Historical Jesus

[Learner]

BTW, did the name Cephas or Petros even exist as a personal name before Simon changed his name? Honest question.

As far as I can tell from a quick search (hopefully I understand your question correctly). Cephas is from the Aramaic word Kepha, and Petros (Peter) is from the Greek. Interestingly if correct.. both words mean 'Rock'. Perhaps not existing as personal names as such, but rather as descriptive nick-names, given in the example of the scenario in Matt 16:18:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

 

[Elixir]

Are you trying to be sarcastic?

No, I’m genuinely confused.
Never mind - religious stuff is beyond me.

 

[Swammerdami]

I think part of the confusion was that I mentioned two countries as having adopted Christianity very early as state religions. They were NOT the earliest Christians: The earliest Christians were in Galilee or Judaea. I mentioned Ethiopia and Armenia ONLY as one of many facts supporting the assertion that Christianity spread VERY rapidly. That's how I build arguments:
(1) Christianity grew rapidly long before the time of Constantine.
(2) As evidence supporting (1), we introduce facts, such as the adoption of Christianity as state religions.
(3) Once the evidence leads us to accept (1), the facts presented in (2) have no further relevance.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

As for Cephas/Peter: Yes, we all(?) know these names or "nick-names" (sometimes called "surnames" in the KJV-NT) derive from 'Rock' and Kepha/Cephas was a "surname" allegedly granted Simon by the Nazarene himself. (He also allegedly gave the surname 'Boanerges/Sons of Thunder' to the sons of Zebedee.)

After the Crucifixion, Simon is almost always referred to as Peter or St. Peter (or Cephas). Peter/Pierre/Pietro/Pedro/Piotr is a very common given name in Europe. My interest is in the question: Did Peter first become a given name after it became the new name of Simon Barjona?

 

[Learner]

As for Cephas/Peter: Yes, we all(?) know these names or "nick-names" (sometimes called "surnames" in the KJV-NT) derive from 'Rock' and Kepha/Cephas was a "surname" allegedly granted Simon by the Nazarene himself. (He also allegedly gave the surname 'Boanerges/Sons of Thunder' to the sons of Zebedee.)

After the Crucifixion, Simon is almost always referred to as Peter or St. Peter (or Cephas). Peter/Pierre/Pietro/Pedro/Piotr is a very common given name in Europe. My interest is in the question: Did Peter first become a given name after it became the new name of Simon Barjona?

Pardon me, yes I thought that would have been too obvious a question, regarding knowing these names as nick-names or surnames etc..

As a given name, that's an interestingly good question. Simon seems to be the very first to be called 'Peter' as a given name, so far as I can currently tell (deeper search required).

 

[bilby]

The title of the thread is "Historical Jesus." Is this phrase confusing or ambiguous?

Yes. Both words have multiple possible meanings and, as even a cursory examination of the thread demonstrates, there is little agreement amongst posters as to which are the "right" or "correct" meanings.

"Historical Jesus" could mean almost anything from "a person with the name 'Jesus' lived at some point in the past", through to "the actual Son of an actual God actually walked the Earth and performed genuine miracles in the Middle East in the first century CE", and a wide range of things between these two extremes.

If we take the former meaning, then it would be bizarre to claim that there wasn't an historical Jesus; If the latter, it would be bizarre to claim that there was.

The entire thread is a series of pointless claims, by adherents of different interpretations, that everyone else's claims are stupid and bizarre.

None of it matters one whit. If no miracles or gods were involved, then the claim is utterly uninteresting. That people lived in the Middle East in the first century CE is hardly an interesting topic for debate; Whether any of their lives roughly matched the narratives of the New Testament, minus the miracles and gods, is equally unimportant.

And if there are such things as miracles and/or god(s), we would do better to examine them today, than to worry about them a couple of millennia ago.

 

[lpetrich]

What the NT's writers did was much more rapid than the development of the King Arthur story, and it's hard to point to an event comparable to Geoffrey of Monmouth's work. The composing of gMark (Gospel of Mark)?

