I've read/seen a few things over the years claiming that a historical Jesus never really existed. Overall, I think the evidence presented is reasonable to make the claim. But, I think there is something more subtle (for lack of a better word) to consider.
Anything written by someone about anyone else is going to be faulty. Even autobiographies/memoirs will contain falsehoods. Most of these are probably honest attempts at recording the truth, but we know that our memories are just awful as recorders of stuff. We simply suck at recalling accurately what we've experienced.
Add to that the tendency to want to purposely write a story that tells mostly good stuff, and in an entertaining or clever way, we add even more trouble to the mix.
Now, put ourselves in a Mediterranean town 2,000 years ago. Very few people read or write. Well-known people get reputations mainly through rumor and "information" that is many people removed from a questionable and unknown source. Similar stories get mixed together.
So, given all of that, I don't think we can say that any historical character truly existed, at least not in the forms we commonly get exposed to today. Many are purely myth, some have some character on which a framework of disinformation was hung. Others may have more evidence of their existence. But, IMO, no one before the middle ages (or thereabouts), excepting some prominent royalty and a few others, can be said to have truly existed.
We humans have too many flaws to have recorded accurately any ancient occurrences at a reliable enough level to be considered worthy of being classified as proof. There was probably someone named Jesus; there were probably lots of people named Jesus. There were also probably lots of people who claimed to do miracles and be a "savior." But, given the times in question, there is no way we can take any of it literally--even the simple, non-miraculous claims.
It doesn't matter how many people recorded stories. There is no way to confirm a single source, let alone verifying it independently. The nature of the situation is one that we can only take the stories as stories. Facts cannot be assumed from them.
To say a god preferred this method of communication is to disprove his existence.
Anything written by someone about anyone else is going to be faulty. Even autobiographies/memoirs will contain falsehoods. Most of these are probably honest attempts at recording the truth, but we know that our memories are just awful as recorders of stuff. We simply suck at recalling accurately what we've experienced.
Add to that the tendency to want to purposely write a story that tells mostly good stuff, and in an entertaining or clever way, we add even more trouble to the mix.
Now, put ourselves in a Mediterranean town 2,000 years ago. Very few people read or write. Well-known people get reputations mainly through rumor and "information" that is many people removed from a questionable and unknown source. Similar stories get mixed together.
So, given all of that, I don't think we can say that any historical character truly existed, at least not in the forms we commonly get exposed to today. Many are purely myth, some have some character on which a framework of disinformation was hung. Others may have more evidence of their existence. But, IMO, no one before the middle ages (or thereabouts), excepting some prominent royalty and a few others, can be said to have truly existed.
We humans have too many flaws to have recorded accurately any ancient occurrences at a reliable enough level to be considered worthy of being classified as proof. There was probably someone named Jesus; there were probably lots of people named Jesus. There were also probably lots of people who claimed to do miracles and be a "savior." But, given the times in question, there is no way we can take any of it literally--even the simple, non-miraculous claims.
It doesn't matter how many people recorded stories. There is no way to confirm a single source, let alone verifying it independently. The nature of the situation is one that we can only take the stories as stories. Facts cannot be assumed from them.
To say a god preferred this method of communication is to disprove his existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment