The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith.So even if Jesus is a historical myth (ie was a flesh and blood man) you could have the issue of the Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed; as Robert Price puts it "For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus." The problem is that such a reductive historical Jesus is similar to Robin Hood or King Arthur, where the core person (if there ever was one to begin with) has been effectively lost, and potential candidates are presented as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.As a result nearly all presentations of evidence gravitate to the Triumphalist end of the spectrum: "Either side of the historicity debate will at times engage in a fallacy here, citing evidence supporting the reductive theory in defense of the triumphalist theory (as if that was valid), or citing the absurdity of the triumphalist theory as if this refuted the reductive theory (as if that were valid)".
This is effectively the "everything else" position where Jesus is a composite character formed out of many messiahs as seen with John Robertson's suggesting that several messiahs were composited together, G A Well's position that a legendary figure of a previous century inspired Paul but an actual person in the 1st century inspired the Gospels, or the idea that the gospel account grew out of various other myths.
"A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural.
For example, Constantin-François Volney regarded as one of the two fathers of the modern Christ Myth allowed for the confused memories of an obscure historical figure being integrated into a mythology that had formed organically, Both of these sound much like the current version of the historical Jesus don't they?
And yet they are both examples of the "Christ Myth". 100 BCE, or Remsburg who said there was just enough to show Jesus existed as a human being but nothing to verify any of the New Testament account as being history.
This article concerns the evidence put forward in favor of the suggestion that Jesus actually once existed as as a real-life, flesh and blood human being.
For the debate on whether there likely was one single founder of Christianity, or if the early church just rallied around the myth of such a man, see our article on Jesus myth theory.
Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) is said to be found in several places: the Bible; other early Christian writings (including various early churches c. It has become obvious that the actual scope of this article needs to be spelled out.
100 CE); and what could be referred to as "the usual suspects", a lineup generally consisting of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger - and, on occasion, Thallus. This article is NOT about the Christ myth theory but about the quality of the evidence presented regarding his existence (both for and against).
The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage.