# Did Jesus Exist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 30, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889 "2010-04-30T18:19:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/121 "2010-05-07T15:56:55Z")
Actually, I think, if it still exists in SDMB archives, a good search would find that I proposed a parody theory that Judas Iscariot faked his death & then took on the name of Saul, launched a fake “persecution” of Christians, & then “converted” and went on to become St. Paul in a mission of self-redemption. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/122 "2010-05-07T16:46:17Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I mean, sure, men have frequently invented their gods, but what precedent was there at the time for people trying to build a religion around somebody else? I can think of at least one [contemporaneous](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopythagoreanism)effort, and there’s also elements of this in Neoplatonism. The elevation of Ptolemy by his son only occurred after his death. And so too, I think, with Julius Caesar’s divine cult - incipiently there with Caesar, but really encouraged by first Anthony then Augustus. Then there’s the Orphic mysteries, too. ---
**Author:** ![bbonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecb155/32.png) [@bbonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bbonden)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/123 "2010-05-08T00:26:25Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I mean, sure, men have frequently invented their gods, but what precedent was there at the time for people trying to build a religion around somebody else? Not “at the time,” and not the same type of “build[ing]” with respect to the individuals, but Buddhism perhaps qualifies. For me, the persuasive argument for the historicity of Jesus is that both Paul - a man who received his instructions by direct revelation - and his audience accept that there are others who have at least equal primacy over the direction of the religion. I mean, who says, “Sure, the big guy in the sky spoke to me, but James and John over there have a different idea, so let’s all talk it out.” – unless both Paul and his audience believe that James and John have an equivalent direct connection with the almighty. It’s then just a question of what that connection was. And since every surviving story we have suggests that J+J had ethernet, not wireless, it seems a pretty safe bet to assume that they did. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/124 "2010-05-08T21:56:25Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > Yes, I think there was a person named Jesus. But everything we know about him is fictitious. > > If I write a story about **Diogenes the Cynic** performing miracles, his existence doesn’t lend credibility to my claims. Well, probably not _everything_ we know is fictitious. As noted above, we wouldn’t know a damn thing about such significant figures as Alexander the Great if we insisted on eyewitness sources that include no miracles or else labeled them fictitious. It’s probably reasonable to accept the things that the Gospels agree on that don’t seem unreasonable as close to fact; that is, Jesus was a Galilean peasant, he was an itinerant preacher (who were common in that time and are attested in many other sources), he stirred around the countryside until he walked into Jerusalem, created a stir at the Temple, and was crucified by the Romans. Some of the parables and sayings in the Gospels could easily be from Jesus simply because if he was influential enough to be followed, surely he was saying something interesting, though which ones is a matter of such debate that it’s silly to pretend that there’s any kind of consensus. Non-Christian sources include the idea that Jesus was a rabble-rouser of some kind and was executed from it. There’s a hell of a lot of fiction contained in the Gospels, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a kernel of truth at the base of it. > [@Skammer](#): > > I’ve heard it commonly speculated that Jesus was indeed a Pharisee, or, more accurately, a former Pharisee. Not only does it explain his literacy and familiarity with the scriptures, but it also helps explain his apparent grudge against the Pharisees. Certainly the Jesus portrayed in the Bible has a similar apocalyptic worldview to the Pharisees. Pharisee doesn’t mean what you’d assume by reading the Bible- it’s a particularly specific sort of worldview that includes a resurrection at the end of the world. Jesus was debating with Pharisees as in internal theological debate- both he and the Pharisees disagreed with the Saducees, who did not believe in a resurrection of the dead. > [@MrDibble](#): > > And, of course, it’s the lack of evidence that makes it for me. No mention by Philo, no contemporary mention\* at all\* - not even of the eclipses or zombies, never mind the crowds following him all over the place. Who the hell would write about a crucified