But Jesus mythicists Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier have come up with an account of the development of the NT's accounts that is something like the King Arthur story, a story that grew in the telling over time.

-- Paul's letters: JC is a sort of archangel that communicates directly to him. Xianity starts as a Jewish-themed mystery religion, with JC as an intermediary savior god.

-- The author of gMark composed an extended allegory about JC, portraying him as having had an earthly existence.

-- The authors of gMatthew and gLuke expand on gMark, often copying word-for-word, and using a lost collection of sayings called Q, something like gThomas. Richard Carrier, however, claims that there was no Q, that gMatthew was an expansion of gMark, and that gLuke was a rewrite of gMatthew. These three biographies are often called the Synoptic Gospels from their having much in common.

-- the authors of gJohn wrote what is essentially a theological tract that used JC as a mouthpiece, like how Plato used Socrates as his mouthpiece in his dialogues.

It is entirely possible that some accounts of some real people were woven into the Gospels as accounts of JC, but that's not saying much for historicity. It's more like pre-Galfridian Arthur than post-Galfridian Arthur.

 

[lpetrich]

Here is something that I consider a very similar case:  Historicity of King Arthur It seems to me that without big religious interests, the debate on the historicity of Jesus Christ would play out much like the debate on the historicity of Arthur Pendragon.

This is all almost completely backwards. Professional historians have concluded that Monmouth's stories about Arthur are almost certainly fiction. The "Galfridian Arthur" may have become an exciting set of myths, loosely connected to Christianity, but AFAIK this "Arthur" was never endorsed by any formal church, none of his "Knights" were venerated by the church, and so on. Tales of the "Holy Grail" are not part of a religion; they are a fantasy which, like the Chronicles of Narnia, may parallel a religion in impressionable minds.

That is my point about the lack of big religious interests supporting the historicity of post-Galfridian Arthur, considering affirmation of his historicity a part of their identity, etc.

Professional historians -- remember them? -- who explore the "Historic Arthur", if any, rely on documents much older than Monmouth's writing.

The JC of the Gospels ~ Post-Galfridian Arthur
A lot of historical-Jesus speculation ~ Pre-Galfridian Arthur

Around 500 CE, he supposedly conquered the British Isles, nearby islands, and nearby continental Europe, though his empire did not survive his mysterious disappearance.

No professional historian believes that anything like that happened. Not one.

Of course not. There is zero independent evidence of such conquests. It's the same problem with some of the content in the Gospels. Leaving aside the miracles, the Synoptics have JC making a triumphant entry into Jerusalem and throwing that Temple temper tantrum, followed by everybody turning against him and saying something very uncharacteristic of lynch mobs. From Matthew 27:25, "May his blood be on us and on our children" If they were like any well-documented lynch mob, they would say "Death to Jesus!" "Death to the false prophet!" "Death to the blasphemer!" and consider killing JC to be totally justified and not something grossly negative for them and for their children.

 

[Learner]

There is zero independent evidence of such conquests. It's the same problem with some of the content in the Gospels. Leaving aside the miracles, the Synoptics have JC making a triumphant entry into Jerusalem and throwing that Temple temper tantrum, followed by everybody turning against him and saying something very uncharacteristic of lynch mobs.

From Matthew 27:25, "May his blood be on us and on our children" If they were like any well-documented lynch mob, they would say "Death to Jesus!" "Death to the false prophet!" "Death to the blasphemer!" and consider killing JC to be totally justified and not something grossly negative for them and for their children.

Not sure why you chose that verse for the point you're making (probably one of Carrier's ideas). Just before Mathew 27:25 we see in Mathew 27:22-23, the crowd is crying for Jesus to be crucified.

Matt 27:22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. 23.And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

* If we see the verses below, we can see the context of Matthew 27:25 is different from the context you give in the quoted above. in bold*

Matt 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. 25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. 26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

It's like the crowd is saying" if you don't feel you wanna crucify Jesus, then, we'll do it, we'll be responsible for the crucifixion...

