I think Lemmy has a problem with history in general, since most people on here have degrees/training in STEM. I see a lot of inaccurate “pop history” shared on here, and a lack of understanding of historiography/how historians analyze primary sources.
The rejection of Jesus’s historicity seems to be accepting C S Lewis’s argument - that if he existed, he was a “lunatic, liar, or lord,” instead of realizing that there was nothing unusual about a messianic Jewish troublemaker in Judea during the early Roman Empire.
ITT: “Hitler existed”
Oh so you’re a Nazi and believe Raiders of the Lost Ark was a documentary?! Go to hell! (Which doesn’t exist and I know that because I’m smart.)
Anyway, my understanding was that the existence of a single man, Yeshua the Nazarene, was still a bit controversial. Don’t some scholars suspect the Biblical Jesus was an amalgamation of a number of itinerant preachers? Or does much of the historical evidence lie in the fact that the Gospels seem to be talking about the same person? Which I think is your take?
What’s your background on this particular post? LOL, not looking for a resume, just broad strokes.
Also, why is he referred to as being from Nazareth when the Bible clearly states he was born in Bethlehem? Was Nazareth a state in which lay Bethlehem? I thought Judea was the state.
I haven’t seen this idea seriously suggested. Perhaps some of the ideas are an amalgamation - I suspect Paul had to do with a lot of softening of anti-Roman rhetoric. But the mainstream consensus suggests an individual.
What seems to be likely is that he was from Nazareth (tiny, backwater town), but prophecy would suggest he needed to be from Bethlehem, which explains the ridiculous “go to your homeland for the census” thing. (This also is sorta evidence for the historicity of the individual - what we might call a “criterion of embarrassment” - if they were just going to make the guy up on the spot they’d have had him just born in Bethlehem.)
My background is that I have a BA in history, and have done a little graduate level study of religion and historiography. I’m not a professional academic but I’m enough of an armchair enthusiast to have studied a little Koine.
Doesn’t the Bible say exactly that?
So his parents were from Nazareth and the census was a literary device to get Jesus’ birth to line up with prophecy? I’m still a bit confused.
Yes. Jesus was referred to often as a “of Nazareth.” If he had actually born in Bethlehem, then he probably would have been referred to as “of Bethlehem.” Notice how Mark, the gospel that was probably written first, does not have any form of birth story. Luke and Matthew have two contradictory accounts, which invoke a contrivance to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. Mark just says that he came out of Nazareth.
It’s easy to see the authors of Luke and Matthew adding the nativity stories in to make a prophetic argument.
I think the closest thing to a “historical” Jesus in the Gospels is probably found in the original Mark. The ending of Mark describing Jesus’s appearances after the resurrection is a later addition and was not present in the original texts.