gospel writers don't agree with each other. So why should the historians have agreement? If you ever REALLY want to blow your mind, check out the Jesus Seminar with Marcus Borg and John Dominick Crossan. They don't even agree that Jesus' body was removed from the crucifix. They think dogs ate it. And one of these guys is the Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at DePaul University...sheesh.