 

[steve_bank]

What the modern Christians do not seem to understand is that the NT cannon was selected to fit a political-religious consensus, all other views were suppressed and wrings destroyed.

It is not Mark reporting as verified fact as academic history or journalism, it is 'The Gospel According To Mark'.

The gospels were most likely produced to support one narrative among many.

I knew an Evangelical Christian who strongly beloved in faith healing, his whole family did. He traveled to a faith healing center in North California for seminars.

He would go on and on citing examples of miraculous faith healing which he nor anyone he knew actually witnessed.

That is Christianity from the start in a nutshell, beliefs in hear say recounting of miraculous events.

 

[Swammerdami]

Don't mind bilby. He's just the punchline to an old joke.

The historian gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the drivel, gibberish and pomposity standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said Billy Bee. "But it's drivel, gibberish and pomposity all the way down!"

"Historical Jesus" could mean almost anything from "a person with the name 'Jesus' lived at some point in the past"

Well, I guess we've resolved any mystery about "the Historical Paul Bunyan" then. since Google finds this:

Paul Wayne Bunyan November 14, 1944- January 5, 2023 We are heartbroken to announce that Paul Wayne Bunyan, our dear Dad passed away in the evening of January 5th 2023 at the age of 78 after suffering a stroke November 22, 2023. He is predeceased by parents Myrtle and George, brothers... Read More

, through to "the actual Son of an actual God actually walked the Earth and performed genuine miracles in the Middle East in the first century CE

Nobody (or almost nobody) is arguing for a miracle-working Jesus in this thread. The very term Historical Jesus implies that we are interested in the actual man. Those interested in a Messiah, Son of God, or Miracle-Worker almost always use a different term than "Historical Jesus." You might even know this yourself, bilby, if you could manage to climb out of the many layers of gibberish and pomposity you relish so much.

", and a wide range of things between these two extremes.

A "wide range"? Last time it was just "nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody, and nobody."

Do you care that your "viewpoint" -- if we can even call it that -- is both peculiar and useless? I once offered you a chance to clarify your comment by assessing Mohammed the Prophet, or Siddhartha the Buddha within your iconoclastic framework. You were unable and unwilling to do so, and unable to propose a plausible excuse for your inability. Does your confidence that Jesus was a "nobody" while being unable to characterize others nearly as famous as the Nazarene is, perhaps not point to Jesus indeed being unique after all?

 

[bilby]

Do you care that your "viewpoint" -- if we can even call it that -- is both peculiar and useless?

Not at all; This entire discussion is peculiar and useless.

I do wonder why you seem to care so much though.

And I wonder even more why you feel the need to get defensive when I give you a simple answer to a simple question.

You asked "The title of the thread is "Historical Jesus." Is this phrase confusing or ambiguous?" The answer is YES.

That you would prefer this to be a rhetorical question to which the answer is "no", changes nothing.

The phrase is both confusing AND ambiguous. And you would know that, if you could manage to climb out of the many layers of gibberish and pomposity you relish so much, and enjoy projecting onto anyone who refuses to bow down to your superior gibberish and pomposity.

Last time it was just "nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody, and nobody."

My position hasn't changed; If you think it has, then you have probably misunderstood it - maybe you were too busy making assumptions about my position to actually read what I wrote.

 

[bilby]

I once offered you a chance to clarify your comment by assessing Mohammed the Prophet, or Siddhartha the Buddha within your iconoclastic framework. You were unable and unwilling to do so, and unable to propose a plausible excuse for your inability.

You are not my schoolmaster, and I don't have to do any homework you might set for me; Nor do I owe you any kind of explanation or apology if I choose not to respond to off-topic questions.

The discussion is about Jesus. Not Mohammed the Prophet, or Siddhartha the Buddha.

And the rhetorical point you are seeking to make is nonsensical in the context of this discussion.

Is the character of Jesus (or Mohammed, or Siddhartha) based on a real person? Probably. On a single real person, and nobody else? Probably not. Do we have enough evidence for a less vague answer than "probably (not)"? Yes, for many religious figures; No, for Jesus.

Does it matter? No.

 

[Swammerdami]

I am reminded again that folks have trouble "keeping their eye on the ball" and that therefore we must define "Historical Jesus' every 100 posts or so. For atheists like myself who do not think anyone has or had "supernatural" powers but who, nonetheless follow common-sense and offer some respect to the conclusions of professional historians, the "Minimal Jesus" may be a useful alternative term for the "Historic Jesus."

Here is a definition of the Historic/Minimal Jesus I gave recently. The post contains some other useful remarks; skip to the large blue text at the very bottom to read a definition of "the Historic Jesus."

The difference between Davey Crocket, Johny Appleseed, et al, and Jesus is that we are told that our very lives depend on us believing that Jesus is our saviour, that if we don't believe in Jesus, we are eternally damned.

What relevance does this have to our topic? Do we disbelieve in Nancy Pelosi's existence because some people said bad things about her?

I may as well answer my own questions.

The historicity of Davy Crockett, Muhammad the Prophet, and the man nicknamed Johnny Appleseed are NOT IN DOUBT. No mystery, no ambiguity; these are Yes/No questions and the answers are all Yes.

Now these people may have acquired mythic status, and fictitious miracles may have been ascribed to them. So what?

Similarly, James 'the Just', brother of Jesus is confirmed by Josephus, three Gospels, Acts, and Epistle to Galatians.
John the Baptist was historic, and so was James Jesus' brother. Period. Both these men were very highly respected as good men, whose teachings were good; their martyrdoms are viewed as exacerbating conflict between Jews and the authorities.

Peter plays a pivotal role in the Gospels, Acts and some of the Epistles. If Jesus were a fiction, Peter was probably one of the most key fiction inventors. I think he was historic. BTW, did the name Cephas or Petros even exist as a personal name before Simon changed his name? Honest question.

Anybody know?

With one exception, that exhausts the list of people whose historicity I asked about. We are left with Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha. Was he historic? His dates are unknown; there is an 80-year gap between two different estimates of his dates. The earliest "biography" of Buddha dates to about 150 or 230 years after his death. A far FAR bigger gap than we see for Jesus of Nazareth. Yet AFAIK, the historicity of this men is generally accepted. Am I wrong?

May I ask again? Was the Buddha probably a historic person? Should we go with the opinions of professional historians? Or just go with the latest blog entry at Skeptiks'R'Us?

The key task of professional historians is to study ancient documents and to determine what is likely.

- - - - - - - - - -

To explore some questions, we must look at the chronology of documents. Some of Paul's Epistles were written about 55 AD, making them much earlier than written Gospels. However they did not have wide circulation, while oral versions of the Gospels were doubtless circulating long before they were written down. Christianity spread like wildfire; it was present in Rome by 60 AD and probably much earlier. Paul's Epistles were a reaction to a cult which had already spread, and not the initial cause of its spread. The early cult was spread by Peter, and by primitive orally-transmitted versions of what came to be the Gospels. (Note that Paul makes the Resurrection central to the religion he espouses in his Epistles, while for Mark the Resurrection is barely an after-thought.)

If Jesus were a fiction, the fiction writers would have had flexibility about how he was martyred. Given Deuteronomy 21:23 why hang him from a tree? John the Baptist wasn't hung from a tree.

Did Paul base his theology on a mythical debasement (crucifixion) of Jesus? But the story of the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is found BEFORE Paul; it is in the earliest oral Gospels; it is in Tacitus' account of the Emperor Nero.

I may as well answer my own questions.
...
Similarly, James 'the Just', brother of Jesus is confirmed by Josephus, three Gospels, Acts, and Epistle to Galatians.

Josephus tells us the martyred James the Just had a brother named Jesus. Almost all historians agree on that much. And real men do not have fictitious brothers. Various "solutions" have been proposed; which is yours? Or is it just "Ho-hum who cares?"?

John the Baptist was historic, and so was James Jesus' brother. Period. Both these men were very highly respected as good men, whose teachings were good; their martyrdoms are viewed as exacerbating conflict between Jews and the authorities.

Peter plays a pivotal role in the Gospels, Acts and some of the Epistles. If Jesus were a fiction, Peter was probably one of the most key fiction inventors. I think he was historic. BTW, did the name Cephas or Petros even exist as a personal name before Simon changed his name? Honest question.

With one exception, that exhausts the list of people whose historicity I asked about. We are left with Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha. Was he historic? His dates are unknown; there is an 80-year gap between two different estimates of his dates. The earliest "biography" of Buddha dates to about 150 or 230 years after his death. A far FAR bigger gap than we see for Jesus of Nazareth. Yet AFAIK, the historicity of this men is generally accepted. Am I wrong?

The key task of professional historians is to study ancient documents and to determine what is likely.

- - - - - - - - - -

To explore some questions, we must look at the chronology of documents. Some of Paul's Epistles were written about 55 AD, making them much earlier than written Gospels. However they did not have wide circulation, while oral versions of the Gospels were doubtless circulating long before they were written down. Christianity spread like wildfire; it was present in Rome by 60 AD and probably much earlier. Paul's Epistles were a reaction to a cult which had already spread, and not the initial cause of its spread. The early cult was spread by Peter, and by primitive orally-transmitted versions of what came to be the Gospels. (Note that Paul makes the Resurrection central to the religion he espouses in his Epistles, while for Mark the Resurrection is barely an after-thought.)

If Jesus were a fiction, the fiction writers would have had flexibility about how he was martyred. Given Deuteronomy 21:23 why hang him from a tree? John the Baptist wasn't hung from a tree.

Did Paul base his theology on a mythical debasement (crucifixion) of Jesus? But the story of the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is found BEFORE Paul; it is in the earliest oral Gospels; it is in Tacitus' account of the Emperor Nero.

Josephus wrote hearsay.

Almost all history is hearsay. Suetonius was born when Nero was already dead, yet his was the authoritative biography. We look to Tacitus for information about the early Christians in Rome; Tacitus was about 7 years old when Rome burned.

I love Reynolds' biography of John Brown. Highly recommend! Yet Reynolds was born almost 90 years after Brown's death. Should I throw this book away?

The gospels and NT are anonymous fiction.

Are you a professional historian?

Have you even studied the views of professional historians on this matter? You should know better than most that I am not over-eager to jump on an "expert's consensus" bandwagon, but expert opinion is often a good starting point.

Experts agree that much of the story of Jesus is factual, not fictional. Have you reviewed their evidence?

Jesus' brother James is a major stumblng-block for mythicists; have you picked a scenario to hoist your petard on?

Yet you treat these documents like historical commentary instead of historical artifacts. Why do you do that? Why do you say christianity spread like wildfire? Is this from Chrestus or because of Paul? The Josephus passage about Jesus we know is an interpolation and was "discovered" by Eusebius, a known forger and propagandist from the third century.

Do you get brownie points for pointing out facts I had pointed to just moments before?

John the Baptist was also historic. The Jewish-Roman historian Josephus devotes a long discussion to him. A discussion with ZERO reference to Jesus or any Christian cult. Except for one mention of Jesus which is widely agreed to be an interpolation by a Christian editor, is there any accusation of writing fiction that has b that have turned up testifies to that. een lodged against Josephus? The historicity of John the Baptist is confirmed by all four Gospels, Acts, and several Epistles. JtB? Historic. Period.

You speak of "christianity" as some kind of monolithic movement when it wasn't. Why do you do that?

Why is there not a historical Santa Claus? What about the historical Hercules or Pegasus?

Fiction is fiction. Fact is fact. If you thought Paul Bunyan was factual, would my reciting names like Huckleberry Finn and Sherlock Holmes contribute to the discussion?

