many
Yeah I dunno about many
That’s incorrect. Virtually all scholars agree that Jesus was a real historical figure, based on many non-religious sources.
Of course most of stories about him are made up, but the scientific consensus is that he existed.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
dev_null@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
Definitely enough for a while separate Wikipedia page to list them all: en.wikipedia.org/…/Sources_for_the_historicity_of…
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
From that article:
The non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus are Josephus (a Jewish historian and commander in Galilee) and Tacitus (a Roman historian and Senator).
So two. Not “many”.
dev_null@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
That’s what the article calls “key sources”. There are many more below (Mara bar Serapion, Suetonius, The Talmud, and more under “minor sources”).
Scrogu@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
Not that many independent sources actually. The best evidence for me is that if he didn’t exist then why make up the ridiculous Roman census Nazareth story?
dev_null@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
There are so many sources that there is more evidence for his existence than for any other person living at the time.
This article mentions at least 14 independent sources: en.wikipedia.org/…/Sources_for_the_historicity_of…
Scrogu@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
That evidence seems sufficient. Not sure why you would assume I would dismiss good evidence. I guess that is common, but I am strictly rational as far as I know.
Aitolda@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Could also be an amalgamation of multiple people of a particular movement or philosophy. This happens a lot when you adapt a book to a movie, for example and you end up with characters that are a combination of characters from the original text.