# Lack of evidence Jesus existed. Do we typically have evidence of historical figures from that time? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 31, 2016, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155 "2016-05-31T07:49:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/101 "2016-06-02T05:55:10Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > How much is “a lot”? Of all the scholarly articles and books written in the past generation about Jesus and the New Testament, what percentage support the mythicist position? My impression, for what it’s worth, is that mythical-Jesus is pretty much a fringe theory; it’s the classical historian’s equivalent of being an anti-vaxxer or a climate change denialist. According to Bart Ehrman, in fact, a Jesus-mythicist is about as likely to get a position in a university department of religious studies or classical studies as a six-day creationist is to get a position in a department of biology. Whether Ehrman’s claim is true or not, I can’t say. But, if it’s untrue, it can easily be refuted by pointing to mythicists holding appointments of this kind. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/102 "2016-06-02T06:49:45Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Where does the Gospel of Thomas fit in, **UDS**? Sorry, missed this earlier. I don’t know a huge amount about this. SFAIK the Gospel of Thomas is the only apocryphal gospel which is or could be be as early, or earlier, than the canonical gospels and therefore the only one which, regarded as a historical source, might be comparable with them in terms of usefulness or reliability. It is, however, a “sayings gospel” - a collection of teachings and saying attributed to Jesus, with little or no biographical information. Therefore it doesn’t tell us much, one way or the other, about the historical Jesus. Plus, because it’s a sayings gospel, it’s hard to date. It doesn’t describe any events, etc that would help in dating, and the text is very sparse. And since it largely consists of speech attributed to Jesus, even the style of writing isn’t necessarily indicative of when it was written. So it _could_ be as early as Paul, and some scholars suggest conceivably even earlier. On the other hand, it could be as late as John, or a fair bit later. It would be relevant in establishing, as a matter of history, what Jesus actually taught vs. teachings that were later attributed to him (which might or might not be developments rooted in things he actually taught). Some of the sayings attributed to Jesus in Thomas correspond to sayings attributed to him in canonical gospels; this tends to increase our confidence that he did in fact say them, or something like them. Others have no parallel in the canonicals, and then you can argue (a) that they are likely inauthentic, or (b) that they are authentic, but were forgotten or actively supressed when the Christian movement took a distinctively Pauline turn, or (c) something else. As far as the historical Jesus goes, Thomas does contribute to the case that, at the time of its composition, there was a community out there - the community that produced this gospel - that regarded Jesus as a person to whom sayings could be attributed. But since we don’t really know when it was composed, that doesn’t get us very far. ---
**Author:** ![Commodore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@Commodore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commodore)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/103 "2016-06-02T07:40:44Z")
Jesus did exist, the name means Saviour and it’s truly a fact that he is. His name was Emmanuel and this means, God with us. Any true Israelite knows who Jesus is, just as Nathanael knew who he was directly because he was a true Israelite ! Jesus is a Prophet and not only that, but much more, the Son of God ! Jesus is not God the Father, but it’s within the Trinity that one can comprehend that he is “God with us” and it’s the Holy Spirit that convinces us truly indeed of this fact. If you don’t have a comprehension of the Holy Spirit then you are just lost as to how the three work as one and not only that, without such a comprehension then your just truly lost to the comprehension of most things in the Bible, remember Jesus said one ‘must’ be born again of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is the path that is hoped to lead one to the Holy Sprit, Water Baptism is not the end but the start for the repentance of sin. Jesus is the Holy Sprit and without such, one can not comprehend God the Father, but through his Son, such is in the Light of the Holy Sprit. bingo ! Grace under Christ Jesus is salvation the way and the Light. It’s Emmanuel working within us. Fact is that Jesus exist today and not only that but to the end of the world, He is the beginning and the end. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/104 "2016-06-02T09:53:58Z")