The FACT that separate Christian cults diverged early on gives support to historicity. If the cults worshiped different Messiahs, they might have had different names. NOPE! They all worshipped the same man -- the Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

"Historical Jesus" could be a lot of things. Please define your "Historical Jesus" and then tell us how your evidence supports your claim.

What can be GUESSED is that Jesus "of Nazareth" was born in Galilee roughly 5 BC. He was probably baptized by John the Baptist; after John's arrest some of John's followers probably chose Jesus as their new leader. He developed a ministry in Galilee and Judaea but very little is known of details. He was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate about 30 AD, but even the details of that are unclear.

Some time after his death cult(s) developed and spread rapidly. By about 50 AD or even earlier there were largish Christian communities in Greece and Rome. The spread of Christianity was quite phenomenal. The huge number of written fragments of the Gospels; conparisons with later Gospels show that the Gospel contents had undergone very little change. Before the first known complete Gospel, Ethiopia and Armenia had adopted Christianity as their state religions.

Why did Christianity spread so rapidly? Several reasons are possible, and the charisma of the man named Jesus likely played an important role.

The man called Simon Peter may have played the biggest role; he concocted myths about supernatural powers and preached a doctrine of salvation. Other important mythmakers probably included the Sons of Zebedee and St. Paul.

There are several reasons why this outline makes more sense than any purely mythicist reconstruction. I have discussed some of them. And works of professional historians are on-line waiting to be read.

 

[bilby]

There are several reasons why this outline makes more sense

Meh. What "makes sense" is purely a matter of opinion; Like arseholes, everyone has one, and mostly they are full of shit.

It's fine for you to believe this; It's not even implausible. But to be something others should agree is true, that's gonna need evidence.

And the documentary evidence is gone, obscured by mountains of obfuscations by people with agendas, from Paul onwards.

And the archaeological evidence is likely gone too.

So... you are entitled to your pointless opinion, but not to abuse people who don't subscribe to it (or any other hard and fast position on the question).

Not only is it OK to say "I don't know"; It is the only reasonable and honest position to take, absent non-hearsay evidence.

 

[DBT]

I am reminded again that folks have trouble "keeping their eye on the ball" and that therefore we must define "Historical Jesus' every 100 posts or so. For atheists like myself who do not think anyone has or had "supernatural" powers but who, nonetheless follow common-sense and offer some respect to the conclusions of professional historians, the "Minimal Jesus" may be a useful alternative term for the "Historic Jesus."

Here is a definition of the Historic/Minimal Jesus I gave recently. The post contains some other useful remarks; skip to the large blue text at the very bottom to read a definition of "the Historic Jesus."

The difference between Davey Crocket, Johny Appleseed, et al, and Jesus is that we are told that our very lives depend on us believing that Jesus is our saviour, that if we don't believe in Jesus, we are eternally damned.

What relevance does this have to our topic? Do we disbelieve in Nancy Pelosi's existence because some people said bad things about her?

As the topic appears to be about 'the historic Christ,' I assumed that this includes whatever was said about him. That the point of the thread was to distinguish between the man and the myth, Jesus the man, the itinerant Rabbi/miracle worker with the supernatural stories related to his ministry, what was said about him, which includes the claim that he was the prophesied Messiah, Son of God, Saviour.

 

[Swammerdami]

I am reminded again that folks have trouble "keeping their eye on the ball" and that therefore we must define "Historical Jesus' every 100 posts or so. For atheists like myself who do not think anyone has or had "supernatural" powers but who, nonetheless follow common-sense and offer some respect to the conclusions of professional historians, the "Minimal Jesus" may be a useful alternative term for the "Historic Jesus."

Here is a definition of the Historic/Minimal Jesus I gave recently. The post contains some other useful remarks; skip to the large blue text at the very bottom to read a definition of "the Historic Jesus."