Galilean peasant? Philo was mostly a philosopher, and he didn’t write a damn thing about recent history in Judea- the closest he got was a report of the persecution of Jews in Alexandria. Josephus, who did write histories of Judea of that period, does mention Jesus, though the entry we have in almost certainly doctored by later copyists. Most, if not all, academic scholars (as opposed to religious scholars) accept that there’s a hell of a lot of elaboration, wrongly attributed material, and outright fabrication within the Gospels. There’s no serious historical reason to believe in the miracles or the claims of large crowds. Oh, and by the way, Paul is contemporary with Jesus. He’s extremely biased\* and admits that he never met the man and doesn’t corroborate the fantastic tales in the Gospels, but would have been born at about the same time and claims to have been intricately involved with the early church and known many eyewitnesses intimately. \*All history is biased. Not just some historians, not just ancient history, but _all_ history is biased. Objectivity is a myth. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/125 "2010-05-09T04:18:34Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > s. > > And, of course, it’s the lack of evidence that makes it for me. No mention by Philo, no contemporary mention\* at all\* - not even of the eclipses or zombies, never mind the crowds following him all over the place. \*No \*material evidence, but plenty of fake or irrelevant evidence over the centuries - enough True Cross bits to build a second Ark, the Shroud, the Ossuary. The Holy Land must be the most excavated little patch on Earth, but yet, not a scrap of \*relevant \*material evidence. Like I said (and Abe corrected, but it’s a very minor mention by a “pious source”) until recently we had virtually no mention of Pontius Pilate at all. One mention by Philo, nothing else. And, he was a fairly important man. If all we have on Pilate is one mention, what would you expect to have on Jesus? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/126 "2010-05-09T04:22:33Z")
Josephus and Tacitus also mention Pilate. Having said that, Pilate was not all that important. Judea was not that important. It was a backwater post of no great consequence. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/127 "2010-05-09T04:37:04Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > Who the hell would write about a crucified Galilean peasant? Philo was mostly a philosopher, and he didn’t write a damn thing about recent history in Judea- the closest he got was a report of the persecution of Jews in Alexandria. Josephus, who did write histories of Judea of that period, does mention Jesus, though the entry we have in almost certainly doctored by later copyists. > Oh, and by the way, Paul is contemporary with Jesus. He’s extremely biased\* and admits that he never met the man and doesn’t corroborate the fantastic tales in the Gospels, but would have been born at about the same time and claims to have been intricately involved with the early church and known many eyewitnesses intimately. > . There are two mentions of Jesus by Josephus. One is indeed almost certainly edited by later Christian writers. The other, which is rather offhand, is not doubted by any scholars. > **[Josephus on Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)** > > Flavius Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian who provided external information on some people and events found in the New Testament. Josephus was a general in Galilee, which is where Jesus ministered and people who knew him still lived; he dwelled near Jesus's hometown of Nazareth for a time, and kept contact with groups such as the Sanhedrin and Ananus II who were involved in the trials of Jesus and his brother James. The extant manuscripts of Josephus' book Antiquities of the Jew The... “_Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent._”…_The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.[2] One reason for accepting its authenticity is that unlike the Testimonium, the passage was mentioned in several places by Origen.._ Besides Paul we also have John. The Gospel of John is now thought to have been dictated by the Apostle in his elder years, then edited. So, he’s a contemporary. Matthew was also a contemporary, but his Gospel was at best second hand. Current thought is that it might well have been based upon some of Matthews writings. Mark _may_ have been the author of that Gospel. He might well have been a contemporary of Jesus, while Mark was a very young boy. Legends say as much. Why we offhanditly dismiss them, while accepting some other quite biased sources, I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/128 "2010-05-09T04:52:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Josephus and Tacitus also mention Pilate. > > Having said that, Pilate was not all that important. Judea was not that important. It was a backwater post of no great consequence. Neither were contemporaries. Well, it’s possible Josephus (AD37) was born a couple years before Pilate died, but they never met. (Of course, we’re not sure when Pilate was born or died, but his term as “Governor” apparently ended about the time or before Josephus was born.) And of course, _they_ both mention Jesus. Philo does not mention Pilate in a historical context, just ranting about how horrid Pilate was to the Jews. True, Judea wasn’t all that important, but it had quite a bit of excitement around that time. Actually, we don’t have much in the way of contemporary historians from the early empire. Tacitus and Josephus are pretty much generally accepted as sources, however, even tho Josephus didn’t start writing until after the fall of the Second Temple. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/129 "2010-05-09T13:08:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Besides Paul we also have John. The Gospel of John is now thought to have been dictated by the Apostle in his elder years, then edited. So, he’s a contemporary. “Now thought”? By who? I mean, it’s clearly post-synoptic, anti-Jewish and pro-Gnostic. All that points to a post-Apostolic authorship to me. ---
**Author:** ![Staale\_Nordlie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Staale\_Nordlie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Staale_Nordlie)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/130 "2010-05-09T13:23:54Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The other, which is rather offhand, is not doubted by any scholars. > > [Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus) From your own Wikipedia link: > [@](#): > > … Emil Schürer was one scholar who rejected the entire passage, largely on the a priori grounds that Josephus wanted to avoid mentioning Jewish belief in a Messiah to his Roman readers.[60] > > George Albert Wells has conjectured that the words “who was called Christ” were not in the original passage, the words having originated as a marginal note by a Christian copyist, which later became accidentally incorporated into the main body of the text.[61] This passage, and the Testimonium are the only two times that Josephus uses the word “Christ”. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/131 "2010-05-09T18:01:33Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > “Now thought”? By who? I mean, it’s clearly post-synoptic, anti-Jewish and pro-Gnostic. All that points to a post-Apostolic authorship to me. > **[Authorship of the Johannine works](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works)** > > The authorship of the Johannine works (the Gospel of John, the Johannine epistles, and the Book of Revelation) has been debated by biblical scholars since at least the 2nd century AD. The debate focuses mainly on the identity of the author(s), as well as the date and location of authorship of these writings. > Although authorship of all of these works has traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle, most scholars theorize that he wrote none of them, though the tradition still has many mod... _“The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran marked a change in Johannine scholarship. Several of the hymns, presumed to come from a community of Essenes, contained the same sort of plays between opposites – light and dark, truth and lies – which are themes within the Gospel. Thus the hypothesis that the Gospel relied on Gnosticism fell out of favor. Many suggested further that John the Baptist himself belonged to an Essene community, and if John the Apostle had previously been a disciple of the Baptist, he would have been affected by that teaching. The resulting revolution in Johannine scholarship was termed the new look by John A. T. Robinson, who coined the phrase in 1957 at Oxford. According to Robinson, this new information rendered the question of authorship a relative one. He considered a group of disciples around the aging John the Apostle who wrote down his memories, mixing them with theological speculation, a model that had been proposed as far back as Renan’s Vie de Jésus (“Life of Jesus,” 1863). The work of such scholars brought the consensus back to a Palestinian origin for the text, rather than the Hellenistic origin favored by the critics of the previous decades.”_ This answers your Gnostic claim. So, post synoptic? Sure, why not, John is thought to have lived to as late as AD100. The Gospel was written no later than AD85. "_Alhough most scholars agree in placing the Gospel of John somewhere between AD 65 and 85,[5] John A.T. Robinson proposes an initial edition by 50–55 and then a final edition by 65 due to narrative similarities with Paul.[6] Other critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three).[7]."_ In other words, like I said- an initial version of John dictating his memories and views, then some levels of editing afterwards. Anti-jewish? Well, that’s debatable. But remember, John was a rather young man when Jesus died, maybe 27. He lived on for 61 years afterwards, thus he was a Christian much longer than a Jew. Why couldn’t he have a bias against the Faith that killed his leader, a man he considered the Son of God? Or perhaps the editors slipped in the anti-Jewish bias. Assuming there is one. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/132 "2010-05-09T18:09:20Z")
> [@Staale\_Nordlie](#): > > From your own Wikipedia link: I dismiss Emil Schürer as he was anti-semitic and he rejected the line on a antisemitic line of reasoning, rather than any actual scholarship. Which is what your quote sez. The line above the one you cut& pasted is “\*The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.[2] One reason for accepting its authenticity is that unlike the Testimonium, the passage was mentioned in several places by Origen.” \* So, I’ll accept a quibble of all _unbiased_ scholars. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/133 "2010-05-09T21:29:18Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > This answers your Gnostic claim. And the very next paragraph you left out directly contradicts your “ **Now** thought” statement, and bolsters my claim: > [@](#): > > In any case, the “Qumran fever” that was raised by the discovery of the Scrolls is gradually dying down, with theories of Gnostic influences in the Johannine works beginning to be proposed again, especially in Germany. Some recent views have seen the theology of Johannine works as directly opposing “Thomas Christians”.[40][46] . And the unified Essene origin of the DS Scrolls is far from certain. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/134 "2010-05-10T01:08:10Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > And the very next paragraph you left out directly contradicts your “ **Now** thought” statement, and bolsters my claim:. And the unified Essene origin of the DS Scrolls is far from certain. Yes, so we have conflicting theories. So? The point is, that the hints of Gnostic themes in John are not a reason to disallow the Gospel as having been written (or at least partially dictated) by the Apostle. The hints of Gnosticism in John could have came from the same source as that the birthed Gnosticism. The dating is close enough so that it does not in any way disallow John as a Gospel written around AD90 or so. None of your objections holds up. In fact, there is nothing whatsoever the contradicts the idea that John the Apostle dictated most of that Gospel in his elder years. In fact although the dating in John disagrees with the Synoptic Gospels, it makes more historical and geographical sense. “\*Robinson offers three arguments for preferring the chronology of John’s Gospel to that of the Synoptics. First, he argues that John’s account of Jesus’ ministry is always consistent, in that seasonal references always follow in the correct sequence, geographical distances are always consistent with indications of journey times, and references to external events always cohere with the internal chronology of Jesus’ ministry. He claims that the same cannot be claimed for any of the three Synoptic accounts. For example, the harvest-tide story of Mark 2:23 is shortly followed by reference to green springtime pasture at 6:39. Again, the historically consistent reference to the period of the temple construction in John 2:20, may be contrasted with the impossibility of reconciling Luke’s account of the census of Luke 2:2 with historic records of Quirinius’s governorship of Syria. Second, Robinson appeals to the critical principle, widely applied in textual study, that the account is most likely to be original that best explains the other variants. He argues that would be relatively easy to have created the Synoptic chronology by selecting and editing from John’s chronology; whereas expanding the Synoptic chronology to produce that found in John, would have required a wholescale rewriting of the sources. Third, Robinson claims that elements consistent with John’s alternative chronology can be found in each of the Synoptic accounts, whereas the contrary is never the case. Hence, Mark’s explicit claim that the Last Supper was a Passover meal is contraindicated by his statement that Joseph of Arimathea bought a shroud for Jesus on Good Friday; which would not have been possible if it were a festival day.” \* Thus, even though it appears to be the last written of the Gospels, it shows more indications of being written by a first person contemporary. “\*The date of the crucifixion In the Jewish calender, each day runs from sunset to sunset, and hence the Last Supper (on the Thursday evening), and Jesus’s crucifixion (on Friday afternoon), both fell on the same day. In John, this day was the 14th of Nisan in the Jewish calender; that is the day on the afternoon of which the Passover victims were sacrificed in the Temple, which was also known as the Day of Preparation. The Passover meal itself would then have been eaten on the Friday evening (i.e. the next day in Jewish terms), which would also have been a Sabbath. In the Synoptic accounts, the