One of the things that shook my faith so terribly that I never recovered was when I discovered that the historicity of [tag]Jesus[/tag] had been in question for centuries. For the never-have-been-Christians among us, if you’ve seen the vox-pops from The God Who Wasn’t There, then you’ve got a decent impression of what the average Christian knows about first century religion: nothing beyond what the Bible states (or what their pastors state the Bible states).

The average Christian likely believes two things in error due to the manner in which they’re taught about Jesus’s life: that his ministry as described was unique and that we have eyewitness testimony of it. In reality, there were many messianic figures of the period and no-small number of miracle workers. The National Geographic documentary The Rivals of Jesus (part 1 of 5) presents the case for a few of these other messiahs and also for an alternative vision of Jesus based on the Dead Sea Scrolls. For the second point, the gospels were written decades after the life of Jesus, which we know to be fact because of events they mention and that we can trace the synoptic gospels back to two sources (one of which we have in The Gospel of Mark). And for those Christians who still believe in Biblical inerrancy, we can do this in part based on disagreements between the Gospel accounts.

The Gospels themselves do not always match what we know about history either. If you take two Biblical dates for the birth of Jesus as fact, then you have to believe Mary was in labor for at least a decade. Criticism of the Gospel accounts comes in two flavors: from those attempting to reconstruct a historical Jesus and from those attempting to reconstruct a mythical Jesus.

The Wikipedia entry on the Historical Jesus is an excellent introduction to some of the issues, as is the article on the Historicity of Jesus. As is routinely done for any historical figure, these researchers attempt to reconstruct who Jesus was, what he did, and what were the immediate effects of his ministry from the varying accounts of his life and our knowledge of the period. Examples of the debates that historians are engaged in can be found in the Infidels.org library.

The search for the mythical Jesus proceeds from the belief that the historical evidence does not even support a historical Jesus. This research attempts to demonstrate how the first Christians believed only his spiritual existence, as followers of Mythras and other savior figures. The central evidence comes from both the similarities to other mythical figures and that the earliest writings about Jesus (in the epistles of Paul) do not describe Jesus’s ministry on Earth, which one would think would still have been of great importance at the time.

What does this mean for us? First and foremost, our own education. But also for realizing that Christians are under informed on their own religion. I think that ultimately, the more people are encouraged to think about their own religion in relation to history, etc, the more they will have to lose some of the assurance with which they make claims. I think it would be an excellent idea for us to dedicate some part of this website to encouraging Christians to ask tough questions about their faith in a non confrontational way. History is about the process and theory of uncovering truth as much as it is about cold hard facts. Just as we don’t want Christians to believe they have all the answers, it would be a good idea to demonstrate that the reason we think they’re wrong isn’t because we have all the answers but more because there’s good reason to doubt theirs.

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

7 Responses to “The Historicity of Jeshua”
  1. Anath says:

    My main comment about this entry is that “Jesua” should be spelled “Yeshua”. The letter J was not “invented” (used) until relatively recent times, as you can see here. There is no hebrew equivalent for J, and the sound/letter does not appear at all in the Hebrew language… Instead it is yod: the Y equivalent.

    This is interesting to look at… seeing how the Christians tout the name of Jesus, and Jehovah, with the more “scholarly” ones “correctly” spelling Jehovah as JHVH. How can one proclaim to be saved by the name of Jesus, when even the spelling and pronunciation of the “holy name” are horrifically bastardized?

  2. mirror says:

    Well, you’re right, but the way its spelled in one alphabet has no bearing on how something is spelled in another alphabet. Not if you want it to make sense to readers of that alphabet. There’s no “Y” in some modern alphabets, and for most Germanic languages, spelling it with a “J” would lead a speaker to the desired pronunciation. If Yeshua’s name had been written during his alleged life, it probably wouldn’t have been in any Latin-derived alphabet but Greek or another Phoenician derivative. So neither “Y” nor “J” are correct if one really wants to be pedantic.

    It’s the switching from the phonological systems of different languages that produces the “bastardization” in this case (the Yahweh from JHVH case is more about a speaker of one phonological system attempting to reconstruct something from an alphabet of another system). Those changes are perfectly normal, really, if you ust look at ordinary changes in the name John/Jean/Jon/Juan/Sean/Johan/Ivan/Joäo. You would never tell someone named Sean that “Actually, in the original Hebrew, it’s יוחנן ”

    Though, since English uses Y not J most of the time, I don’t have a real excuse except I’m used to thinking in terms of the IPA, where “j” would be the only choice for representing the Hebrew sound.

  3. Anath says:

    Y would be correct though. Yeshua is spelled with Yod ( י ) as the first letter, which is translated into romanicized characters as Y. I can see your point on how the J would be the proper pronunciation for many germanic languages, though. I hadn’t thought of that. I was just thinking in Americanized English, and how to best represent the point to the widest range of people, and commenting that it is definitely amusing that people cling to the English. The last bit was more a comment on pronunciation than the spelling.

    “I cast out the demon in the name of JESUS (with a hard J)!” : P

    Our differing letter choice is probably just a result of locale.

  4. Ajeh Goodie says:

    The gospel of yeshua should be brought to limelight so that we all can actually know the history surrounding we christians……..

  5. Internet Banking says:

    I was just chatting with my coworker about this the other day over lunch . Don’t know how in the world we got on the topic actually , they brought it up. I do recall eating a excellent steak salad with ranch on it. I digress…

  6. Fidel Malool says:

    Thanks so much I really learned some good things by coming here this afternoon.

  7. Corazon Thelen says:

    I really enjoyed reading your blog I got some very interesting information from this article thanks for sharing your info keep update. regards

Leave a Reply