Hacker News Reader

Comment by beltsazar | Hacker News Reader

> "uh, it's supposed to be the birth of a religious leader, but they got the math wrong so it's off by 4 years, if he existed at all."

> "if? You based your calendar off the birth date of someone you're not sure exists?"

I find it quite offensive. Not all scholars agree that Jesus was raised from dead, but the existence of Jesus is accepted even by non-Christian scholars.

> Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[7][8][30] Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[31] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[32][33]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

View on HN

The argument isn't generally that "Jesus" isn't a person, but rather probably built off one person, but also a collection of stories about people who might be other persons or made up. There were lots of messiahs at the time, and considering that the first gospel was probably written a good 20-to-60 years after the protagonist's death, it seems reasonable to many to presume that some the stories might be stories about other messiahs at the time that got passed on.

It obviously doesn't matter if actual divinity isn't at stake. Did Socrates exist? Maybe... probably? But he's depicted as two very different characters in the two sources we have (Plato and Xenophon). Which one is the 'real' Socrates. What about Homer? What about Achilles? Having long dated historical documents, especially one's that are more about the story than the person gets complicated.

Do I think that a person named some translation of "Jesus" existed, and generally lived the life described in Mark? Sure, maybe... It gets a bit dramatic at times, but it's plausible. Was that the exact same guy as the "Jesus" in Josephus? Hard to say... Maybe? Do I think all the things written in the gospels, and Josephus and the guy referenced by Tacitus all the same Jesus, and were all the things that happened real and/or happened to that specific one person? I find that to be wildly improbable.

Again, it sort of doesn't matter to non-religious folks. I don't think the person in the story needs to be "a person" just like I don't think Plato's depiction of Socrates needs to be 100% accurate, or even mostly accurate (it seems very obvious that liberties were taken). I don't think it really matters whether William Shakespeare or secretly someone else wrote all those plays. It really doesn't matter to people who have a healthy amount of skepticism... It's perfectly fine to admit that we don't know. The stories are still there and they're good stories.

It only really matters if one has built their identity on some long lost non-verifiable, historical parchments being the truth about the universe... I know many people have chosen to do that. I was brought up religious.

For the record, I'm an atheist that just happens to be interested in biblical archeology and philology. I got no skin in this debate though.

There is very little question that Jesus the human being and Roman subject existed, professed some sort of fanatical messianic religious messages, and got executed for it. Stronger than any evidence for Jesus directly is the evidence for the existence of his brother, James, who was a respected religious leader in Jerusalem for about 25 years after the death of Jesus. It is James that Josephus was writing about--Jesus is only mentioned to explain who James is, "the brother of Jesus who some call Christ." But in addition to this one near-contemporaneous reference, there is also a dozen or so writers who talk about James in the 2nd century. That is a century after his death and the death of his brother, but these writers seem to be working from largely different sources so we can infer multiple historical accounts that would have existed at the time. If we agree that James existed, then the strongest argument for the existence of Jesus is that all of these motivated, non-Christian secular writers of the 1st and 2nd century would have been in a better position to know whether Jesus had existed, and if there was any doubt they would have definitely smeared James as having made up his imaginary brother. But none of them did.

If anyone is interested in this question btw, Reza Aslan's Zealot is an approachable book on the historical Jesus, what little we know for certain and the surprising amount we can confidently infer from the available evidence.

To me your phrase 'skin in the debate' sums up my feelings about the debate we're having here.

I feel that everyone who wrote historically had skin in the debate and as such I mentally categorise them the same way I treat almost every journalist today. Writers are motivated to choose every word carefully to convince people of their opinions. They mention or exclude people and events for various reasons.

The more polarising the subject the less I trust anyone's words, even twenty centuries later.

What do you mean you find it offensive?

Are you offended at the assertion that people doubt that Jesus existed at all? As one data point I can assure you that I personally doubt that Jesus existed at all.