The difference between Davey Crocket, Johny Appleseed, et al, and Jesus is that we are told that our very lives depend on us believing that Jesus is our saviour, that if we don't believe in Jesus, we are eternally damned.

What relevance does this have to our topic? Do we disbelieve in Nancy Pelosi's existence because some people said bad things about her?

As the topic appears to be about 'the historic Christ,' I assumed that this includes whatever was said about him. That the point of the thread was to distinguish between the man and the myth, Jesus the man, the itinerant Rabbi/miracle worker with the supernatural stories related to his ministry, what was said about him, which includes the claim that he was the prophesied Messiah, Son of God, Saviour.

No problem. By the same token, are not then legends about Davy Crockett relevant to the "Historic Davy Crockett"?

This thread is a maze of 17 twisty passages, few if any leading anywhere. I'm sorry one of my comments did not meet your expectations. If you have something useful to contribute please do so.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As the topic appears to be about 'the historic Christ,' I assumed that this includes whatever was said about him. That the point of the thread was to distinguish between the man and the myth, Jesus the man, the itinerant Rabbi/miracle worker with the supernatural stories related to his ministry, what was said about him, which includes the claim that he was the prophesied Messiah, Son of God, Saviour.

This is basically what I'd like Swammi to do. Just paint his HJ in a hundred words or so, or more or less. All the books written on the subject, at least those done by persons without confessional interests, have a person in mind. That's what I want Swammi to do, not repost half a web page of old discussion. Hopefully he will do that.

Oops! I see Swammi has done just that, lettered in blue above. Thank-you, Swammi!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Using Swammi's defined HJ and eliminating the probably guessed, likely things here's his HJ:

Born in Galilee 5BCE.
Ministry in Galilee and Judea,
Executed by Pilate 30CE
Explosive spread of his teachings owing to his charisma

None of this can be documented so the best position to take is that we really don't know. That's where I stand.

 

[Tharmas]

But the story of the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is found BEFORE Paul; it is in the earliest oral Gospels; it is in Tacitus' account of the Emperor Nero.

I am curious where you get the information claiming that the crucifixion was in the "earliest oral gospels." I thought the earliest oral gospels were "sayings gospels" like Q or The Gospel of Thomas.
As an aside, Tacitus' account does not predate Paul or, for that matter, Mark.
Edited to add: I believe Paul, who certainly mentions the crucifixion, makes no mention of Pontius Pilate

 

[Swammerdami]

But the story of the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is found BEFORE Paul; it is in the earliest oral Gospels; it is in Tacitus' account of the Emperor Nero.

As an aside, Tacitus' account does not predate Paul or, for that matter, Mark.

Tacitus was born early in the reign of Nero, and mentions Pontius Pilate (as the Crucifier) in his writings on Nero's reign. Yes, that work wasn't "published" until very roughly 110 AD, but it is very unlikely that Tacitus had encountered the Gospels by then.

Edited to add: I believe Paul, who certainly mentions the crucifixion, makes no mention of Pontius Pilate

Paul doesn't mention John the Baptist. He doesn't mention any of the Herods, nor Judas Iscariot. IIUC he mentions no Emperor of Rome by name. There were at least two Marys who play very prominent roles in the Gospels, but Paul mentions neither (his single reference to a "Mary" is to someone else altogether. Paul just wasn't concerned with historical details!

We know from Acts that Paul interacted with Luke and John Mark, but his only mentions of these key players are in allegedly pseudepigraphical letters. Among the Twelve Disciples, I think he mentions only Cephas and John. Paul just wasn't concerned with historical details.

The BLUE Text that T.G.G. Moogly refers to was NOT intended as a summary of the EVIDENCE: It was merely an outline of Jesus_of_N's life, to distinguish him from a "nobody."

One specific piece of evidence I would ask skeptics to focus on is the matter of Jesus' brother James. With corroboration from THREE 1st-century sources, this brother is NOT easily "disposed of." Those who try, use DIFFERENT arguments -- even different Jameses -- for the sources, boldly defying Mr. Ockham's "Razor."