> [@Commodore](#): > > Any true Israelite knows who Jesus is. Ah, ask the true Israelites, the Caananites. According to them, The true gods are given here > **[Canaanite religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canaanite_deities)** > > The Canaanite religion was the group of ancient Semitic religions practiced by the Canaanites living in the ancient Levant from at least the early Bronze Age to the first centuries CE. Canaanite religion was polytheistic and, in some cases, monolatristic. It was influenced by neighboring cultures, particularly ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian religious practices. The pantheon was headed by the god El and his consort Asherah, with other significant deities including Baal, Anat, Astarte, and Mot... ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/105 "2016-06-02T11:28:52Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > My impression, for what it’s worth, is that mythical-Jesus is pretty much a fringe theory; it’s the classical historian’s equivalent of being an anti-vaxxer or a climate change denialist. Well this is plainly, blatantly not true since the publication of peer-reviewed scholarly research in books such as [On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt](http://astore.amazon.com/supportcarrier-20/detail/1909697494). > [@UDS](#): > > According to Bart Ehrman, in fact, a Jesus-mythicist is about as likely to get a position in a university department of religious studies or classical studies as a six-day creationist is to get a position in a department of biology. Richard Carrier addressed some of this on his blog:[Bart Ehrman Just Can’t Do Truth or Logic](http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/10134#more-10134). > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]There are seven fully qualified scholars on the record who doubt the historicity of Jesus. Not “a couple.”[/li][li]We are not “internet voices.” I have a peer reviewed academic monograph from a mainstream biblical studies press on this question.[/li][li]Ehrman even appears to be saying that we are not “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines.” Because he leaves out any mention of the fact that this isn’t just “internet voices” but also published scholarship by his expert peers and recognized by his expert peers.[/li][li]He fails to make clear that there are “scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines” who have expressed their doubts. Again so far, seven of us.[/li][li]And contrary to his last sentence, we are “scholars who study this stuff.” We are his colleagues (fully his peers in respect to credentials—some of us even better trained and more qualified in the subject of history than he is; so this looks a lot like he is lying about our credentials again).[/li][li]And this question is debated by his colleagues. Not only by the seven of us so far who doubt historicity, but a lot of his colleagues have debated me. Including Zeba Crook, Trent Horn, Kenneth Waters, and (now) Craig Evans. One of those debates was even sponsored by the Society of Biblical Literature. So the claim that it is “not debated” among his colleagues is false.[/ul][/li] > [@](#): > > Because Ehrman continues to ignore, and never honestly conveys (much less ever rebuts), what peer reviewed mythicism actually says, he has no valid opinion in this debate. He is stalwartly avoiding telling the truth about what our thesis is, and what are arguments for it are. Just as he continues to lie about our qualifications, our numbers, and our work having been formally peer reviewed and formally debated by his colleagues. And just as he continues to lie about what the Bible and Talmudic Jews actually say. > > It now seems clear. Historicity can only be defended with lies. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/106 "2016-06-02T11:41:26Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > UDS is explaining the actual process for determining historicity. The one actually used by the experts. And the scholarly consensus is that he existed. > > There are some people who try to argue he didn’t, but it’s a fringe theory. And seeing as this is GQ, it doesn’t seem to me like this is the place for you to put forth those arguments. (I will note that said arguments are about the value of the attestations, not the attestations themselves, which is what the OP asked about.) > > Even the books that come out now that say he didn’t exist admit that they are going against the scholarly consensus. Richard Carrier described the correct process for determining historicity in great detail in [Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus](http://astore.amazon.com/supportcarrier-20/detail/1616145595), both explaining why the consensus is often based on an incorrect process and how to do it right. > [@](#): > > This in-depth discussion of New Testament scholarship and the challenges of history as a whole proposes Bayes’s Theorem, which deals with probabilities under conditions of uncertainty, as a solution to the problem of establishing reliable historical criteria. The author demonstrates that valid historical methods—not only in the study of Christian origins but in any historical study—can be described by, and reduced to, the logic of Bayes’s Theorem. Conversely, he argues that any method that cannot be reduced to this theorem is invalid and should be abandoned. > > Writing with thoroughness and clarity, the author explains Bayes’s Theorem in terms that are easily understandable to professional historians and laypeople alike, employing nothing more than well-known primary school math. He then explores precisely how the theorem can be applied to history and addresses numerous challenges to and criticisms of its use in testing or justifying the conclusions that historians make about the important persons and events of the past. The traditional and established methods of historians are analyzed using the theorem, as well as all the major “historicity criteria” employed in the latest quest to establish the historicity of Jesus. The author demonstrates not only the deficiencies of these approaches but also ways to rehabilitate them using Bayes’s Theorem. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/107 "2016-06-02T11:42:03Z")
To the OP, do you believe in Atlantis? ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/108 "2016-06-02T12:52:29Z")
> [@Commodore](#): > > Jesus did exist, the name means Saviour and it’s truly a fact that he is. > > His name was Emmanuel and this means, God with us. > > … [snip]… Umm, cite? ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/109 "2016-06-02T12:58:36Z")
> [@Grrr](#): > > So, leaving aside all the magic stuff, if I understand correctly, there is no evidence that a man named Jesus Christ existed some 2000 years ago. > > Is that typical of ANY historical figure from that time frame? > > And what would such evidence be anyway? > /curious atheist. I’ve looked into this some, and even took a college class on the history of the time of Jesus, and another about Bible history. I believe the answer is that we don’t have much evidence for the historical figure, Jesus, but we really wouldn’t expect to, other than through dumb luck. Very few people from that time were well documented, other than princes and such. > [@UDS](#): > > No. On the contrary, he’s better attested than many figures of the era who are accepted as historical. He’s much better attested than Socrates, for example, or Alexander the Great… But this is a very strange claim. Alexander is very well documented, even if the primary sources haven’t survived. Several secondary sources exist which clearly name their primary source, and if course we have political and archeological evidence of Alexander’s empire. A short Google search will give you lots of evidence. Here’s one summary source: > **[Historiography of Alexander the Great](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great)** > > There are numerous surviving ancient Greek and Latin sources on Alexander the Great, king of Macedon, as well as some Asian texts. The five main surviving accounts are by Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, and Justin. In addition to these five main sources, there is the Metz Epitome, an anonymous late Latin work that narrates Alexander's campaigns from Hyrcania to India. Much is also recounted incidentally by other authors, including Strabo, Athenaeus, Polyaenus, Aelian... Socrates is also pretty well attested, say, by Plato. > [@sbunny8](#): > > What we DO have evidence for is the fact that, sometime before 55 CE, there existed a religious movement whose members believed that that Jesus the Messiah had been raised from the dead and would be coming back very very soon (certainly within their lifetime), and that there existed people who spent considerable effort trying to persuade other people to join this new religion… but this! We have tons of evidence that a cult of Jesus grew up shortly after he is supposed to have lived. Sure, someone could have made up “Jesus”, but Occam’s razor suggests the guy was a real historical figure. > [@Dinsdale](#): > > Is it relevant to consider the motivation of the people recounting details of Jesus’s (purported) life and actions, when assessing the “evidence”? > > Someone upthread mentioned John Smith and the Angel Moroni. A good many people think it clear that Smith was a huckster, and that his stories utter bullshit. Same w/ L. Ron Hubbard. Isn’t it at least POSSIBLE that whomever promulgated the Jesus story 2000 years ago had similar motivations, and was capable of creating and spreading blatant falsehoods? Many cults are advanced for reasons other than an accurate relation of actual events. But Christianity was an exception?.. I don’t know about you, but I have zero doubt of the existence of John Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. I am not a Christian. I don’t believe most of the claims made about Jesus. And I don’t even think his existence has been conclusively proven. But I think it is much more likely than not that he existed, came from Nazareth, preached to the poor, was a rabble rouser, and was crucified for disturbing the peace. (Lots of false messiahs were, that’s a very non-extraordinary claim.) ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/110 "2016-06-02T13:00:34Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > To the OP, do you believe in Atlantis? I believe that a technologically advanced culture on the island now known as Santorini was destroyed by a volcanic eruption. I’ve seen the remnants of that culture, and the ash. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/111 "2016-06-02T13:32:05Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > We have tons of evidence that a cult of Jesus grew up shortly after he is supposed to have lived. Sure, someone could have made up “Jesus”, but Occam’s razor suggests the guy was a real historical figure. > […] > I don’t know about you, but I have zero doubt of the existence of John Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. Richard Carrier compares Paul writing about Jesus to John Smith writing about Moroni. Since we have tons of evidence that a cult of Latter Day Saints based on the teachings of Moroni grew up shortly after he is supposed to have met with John Smith, does your Occam’s razor suggest Moroni was a real historical figure? We have evidence of many cults rapidly growing about mythical figures. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2016, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/112 "2016-06-02T13:47:12Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > I don’t know about you, but I have zero doubt of the existence of John Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. Jesus isn’t those guys, he’s Moroni or Xenu. He’s the one the story’s about, not the one telling the story. Not even mythicists doubt the existence of Paul. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/113 "2016-06-02T14:09:32Z")
> [@Commodore](#): > > Jesus did exist, the name means Saviour and it’s truly a fact that he is. > > His name was Emmanuel and this means, God with us. > > Any true Israelite knows who Jesus is, just as Nathanael knew who he was directly because he was a true Israelite ! > > Jesus is a Prophet and not only that, but much more, the Son of God ! > > Jesus is not God the Father, but it’s within the Trinity that one can comprehend that he is “God with us” and it’s the Holy Spirit that convinces us truly indeed of this fact. > If you don’t have a comprehension of the Holy Spirit then you are just lost as to how the three work as one and not only that, without such a comprehension then your just truly lost to the comprehension of most things in the Bible, remember Jesus said one ‘must’ be born again of the Holy Spirit. > Baptism is the path that is hoped to lead one to the Holy Sprit, Water Baptism is not the end but the start for the repentance of sin. > > Jesus is the Holy Sprit and without such, one can not comprehend God the Father, but through his Son, such is in the Light of the Holy Sprit. bingo ! Grace under Christ Jesus is salvation the way and the Light. > It’s Emmanuel working within us. > > Fact is that Jesus exist today and not only that but to the end of the world, He is the beginning and the end. **Moderator Note** **Commodore** , witnessing to your religious faith is not appropriate to General Questions. Please limit posts like this to Great Debates. No warning issued, but don’t make another post like this outside of that forum. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/114 "2016-06-02T14:55:16Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Jesus isn’t those guys, he’s Moroni or Xenu. He’s the one the story’s about, not the one telling the story. Not even mythicists doubt the existence of Paul. The revelation Smith claimed to have received wasn’t a story about a real person Moroni. The supposed messiah Jesus Christ and Moroni have in common the supernatural/divinity. The supposed historical figure Jesus of Nazareth and Moroni have nothing in common. Nobody claimed Moroni was a real human. Moroni is more analogous to the angels who appear at various times in the Gospels, Satan where he appears in the Gospel to tempt Jesus in the desert, or the Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles. But we’re not discussing whether the supernatural/divine aspects of either story have evidence. This seems a persistent problem in this debate. People say ‘yeah I understand, it’s whether there was any such person, not whether the divine/supernatural aspects of Christian belief are true’, but many people don’t seem to really stick to that distinction as they make their arguments. In the parochial Western Christian v Post-Christian conflict, people have trouble getting past the implications of the historic Jesus about the Christian religion. That is, a real historical Jesus is a basically necessary though not sufficient condition for any traditional form\* of the Christian religion to be valid. Claiming there was no person Jesus basically\* invalidates the religion. And a lot of people of each side, and no not just on the religious side, have a lot personally invested in that. \*it’s possible in theory to believe in the teachings of Jesus and their divine origin without caring if there was such a person or not, but the existence of a Jesus-person still has major implications in the theistic/atheist split in Western society. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/115 "2016-06-02T14:57:50Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Richard Carrier compares Paul writing about Jesus to John Smith writing about Moroni. > > Since we have tons of evidence that a cult of Latter Day Saints based on the teachings of Moroni grew up shortly after he is supposed to have met with John Smith, does your Occam’s razor suggest Moroni was a real historical figure? Not a fair comparison, because, among other reasons, the “cult of Christians” was already well established before Paul got involved. ---
**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:** [June 2, 2016, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/116 "2016-06-02T14:59:30Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > The revelation Smith claimed to have received wasn’t a story about a real person Moroni. The supposed messiah Jesus Christ and Moroni have in common the supernatural/divinity. The supposed historical figure Jesus of Nazareth and Moroni have nothing in common. Nobody claimed Moroni was a real human. Moroni is more analogous to the angels who appear at various times in the Gospels, Satan where he appears in the Gospel to tempt Jesus in the desert, or the Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles. But we’re not discussing whether the supernatural/divine aspects of either story have evidence. Moroni isn’t described as just a spiritual being, he had concrete effects (golden plates) subject to the same empirical analysis as a human Jesus. But that’s besides the point - judging the attestation is about the textual evidence for both, anyway, so the human-ness or angel-ness of the referent is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![sbunny8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@sbunny8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sbunny8)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/117 "2016-06-02T15:19:57Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I would say that from Paul’s letters it is pretty evident what the “wrong gospel” is. Paul’s rivals insisted that all believers were required to submit to circumcision, kosher diet, and all other Jewish religious law. Paul disagreed, of course, always arguing strenuously against justification through the law. That was what the debate was about, and when Paul ranted against a position, that was the position he ranted against. But Paul specifically refers to the other side as false gospel. The word “gospel” means “good news”. If Paul’s rivals were going around saying you have to follow the laws of circumcision, kosher diet, et cetera, in what way is that “news”? That’s just same-old same-old Judaism, not any kind of “gospel”. Whatever the other side of that argument was, it must have been something different. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/118 "2016-06-02T15:22:06Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > My impression, for what it’s worth, is that mythical-Jesus is pretty much a fringe theory; it’s the classical historian’s equivalent of being an anti-vaxxer or a climate change denialist. > [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Well this is plainly, blatantly not true since the publication of peer-reviewed scholarly research in books such as [On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt](http://astore.amazon.com/supportcarrier-20/detail/1909697494). Uh, no. That does not prove **UDS** wrong. If anything, it suggests that he is right. A theory can be a fringe theory, even if it supported by publication of peer-reviewed scholarly research. If a theory is supported by only a tiny amount of peer-reviewed research, while the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed research contradicts that theory, then that theory is a fringe theory. That’s pretty much the definition of a fringe theory, is it not? There are certainly peer-reviewed papers and such from the climate change denialist position. They just don’t constitute a majority of the research on the topic; they represent a small minority. If you can name one scholarly book arguing that Jesus was not a historical figure, but only one, then it would seem that you have confirmed what **UDS** said. There are several peer-reviewed academic journals dedicated solely to the study of the New Testament documents and early Christian history, and hundreds in fields of history, archaeology, ancient literature and so forth that sometimes deal with those topics. A vast amount of academic material is published there every year. Earlier I asked you: “How much is ‘a lot’? Of all the scholarly articles and books written in the past generation about Jesus and the New Testament, what percentage support the mythicist position?” You don’t seem to be in any hurry to answer. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/119 "2016-06-02T17:00:07Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > A theory can be a fringe theory, even if it supported by publication of peer-reviewed scholarly research. If a theory is supported by only a tiny amount of peer-reviewed research, while the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed research contradicts that theory, then that theory is a fringe theory. That’s pretty much the definition of a fringe theory, is it not? > > There are certainly peer-reviewed papers and such from the climate change denialist position. They just don’t constitute a majority of the research on the topic; they represent a small minority. If you can name one scholarly book arguing that Jesus was not a historical figure, but only one, then it would seem that you have confirmed what **UDS** said. I never said it wasn’t a minority position. I said it wasn’t on the level of the anti-vaxxers or climate change denialists. The peer-reviewed scholarly research for the anti-vax position has been thoroughly debunked. Likewise any climate change denialist research. That just isn’t true about the published mythicist position. On the contrary, the published research has pointed out major flaws in the methodologies that have historically supported the historicity position. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2016, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155/120 "2016-06-02T17:39:54Z")
To the OP, should he be reading, I’d just like to note that information about Jesus was specially conserved through to today. In many senses, he’s actually quite well attested. I don’t know enough about Alexander the Great to comment about him, but if you compare Jesus to other figures who were in the same class of the time, John the Baptist, Simon Magus, Dositheos, Ebion, St James, Ananias, Judas, etc. we have far more information that we’re fairly accepting of (3-4 sentences worth) than we do of these other figures, way more information about Jesus which is plausibly true (paragraphs), and potentially that information only exists thanks to the Jesus connection. (The sections of the Ginza Rba that I have read make me think that it’s no earlier than a late 2nd century work. So I wouldn’t currently accept any biographical information about John the Baptist from it as being very worthwhile.) One of those things about archaeology and textual history is that we don’t know the things we have no information about. We’re not even aware of the gap. If there was a giant warehouse in the middle of Jerusalem, that had collected every single piece of testimony on the visit of extra terrestrials to Earth, in 65 AD, and that building was destroyed and burned in 70 AD, we would have no inkling that ET had visited. Take, for example, the [Great Hedge of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Customs_Line). This is something that existed only 200 years ago, but was rarely discussed in print and few of those writings were preserved, just through random luck. We almost lost all record of it, and didn’t know that there was such a gap in our knowledge, until a single sentence that referred to it was found in 1995. (There ended up being more information about it available, but it was all in obscure, old works that may have all ended up one day being recycled for space, or who knows what.) Overall if, say, the population of Judea around 30 AD was 1 million people (a random, plausible number), but all of the names of all of the people that we have from that time and place is a few hundred, then that’s not a particularly good set of records. Particularly not if, for most of the hundred, we have nothing more than a name and maybe a profession. And if we say that we really only care about the 1% most important people, then we’d be hoping for information on 10,000 people. And, as the most important 1%, we would probably expect to have more than just their name and profession. We certainly don’t have that. We probably do have a few hundred people from the 1st Century, in Judea, where we can say both what their name is and what their profession was. Adding in gravestones, maybe we could get a number more names, but not much else. But that probably means that we’re missing 90-99% of the people most likely to be historically notable. And that’s just a complete blind spot. With that many people missing, significant changes to our view of what the world was like at that time, in that place, could be revealed. We’re limited to the not-necessarily-truthful views of a few individuals who wrote about a small, select subset of the group we want to know about, who are themselves just a small subset of the whole population at that time. By that standard, the information we have on Jesus is extraordinary. The fact that we can debate extensively and track information from Christian sources to Roman to Mandaean to Arab, and find some amount of all of it slightly elucidating, is impressive. It could all be a lie, or an extreme distortion of something true, but the works that we have which are plausibly from the right time and place, about this one man, is actually quite expansive given what we would expect from the information we have on everyone else of the time. > [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > I never said it wasn’t a minority position. I said it wasn’t on the level of the anti-vaxxers or climate change denialists. Lives aren’t really at stake, when it comes to the historicity of Jesus. So the lack of similar animosity would make sense. At the end of the day, debates over the historicity of Jesus are liable to have about as much impact on the quality of life of humanity as debating whether your least favorite rugby team cheated in that game in '67. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lack-of-evidence-jesus-existed-do-we-typically-have-evidence-of-historical-figures-from-that-time/756155.md?page=7)