Are you offended by people doubting that Jesus existed? If you are a Christian then you are a believer in one of the hundreds of religions from around the world. To be offended that someone doubts the existence of the figures in your holy book is an amazing egotistical statement. Should a follower of Zoroastrianism be offended by someone who doubts the existence of Ahura Mazda?

Are you offended by people doubting that Jesus existed because there are references to him from contemporary historical records? Well I feel that Christianity and other religions have a long record of shamelessly rewriting history and so I basically don't trust anything written down on this subject at all.

It is convenient to ignore (historical) consensus here isn't it? I am sure you have a similar reaction when certain people disbelieve scientific consensus right? on topics such as vaccination or climate change?

I'm not sure why you're sure I have a similar reaction about scientific consensus perhaps you've just got .... faith in your feelings. Ba doom tish.

Scientific observations can be repeated. Religion teachings are, almost by definition, the exact opposite.

You're honestly offended by that? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be judgemental. It might be a cultural difference

>Not all scholars agree that Jesus was raised from dead,

Are there any scholars that do agree to this?

Well yes, many, but they're Christian scholars.

I wonder what the percentage would be of Biblical scholars who believe that Jesus was an actual person if we excluded those who believe, say, Moses parted the Red Sea or even those who believe Jews were enslaved in Egypt at the time.

Most scholars, even the non-Christian ones, believe that Jesus was an actual person. Whether he really performanced miracles is of course a very different matter.

The set of people I would exclude for shiggles include non-Christians.

Except for the New Testament, there are only 2 other known possible references. One was altered by later Christians, and the other could have referred to a Jew named Chrestus.

Without other external motivation, would this be enough to establish historicity?

The problem with that statement is that if you take away all the supernatural claims and give some room for creative embelishments and naming inaccuracies you end up with not just one but several "actual persons" but their existence becomes entirely irrelevant to the existence of a historical "Jesus".

It's a lot like the "god of the gaps": if you are willing to compromise on a definition of god that gives up on all supernatural claims in history and that only works through mechanisms indistinguishable from natural events, you're no longer talking about the same YHVH that painted fiery letters on a throne room, appeared in burning shrubbery, flooded the entire surface of the Earth and turned people into salt.

I think trying to argue about external facts when studying religion is largely a moot point. It's neat when you can tie religious doctrine and historical accounts together but a religion doesn't cease functioning because its historical claims are inaccurate. The historical claims are entirely accidental to the religion itself and should be viewed as mythological, not empirical.

I have met Christians who both understand that argument - that religion and empirical science belong to two distinct, separate magesteria - and reject it. But when I try to dive in to understand why, I do not ever understand their answer.

It's a joke, get over it

(For background, I'm a Christian.)

I've learned that most of the people online that are 35 or under don't really try to get details right for work like this. It's a sort of intentional sloppiness that portrays a relaxed style in an aloof manner.

I don't especially like it, but I always did wonder how getting out of touch with the young-ins would look and I guess being curmudgeon and pedantic about factual correctness is something I could embrace as I slowly fade out of style.

If the Tweet chain had gotten every other detail right, I'd take some offence too, but this is the internet equivalent of someone goofing off at a party.

Try to roll past it with a head shake.

Let us stop using Wikipedia to support our arguments.

Can you suggest a source that is more consistently correct?

Wikipedia should never be considered a "source", even per its own documentation.

If you must, to support an assertion found in Wikipedia, follow the article's citations and use them. If they even do support the assertion. Quite often, they do not.

Source can have a broader meaning than just “primary source.”

It should not be considered even a "secondary source". It's by intention an aggregator of secondary sources. Which secondary sources are included or excluded, particularly for sensitive or contentious topics, entirely depend on the bias and endurance of the editors of the article, so what you'll get is a grab-bag. Wikipedia has no effective means of detecting and countering, for example, a professional team of coordinated editors, or motivated activists.

As a rule of thumb, think high-school term paper. If that's good enough for your purposes, then sure, use it as a "source".

Treating someone with respect is not the same thing as believing what they believe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com