Home page

What about
the Bible?

The Hannibal-makes-Jesus-real postulate

They say that if you believe in Hannibal then you have to believe in Jesus.

The angle is that historians make allowances for conjecture and that the likelihood of existence is thereby similar for each. Divinity is (ostensibly) another matter.

"Most historians accept that he existed" is the standard in public discourse. Most historians don't study Jesus.

Historians of antiquity make generous assumptions because the source material is limited and flawed. The presumption, in the "Hannibal vs. Christ" argument, seems to be that we have to accept that Jesus lived if our historiography is to have any integrity. Scholarship is hostage, in this argument.

It's an argument.

But without the Christ, where's the man? Apart from the fictional, is there anything distinct about the biography of Jesus? Indeed, the most conspicuous and only certain fact about him is the absence of contemporaneous record.

When the story of Jesus is disabused of the claims that are not real, there may be no story. It may be extraordinary to claim that Jesus existed.