Last Supper is a Passover meal, and so Jesus’s trial and crucifixion must have taken place during the night time and following afternoon of the festival itself, the 15th of Nisan. In favour of the Synoptic chronology is that in the earliest Christian traditions relating to the Last Supper in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, there is a clear link between Passion of Jesus, the Last Supper and the Passover lamb. In favor of John’s chronology is the near universal modern scholarly agreement that the Synoptic accounts of a formal trial before the Sanhedrin on a festival day are historically impossible. By contrast, an informal investigation by the High Priest and his cronies (without witnesses being called), as told by John, is both historically possible in an emergency on the day before a festival, and accords with the external evidence from Rabbinic sources that Jesus was put to death on the Day of Preparation for the Passover. It is further agreed by most scholars that astronomical reconstruction of the Jewish Lunar calendar tends to favor John’s chronology, in that the only year during the governorship of Pontius Pilate when the 15th Nisan is calculated as falling on a Wednesday/Thursday was 27 CE - which appears too early as the year of the crucifixion; whereas the 14th of Nisan fell on a Thursday/Friday in both 30 CE and 33 CE. Consequently many scholars, including many who otherwise favor the historicity of the Synoptics, regard John’s dating of the crucifixion as correct.” \* ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2010, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/135 "2010-05-10T05:51:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, so we have conflicting theories. So? So to blithely state that it is “Now thought…” is not wholly accurate. Especially since your “Now” is really the 50s, and more modern scholarship is returning to the non-Apostolic view.. > [@](#): > > The point is, that the hints of Gnostic themes in John are not a reason to disallow the Gospel as having been written (or at least partially dictated) by the Apostle. The hints of Gnosticism in John could have came from the same source as that the birthed Gnosticism. The dating is close enough so that it does not in any way disallow John as a Gospel written around AD90 or so. Only if you hold that the Apostle John was also the root of, or else so strongly influenced by pre-Christian strains of, Gnosticism. While I have no problem with a pre-Christian origin date for Gnosticism (in fact, I prefer it), lining a historic John up that strongly with Gnosticism, when he is alleged to be an eyewitness to a physical Jesus himself, kind of makes a doctrinal mess of the whole thing, doesn’t it? That, and the Hellenistic threads in the Gospel argue strongly against the famously “unschooled and ordinary” John described in Acts > [@](#): > > None of your objections holds up. To you. They serve me well enough, especially the fact that John is \*clearly \*post-Synoptic, yet the narrative conflicts majorly. > [@](#): > > In fact, there is nothing whatsoever the contradicts the idea that John the Apostle dictated most of that Gospel in his elder years. There’s nothing that supports it, either. It’s just church tradition. Directly opposed by the earlier tradition that has John martyred along with James, I might add. But this is all irrelevant, anyway. My main point was to take issue with your characterisation of current scholarship as “Now thought” to point to John as \*definitely \*the author. This is hardly the case at all. It is not the mainstream view. ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2010, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889/136 "2010-05-10T14:46:26Z")
We almost always think of Biblical literalism when we think about Christianity today. It is important to remember that this is a modern interpretation of an ancient text and was very likely not how the authors intended it. Here is a good explanation of how a lot of the New Testament stories were likely originated. They were likely created as haggadic exercise to tie the new hero depicted in the New Testament to important passages from the old. This was a standard mode of writing in the time these books were composed and explain a lot of the stories that appear in them far better than the theory that they were reports of actual historical events. Pretty fascinating reading actually. [New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash](http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm) I personally feel that there was no historical Jesus, but that that he was created from the true stories of several messiah wannabes that cropped up around that time. There are records of several “messiahs” who made a fairly big splash in Judea at about that time from Jewish and Roman records, just no mention of anyone exactly matching the name and description presented in the Bible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-jesus-exist/537889.md?page=6)