King Arthur and Jesus

 King Arthur never existed. I'm not sure whether Jesus existed. 

And of course, I'm talking about a completely non-supernatural Jesus, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate around 30 AD. Supernatural details were added to the story later. They were either added to the biography of a real person, or the entire biography is fiction.

Academics overwhelmingly say Jesus existed. This is the only case where I go against an overwhelming academic consensus. I still can't figure out why the academics are convinced.

I believe John the Baptist existed. I believe Pontius Pilate existed. I believe Saint Paul existed. But the evidence for Jesus seems very thin, to me. The story of Jesus could be based on John the Baptist. Paul could have made Jesus up because he thought the story would be good for people.

Or something else.  Or he might really have existed.

King Arthur is a slam-dunk case: never existed. 

 

Merlin might have existed. The earliest writing about a King named Arthur comes from Geoffrey of Monmouth, who wrote a terrific book (in Latin) in the 1130's called de gestis Britonum (The History of the Kings of Britain). Fantastic book of fiction, great story, zero reason to regard it as actual history.

What Geoffrey thought he was writing is very hard to tell. He said his book was a translation of a book in Welsh. But there's no trace of that book except Geoffrey mentioning it.

I see several possibilities:

1) Geoffrey never intended anyone to regard his book as non-fiction. The Welsh book was just one more fictional detail.

2) Geoffrey wrote what he regarded as a mixture of history and legends. In this case, the Welsh book could have been 2a) real, or 2b) made up by Geoffrey.

3) Geoffrey could have been completely sincere, and the Welsh book could have been real, and Geoffrey could have done no more or less than translate it into Latin.

If Geoffrey never intended de gestis Britonum to be regarded as non-fiction, Boy, did that go wrong: it took about 500 years until the main stream of academia began to have doubts about Geoffrey's book, and large parts of the general public are still, today, having trouble sorting this out.

It's possible that that Welsh book really existed, but if so, it's very strange and extremely unusual that we can find no trace of it except for Geoffrey's mention. Still, it's possible that that Welsh book, and/or some other written description of a Dark Age Welsh King named Arthur, may turn up. 

But if and when they are found, they, like all other tales of King Arthur, will be legends. There may have been a soldier named Arthur in 5th or 6th century Wales. There may have been more than one. One of them, or more than one, may have been what could reasonably have been called a general. 

 

But enough light has been thrown upon the Dark Ages that we can say, with great confidence, that there never was a King Arthur. 

 

Many of the stories are still magnificent, though. That hasn't changed at all.