Did Jesus of Nazareth Exist? Most Historians Say, Yes!

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

9 thoughts on “Did Jesus of Nazareth Exist? Most Historians Say, Yes!

  1. The instant viticulturist, fig tree hating Jewish bloke as described in the bible? Obviously not.
    Some itinerant deluded halfwit called Yeshua who was crucified by the Romans for sedition.
    Yeah, why not?.

    Like

    1. Kind of like the joke about how The Illiad and The Odyssey were not written by Homer but another guy with the same name. Works for shakespeare as well.

      Kidding

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I agree with you 100%. The two Jesus’ found in the Gospels (the one in the Synoptics and the one in the Gospel of John; completely different people) is a fictional character, but a first century Jewish zealot named Jesus who preached “the End is near” and got himself crucified is most likely historical.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I don’t have an opinion on Jesus existence, but I definitely remember being disappointed when I read Ehrman’s book back in 2013 on Jesus’ existence, because it seemed like a lot of the elements of the Gospel stories and writings of Paul he rejected when it came to his debates regarding the resurrection, suddenly seemed accurate and reliable when it came to Jesus existence. Unfortunately I never took any notes, and I no longer have the book, and it was 7 years ago, so I can’t provide citations, merely anecdotal evidence of my being disappointed for the aforementioned reason.

    Like

  3. I listened to the first half hour of Ehrman’s interview, I’ll probably finish it tonight. On a superficial note, Ehrman’s constant nervous(?) big laugh at the end of so many of his statements really gets annoying. It’s odd that some who’s been up lecturing in classrooms for decades hasn’t fixed that irritating habit.

    Like

  4. I think Jesus existed. And, it is quite likely that he was either a revolutionary, or a Jewish faith healer and alleged miracle worker (such things existed back then — Honi the Circle Drawer and others) who drew crowds big enough to draw the attention of both Rome and the collaborationist priesthood to get executed. So, one of the two. The second means that he wasn’t necessarily a revolutionary.

    That said, as for Bart Ehrman? Overrated, IMO. Gets worse with each new book. Here’s my review of his book on the spread of Christianity. Lots of things he’s either ignorant about or else gets flat wrong. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2373163152

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree for the most part. I’m not a mythicist, but if I were I don’t think there is anything in this hour long interview that would change my mind or even give pause for thought, even once I got past his irritating belly laugh after every second sentence. I’m a fan of his earlier work when he wrote wrote within his are of expertise – textual criticism etc. But for quite a while now he’s been addicted to writing popular books outside this sphere, and after the disappointing Did Jesus exist and How Christianity Triumphed, I’ve stopped reading him for anything outside his field,

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s