The question of whether the Galilean, first century Jewish preacher named Jesus - who was crucified in Roman-occupied Judea by its fifth prefect Pontius Pilate - 'existed', is not a '
live' topic of great debate or interest in critical-historical research. The focus for scholars is overwhelmingly upon your second question; "
what was he like?" and the answer diverges quite dramatically, in most cases, from the traditional Christian account once you get passed the uncontroversial elements that the majority of researchers have accepted as credible (i.e. his baptism by John, the incident in the Temple complex in Jerusalem, his crucifixion, his posthumous deification by his followers soon after his death and the fact that messianic/apocalyptic expectations circled around him).
Nearly all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed:
"
There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that" (
Burrdige 2004, p. 34).
As in any discipline where there is a broad research consensus among accredited experts (such as the scientific consensus on global warming), there are obviously some very good reasons
why there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby).
The question of whether he existed at all is a curiosity that, for some inexplicable reason (outside the very fringes of the academic world, as with Carrier), commands an undue level of attention in popular discourse but really doesn't interest most serious scholars. The disconnect is rather big.
I really don't understand why this is the case: in most other research fields, interested lay men and women (such as, in the physical sciences or even other branches of historical study) typically defer to the consensus of those who are qualified to speak with authority on those subject matters, and have undergone years - or even decades - of training to be in a position to do so.
But for some reason, many people outside academia keep banging on about this issue - as if its a topic of pressing critical-analysis and debate in Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton etc. and other centres of scholarship, when it just isn't on their radar. If they aren't fussed about it, why should I be?
The second question "
who was the historical Jesus?" is the properly interesting one, regarding which there is to this day no clear consensus beyond the bare essentials of his life and teaching. There are some viable broad-stroked schools of thought among scholars about the historical Jesus and other portraits that are clearly deemed wrong by the majority of serious secular academic researchers (generally faith-based ones).
There are roughly five "
mainstream" perspectives, which can be laid out as follows (with the names of some prominent scholars advocating this viewpoint):
Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
Jesus the Wisdom Sage
Jesus the Man of the Spirit (Charismatic Healer/Hasid)
Jesus the Messiah claimant
So take your pick from those: each 'portrait' has (generally) equally strong scholarly credentials and some persuasive, historically plausible arguments in its favour. And I should note that they aren't all mutually exclusive (my personal reading pulls from both the
apocalyptic prophet and
prophet of social change perspectives, mostly).
Very well written (as you know), and for me that wasn't as relevant in the end as you'd think(!). Personally that is, and here's why. Though I had the third view for a time (Wisdom Sage), it wasn't the main interest I had that drove my investigation, or rather, not after the initial moments.
Instead, something much more prosaic or...well, basic, pragmatic: I wanted to know if he had something of value to add to my collection of wisdom about how to live along with Lao Tzu (The Tao), Emerson, Jung, May, (and quite a lot of others)...
For my own personal gain, just for the good life, here and now. Pragmatically.
Which would best benefit me among these? --
A) "Love your neighbor as yourself"
B) Ignore your neighbors mostly, except for maybe one that is convenient to help you now and then, and have a few, carefully screened select friends, 2-4, so as to not have too much effort or trouble. Be distantly polite to neighbors if you encounter them by chance
C) Be gregarious and have a good time with come who may, and have a lot of friends, including some neighbors, but not all of them(!) as some aren't worth the time of day, eh...
etc.
Which would I gain the most from? I wanted the good life, here and now.
So, I tested, and tested and tested.
Different times, places, houses, neighborhoods, over more than a decade.
And to my considerable surprise A was not simply better than B, which I'd done the most (and C when I tested it also), but far better. Through the random un-screened person that lived next door, after loving him, I ended up meeting at a party at his house one of the best friends of my life, who was a great mentor, and helped me tremendously.
To huge gain.
And that wasn't the only random neighbor that helped me plenty, to significant gain.
It works way better than it seems as if it could. Dramatically so.
I was astounded, really, when I reflected on it.
So, feeling intrigued, I tried another of Christ's rules for living:
Forgive people entirely,
from the heart (no less!), even when they've done nothing to earn it.
And that also made a dramatic improvement, which I could feel. And each time since also.
Works way better than it seems it ought to be able to work.
So, I tried another rule from him.
And then another....
You get the picture.
Repeated testing, varieties of situations, same impressive outcomes: way better than seems likely outcomes.
So, I began to see the pattern, eventually, to my reluctance and foot dragging.
What does He say that doesn't work?
Surely "love your enemy" would be one.
But it works astoundingly (ask if you want that story). Way better than ought to be possible.
So, to me, all the theorizing about Christ is useless, now.
I have actual outcomes instead. That's valuable in an obvious way: the good life is what most people claim they want.
Well, He knows the way. I tested, and that's the finding.
So, I then tested some of the other things, past the rules for living life here and now.
Anyone can.
