For the record, there isn't unanimous agreement that Confucius was a real person. As with Buddha and Jesus, Confucius is only known only through a collection of sayings and anecdotes recorded by his followers. With no contemporary accounts about these people, it's possible that their followers chose to attribute their collective works to a single, fictional, enlightened individual.
Where are you getting this from? There is, as far as I know, zero serious dispute about the historicity of Confucius. If there is, it's certainly not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. You should at least provide a citation.
"Confucius's family, the Kongs, have the longest recorded extant pedigree in the world today. The father-to-son family tree, now in its 83rd generation, has been recorded since the death of Confucius."
"Jensen [author of Manufacturing Confucianism, which won an award from the American Academy of Religion] does not believe that Kongzi even existed. “I think he’s a literary trope,” Jensen says. “He’s a figure who came to stand for certain things.” Jensen is currently researching the possibility that Kongzi—whose birth, like that of Jesus, is the subject of many miraculous tales—had his origins as a mythological figure of ancient Chinese fertility cults."
"Most Sinologists these days would agree that Confucius, if he existed at all, has left little concrete evidence of what he was like"
Thanks. I did some more research. Jensen's book does NOT claim that Confucius (Kongzi) was not a real person.
His central claim is that the modern conception of Confucius was shaped by Jesuit missionaries in the Ming and Qing dynasties based on the historical figure of Kongzi.
I think the parallel with Jesus is a good one. Few if any serious historians doubt that Jesus was a real person. But that doesn't mean they accept the story in the Bible either.
Likewise, Kongzi was almost certainly real. But are all the details of his biography correct? Almost certainly not.
Here's GPT-4 on the question of "Are there any serious historians who claim that Confucius isn't real?"
"The vast majority of historians accept Confucius (Kong Fuzi/Kongzi) as a historical figure who lived during the Spring and Autumn period of Chinese history (approximately 551–479 BCE). He is traditionally believed to have been a teacher, editor, and philosopher, and his thoughts have profoundly influenced Chinese culture and other East Asian societies for over two millennia."
"However, like many figures from ancient times, the details of Confucius's life are a mix of historical record, later interpretations, and legendary embellishments. Given the distance in time and the paucity of contemporary records, some scholars have debated specific details of his life and teachings."
"Jensen does not believe that Kongzi even existed" seems pretty clear that he is claiming that Confucius was not a real person, but I haven't read the book, so I'll take your word for it if you have.
As for "few if any serious historians doubt that Jesus was a real person", I have to disagree with that one. I don't know any serious historian who thinks that there was a historical Jesus. Given the lack of contemporary accounts, and the historical inaccuracies in the gospels, I used to be among them. Christopher Hitchens convinced me otherwise.
Hitch pointed out that the census that supposedly required Joseph to move to Bethlehem never occurred, and the idea of having to move to be counted is ridiculous. So why make up such a ridiculous story? Why not say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, unless Jesus of Nazareth was a real person? The messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, so the census was made up to explain how a Nazarene was born in Bethlehem.
For the record, it is not true that the only contemporary accounts of Jesus are from his followers. There are at least two others - Pliny (the younger, I think) and Josephus, the Jewish historian.
Pliny the Younger was born in 61 AD, at least three decades after Jesus died. Josephus was born in 37 AD, between four and seven years after Jesus died. A contemporary account is from the time. Josephus reported what he had heard about Jesus from his followers. There are no accounts about Jesus during his lifetime, which is remarkable given the Biblical accounts of Palm Sunday.
There's also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius#Descendants
"Confucius's family, the Kongs, have the longest recorded extant pedigree in the world today. The father-to-son family tree, now in its 83rd generation, has been recorded since the death of Confucius."
"Jensen [author of Manufacturing Confucianism, which won an award from the American Academy of Religion] does not believe that Kongzi even existed. “I think he’s a literary trope,” Jensen says. “He’s a figure who came to stand for certain things.” Jensen is currently researching the possibility that Kongzi—whose birth, like that of Jesus, is the subject of many miraculous tales—had his origins as a mythological figure of ancient Chinese fertility cults."
"Most Sinologists these days would agree that Confucius, if he existed at all, has left little concrete evidence of what he was like"
His central claim is that the modern conception of Confucius was shaped by Jesuit missionaries in the Ming and Qing dynasties based on the historical figure of Kongzi.
I think the parallel with Jesus is a good one. Few if any serious historians doubt that Jesus was a real person. But that doesn't mean they accept the story in the Bible either.
Likewise, Kongzi was almost certainly real. But are all the details of his biography correct? Almost certainly not.
"The vast majority of historians accept Confucius (Kong Fuzi/Kongzi) as a historical figure who lived during the Spring and Autumn period of Chinese history (approximately 551–479 BCE). He is traditionally believed to have been a teacher, editor, and philosopher, and his thoughts have profoundly influenced Chinese culture and other East Asian societies for over two millennia."
"However, like many figures from ancient times, the details of Confucius's life are a mix of historical record, later interpretations, and legendary embellishments. Given the distance in time and the paucity of contemporary records, some scholars have debated specific details of his life and teachings."
As for "few if any serious historians doubt that Jesus was a real person", I have to disagree with that one. I don't know any serious historian who thinks that there was a historical Jesus. Given the lack of contemporary accounts, and the historical inaccuracies in the gospels, I used to be among them. Christopher Hitchens convinced me otherwise.
Hitch pointed out that the census that supposedly required Joseph to move to Bethlehem never occurred, and the idea of having to move to be counted is ridiculous. So why make up such a ridiculous story? Why not say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, unless Jesus of Nazareth was a real person? The messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, so the census was made up to explain how a Nazarene was born in Bethlehem.
Great quiz though!