Jesus Christ or King Arthur, which has more basis in history?

>>520082

Both were featured by the pythons in equal ways

From a purely secular perspective, supposing most are fictional, the stories about Christ were written shortly after his life, whereas many of the times of King Arthur were written far later.

>>520082

Jesus, because we have far better records of him as he was living under the more settled area of the roman empire

the figure Arthur on the other hand was a composite of a number of historical kings IIRC, I have a book on it, but damned if I can find it

Arthur. But that is ok because Arthur was some kind of warlord, while Jesus was one of dozens of poor wandering miracleworkers

>>520127
Oh. This was in the case of the person existing. If you mean the events in their lives, then Jesus' are more accurate because of>>520093

>>520082
Jesus Christ. Far more evidence. Far more people who knew him at the time wrote about him after he died, all within a hundred years of the time he walked on Earth. This is just not so with King Arthur.

It wouldn't surprise me, however, if the King Arthur story had at least some basis in fact. These things don't usually just materialize out of nowhere. Everybody thought the Iliad was a piece of fiction because the Odyssey is so ridiculous until they found Troy and it had been destroyed.

>which has more basis in history? Which has more evidence?
Considering that King Arthur was a christian himself.... Jesus

>>520082
Coming from an a-political athiest, for lack of bias.
Jesus has FAR more evidence, basically as much as any other historical person of his time.
Arthur as one single king, has almost no evidence, He seems to be an amalgum of early briton kings and myth.

Definitely Jesus, he was even recorded in Roman execution records, barely however.

>>520082
Jesus
But that might just be because more people care about Jesus.

>>520242
>he was even recorded in Roman execution records, barely however.

The only mention by Roman historian I know about Jesus was decades after his death and that one is highly probable to be forgery. There isn't actual execution record for the person known as Jesus of Nazareth anywhere.

>>520082
Define "King Arthur".

It's pretty much accepted fact that he's based on a Roman soldier.

>>521362
Arthur was the leader of the Romano-British forces at the Battle of Badon against the invading Saxons. Gildas mentions the battle as happening in his lifetime (around the turn of the sixth century) but doesn't mention leaders. The reference to him leading the battle comes a few centuries later but the tradition probably stretches back further.

Jesus. There are only two non-gospel sources verifying the historicity of Jesus, but both were written only a relatively short while after his death, and one would have had basically no ideological motivation to mention him if he were a fabrication (Tacitus).

>>520093
You can analyze the New Testament from a secular perspective without considering it fictional.

>>521406
There aren't really a lot of details from the New Testament that can be verified readily, aside from the fact Jesus existed, was baptized, and was crucified.

>>520082
Most historians concur that Jesus existed. However, a lot of things and stories (actually probably most) in the bible did not actually occur or even exist.

More historical scholars probably give more historicity to Jesus than Arthur.

>>521419
>Most historians concur that Jesus existed.
No they bloody well don't.

>>521433
They most certainly do.

>>521433
Christ mythism is a pretty fringe opinion. There's about as much reason to believe Christ existed as many commonly believed in figures from 2000+ years ago.

Personally I think there's grounds on which to doubt the historicity of Jesus, but no grounds to do so without likewise doubting the historicity of a whole shitload of other historical figures.

>>520082
In British archaeology there is saying: You can't excavate Arthur. Arthur is for the historians to discuss, in archaeology he is a not something you look for.

>>521433
yes they do.

>>521386

Actually, Gildas' Latin makes it clear that the leader of Badon was Ambrosius Aurelianus, NOT Arthur. Winterbottom's translation is notoriously unreliably, given that it was overseen by John Morris, whose Age of Arthur it was intended to supplement is an exercise in pseudohistory.

There is NO mention of Arthur anywhere before the 9th century when the Historia Brittonum was written.

Moreover, Gildas says that the battle of Mons Badonicus took place in the year of his birth, 44 years before he put pen to paper.

The dating of Gildas to c.540 is erroneous. It is based on equating the tyrant 'Maglocunus' with Maelgwn of Gwynedd - while Maglocunus IS the name Maelgwn in Latin, the issue is that there is nothing to suggest Gildas' Maglocunus, 'insularis draco' is Maelgwn of Gwynedd, whose death date is preserved only in a 10th century genealogy. The name was that of many kings and was current into the 12th century, and so there is no reason to assume they are the same men, much less that the dating is correct.

Gildas' Latininity makes it far more likely that he was actually writing in the late 5th century - his writing make clear that he received a secular Romanising, not clerical monastic education, and his reference to Latin as 'lingua nostra', as well as his extremely precise use of Late Roman administrative technical terms suggests Latin was his first language, not one acquired through a church education.

Dumville destroyed the 540 dating based on Maelgwn's alleged death date, but tried to reinstate it by suggesting a relative chronology based on the adverbs used to bridge Gildas' passages. However, Gildas almost always uses words like 'interea' (Meanwhile) which are utterly vague, and as has been convincingly demonstrated by Halsall, the De Excidio Britanniae may tell a story of simultaneous events in different parts of the island rather than one continuous narrative.

As I say, the best evidence for Gildas' date is his Latinity.

>>521433
They do.

King Arthur if existing in any form is a Mish mash of other guys
Jesus is more likely to be real

>>520242
what records? do you mean the historian josephus? cause he recorded a different jesus, not the messiah of the bible.