Hello historians! I stumbled upon some posts (Both from Reddit (r/DebateAnAtheist to be specific) and the internet in general) that there were people who argued against the fact that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I was wondering if such a fact is true as I am just a layman. I figured that r/AskHistorians would be the best place to ask such a question.
SCOURCES:
https://vridar.org/2019/03/05/justin-martyr-answers-a-second-century-jesus-christ-mythicist/
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/fi0uk2/did_jesus_really_exist_is_there_really_a/
"Jesus mythicism is not an invention of the internet age - it is an ancient game. Early christian apologists (in the 2nd century I think) had to deal with that particular charge already.
There are - very broadly speaking - two different types of Christ mythicists: Wacky unscholarly internet folks who make a lot of parallel myths, astrotheology and number games; and highly intelligent, trained people, some of whom have a lot of love for the bible - I'm mainly thinking about Robert M Price, but Richard Carrier falls into that category too (though I hate his arrogant ass I must say). So the whole thing is deceptively easy to strawman.
There are, of course, a LOT of highly skilled, venerated professionals in the historicist camp - Bart Ehrman probably the most well-known name. My admiration for him, for his passion and his dedication and knowledge - won't be blemished by the fact we disagree on Jesus' existence.
I think it matters a lot when you're able to put a number on your confidence. I'm about a 70% mythicist. There is no need to fully commit to one side. Both theories have a lot going for them and a set of problems, it's just that, with my current knowledge, the scale tips slightly towards mythicism.
Caesar existed. There is scholarly debate about Alexander's existence for much the same reasons as Jesus. With the Buddha, there should be debate, but there isn't. The point being, we should'nt lower the bar so we can allow Jesus, but keep it high and doubt the existence of those other guys."
(As you can see, the first point of this comment from the said post in r/DebateAnAtheist strikes me as odd)
PS: I'm sorry if I'm asking a question regarding a topic that is talked often in this sub. I just want to know the stand of historians regarding this detail. :))
Many aspects (most, honestly) of Jesus's life and career are debatable, but his historicity is not. No serious scholar would discount the existence of any other historical person about whom so much 'contemporary' literature attesting to their real life and existence survives, and so there is no good reason to doubt that a man whom history has variably named Jesus, Jeshua, Cristus, etc. DID in fact exist at one point, and that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate circa 36 CE. There is no serious scholarly debate about these two assertions. We don't have any direct archaeological or epigraphic evidence, but the sheer volume of literary and epistolary sources that establish these facts is so vast that to actually question Jesus's existence would mean we'd have to question the historicity of Socrates, Imhotep, and Buddha. Many other people wrote about them, attested to their lives, but none of them have left us any direct archaeological or epigraphic evidence or any writings of their own that we can point to and say 'look, here: it says 'I, Imhotep/Socrates/Buddha' did/wrote this.' We accept that these people exist because the sources who say they did are either numerous, credible, or both.
In Jesus's case, in addition to the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, which were written and revised throughout the century following his death, and which we have no good reason to question when it comes to the historicity of Jesus' life, we also have seven letters from Paul written within 50 years of Jesus's death. Paul claims to have met Jesus's brother James in person in Jerusalem. This establishes for us the fact that a real person named Jesus/Jeshua/Christus, who left siblings behind when he was crucified, did once exist. No one doubts that this meeting did happen. And even if we thought there was a chance Paul might have made James up, one of our most reliable historical sources for the first century Roman world (written c. 90 CE) is the Romano Jewish author Josephus, who both attests to Jesus's life AND to that of his brother James. Josephus is NOT Christian, and has no reason to perpetuate the 'hoax' of the astoundingly unpopular Cult of Christ. If he says the two men existed, it is compelling evidence that at least among the intellectual elite within the Province of Judea at that time the historicity of Jesus was not questioned. And finally, Tacitus, widely thought to be the most reliable historian of the early Imperial period, just straight up says that a man name 'Christus' was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate's historicity is unquestioned. Tacitus was definitely NOT Christian, and like Jospehus, he had no reason to promote the beliefs of the extremely unpopular (thought to be anti-social) Cult of Christ. He is merely reporting a event of (from his early-Second Century POV) minor historical significance, just as he mentions when provincial elites begin to be accorded Senatorial honors and the murder of Paetus.
TLDR: Scholarly consensus as far back as the 1st century CE supported the fact that a living, flesh and blood individual now identified as 'Jesus' did in fact at one point walk the Earth, and got himself Crucified.